Copyright 1996 Shelley Thomson; all rights reserved.
Mail, articles and comment may be directed to email@example.com. Netiquette will be observed with all communication, except for the following: harassing or threatening mail will be posted to the net immediately.
Table of Contents for Biased Journalism.
On Friday, April 12 a hearing was scheduled for this legal action.
Dispatch from San Jose
April 12, 1996
The morning began in a gray overcast redolent of hydrocarbons. Traffic crawled past hills covered with green fur. In San Jose the sun was shining. The day was windy and cool: blue sky, white fluffly clouds.
Judge Whyte's courtroom was already full. The observer noticed Keith Henson in a dark navy suit, looking good. As before, ars natives and miscellaneous spectators occupied the left side of the courtroom.
Plaintiffs occupied the entire section to the right. We noticed Helena Kobrin, wearing a teal blue jacket and a pleated paisley skirt, and shoes with moderate heels. We looked for Jeff Quiros, but did not see him. In the back row a dark haired man took notes; if memory serves he had sat next to Quiros in the last hearing. Warren McShane was present but declined to acknowledge us. In the Plaintiff's front row we noticed what seemed to be the unknown man pictured on Grady Ward's web page, who was running faxes back and forth during Ward's deposition. He wore a gray suit like all of the others, but we noticed he was wearing well-worn brown cowboy boots. We counted eight lawyers and assistants on the RTC side.
As we came in, a tall beefy male lawyer and a dowdy female lawyer were facing the Judge. "...they were talking about the same pot of money," the tall lawyer explained. Evidently the individual members of an association had sued the president and senior officers of the association with reference to some debt the association had contracted, which had to be paid off by the members. The argument about who had the money went on to the issue of sham pleadings to avoid a removal.
We noticed 5 people in the jury box with notepads. They take notes assiduously while the Judge explains the concept of separate and independent claims.
The lawyers are quickly replaced by two more. This is (we gather) an ERISSA claim against Bankers Security. Lawyer for defendant says his client can't tell what kind of claim it is. The Judge and lawyers go back and forth briefly. The Judge verifies that it is an ERISSA claim; what's the problem?
"The last thing you said may make some sense," the Judge began a dressing down of the uncooperative attorney. "You're not listening to me." We noted that the Judge was nicely audible. Either he was speaking up or someone had remembered to turn his microphone on. We were grateful.
The Judge was cutting no slack today, we noticed.
"...why redo it if there is a stipulation as to what it is?" the Judge asked. The Bankers Trust attorney wanted the claim within the proceedings, not as a stipulation. Again he says that the claim is too vague to enable his client to prepare a defense.
THe Judge is running out of patience. "If the claim is a claim for benefits under ERISSA, then what confusion is there?"
After some more nattering, one attorney produces the doctrine of estoppel as his trump card. His bearing suggests, 'is this really a court of law? Can it be that you have never heard of estoppel?'
Patience gone, the Judge sentences both attorneys to "take ten minutes and write up a stipulation. Bring it back to me when you're done." The attorneys say "right now?" and "by hand, Your Honor?" "Right," the Judge says, in a dangerously quiet voice. They leave in a hurry.
And then the Judge calls Religious Techology Center vs. Keith Henson.
Henson has brought an open-topped cardboard box filled with papers. He brings this with him when he goes to the front of the room. As he passes the table on the left, which three RTC lawyers have appropriated, Henson drops a document on the table. The laywers look startled. They have been served. Tom Hogan, already at the podium, gives Henson a freezing glare. [At close range he looks even more like Bill the Lizard, we decided.]
The judge begins by asking Henson whether he has found a lawyer. Hogan helpfully supplies the information that Henson got three pro bono offers. Henson says that he does not yet have representation.
Attorneys Roger Milgrim and Eric Lieberman are quickly attached to the RTC side of the case. It is merely a formality.
Judge Whyte gets to the meat: you filed a motion to dismiss and to have me disqualify myself under USC 455A. Frankly I know of no reason why I should disqualify myself. I am going to deny the motion.
(to Henson) Is it your intent to have counsel?
Henson: not at this time. (Henson explains that four law firms are possible, but none has agreed to do it.) I am prepared to proceed.
Judge WHyte says he has read Henson's motion.
Henson says he has filed an additional motion. The Judge notes that it has not appeared in his file. When did Henson file it? 9am this morning, Henson says. The Judge radiates annoyance. To give the Judge a copy, Henson temporarily borrows back his item from the Plaintiffs. They bristle briefly at the violation of protocol. The document Henson filed is an answer to a reply from the Plaintiffs which was delivered to Henson after 5 p.m. on the previous day.
The Judge reads. Henson pours himself a cup of water from a carafe on the podium. While the judge takes his time with the document, Hogan bounces lightly on the balls of his feet. He is antsy to begin. The court clerk watches with interest.
Helena Kobrin takes notes on a yellow pad.
The Judge is now ready to deliver his message. To Henson he says "I want to make a couple of comments to you. "You indicate that a clerk of the court told you that you were not covered by the TRO." He goes on to explain that the clerk does not give legal advice, that the order covers people acting in concert with Grady Ward and the clerk has no knowledge of whether you were or were not. On the basis of "that purported excuse," "there is no way" [that he is going to recuse himself].
