Unbiased columnism, day 5
Stockholm, January 24-25, 2001
THE COURT HAS ADJOURNED for two days. Friday we
will resume: that day, pleas are to be held and
that's it. Afterwards, all we can do is wait for
the ruling (and pray to Xenu).
McShane's vehement assertion that no Class IX
auditor ever pays for the 'privilege' to study the
NOTs pack and that only Class IX auditors get to
study this material, sits badly with us. We simply
don't believe that McShane is telling the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
After some discussion between the two of us, we
slap our heads. Damn!! How stupid can you get! We
asked about payment and donations, but never asked
McShane about the Freeloader's Debt... Scientology
often allows staff members to do courses with
delayed payment: you're off the hook as long as
you stay in the church. Probably Class IX auditors
are presented with a nice fat bill for the darned
stuff when they leave... McShane had given us one
of Scientology's 'acceptable truths': he'd
answered the questions only partially and twisted
them a bit, so that he could escape saying what he
didn't want to be revealed. Hurriedly, Zenon
posted to a.r.s. and came up with a set of concise
From: Zenon Panoussis <email@example.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, nl.scientology,
Subject: The NOTs
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:49:32 +0100
McShane said today under oath that
- only the Class IX auditors get to read the
actual NOTs; the CoS members that do the new OT
5 course are audited on the basis of the NOTs,
but never get to actually read them;
- all the Class IX auditors are employed by the
CoS; studying the NOTs is part of their job;
they have never had to pay for the class IX
auditor courses; the CoS has *never* charged
anybody for the NOTs and neither has it ever
asked for donations for these particular
- Until 1998 about 325 people had been allowed
to read the NOTs within the CoS; after 1998
approximately another 100 have read them within
If you can refute any of this, please **e-mail**
me at once.
WE RECEIVED QUITE a number of interesting replies
to this. A few ex-members who had been rather high
in Scientology confirmed that Class IX Auditors
were presented with a Freeloader's bill, so that
yes, payment was expected for the NOTs Pack.
Others told us that not only Class IX Auditors got
to see the actual NOTs Pack: huge parts of the
NOTs Pack are part of OT6 and OT7.
One mail that we get seems particularly promising.
A woman, a former Sea Org member who has done the
Class IX Auditing Course herself, did pay for
the NOTs. Unlike with most others, in her case
Scientology never put it on her Freeloader's Bill:
they just took the money. And what is far more
interesting: this woman is prepared to testify to
this under oath. She is in a position to refute
most of McShane's statement regarding the handling
of the NOTs.
Zenon phones her. They have an elaborate
discussion and she gives a very detailed account
of what NOTs pertain where. She is the perfect
witness - and quite willing to be one.
ZENON IMMEDIATELY writes a new brief that he files
with the court on Wednesday afternoon, outlining
the new evidence in detail. The one big hassle is
that we are officially done with the reviewing of
the evidence, and that it is rather difficult to
bring in anything new at this stage.
Then again, we have caught McShane with something
very close to perjury. This amounts to more than
telling 'acceptable truths': he has been
weaselling and withholding information that he was
pressed for. If Magnusson stops us from bringing
this testimony in on Friday, we will prove it
afterwards anyway and if we do that, the whole
case could have to be started all over again -
while by then Magnusson's prime witness, and
actually the party that he is representing, will
have been revealed to be dishonest, to say the
We have no clue what will happen. We have RTC by
the balls on this, but we don't know what the
short-term result will be. Magnusson might simply
accept the new evidence and squirmingly admit
that his client made a 'mistake'. Magnusson might
vehemently oppose the new evidence, and, for
procedural reasons, the court might accept his
protest. The court might allow us to hear the new
witness, but in that case Friday's schedule is
completely messed up - the whole day was to be
devoted to the final pleas - so that Zenon will
need to stay in Stockholm a few days more. The new
witness might not be allowed to testify, but in
that case Zenon is going to make damn sure that he
files her testimony afterwards, thereby forcing
the case to start all over, at least if he loses.
Which one of this will it be? We don't know.
