From hkhenson@home.com Sat Sep 22 03:38:00 2001
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.twtelecom.net!newspeer2.tds.net!gail.ripco.com!news.lightlink.com!news2.lightlink.com
From: hkhenson@home.com (Keith Henson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: More Berry vs the Bar.
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 07:38:00 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
Lines: 1769
Message-ID: <3bad3f84.97082369@news2.lightlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.40.229
X-Original-Trace: 22 Sep 2001 03:37:29 -0400, 24.141.40.229
Xref: sn-us alt.religion.scientology:981155

I am not sure this one got posted prevoiusly and it relates to the
rest.  Keith Henson

GRAHAM E. BERRY (SBN 128503)                 
3384 McLaughlin Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 745-3771
Facsimile:  (310) 745-3772

Email: grahameb@aol.com

Respondent Pro Per






	THE STATE BAR COURT	
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES

In the Matter ofGRAHAM EDWARD BERRYNo.128503A Member of the State Bar
)))))))))))))))))))))	Case No.: 99-0-12791 ERRATUM
RESPONDENT'S COMBINED OPPOSITION TO EIGHT SEPARATE MOTIONS TO QUASH
SUBPOENAS AND REQUESTS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS FILED BY THIRD PARTIES
MICHAEL G. GERNER, ET. AL.Status Conference: Sept.24, 2001,10:00
amRule 181 Discovery Cutoff: Sept. 23, 2001Trial Date: December 11,
2001, 9:00 am[Filed concurrently with Declaration of Graham E. Berry,
Appendices of Trial Exhibits, etc.]
	)	


COMES NOW RESPONDENT GRAHAM E. BERRY, IN PRO PER, AND FILES HIS
COMBINED OPPOSITION TO EIGHT MOTIONS TO QUASH ETC., FILED BY THIRD
PARTIES MICHAEL GERNER, ET. AL.




I.SUMMARY OF FACTS AND ARGUMENT
A. Respondent did not personally sign any of the relevant eight
subpoenas duces tecum ('SDTs'). They were obtained from "the Clerk."
Rule 152(c). Movants wrongly attempt to mislead the court to the
contrary.
B. The SDTs were properly served.
C. Fatally, Movants engaged in discovery misuse by failing to engage
in the mandatory "meet and confer" conference or to submit the
mandatory "meet and confer" statement herein.
D. Movants have waived any attorney client objections.
E. Movants have waived their attorney work product objections.
F. Movants motion is untimely.
G. Certain of the Movant's, and their clients, have a long history of
criminal and fraudulent abuse of the legal system.
H. Certain of the Movants have engaged in demonstrable criminal and
fraudulent conduct, intentionally directed at Respondent, in
connection with the underlying matters giving rise to these
proceedings, and in connection with these proceedings themselves.
I. In connection with the underlying proceedings, and aspects of these
proceedings, a retired L.A.Superior Court judge has determined that
certain of the Movant's were engaged in criminal and fraudulent
conduct and recommended that the Crime-Fraud Exception to the attorney
client privilege applied. The relevant Movants (Moxon, Kobrin,
Paquette, Wager, Abelson and Byrnes) immediately dismissed the Hurtado
litigation. They did not contest the Attorney-client crime-fraud
exception.

