Karin Spaink on 25 Jan 2001 13:13:04 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-nl] Stockholm, day 4

[previous reports are available at
http://xenu.xtdnet.nl/court/ ]

Children's games

Stockholm, Tuesday January 23 2001


ZENON HAS NEW EVIDENCE and presents it to the
court; it is a result of my transcript of
McShane's testimony as posted to the internet.
Zenon got an e-mail from somebody [thank you! you
know who you are] who claims that the NOTs are
*also* studied privately and that more people have
read the NOTs than McShane claimed in his
deposition. The actual evidence is on its way and
will be presented to court as soon as DHL allows
it: an issue of Source Magazine and a copy of
International Scientology News.

9:45 - First Tingsrätt tape. 

WE HEAR THE 1988 tape of the deposition in primary
court of Thomas Small. The dots represent the
questions posed to him. And as we will hear, Small
does indeed *not* explain that he is at the time
of this deposition actively employed as RTC's
attorney. When answering what he does for a
living, he replies by delineating his educational
background and *only* speaks about his work for
RTC as if it were a thing from the past. That
makes him rather dishonest: he is far less
impartial than he purported to be. He has not told
the court that he is giving a testimony about his

"I am a patent lawyer and intellectual property
lawyer [explains about his education]. ... I
compiled the agreement [between CST and RTC] some
time before it was signed. ... Yes. … I was at the
time representing primarily RTC and to some extent
the Trustee as well, because they were
co-operating as parties. I attempted to put their
wishes on paper in the document. ... Yes. … This
document was designed to give all rights to the
Advanced Technology Scientology material outside
the US to RTC. ... These were rights that were
held by the Trustee as the successor of L. Ron
Hubbard. … That includes the OTs and NOTs, those
are part of the Advanced Technology. ... The grant
was intended to transfer all intellectual
property. Basically, it consists of two parts. One
part is the confidentiality of the documents and
the other is the [couldn't hear that, but I assume
he refers to the license] ... The protection of
this confidential information is generally ruled
by the contract. The license gives the right to
use and make copies of the material. There are
specific terms to it, which I will explain later.
... There's a specific provision in the agreement
that RTC would be the enforcer and protector of
these rights and, if necessary, enter into
litigation to protect these rights. ... This was
in RTC's name. They were granted the exclusive
right to use the Advanced Technology and they were
authorised to sue in their own name. CST can also
sue if the need to do so arises. ... [Lots of
leafing through papers is audible.] … No, there
were none other that I know of; at the bottom of
the previous page it says that the Estate has the
rights to pull [inaudible] and these serve as
directions as to, as to the policy of the
ecclesiastic use of the materials. ... This is a
religious document between parties who are the
leaders of a religious group and there's a number
of scriptural limitations on how these materials
can be used; confidential limitations, copyright
limitations, and ecclesiastic limitations,
explaining how RTC as the protector of these
materials should protect them. ... No. … Yes. …
The rights remain the same. The role of the
trustees simply passed to CST when CST became
qualified to possess these rights."

Zenon's turn: "Are you saying that RTC and CST
were co-operating partners in this?"

Small: "They were co-operating although CST had at
that time not yet come directly into [xxx]. … The
interests of CST and RTC were the same, yes. ...
CST did then not yet have a direct interest in the
subject matter of the agreement; that was the
Trustee at the time. ... Whether RTC and the
Estate had opposing any interest at that time? The
answer is no, they had not. ... It was an
exclusive license, it was a transfer of
copyrights, not to titles, but the right to [tape
change] ... The right to use and to authorise
others to use were covered by the exclusive
license, the copyright remains with the Trustee as
the license holder. ... First, because that was
the desire of the partners, there was no intent to
transfer copyrights to RTC or to anybody else. L.
Ron Hubbard very carefully maintained personal
rights to his own copyrights and Mr Hubbard made
provisions that the rights went to CST and they
were entitled to hold the rights into perpetuity.
... The limitations as I intended to state are
religious in nature: the Scientology scriptures
state that this is the way they the Advanced
Technology is to be used, after all it's Mr
Hubbard's writings, and it is his wishes that
guide the parties."