Now the Judge takes up the matter of the document. "I can't be a lawyer for you. You've said a lot of things in this brief," but the Judge doesn't want to deal with it in the form Henson has given it. The judge deals with evidence, which has to be in declarations or affidavits from someone with direct personal knowledge. "Strong accusations have been made on both sides of the case." "I have to confine myself to the evidence," the judge reiterates.
Henson offers to sign a sworn statement then and there. [Plaintiffs bristle again: can't he do anything by the rules?]
The judge does not take him up on it. "Some of this," peering at the document, "I am having trouble following."
"It was done rather quickly, Your Honor," Henson says contritely.
Thomas Hogan meanwhile has quietly darted in our direction. The attorney sitting next to us on the bench, with a big heap of documents and a cardboard banker's box strapped to a luggage carrier under his feet, is his target. "Do you have the disk with the proposed order?" The lawyer gives him a 3 1/2" floppy disk. [they do use computers after all, the observer noted] We noticed a thick wad of papers with a collection of net posts on top.
Judge Whyte: "Mr. Henson, let me make sure that you understand what the TRO will do." He explains, it will prevent you from publishing, putting on the Internet, downloading (and so forth) any of the exhibit B documents, but it would not prevent you from making fair use of these documents. he is explicitly allowing Henson to make fair use of the NOTS. "This is quite a narrow Order. What is it you think is the problem with the Order?"
"I think the whole case against me is silly, Your Honor," Henson replies forthrightly. [Snorts of disbelief erupt from RTC side of the courtroom.]
Henson goes on to say that [the Order] "is an unconstitutional interference with my rights to free speech." He will accept the TRO as it is, but is objecting. [wants his objection on record]
Judge Whyte explains that there will be a hearing to determine whether RTC has a protectable interest in these materials.
Henson says that he does not challenge any RTC copyright claims. He is not interested in any documents that are examples of non- criminal behavior.
Hogan's face darkens but the Judge plows right on.
Judge Whyte: have you seen any documents besides these six [the 6 published NOTS]?
I've actually only read #34 and part of #35, Henson admits. He looks sheepish.
Judge Whyte: you are entitled to make fair use of the six documents. [Whyte is endeavoring to be reasonable. He would like the dispute go away.]
Hogan gets up to make his point. the defendant "has been posting for well over a year to alt.religion.scientology; his posts have been "most venomous" toward the church of scientology, its officers, principals, attorneys- [the Judge makes a gesture that says stop that and Hogan segues smoothly into the complaint that Henson is soliciting all of the NOTS and threatening to post them.
Henson: "I object!"
Hogan complains to the Judge about Henson's statement [re. publishing criminal or fraudulent documents], which he says is challenging the "authority of this court." [to decide what is criminal and what is not, we surmised.]
Judge Whyte: verifies that Henson posted the entirety of NOTS 34.
Henson: asserts that NOTS 34 is in direct violation of a court order.
Judge Whyte: Not mine. ["I never drink ...wine," said Jack Palance in his peerless performance as Dracula, pacing down the stone steps.]
Henson: (supplying name) Judge Gesell's.
Judge Whyte: "you threatened to post-"
Henson: (interrupting) "only documents showing fraud or crime. I only want [NOTS showing] something criminal in nature.
Being cut off is a new experience for the Judge. It is not one he likes. He says he is going to issue the Order. "If you violate the order you will be in big trouble," he says, with complete sincerity. Having vented some wrath, he says that he will look at the Gesell decision, but it is clear that he will enter the TRO as a preliminary injunction.
After a discreet pause, Tom Hogan advises the Judge that Plaintiffs have asked for early discovery. "Deposition to be taken between now and May 15," the Judge says, still sounding cross.
An instant later, in careful measured tones, the Judge is explaining to Henson some facts about discovery. Discovery, with interrogatories and document requests doesn't usually take place until the first case management conference. It is not clear when that would be in this case. RTC has asked "to be able to question you under oath regarding matters related to this lawsuit." Do you have any objection? Once again he suggests that getting representation might be in Henson's best interest.
Henson: "I don't think that any articulate person should have to get representation for a case that is clearly a violation of my constitutional rights."
[All the lawyers twitch. A reference to matters of principle? Where does this guy think he is?]
In the silence that follows this statement, Henson asks the first of several procedural questions.
If he files a a suit against RTC and relates it, does he have to give notice to the other related parties? The judge allows this to be the case, and Hogan who can see the way the wind is blowing, quickly tells the Judge that RTC failed to notify in the Grady and Henson cases, but that they did so yesterday. (Backdated? The observer wondered.) That being the case there must be notice and opportunity for the other parties to object to the Grady and Henson cases to be related.
The matter at hand apparently concerns whether Erlich's, Ward's and Henson's cases are related. Judge Whyte, holder of the judicial short straw, will make that decision. There has been no request to consolidate the two cases.
Henson: "Then there is some chance that you won't be the judge for my case?" [sounding hopeful]
Judge Whyte: "some."
The question concerns the giving of notice of events in one case to participants in the other case. The Judge agrees that this should happen and says that he thinks notice has been sent. He will check on it.
Henson has a question about discovery: If I get deposed, can I in turn depose RTC?
Judge Whyte: you have the same rights that they do.
Henson: and if I claim that I'm too busy to show up to a deposition?