Zenon's January 24 brief (rough translation)
103 17 Stockholm
Warren McShane has testified that the
scientologists that can partake in the NOTs within
the "church" don't have to pay for this and that
the "church" has never charged anyone for the
privilege of partaking in these scriptures.
As a result of my posting of McShane's statements
to the internet, several people who either
themselves have followed the Class IX Auditor
Course (the course of which the original NOTs are
a part) or have held high enough positions within
scientology to know how the system works, have
replied that McShane's statements are wrong in
The correct situation is as follows:
The NOTs-material goes under several names, and,
apart from the NOTs texts that are the topic of
this court case, it consists of other material. In
the following, when I talk about the "NOTs", I
only refer to those parts of the NOTs that are
labelled as attachment 37.
There are two categories of scientologists that
are allowed to do the NOTs within the church:
those who in this court case have been called "the
priests" and in scientology are called "Class IX
Auditors", and ordinary scientologists partaking
in various courses. According the "church's"
rules, Class IX Auditors must belong to the
special department within scientology that is
called the Sea Org. Before they are allowed to
partake in the Class IX Auditor course, members of
the Sea Org must sign a contract for a billion
years - this is no typing error. After having
completed their "priest course", Class IX Auditors
give courses to paying scientologists, as McShane
has described. The compensation for Class IX
Auditors consists of food, lodging and a minimal
sum of cash; in 1994 it was 15 USD per week for a
Although Class IX Auditors don't have to pay
immediately for the NOTs, they are charged for the
course: several thousand dollars. In the event
that they break their billion year contract and
leave the movement before they die, payment will
be demanded of them afterwards. Thus, one way or
another, the "church" is charging for the NOTs
Apart from the fact that the complete NOTs
material is part of the Class IX Auditor Course,
substantial parts of the NOTs are included in the
OT6 and OT7 courses for the ordinary paying
scientologists. At least until 1994, approximately
80% of the NOTs were actually included in these
courses and were allowed to be studied directly in
their original form by the students of these two
To put it more precisely: normal paying members
who do the OT6- and OT7-courses can themselves
read the following sections of the NOTs that are
the subject of this court case:
Parts of series 1, the whole of the series 4, 5,
6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 16, attachment 1 of series
18, the whole of series 19, 20 and 21, the parts
"correction list" of series 24, the whole of
series 25, 26R (of which parts are missing in
attachment 37), 28 and 31, HCOB 29 October 1978
issue II, the whole of series 33, 37, 43
(including material from OT3), probably the whole
of series 44, the whole of series 45 and 46, the
first part of series 47, approximately half of
series 49, the whole of series 51 and 55,
approximately half of series 62, together with
"correction actions on OT ser II flying ruds"
(pages 170-172 in the copy of Stockholm's
tingsrätt's administrative department).
The above mentioned parts of attachment 37 are
included in the OT6 and OT7 courses, which,
according to attachment 170, are being handed out
in exchange for several thousand dollars in "fixed
donations". Approximately 10,000 paying
scientologists have been following these courses,
of which at least 3,000 had attained the
corresponding levels already in 1994.
It is obvious from the above that the description
of the NOTs use within the "church" that McShane
gave in his testimony is incomplete, to say the
I request the court of appeals to order RTC to
explain their stance on the above. Taking into
consideration that the case is in a very advanced
stage, this should be done as soon as possible. In
case that RTC is unable to confirm these factual
circumstances, I request that the pleas of January
26 shall be postponed, and that I am given the
opportunity to put forward evidence to prove my
I would like to remind the court that the
statement "the church of scientology is charging
for this material" is not new, but has been
claimed by me ever since the beginning of the case
in primary court. RTC's refutation that payment is
demanded for NOTs is however new, and was done
within the frame of McShane's testimony during the
ongoing trial in the court of appeals.
I have verbally informed lawyer Magnusson of part
of the above and will fax this brief to him
THE NEXT DAY, Zenon phones Magnusson and asks him
whether they will admit the facts that Zenon
stated in his last brief. Magnusson refuses to
answer the question. Zenon phones the court, which
tells him that they want a reply from Magnusson
before three in the afternoon and that they
themselves can now not take a decision on it,
because not all judges can be reached. Zenon goes
to court to pick up the tapes from McShane's
testimonies, and by the time he is there,
Magnusson's reply has arrived.