Zenon asks why the contract - unlike most
contracts - does not deal with possible conflicts
between the contract partners or between them and
third parties, and why RTC's right to sue third
parties in its own name is not regulated.

Small: "Well, that right accompanies exclusive
licenses as a matter of law in the US, it wasn't
necessary to say any more in the license then it
now states. ... … That's right. … This contract
was made in the US between parties in the US, and
according to my understanding any conflict arising
from the contract would be covered by and subject
to US law."

Zenon: "But the contract states explicitly that is
only applies to the use of the copyrights outside
the US; in countries with their own law, that
might differ. Why was it not explicitly stipulated
that the RTC has the right to sue in its own

Small: "I suppose that it would be possible that
there is a country where RTC would not have the
right to bring suit as an exclusive licensee, and
it is against that eventuality that, that in that
case CST could do so if it became necessary. … I
also add that this is not just a copyright
agreement but also a confidentiality agreement and
the licensee of confidential information might not
automatically have the right to sue, and therefore
its important for CST to have this right as a
backup right as well.."

10:18 - End tape. Next one: Thomas Vorm's
testimony in Tingsrätt.

Vorm was giving his testimony via the telephone.
The line is bad. Magnusson asks the questions.

M: How long have you held this position?

Vorm: "Since October 1988. My main task is to
oversee the work done by RTC. I archive all
[inaudible] to preserve the Scientology religion,
including the Advanced Technology."

M: [About the copyright of OT2, OT3 and NOTs and
the respective roles of RTC and CST with regard to
these copyrights]

Vorm: "Since 1988, RTC is the protector of the
copyrights. Mr Hubbard's estate was transferred to
CST, and RTC brings litigation in case of

M: Could you briefly describe CST's position when
it comes to the fact that the license has been
given to RTC?

Vorm: "In 1993, after the copyrights were turned
over, [inaudible]"

M: Which rights?

Vorm: "RTC had three basic rights. To authorise
Scientology organisations to use the Advanced
Technology and the right to distribute copies to
these organisations; the exclusive right to
protect and enforce these copyrights; and also to

M: Does this also mean, according to CST, that RTC
can also start litigation or take judicial
procedures in its own name?

Vorm: "I'm not sure that I understand your

M: According to CST, may RTC take legal action
according to this license agreement when it comes
to protect this copyrights?

Vorm: "Yes and yes."

M: In RTC's own name?

Vorm: "Yes."

M: According to the opinion of CST, are there any
remaining copyrights to this material that are not
included in the license agreement and that are not
given to RTC?

Vorm: "No, there are not."

M: Could this mean that CST could take any
measures if RTC does not fulfil its obligations?

Vorm: "Yes."

Zenon's turn.

Zenon: "Why did CST sue Spaink in Holland, if RTC
takes care of this?"

Vorm: "-- eh, I don't understand the question."

Magnusson interrupts. Thomas Vorm is not a lawyer
and he objects to the question being asked.

Zenon: "If RTC is supposed to sue in its own name
and that is sufficient, why did CST sue Karin
Spaink and twenty-two Internet providers in
Holland in 1995?"

Vorm: "I cannot say."

Zenon: "No further questions."

10:30 - End tape. Break.

10:51 - Third tape: the bailiff in Tingsrätt.