Whyte: [grimly] If someone uses that excuse they will be sanctioned.
[Titters erupt from the ars side of the room. The Judge, obviously still annoyed with Henson, and not understanding what he has said that is funny, looks momentarily confused. He looks at Hogan. Maybe the skunk is in the other woodpile.]
Judge Whyte: I will expect that Mr. Hogan, as in cases he has argued before me in the past, (will conduct discovery in a reasonable manner)
Hogan: disputes will go to Magistrate Judge Infante. [Hogan uses his best soothing voice. He is telling the Judge that nothing will go wrong this time. Grady Ward has already lodged a complaint about Hogan's conduct during Ward's deposition.]
Henson discloses the reason for his questions. He explains that the head of the scientology group of corporations, David Miscavige, is known for not showing up at depositions.
Judge Whyte: "to my knowledge, in none of the cases in front of me has anyone brought to my attention a claim that anyone on the Plaintiff's side has refused to show up for a deposition. There has been no such allegation." [The Judge likes the formalities observed. There is no doubt that flouting a deposition order would engage his complete attention.]
Henson: may I have accelerated deposition as well?
Judge Whyte: What do you want?
Henson wants Tom Hogan to tell him who is on the other end of the faxes and phone calls from the Grady Ward deposition.
Whyte says Henson can give written questions to RTC.
Henson wants permission to serve David Miscavige through his lawyers.
[This statement horrifies the RTC lawyers, who jump as if shocked by a cattle prod. In a bunch they quickly move toward the front of the room. One makes compulsive warding motions with his hand.]
Judge Whyte: (oblivious) Who is David Miscavige? There is no claim against him.
Henson: he is the power behind RTC.
The Judge does not give an order to depose David Miscavige. The issue falls to the floor, where it will be raked up and preserved for future use.
Henson: (with the air of someone who has successfully completed his business) that's all on the procedurals.
Whyte: I can't give you legal advice, but what do you want?
Henson: did you read my letter of March 26 before the Ward TRO hearing?
An annoyed Judge refuses to answer.
Henson: (trying again) did you read my letter in the pleading?
Judge: [fuming] I read everything submitted to me. Mr. Henson, I try to be conscientious. I believe I have read that letter. That's all I can tell you.
JW: (summarizes) Mr. Henson doesn't object to the record request and the deposition.
Henson: I want a limit like Grady Ward had.
Henson: And no abuse, please.
Whyte: "That goes without saying." He looks at Henson. "On both sides."
Whyte: I will limit the deposition to one day, absent a court order allowing a longer time. Now when do you (to Hogan) want to get the document request to Mr. Henson? Hogan has no instant answer, and the Judge does not wait for him. Whyte says, why don't you both step out and set the dates. Talk to Mr. Henson and work it out.
Thomas Hogan now offers to the court a second McShane Declaration. He requests a copy of the Gesell opinion. It is determined that the cite is in the document Henson filed.
Hogan offers the judge a proposed order for the preliminary injunction; it is on disk; essentially the same as Grady Ward's.
A woman lawyer representing Netcom (she has her back to us so we can't be sure who she is) comes up to the podium and asks the judge if she can have notice of motions. She wants to coordinate discovery from the beginning in case the cases are consolidated later. The judge agrees.
Henson: I am to be in a room with 6 really hostile lawyers. Can I have a person of my choosing present?
Hogan gives Judge Whyte a document related to Henson's "accusations of criminal activities."
Then it is over. Everyone moves out into the corridor.
Once again, there are so many in the RTC contingent that they fill the corridor. Henson chats cheerfully with some people from the ars side. Helena Kobrin watches attentively while bystanders and a law student discuss copyright law. She gets close enough to find out whether any of the particpants are lawyers, then tosses in the comment that it is remarkable how many different opinions there are about copyright law. She states that people should study the law, read cases or consult a laywer, and turns away. Bystanders are surprised but pleased. Free legal advice from Ms. Kobrin?
Sitting on the bench with his banker's box full of files, the junior lawyer watches in fascination while Henson describes his wierd hobbies.
Henson goes off to the side to make arrangements for the deposition. [The date eventually chosen was May 8.] A furious McShane confronts Henson: "you're dreaming if you think you will depose Miscavage." Henson does not recognise McShane at first, but when he does, he offers to shake hands as "friendly enemies." McShane refuses and repeats his statement. Henson, still high on adrenlin from the hearing, elects to abuse McShane by telling him that he is a figurehead. Nettled, McShane insists that *he* is the one to be deposed. Henson replies that he has read McShane's deposition and McShane doesn't know jack shit about the business he is supposed to run.
The ars contingent watches as Henson and McShane come down the corridor together. McShane is trying to outpace Henson, but it isn't working; without any visible effort, Henson matches his stride. It looks like Henson is escorting McShane.
Henson confides to the assembly that he doesn't want to depose McShane because McShane is just a puppet. He wants to depose David Miscavige instead. Pointing to McShane, "He said "you're dreaming," about deposing Miscavige." McShane, looking irked, agreed that he had said that. "He's not relevant," McShane said. "I am responsible for all of the cases." He sped off, looking uncomfortable. Henson frowned thoughtfully. McShane had said too much. There would be Consequences.
In the background one of the RTC assistants chattered urgently on the telephone. Was he talking to David Miscavige? we wondered. Will Warren McShane be punished for his unguarded remarks?