Magnusson's agitation can be discerned in his
brief. He grudgingly admits that yes, indeed,
there are invoices involved for the Class IX
Auditors, but those are only a symbolical
formality, not a real bill. Only those who wish
to leave the Sea Org but not Scientology are
expected to pay them. And besides, of all Sea Org
staff, only one percent ever leaves. And the
court must understand that RTC admitting this is
merely a generous gesture towards Zenon, not an
admittance of error of any sorts. As for NOTs
being part of the OT6 and OT7 course, that is
definitely not true.
Magnusson's brief, January 25 2001
[Another rough translation; my aide in this claims
that Magnusson's brief was extremely badly
phrased. Perhaps he was agitated...]
Avdelning 2, rotel 50
Stockholm, January 25 2001
Regarding Panoussis's statement of January 24, the
court of appeals asked Religious Technology Center
("RTC") to make a statement.
1. Class IX Auditors do not pay for the NOTs education.
2. Class IX Auditors do not pay for the NOTs
education in case they leave the church.
3. Employees in the special department Sea Org
(which Class IX Auditors are) do not pay for their
education within the church nor for their costs of
living - these costs are being paid by the church.
While it is true that a symbolic pro forma invoice
is made out for these employees, to demonstrate
their commitment towards the church, and that
employment is a prerequisite for free education
and free costs of living, it can be added that
this was introduced to prevent abuse of the
beneficial system. Payment is actually not
demanded if the person is leaving the church
completely. If on the other hand such a person has
left his employment within the church for good but
still wants to be a member of the church and
continue to use the religious services, the cost
or parts thereof (depending on circumstances - in
some cases, nothing is being paid) for the
education and the costs of living according to the
pro forma invoices must be paid. But the person
who leaves the church entirely is thus not being
required to pay the pro forma invoice, no matter
what services he has used as an employee.
It can be noted that it is extremely unusual
that Sea Org employees leave their employment,
or the church (less than one percent).
4. It should be stressed that pro forma invoices
DO NOT include the material itself, but only the
education and the cost of living.
5. Panoussis's claim that members who participate
in OT6 and OT7 usually may use parts of the NOTs
material is wrong.
6.Irrespective of the aforesaid, RTC wants to
emphasise that the question about payment in some
of the above-mentioned cases for education within
the church and costs of living, lacks relevance in
the case. Payment is never for copies of the
RTC wants to stress that it does not in and for
itself accept that Panoussis is allowed to hand in
new evidence in the case, especially not the day
before the pleas. RTC's answers on these questions
shall in this respect be seen as a benevolent
gesture for the purpose of facilitating the
handling of the case.
RTC assumes that the questions that Panoussis has
brought up in his brief are hereby settled;
otherwise, RTC retains the right to demand
dismissal of Panoussis' new claims.
[*] Do note the red herrings that Magnusson is
throwing around. Zenon never claimed that
payment is for copies of the NOTs.
MEANWHILE, ZENON CONTACTS other people. By the
time it is evening, we have four people able and
willing to testify under oath that about eighty
percent of the NOTs Pack is included in OT6 and
OT7, and that every public Scientologist who does
these two courses, pays for them. That means: they
pay to study the NOTs; which is what Zenon has
been saying all along.
And what is more: we are able to prove that
McShane is an unreliable witness.
We are looking forward to seeing McShane in
court again tomorrow.
Unbiased columnism is a series of court reports on the proceedings of Scientology versus Zenon Panoussis. This series covers the Jan 2001 sessions:
- Day 0, January 17: Poor guy versus multinational cult
- Day 1, January 18: Mangled material
- Day 2, January 19: McShane compliments Zenon
- Day 3, January 22: Magnusson becomes helpful
- Day 4, January 23: Children's games
- Day 5 & 6, January 24-25: Unacceptable truths
- (Next:) Day 7 & 8, January 26-27: Carrying water from the desert to the sea.
This series was preceeded by the May 1998 hearings in Zenon's case.
Copyright Karin Spaink.
This text is offered for private use only. Any
other use requires the author's written permission.