THE BAILIFF WAS responsible for the confiscation
and searching of Zenon's data, but did not carry
out the search personally. She explains the method
that was employed, as described in her protocol.
The bailiff searched Zenon's data on his hard
disk, floppies and zip drives, but was only able
to do so partially, because of encryption. The
words that she was looking for as per RTC's
instructions, were the following: OT, NOT, NED,
BT, Body Thetan, vulcano, volcano, GPM, Ward,
Vorlon. Zenon handed her a floppy with the texts
that were affected by the court's decision, which
helped her to retrieve some material from his hard
disk and copy it to diskette. A month later Zenon
asked for a copy of the floppy he had handed in,
and then the bailiff confiscated it. That was the
same floppy that had been in the bailiff's
possession all along, but it had not been formally
confiscated before.

11:00 - Fourth and last tape: Birgitta
Alexandersson, notary public. Since the original
testimony was taped behind closed doors, part of
the audience is now asked to leave.

Tape: Zenon asks how she selected the 'works'
within attachment 126 that she then proceeded to
compare to RTC's originals of OT2, OT3 and the NED
for OTs Pack (as she insists on calling the NOTs).
She claims that she has made a random selection.

The court listens to that statement. Then the tape
is rewound and fast-forwarded to another section
of Alexandersson's testimony, in which she again
explains the procedure that she employed. And
indeed again Alexandersson claims that she made a
random selection.

This is totally at odds with her testimony of
yesterday: there, she claimed that she started at
the top of the stack of papers, and "since she
knew the material so well by then", she could
"easily recognise what was infringing".

11:15 - End of tapes.

Discussion about damages and legal costs.
Magnusson again enumerates the instances in which
Zenon infringed upon RTC's rights and states the
grounds for and the amount of damages that RTC

- Payment for usage:                    10,000 SEK    
  the standard tariff being, according to the
  tariff of the Swedish Writer's Guild, 160,000
  SEK. In other words: RTC is being mild here.
- Tort for material damage:             10,000 SEK
  which includes their economical damage, money
  spent on guarding the material, loss of
  customers, market shares and license proceeds.
- Immaterial damages:                    5,000 SEK
  loss of good name, hurt feelings etc.

Apart from that, RTC demands the destruction of
any secret and confidential material that Zenon
has in his possession, has published or has

11:30 - Lunch break

13:15 - Court resumes.

damages. One of his grounds is freedom of speech
and freedom of religion, based on the European
convention on human rights. Scientology is a cult
that has been criminally convicted in many Western
countries, he explains; only next month a penal
case in Madrid will start in which Heber Jentzsch,
the president of Scientology, is one of the

In order to explain and assess what Scientology
stands for, it is necessary to have access to
their material. Besides, this is a consumer's
right worthy to defend: you need to be able to
understand what you get into and what you pay for
before you join *any* group.

The Chair warns Zenon that he is diverting from
the subject of damages.

Zenon explains that there is a strong need for an
open debate about Scientology and its beliefs, and
that this is sufficient reason to publish their
texts. Thus, damages should be waived under the
provisions of the convention.

Part of Scientology's claims should be rejected
because Zenon is not responsible for them. They
hold him accountable for infringements that he has
not at all perpetrated, as for instance copies of
OTs and NOTs made by the courts, not by him. Part
of the damage caused, as for instance loss of
revenue, is due to the bad quality of Hubbard's
writing and not to Zenon's actions as such.
Furthermore, an author's right to compensation for
immaterial damage, i.e. his hurt feelings, is
personal to him and does not follow the
copyrights. As for the legal fees that RTC demands
(8 million SEK) and what the primary court ruled
that Zenon had to pay (1,2 million SEK), there are
important issues to be taken into account, that
is, to be subtracted from the bill. He will go
into those later.

Regarding the injunction and the destruction order
that RTC wishes to impose upon him: not only does
he dispute them, he also thinks they should be
specified to particular objects and to particular
texts, and be limited to apply only within Sweden.
As things are now, the injunction is far too wide
and neither limited in scope nor in time.

Destruction orders must always be fully specified.
Besides, Swedish rulings can be enforced in the
Netherlands. As things stand now, making a copy of
the scriptures for personal use is infringement in
Sweden but not in the Netherlands, where the
courts have explicitly ruled that the scriptures
are published material. If the Swedish ruling is
not limited to apply within Sweden only, the
Swedish court would be imposing its ruling on
another country against the rulings of the courts
of that country. In a country where a ruling is
only enforced, it cannot be appealed.