RTC nattered among themselves. Helena Kobrin essayed a Death Stare at Henson's back, then gave it up. It seemed the Death Stare only served to make her invisible to Henson. She grabbed her briefcase and whisked out with the departing RTC. The briefcase was a good quality leather expandable model. She carried it as if it were almost empty.
The high point in our estimation occurs at the beginning of file #7, the start of the second day. Grady and Tom Hogan have an argument about the length of the deposition; Hogan calls Ward a liar, and Grady reciprocates.
After the deposition Ward wrote a letter to Judge Whyte complaining about Hogan's conduct.
[Readers who do not find lawsuits interesting should page down to item 3] [begin quote]
April 10, 1996[end letter]
[cc: Magistrate Judge Edward A. Infante]
Re: Religious Technology Center, v. Grady Ward No. C 96-20207
Dear Judge Whyte:
In your court last March 29, you explicitly requested that Mr. Thomas R. Hogan to treat me, a pro per, in a professional manner. I believed at the time that would be the case during pre-trial litigation.
However events occurring during my deposition in Arcata, CA on Monday, April 8 and Tuesday, April 9, has caused me to believe that Mr. Hogan has simply ignored the court's admonition and is simply trying to defeat me, not on the basis of law, but on the basis of litigation tactics.
As your Honor may remember, although the plaintiff requested a full two days or more and you suggested that they be limited to a four hour session as I am unrepresented, we eventually compromised for the plaintiff to depose me for a full eight hour day on April 9th in Redding, CA as that was more convenient to me living in remote Arcata, CA. This compromise was recorded in your order of April 1, 1996.
In fact I further agreed to give them an additional hour to depose me if they would hold the location in an even more convenient location of Eureka, CA. And I permitted them to divide the nine clock (not "on record") hours over two days in case they had follow-up questions.
This compromise was explicitly memorialized in my Objections and Responses to Request for Production of Documents and Things served upon Mr Hogan on April 4, 1996:"Acknowledge as per compromise with Judge Whyte that deposition will be limited to one eight hour session, with an additional hour granted because of Eureka location. This time may be divided over two days in any proportion desired by plaintiff."
Mr. Hogan received this document and in fact commented on my Reponses and Objections in a 45 minute mini-deposition conference with me, Helena Kobrin and Warren McShane in a phone call immediately after his receipt.
During that conference call he did not comment on the memorandum of our agreement of a nine hour deposition over two consecutive days.
When I arrived at my deposition on Monday morning April 8th, still without representation or even opportunity for an attorney on one of the related cases to attend on their clients behalf, I asked Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Hogan how they would like to divide the nine hours of time allotted to my deposition.
Mr. Lieberman responded, "I didn't see a limitation to one day in the Judge's [Whyte, April 1] order. Did you?"
I said that your order's intent was to limit my time as a deponent, especially without representation and facing four law firms and a small army of paralegals to a single day, but we could cross that bridge when we came to the nine hour limit.
On Monday, April 8th we in fact completed 7.5 hours of my deposition, calculated as my total time at the deposition site less a lunch hour. (We started at 9 a.m. and finished just after 5:30 p.m.) At the end of the session, however Mr. Hogan again asserted that as far as he was concerned, I had to be deposed for another additional full day and perhaps more if demanded by the plaintiff.
On Tuesday, April 9th I again punctually arrived ready to be deposed for the final 1.5 hours as per our agreement, but I immediately suspended proceedings under Rule 30 because I felt the plaintiff counsel was patently acting in bad faith in demanding even more time in deposition that in their original request on March 29, 1996 that you explicitly denied.
Mr. Hogan shouted that I was a "liar" on the record, which I reciprocated when I pointed out our agreement in the written memorandum on my Objections and Reponses to discovery document that I had submitted on April 4. While I am still unrepresented the room had a full contingent of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's counsel, paralegals, OSA operatives, plaintiff's computer expert, while I was by myself.
Since I do not have legal experience I do not know if this kind of shouting is appropriate or is considered professional but it seemed to be especially oppressive to me as a pro per.
We phoned Judge Infante who ruled that the deposition would be concluded at 12:15 p.m. after Mr. Hogan claimed that I had just "sprung" this objection on him.
Sometime later in the morning's deposition, Mr. Hogan said that since the plaintiff's computer expert was flown up a some expense, would I please agree to have him copy all my backup disks of computer data that I maintain in my safety deposit box so he could examine all the data at his leisure?
I objected since it appeared that this request to capture all my data, including unrelated letters, business records, and my trade secrets was overbroad and a thinly-disguised way of impounding my goods without the benefit of judicial review. I had already testified under oath that this computer data does not contain any responsive materials under the plaintiff's discovery demand. And I am fully willing to have an independent third party or Special Master search the data contained therein for an agreed set of key words in a way that would preserve my business and personal privacy.
We again called Judge Infante who I believe acted fairly in "freezing" the contents of the box to preserve any evidence that may be present, but did not permit the plaintiff through counsel Hogan to summarily impound my property.
However, your honor, these incidents which have occurred in the short time since your admonition to Mr. Hogan I think testifies to the beginning of the abusive discovery process that I warned seemed to accompany all of recent RTC litigation in this court as well as the court of Judge Brinkema of Eastern Virginia and Judge Kane of Colorado. And all this has happened before I had finished my Answer and Counterclaim that is due Thursday, April 11th.