A MORE DETAILED discussion of the legal fees as
presented to the primary court is conducted.

Magnusson right now drops two items from the bill:
Bill Hart's legal fees and his travelling costs
for the primary case: 1,351,350 SEK, and 211,642
SEK respectively. RTC's bill for legal fees has
just been reduced from 8 million SEK to 6,5
million SEK.

Zenon disputes various items on Magusson's bill:

- The legal fees: the political lobbying and the
guarding of the OTs and NOTs in parliament are on
the legal bill. This is not correct; only what is
spent *within* a case itself can be charged in the

- RTC is charging fees for costs brought about by
*other* cases, lawsuits that branched off this
one. You can't put those on *this* bill: for
instance, when RTC sued the court demanding
secrecy, they can't expect Zenon to foot the bill
for that. It is simply not part of this case.

- The legal bill is terribly vague where it comes
to specifications. None of the costs on the bill
can be checked.

- The charges are unreasonable, and Magnusson's
fee is outrageous. If you compare what he demands
or states that he costs with what Ms.
Calissendorff, who for some time acted as Zenon's
lawyer, was awarded by the court, you can't but

- The legal bill is unduly burdened by unnecessary
actions (from McShane's affidavit and the
translation thereof, to translations of a
multitude of US rulings and a flood of legal
opinions offered; from travelling and any number
of hours worked for lawyers that didn't actually
participate in the case; Small's travelling
expenses while he could easily have testified by
telephone, just like Vorm did; the amount of
copies made and the price per copy calculated; the
handing in of evidence to prove things that Zenon
never questioned or denied; the consistent use of
couriers instead of faxes; the aide who has been
sitting next to Magnusson for a week while doing
nothing much more than leafing through papers and
occasionally passing a note on to Magnusson. And
let's not forget the ten binder set that Magnusson
presented everybody with at the beginning of this
case: there was nothing new in it, Magnusson just
're-ordered' his evidence, and surely Z will be
expected to pay for that as well.

In short, RTC and Magnusson have deliberately
increased their costs and are now pushing that
bill unto Zenon. Equality of arms (viz. the
European Convention of Human Rights) is surely
applicable in this aspect. In the absence of a
reasonable bill, RTC's legal costs must be
reasonably assessed *and* brought down
proportionally according to what RTC has lost.


MAGNUSSON'S REPLY. It is obvious that Panoussis
has done everything he could to increase RTC's
costs. On alt.religion.scientology, Zenon has in
various postings claimed that RTC, by imposing
such a enormous sum upon him, has in fact granted
him immunity from future claims. And he is
actually challenging RTC in that posting - as he
has done in other postings - to sue him, while
alternatively threatening to post more of RTC's

Zenon's claim that equality of arms should be
taken into account is ridiculous. Actually, it
amounts to discrimination: it means that the
strongest party can't spend more than the weaker
party can afford.

Zenon replies that Magnusson's last remark about
strong and weak parties is of course nonsense. The
strong party can spend whatever it wants; the only
question at stake is whether it can demand that
the weaker party will afterwards *bear* all these
costs. He will save his other arguments for his

14:30 - Break.
14:50 - Court resumes.

MAGNUSSON IS GOING TO deposit McShane again. Zenon
informs the court that he would like to pose
additional questions as well, and explains on what
subject: contrary to what he stated, there appears
to be a part of NOTs that people *do* study. Apart
from that, it would appear from Scientology's own
publications that there are much more than just
325 Scientology members who have studied the NOTs,
as McShane claimed: some 120 more at least. Does
this evidence come from Scientology itself, the
Chair asks? Yes, Zenon explains, it comes from
Scientology's own publications: Source Magazine
and International Scientology News, and copies of
those magazines arrive tomorrow. Zenon will
provide Magnusson with copies immediately.