I have a difficult time believing that an attorney with Mr. Hogan's experience and training could have inadvertently forgotten a memorandum or your admonition in so short a time, or that shouting "liar" is the kind of professional decorum expected of counsel.
I am writing this letter to alert you to the seeming contempt for your instruction to treat me, a pro per without any legal experience, in a professional manner.
I do not ask for any relief now, but I would respectfully ask the court to be alert for further discovery or motion abuses and to be sympathetic to my possible future request for a protective order while we try to accomplish due process of law.
Defendant, in Pro Per
cc: Thomas R. Hogan, SBN 042048
Magistrate Judge Edward Infante
Grady Proceeded to sue the church [RTC] for $50,000,000. We quote exerpts from the document.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California non-profit corporation, Plaintiff, vs. GRADY WARD, an individual, Defendant No. C 96-20207 RMW FAI ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant, GRADY WARD, an individual, responds to the plaintiff's verified complaint as follows:[end document]
1. A general denial, with the exception of JURISDICTION AND VENUE described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the complaint; RESIDENCY OF GRADY WARD described in paragraph 5 of the complaint; paragraph 17 of the complaint, except that Grady Ward avers that all such use was well within the "fair use" guidelines of the Copyright Act; paragraph 23 of the complaint, except that Grady Ward avers that plaintiff's objections were intended to intimidate lawful criticism and commentary protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution; with respect to paragraphs 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13, of the complaint, defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations contained, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
FOR A FIRST SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL PURPORTED CLAIMS:
1. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
FOR A SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL PURPORTED CLAIMS:
2. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of laches.
FOR A THIRD SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL PURPORTED CLAIMS:
3. Plaintiffs claims are barred on the equitable grounds of unclean hands.
FOR A FOURTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL PURPORTED CLAIMS:
4. This answering defendant is informed and believes, and upon such basis alleges defendant has not infringed copyright pursuant 17 U.S.C. 106.
FOR A FIFTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL PURPORTED CLAIMS:
5. This answering defendant is informed and believes, and upon such basis alleges that plaintiffs' claims are wholly barred by the doctrine of fair use.
FOR A SIXTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL PURPORTED CLAIMS:
6. This answering defendant is informed and believes, and upon such basis alleges that plaintiff's is barred under the doctrine of copyright misuse.
FOR A SEVENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL PURPORTED CLAIMS
7. This answering defendant is informed and believes, and upon such basis alleges that the documents claimed by plaintiffs to be trade secrets are not trade secrets because (a) plaintiffs have failed to undertake reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of their alleged trade secrets; and (b) the works are generally known.
WHEREFORE, with respect to the plaintiffs claims, answering defendant prays as follows:
1. That plaintiffs take nothing by reason of their complaint; that judgment be rendered in favor of defendant;
2. That defendant be awarded his costs of suit incurred in defense of this action;
3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
1. Counterclaimant Grady Ward is a person within the jurisdiction of the United States and a resident of Arcata, County of Humboldt, State of California.
2. Grady Ward is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that counterclaim defendant Religious Technology Center, Inc. ("RTC") is a California corporation having its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.
<discussion of jurisdiction and a discussion of Ward's impressive experience and credentials snipped>
8. Grady Ward has never been a member of any Scientology enterprise nor has he ever signed a confidentiality agreement with any Scientology enterprise.
9. Grady Ward has been informed and on that basis believes that on January 11, 1995, Attorney for the Plaintiff, Helena K. Kobrin, executed a special computer command called a RMGROUP (for "remove group") to automatically destroy the Internet discussion group designated alt.religion.scientology. (Exhibit A.) The news of this unique attempt by a counsel of record to unilaterally and arbitrarily obliterate all discussion of a topic was relayed to the EFF Internet group comp.org.eff.talk, which Grady Ward was an active participant. Out of curiosity, Grady Ward subscribed to alt.religion.scientology to see why its content so provoked this response from a religious corporation. It seemed to him to be a vastly inappropriate response to issues of criticism and commentary.
10. Grady Ward has been informed and on that basis believes that plaintiff RTC's attorney Helena K. Kobrin has admitted issuing the RMGROUP for the purpose of destroying the Internet discussion group called alt.religion.scientology.
11. After subscribing for several days to the alt.religion.scientology, the individual known as Dennis Erlich (Case No. C-95-20091 RMW) was served a Writ of Seizure by this court and was physically violated in what seemed to Grady Ward to be an egregious violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights and a violent and immediate threat to free, lawful, criticism and commentary on the Internet.
12. Grady Ward has actively participated in the Internet group alt.religion.scientology since that time until March, 1996.
13. After RTC's attorney Helena K. Kobrin's attempted destruction of the Internet group, a series of messages forged as to their origin began to appear in the Internet group called "control". These special "cancel" messages were intended to destroy computer data containing information about the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard that RTC and the Church of Scientology derive a significant portion of their income. A sample of these unlawful cancel messages are contained in Exhibit 1.
14. One of Grady Ward's messages that contained a reference to material claimed in Plaintiff's Complaint Exhibit A was unlawfully canceled by one of these forged messages.