Magnusson claims that this is not *at all*
relevant, and besides, why are we getting this at
the latest moment imaginable?

Short discussion between Chair and Zenon. Zenon
explains that NOTs are courses with 'fixed
donations' as well. The Chair wants to know since
when. It has always been like this, says Zenon.

15:05 - Deposition of McShane 

WE KNOW THAT THIS new deposition has been put in
to repair some of the damage done previously,
where McShane was forced to admit how many people
have read OT2 and OT3, and his admittance that
people *pay* for those courses. (Any commercial
exploitation of a text is in itself sufficient to
constitute publication, and thus, under European
law, gives every citizen the right to possess
copies for private use and allows everybody to
quote from it.)

Magnusson: How many copies has RTC itself produced
of OT2, OT3 and NOTs?

McShane: Of OT2, RTC has produced about twenty
packs for each of the Advanced Churches. That is
approximately a hundred copies in total. For OT3
the numbers are a little bit higher, about thirty
copies for each Advanced Church. In case of the
NOTs it is different, each of the Advanced
Churches only has four copies, except for the
Advanced Church in Florida that actually is the
church that trains the NOTs ministers. They have
about seventy copies.

M: That means that all in all there are about a
hundred copies of OT2, hundred and fifty of OT3,
and seventy or eighty of the NOTs?

McShane: Of the NOTs, that would be about
eighty-six copies. Each of them is part of the
inventory, is numbered and is plugged into the

M: ..

McShane: Yes, about [xx] years ago we translated
the OTs and NOTs into the four main languages:
German, Spanish, French, Italian.

M: Are these translations part of the total amount
of copies?

McShane: Yes, those numbers include the

M: [assessing the degree of infringement as
perpetrated by Zenon Panoussis]

McShane: I went through how much he infringed and
[gets folder, opens it]

M: [can you give us the details?]

McShane: I compared the original work to the
infringing copy. I did a word count and determined
how many words he took from the originals. For
instance, from OT2 he infringed upon 10 individual
works and 4 of those works are infringed upon
100%, one is infringed upon for 94%, one for 84%,
one for 75%, one for 62%, one for 20%, and the
last one for 7%.

I did the same calculations for OT3. 15 works were
infringed upon. 13 of those for 100%, one for 66%,
and the last one for 29 %.

I also did the same calculations for the NOTs. Of
a total of 60 works 53 or 54 of the NOTs series
and 4 other works were infringed upon. Just about
all of them were infringed 100% There were two, I
would say for 99,99% infringed upon, one for 91%,
and there was a couple that was infringed upon for
95 % and another 80%. But the majority was taken

M: .. summarise .. sentences .. text .. 

McShane: I don't follow the question

M: [Are there other texts among the

McShane: no there are not.

M: The notary public, Alexandersson said that the
distribution list of NOTs 54 mentions "solo NOTs".
Can you explain?

McShane: I testified that there was no Solo OT5.
There *is* a course called Solo NOTs, but the
member or parishioner who does that course does
not study the NOTs himself, and although it says
"NOTs Pack" on the cover, there is no NOTs issue
or NOTs course on OT6.

   [Comment: this ping-pong between Magnusson and
   McShane is the result of Zenon asking about
   Solo NOTs. Zenon had implied that the Solo NOTs
   - a course that has been done by plenty of
   Scientology members - are part of the NOTs
   pack. Here, McShane tries to refute that.]