15. On April 14, 1995, Jeffrey G. Quiros of the San Francisco Church of Scientology Office of Special Affairs (the intelligence arm of an organization acting in concert or participation, or as an agent of the plaintiff) arrived unannounced with another Scientologist and did trespass at my home in Arcata, California. A criminal trespass complaint was filed with the Arcata Police Department.
16. Grady Ward has been informed and on that basis believes that on May 8, 1995, my publisher, Maria Nakem of the Austin Code Works, Austin, Texas received a telephone call from a person identifying himself as Gene Ingram, a private investigator and long-time investigator acting as plaintiff's agent, servant, employee, partner, or a person acting or purporting to act under their authority, direction or control, or a person in active concert or participation with them plaintiff RTC. He inquired into my finances and unlawfully defamed me by claiming that I had been involuntarily separated by Apple Computer, Inc.
17. Grady Ward has been informed and on that basis believes that on May 10, 1995 a man later positively identified at Eugene Martin Ingram, the same long-time investigator for the plaintiff did misrepresent his identity to my elderly mother, Rubye K. Ward, of Tacoma, Washington and thereby unlawfully obtained photographs of me, my wife and children. After my mother's complaint to the Tacoma police authorities, the photographs were returned in the U.S. Mail postmarked Portland, Oregon. A criminal complaint of theft by impersonation was file with the Tacoma Police department case number 95-1530374. Exhibit 2.
18. Grady Ward has been informed and on that basis believes that on August 22, 1995 a man pretending to be Grady Ward did by such false pretense obtain the long distance toll records stored by Pacific Bell and AT&T for both my telephones. Exhibit 3.
19. RTC's attorney Helena K. Kobrin has repeatedly and without justification threatened and attempted to intimidate my participation in the Internet discussion by unwarranted threats of prosecution for copyright infringement, trade secret violation, and violation of the Lanham act. Exhibit 4.
20. On March 9, 1996 Grady Ward was unlawfully defamed when participating in a lawful protest against the Church of Scientology, San Francisco. Exhibit 5.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
21. Grady Ward incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 9 to 20 above as though fully set forth herein.
A representative of the Church of Scientology or one acting as an agent, servant, employee, partner, [etc.] <snip> Jeffrey George Quiros intentionally committed the tort of trespass at my home in Arcata, California.
Mr. Quiros and another scientologist did not leave the property when repeatedly demanded by the defendant's wife, Felicity Wasser. His response was that he was from the Church of Scientology and wanted to talk to defendant, Grady Ward. He had driven five or six hours to arrive at the property in Arcata, California from San Francisco, without advance notice, and arrive midday when it might be calculated the defendant would be employed and be away from home.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
22. Grady Ward incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 9 to 21 above as though fully set forth herein.
Through the pattern of acts as set forth above the plaintiff and those organizations and individual agents acting in concert and participation with it have fulfilled the "scriptural instructions" of scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard that were fulfilled to intentionally cause mental distress on me and my family are as follows:
"Enemy: Fair Game - May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued, or lied to or destroyed."
"Don't ever defend. Always attack. Find or manufacture enough threat against them to sue for peace. Originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person's repute and to discredit them so thoroughly they will be ostracized."
"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.
"The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." <snip>
"The following is a list of the successful . . .actions used by intelligence".
- Using . . . 2nd dynamic [sex] on someone high in the government to seduce them over to our side . . .
- Infiltrating an enemy group with an end to getting documents . . .
- Covert third partying with forged or phony signatures.
- Anonymous third partying. Particularly the Internal Revenue Service . . .
- Direct theft of documents.
- Impersonating a reporter over the phone to get information . . ."
"The following are possibilities for collecting data:
1. Infiltration; 2. Bribery; 3. Buying information; 4. Robbery; 5. Blackmail"
This scriptural template, which is in effect a criminal conspiracy handbook, and pattern of unlawful acts by the plaintiff or those acting as plaintiff's agents, servants, employees, partners, privies <snip> calculated and have in fact caused significant emotional distress on the part of the defendant and his family.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Conspiracy against civil rights, 18 U.S.C. 241
23. Grady Ward incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 9 to 22 above as though fully set forth herein.
241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life."
Eugene Martin Ingram, Helena K. Kobrin, Jeffrey G. Quiros, and unknown members acting as plaintiff's agents, servants, employees, partners, <snip> (etc.) have attempted to intimidate defendant through trespass, theft, unlawful computer forgeries, defamation, and barratry solely because of defendant's lawful criticism protected by the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution of the belief system of scientology.
Intimidation was achieved because of the threatening barratry and defamation by Helena K. Kobrin, the unlawful theft, and slander of the defendant by Eugene Martin Ingram, the trespass of Jeffrey G. Quiros, the unlawful defamation of the defendant by the Church of Scientology, the unlawful forged cancel of the defendant's lawful criticism of scientology as protected by the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution using the instrument of the Internet computer network.
Moreover, this behavior of plaintiff is both intentional, systematic and in fact a core tenet of the scientology belief system.
For example, from a recent opinion from the court of the Honorable Leonie M. Brinkema:
MEMORANDUM OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1995 AND AMENDED ORDER OF NOVEMBER 29, 1995
Excerpt from that opinion:
"When the RTC first approached the Court with its ex parte request for the seizure warrant and Temporary Restraining Order, the dispute was presented as a straight-forward one under copyright and trade secret law. However, the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation of RTC in suing Lerma, DGS and The Post is to stifle criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics. As the increasingly vitriolic rhetoric of its briefs and oral argument now demonstrate, the RTC appears far more concerned about criticism of Scientology than vindication of its secrets."
PRAYER FOR RELIEF FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION:
- Damages according to proof at trial;
- Exemplary and punitive damages of $50,000,000.00 or according to proof at trial;
- Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs;
- Such other relief as is determined to be just and proper.
FOR THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:
1. For an order directing plaintiff, and all of their agents, servants, employees, partners, privies and attorneys, and all persons acting or purporting to act under their authority, direction or control, and all persons in active concert or participation with them from further engaging in unlawful harassment of participants of the computer network known as the Internet;
2. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs;
3. Such other relief as is determined to be just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant hereby demands a trial by jury for all claims and counterclaims in this action.
Dated: April 10, 1995
Grady Ward, in pro se
It is now Grady's turn to send interrogatories to the Plaintiff. The following document has some interesting features and we have included it in its entirety. We commend to the reader's attention items 5, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 15.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California non-profit corporation, Plaintiff, vs. GRADY WARD, an individual, Defendant No. C 96-20207 RMW EAI
DEFENDANT'S FIRST INTERROGATORY
DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF
The plaintiff and all organizations or individuals acting in concert or participation with the plaintiff or under the direction of the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorneys, whether directly or in directly, or in concert or participation with the plaintiff are commanded to produce at the home of Grady Ward, 3449 Martha Ct., Arcata, CA 95521- 4884 within 30 days, under oath or affirmation:
1. As used herein, the term "document" includes all hand, machine, or electronically written materials or glyphs, graphics, or codes of whatever kind or nature, including, but not limited to, reports, minutes, marginalia, correspondence, registers, tablets, programs, footnotes, videos, videotape, chronicles, checklists, scrolls, printouts, essays, credentials, holographs, novels, poems, dictation, sound or visual recordings, libraries, diplomas, statements, manuscripts, scriptures, inventories, lists, notes, memoranda, telegrams and cables, telexes, telecopies, panafaxes, publications, contracts, agreements, insurance policies, offers, analyses, projections, studies, books, papers, records, calendars, diaries, statements, complaints, filings with any court, tribunal or governmental agency, corporate minutes, partnerships, agreements, ledgers, transcripts, summaries, agendas, bills, invoices, receipts, estimates, evaluations, personnel files, certificates, instructions, manuals, bulletins, advertisements, periodicals, accounting records, checks, check stubs, check registers, canceled checks, money orders, negotiable instruments, sound recordings, films, photographs, mechanical or electronic recordings, tapes, transcriptions, blueprints, computer programs and data, data processing cards, computer disks, CD-ROMS, computer tapes, software, e-mail, news postings, computer directory listings, access time records, instruction manuals, and computer media of any description, whether in draft or otherwise, whether encrypted or not, or any binary form including but not limited to, copies and non-identical copies, images, electronic mirrors, impressions, carbons, backups, or archives, whether "on site" or "off site."
2. The term "relating" or "related" mean, in addition to their usual and customary meanings, referring to, addressing, concerning, discussing, opining, pertaining to, reflecting, speculating, evidencing, stating, showing, analyzing, contending, regarding, summarizing, recording, or theorizing.
3. The term "Scamizdat" refers to any of several anonymous postings to the Internet which purportedly contains any material claimed as the intellectual property of the plaintiff.
4. The term "RTC" or "plaintiff" includes the responding party, Religious Technology Corporation, its agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with it.
5. The term "Usenet group" refers to a discussion group which can be accessed via the Internet.
6. The term "cancels" refers to any posting to the the Usenet group control or alt.religion.scientology, or any cross-posting containing either of those Usenet groups whose purpose, intent, or design, or content was in any way related to protecting any intellectual property right whether actual or claimed by RTC or any organization, group, or individuals working on concert or participation with RTC.
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO BE PRODUCED
(1) All documents relating to "cancels" of materials that RTC claims as its Advanced Technology property, whether published or unpublished, whether copyright or trade secret or public domain whether made anonymously or pseudonymously or under the true name by the plaintiff within the time period of January 1, 1995 through March 23, 1996.
(2) Any documents relating to proof or the theory that the Exhibit C. NOTs have been continuously maintained under such control since their copyright registration and/or would support a theory that they remain protectable trade secrets.
(3) All documents relating to any actions has the plaintiff brought to restrain other parties from disseminating the plaintiff verified complaint Exhibit A, B and C materials. Include the caption of all such actions indicating the jurisdiction and docket number of the case, the parties to the action, copies of each complaint and answer, and state the disposition of each such case. Include any actions brought in jurisdictions outside the United States
(4) Any document relating to knowledge plaintiff has of any such restraining actions brought by any other parties.
(5) All documents relating to income from each of the plaintiff verified complaint Exhibit A, B and C materials has plaintiff accrued in the period January 1, 1995 through March 23, 1996.
(6) All documents relating to the copyrights or trade secrets alleged to be owned, licensed, lent, or any other manner controlled by plaintiff relating to plaintiff verified complaint Exhibit A, B and C materials this lawsuit.
(7) All documents relating to SCAMIZDAT.