M: [can you explain a bit more about the OT-levels]

McShane: Each of the OT-levels were based on
research that Mr. Hubbard did into the spiritual
nature of man, in order to discover the means, the
ways of improving man's spiritual nature, all
leading to the ultimate goal of immortality. Each
of the OT-levels are an expression of Mr.
Hubbard's writings, of what he discovered. And I
know that it is hard to understand what those
writings mean without prior knowledge, but after
my twenty-seven years of being in the church, I'm
very familiar with Mr. Hubbard's writings and also
from testifying in court cases, that each of those
individual works is an expression of what he
discovered on those particular subjects. I know
that it is difficult for the courts to review this
material, because we are dealing with religious
scriptures, but the courses and the material
contained within those courses impart to the
individual that reads them the revelations that
Mr. Hubbard discovered; and when you apply that
material to yourself, you discover those

M: [Panoussis being wrong about whether any
payment is expected for studying the NOTs]

McShane: Yes, Zenon Panoussis has it totally
wrong. OT5 and the NOTs are only available to
Scientology ministers and they do not pay for this
course. These are employees of the church and it
is their training. They do *not* pay for it.

M: [about the additional ministers who studied the
NOTs Pack, over and above the 325 ministers that
McShane testified have read them]

McShane: My testimony was about the state of
affairs at the beginning of the trial at hand. I
did not calculate any new ministers, but obviously
there have been additional people trained under
the same circumstances.

M: [how many additional people have studied the

McShane: Maybe between 50 and 100 additional
members. Again, these are church members, they are
staff, and they do not pay for this course.

15:27 - Zenon's turn.

Zenon: The percentages that you mention you have
calculated pertain to Exhibit 37? [That exhibit is
what Zenon filed and what became public: it
contains the OTs from the Fishman Affidavit and
the NOTs.]

McShane: Yes.

Z: Are these percentages based on calculations per
word, or on the amount of words?

McShane: I took your infringing copy and
highlighted all the words and then counted all the
words that were the same.

Z: Did you count any instances of words in the
wrong order as an infringement?

McShane: I found no instances of that.

Z: Do your calculations pertain to individual
works or the whole collection?

McShane: To individual works.

Z: With respect to the NOTs, you stated that sixty
works were infringed upon. Are these sixty works
all parts of the NOTs pack?

[Some discussion ensues as to what is the NOTs pack.]

Z: The sixty works that were infringed upon, are
they all part of the binder that you showed here
last Friday?

McShane: yes.

Z: What OT-level have you yourself attained?

McShane: OT6.

Z: That means that you only have personal
knowledge about everything up to and including
OT6, but not of anything higher?

McShane: Yes.

Z: With respect to the ministers who study the
NOTs: you say that they don't pay for this course.
But do they have to *donate*?

McShane: No.

Z: What is the official title of these ministers,
their 'hat'?

McShane: Auditors.

Z: Ehm, I mean what *class* of auditors?

McShane: Class IX.

[Z gets up and borrows a Scientology glossy from
the court that has been filed as evidence; it
contains a price list]

Z: Can you explain what it says here? "Class IX
auditing rates - 9250 USD for 12,5 hours".

McShane: That is what auditing *with them* costs.

Z: Is this what the auditors pay, or the auditees?

McShane: The auditees. The price refers to
auditing rates for 12,5 hours. So if your a
parishioner and you want to do NOTs, that would be
the donation rate for 12,5 hours of auditing in
Flag Clearwater, which is our Advanced Church in

Z: Let me rephrase. The people who actually get to
see and study the NOTs: are they expected to pay
any fixed donations?

McShane: No.

Z: In the magazines that are now on their way,
Source Magazine issue 132 from 2000, and
International Scientology News issue 9, 1999, it
is claimed that 57 and 60 new Class IX Auditors
respectively are about to get their grades. Is it
probable that this many people have participated
in NOTs since the previous trial?

McShane: That is possible.

15:40 - McShane's deposition is done

Some discussion about the magazines that are on
their way ensues. On behalf of RTC, Magnusson
admits that about 100 people have read the NOTs
after 1998. As a result, the magazines do not need
to be filed as evidence.

Both parties' written evidence is then mentioned
and noted - a procedural necessity, brought about
by the Swedish legal system that demands that all
arguments, grounds and evidence have to be
presented verbally.

We are ready at 16:30, and pack our stuff. This
time we need to take the extra binders with us
with us that Magnusson brought in at the first
day. Zenon had just left them in the court room so
far; there was no point in dragging them along.
Besides, we couldn't carry them with us even if we
wanted; but fortunately, this time one of our
supporters has shown up and he will carry them for
us. We take one of the cartons that Magnusson
brought them in and pack.

Only later we look at the box more closely. On the
side, it says:

         Legal Source, Inc
         The Total Litigation Support Company

... based in California. "Total litigation
support"? Duh. Do they deliver jails, too?

Outside the court we have a much-needed smoke. The
UK guy who approached us yesterday is there
waiting for us: yes, he went to visit the local
Scientology Org to get a second opinion *and* to
fish for information about his grandson. To his
great surprise, just before he entered, he saw the
guy we had observed at the pub yesterday exit the

We have a drink with our supporter. He gets to
carry the extra carton. In the pub, we notice a
woman who is slightly out of place. She has seated
herself in such a way that she has an excellent
view of us and she 'appears' to be reading a
newspaper. Since we are tired of being followed,
we devise a trick to figure out what is going on.
Zenon will leave, and we will observe her.

Within thirty seconds of Zenon having exited the
pub, the woman folds her paper and leaves. Our
supporter phones Zenon on his mobile: "She's
getting out of the door *now*." Our supporter and
I continue talking, meanwhile scrutinising the
street. After six or eight minutes, we see the
same woman in the presence of a man passing the
cafe, Zenon just behind them. He points at them
and mimics at us. Our supporter gets up and joins

After a few minutes, Z and our supporter get back
into the cafe. "The street is swarming with
Scientologists," Zenon exclaims. "I noticed at
least five," and he explains what happened. When
he went out, he saw a guy who was loitering and
then slowly moved in the direction that Zenon was
taking, so then Zenon turned around a corner and
stopped; he saw the guy looking at him, pretending
that he didn't, and then he exchanged glances with
another woman and wandered off, obviously having
lost his purpose. This second woman appeared lost
when Zenon simply turned and walked back to where
he came from. Two guys were sitting in a parked
car. On his way back to the café, Zenon saw the
woman from the café coming towards him. The moment
she noticed him, she turned around and walked back
again, walked past the café and stopped at the
next shop window. Behind her was a man, obviously
unrelated to her, but he stopped at the shop
window too and started talking with the woman.
Sure enough, Zenon was yet further behind, so the
man hadn't seen him.

Zenon continued past the café and reaches the two,
overhearing part of the woman's exited
explanations to the man. Zenon stopped next to
them at the same shop window, whereby the man and
the woman immediately departed in the direction
they had just came from.

At this point Zenon followed them past the café
and stopped them. "Can we stop these stupid little
games NOW?" Zenon demande. "I don't know what you
are talking about," the woman mumbled. (The
natural answer would of course have been: "Games?
What the fuck are you talking about? Who are
you?") Zenon scolded them severely and returned to
the café.

When later all three of us get into a taxi, we are
followed by a white Volvo. When we stop to let off
our supporter, the white Volvo stops behind a
parked bus. Our supporter takes them for a ride
from there, while we, just in case, make sure that
they have to spend a few hours in the Swedish cold
if they manage to follow us.

Karin Spaink
Stockholm, January 25 2001

- K -


Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it 
might appear to others that what you were or might have 
been was not otherwise than what you had been would have 
appeared to them to be otherwise. 
  - Lewis Carroll: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

* Verspreid via nettime-nl. Commercieel gebruik niet
* toegestaan zonder toestemming. <nettime-nl> is een
* open en ongemodereerde mailinglist over net-kritiek.
* Meer info, archief & anderstalige edities:
* http://www.nettime.org/.
* Contact: Menno Grootveld (rabotnik@xs4all.nl).