(8) All documents relating to the defendant Grady Ward and any other poster to the Usenet group alt.religion.scientology.
(9) All documents relating to alt.religion.scientology within the time period January 1, 1995 through March 23, 1996.
(10) All documents relating to Internet anonymous remailers within the time period January 1, 1995 through March 23, 1996.
(11) All documents relating to proof or theories that Exhibit C. NOTs have "not previously been posted to the Internet".
(12) All documents relating to Eugene Martin Ingram or Ingram Investigations relating to Grady Ward and member of Grady Ward's family, or any other poster to the Usenet group alt.religion.scientology.
(13) All documents relating to Jeffrey George Quiros of the Church of Scientology, San Francisco relating to Grady Ward and member of Grady Ward's family, or any other poster to the Usenet group alt.religion.scientology.
(14) All documents relating to any investigative services that plaintiff directly or indirectly directs or receives information from about Grady Ward or any poster on the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology within the period of time January 1, 1995 through March 23, 1996.
(15) Any documents relating to account numbers, holding institutions, amount and kinds of insurance, property, or bank accounts does plaintiff own or control that might be available to pay any judgment under this lawsuit. Disclose the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of this affairs, whether domestic or abroad.
(16) All documents relating to any computer equipment, terminals, access points, service providers, or any other method that plaintiff could post to the Internet Usenet group alt.religion.scientology or Usenet group control during the period of time from January 1, 1995 through March 23, 1996.
(17) Any documents relating to witnesses or experts that plaintiff may use in any aspect of this lawsuit.
(18) With respect to all persons whom you intend to call as expert witnesses at trial:
a. identify each expert witness
b. specify the subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify.
c. specify the substance of the facts, opinions, and theories to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each fact, opinion, and theory.
(19) Identify any person or organization consulted in the preparation of the answers or objections to this interrogatory. Include the name, address, and telephone number, and position of every person so consulted.
(20) All documents relating damages that the plaintiff claims occurred because of the actions of the defendant.
Under FRCivP Rule 26a(1) and/or Rule 26(e) disclose all information or supplementary information as therein required even if not explicitly included in this formal interrogatory. Further, plaintiff is reminded to answer all non-objectionable portions of each interrogatory even if objections are raised to any other portion of the interrogatory.
April 11, 1996
Grady Ward, In Pro Per
During the last week of February, 1996 the publisher of Biased Journalism sent at least two individually writen letters to President Clinton at his email address. As most net.citizens know, email to the White House is normally acknowleged by a form letter response.
Our letters to the White House during the last week of February received no acknowlegement at all. We wondered how many letters opposing the CDA had been received. Oddly enough the White House never said anything about what must have been a very significant volume of email against the bill.
A sysop we know sent us the following letter:
Date: 9 Feb 96 16:03:20 -0700 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Joel M Snyder) Subject: High mail volumes at whitehouse.gov Organization: Opus One, Tucson, Arizona Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.security.misc,news.admin.net-abuse .misc
Good day. By way of introduction, I'm the consultant who did the "anti-mailstorm/anti-mailbomb" software that runs on the MX host for WHITEHOUSE.GOV. Now that the Telecom. Act of 1996 has been signed, the volume of mail through WHITEHOUSE.GOV has gone up significantly. For example, there were about 85,000 lines in the mail log file yesterday.[end letter]
Most of that is just people who want to express their opinion. However, several misguided individuals have decided that they want to throw a monkey wrench into the works by storming the President's e-mail.
I'm writing this to let any system administrators out there know that you may find mail from your site to WHITEHOUSE.GOV is not moving very quickly. This is normal; it's a sign that the automatic protections of that system have kicked in.
Without going into details, if too many messages come from a single site, the mail handler will throttle back accepting messages. Eventually, though, the mail will be accepted for delivery. If you have legitimate mail, it will eventually get through (many messages from the same correspondent will be flushed without acknowledgement). However, correspondents who were used to getting a reply within seconds telling them that their message was accepted may see a substantial delay.
Finally, if any users on your site have any delusions about the effect of a mail bomb or storm of mail, let me help you dispel them: (1) no one important enough to make a difference will be affected or know or care; (2) if the messages are nasty or threatening enough, someone equally nasty may come and visit; (3) what you'll succeed most in doing is ruining the weekends and/or days of underpaid civil servants as well as wasting federal tax dollars.
Please feel free to redistribute this or use parts of it in your motd.
PS: I don't read these newsgroups and am spending most of the weekend trying to make sure that the mail system doesn't melt down anyway, so if there is discussion on this, I won't see it.
Intrigued, we engaged Mr. Snyder in conversation. We were, first of all, displeased with the idea that our carefully thought out messages to the President were discarded before anyone even took notice of them.
We asked, "how can you distinguish serious citizen comment, such as the avalanche of protest over the CDA, from mailbombing?"
Snyder's answer, which he refused us permission to publish, was 'we don't.' A large number of messages from a single source --such as Netcom--is automatically tagged as mailbombing and discarded, no matter what the content.
Any unsual volume of citizen protests, regardless of circumstances, will meet the same fate.
We invite readers to respond to the following questions: did you send a note to the White House when the CDA was being considered? Was it a note about the CDA, or something else? Did you receive the usual automatic reply message?
Does your government really want to hear from you?
What do you think?