J. Respondent has produced objective and prima facie evidence of
attorney-client criminal and fraudulent conduct in connection with the
claim of attorney-client privilege before the court.
K. The Ingram investigation report and file, and another attorney work
product file (Berry falsehoods) have already been produced. Thus, any
attorney work product claim has already been irretrievably waived.
L. The discovery requested by respondent is relevant, necessary and
within the scope of permissible discovery. It is sought in good faith.
M. Movant's are engaged in a continuing obstruction of justice in
connection with both the underlying proceedings and with these
proceedings. The State Bar, upon it's own admission, did not properly
investigate these matters. Instead it relied upon the
misrepresentations of the Movants herein. The State Bar has
over-charged Respondent and refuses/fails to recognize and/or take
action in connection with Movant's wrongful conduct.
N. The SDTs were addressed to Movants personally and individually and
to their respective law firms. No responses, production or motions
have been made or filed by the Movants as individuals. Movant's
employer law firms have filed the only appearance and motions, except
perhaps, as to Abelson.
 II. INTRODUCTION 
Shakespeare wrote, "Oh what tangled web we weave, when first we
practice to deceive." A corollary of this was taught by Respondent's
mother who said, " Always tell the truth because the truth always come
out." The Church of Scientology has judicially recognized "Fair Game"
policies and practices which mandate, in effect, the subordination of
perjury, the obstruction of justice, the spoliation of evidence and
the concealment of truth.  These policies and practices must be
employed in all litigation, upon pain of severe punishment, by all
those who work with the Legal Unit of the Church of Scientology's
Office of Special Affairs ("OSA"). At least five of the Movant's
herein work in fact, if not by business address, within OSA. Not only
does OSA have its own in-house counsel, but OSA also retains certain
outside lawyers. Indeed, upon the evidence presented herein, they can
truly be called "out-law(yers)."  However, OSA's out-lawyers are not
habitually "drilled" in lying and telling "acceptable truths" by
church "training routine ("TRs"). App. Consequently, OSA's out-lawyers
sometimes will inadvertently blurt out the truth. Movant Wager has
done that here.App.A, pp.7-13.
Movant Wager is President of the Criminal Courts Bar Association for
the County of Los Angeles. The evidence herein establishes that in
December 1999, Respondent was litigating against Movants in the
underlying Berry v. Cipriano, Barton & Miscavige (Ingram, Moxon &
Abelson) and the Pattinson v. Miscavige/Church of Scientology
cases.App.F. As part of their defense in these cases, and their
improper discovery, Ingram, Moxon and Wager solicited the
representation of Michael Hurtado. Hurtado was at that time a client
of Respondent. Hurtado became a client of Moxon and Wager's, before
Hurtado himself knew it, and is now in prison for five years on
matters not directly related to the issues at Bar. Movants Wager and
Moxon convinced Hurtado to file a false, but verified, Legal
Malpractice/Sexual Battery case against Respondent. They then
introduced Hurtado, and an Anthony Apodaca, into the Berry v.
Cipriano,  et. al. cases in an attempt to falsely corroborate what
Cipriano has repeatedly testified (even under cross-examination by
former counsel Moxon) was perjury obtained through blackmail, bribery,
obstruction of justice, fraud and more.App.A, pp.2-15.
 Ingram, Moxon, the giant Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker law firm
and other major law firms, manufactured and used this perjury to
provoke the Cipriano case and then to obstruct and abuse the process
of justice.App.B, Exh.2&3. Movant Moxon used the baseless Hurtado
federal and state law suits to make false claims before the Bankruptcy
Court. Also, based on Hurtado's perjury and vexatious federal and
state cases, Movants Moxon & Kobrin unsuccessfully demanded
Respondent's insurance carrier settle the Hurtado v. Berry cases for
$700,000.00. Instead, the C.N.A. Insurance Group stood behind
Respondent and conducted discovery. See generally, App.A. The
discovery eventually caused Movants Byrnes, Moxon & Kobrin (assisted
by Movant Abelson) to voluntarily dismiss the Hurtado v. Berry cases,
on February 6,1991,upon the eve of trial.  In all of the
circumstances, Respondent now has the "mother of all" malicious
prosecution and abuse of process cases against certain of the Movant
attorneys, their clients and others.
On January 27, 1999, Wager used the suborned and perjured Hurtado
allegations to make a demonstrably baseless motion, supported itself
by perjury, to the Chief Judge of the Santa Monica Branch of the Los
Angeles Superior Court. The perjured claims were properly referred to
the State Bar which commenced its own investigation. On June 3, 1999,
and in numerous 
letters, telephone calls and meetings over the next eighteen months,
Movants Gerner and Wager 

persisted in the most outrageous efforts to persuade the State Bar to
file the disciplinary charges herein. On October 25, 1999, they even
insisted upon being regularly and "fully advised of the progress of
these matters…and the evaluation of [the State Bar] office" regarding
the within proceedings. App. L, Exs.1-11A.They then were concentrated
upon Hurtado's perjured allegations against Berry, solicited and
advanced by Movants Wager, Moxon & Kobrin. Obligingly, the State Bar
pressured Respondent into immediately disbanding his practice and
taking "inactive status". Various State Bar prosecutors then
apparently refused to proceed with a prosecution, until the present
prosecutor embarked upon this cause celebre. 
In late 2000, the State Bar closed its investigation of the Hurtado
aspects of this current State Bar Matter. Without batting an eye over
the fact that Movants Gerner and Wager were now objectively known to
have filed a false State Bar complaint, the State Bar immediately
filed the remaining Gerner and Wager/Scientology claims herein.
Amazingly, the State Bar's prosecutor has claimed that she filed those
Notice of Charges herein without being fully familiar with the facts
and evidence, because there "are too many facts and documents".
Indeed, the early versions of the Notice of Charges herein bore the
hallmarks of having being drafted by and/or assisted by Scientology
out-lawyer counsel. There was an outpouring of public outrage. App.L,
Exs.21-44. The first judge to handle this matter Judge Marcus, recused
himself from selection as the trial judge herein because he had
received voluminous mail from the public and was "biased."
Gerner and Wager are both also OSA out-lawyers. At his deposition in
the Hurtado v. 
Berry State Court case on January 19, 2001, Wager admitted to
depositing $300 into a 
//

prisoner, non-client's jail account so that the convict would have
money. App.A, p.10: 7-9. Wager had not previously known the prisoner
(Anthony Apodaca). Apodaca has never been a client of Wager. The
prisoner, transvestite Anthony Apodaca, testified that he understood
that he received the money and other benefits to falsely testify that
he had under-age commercial and "kinky" sex with Respondent. Later,
Apodaca testified that he never met Respondent but identified him
after being shown Respondent's photograph in an American Lawyer
magazine
article (on Movant Moxon & Kobrin's intentional destruction of the
Cult Awareness Network ["CAN"]). App.A, pp.10: 10-26.CAN is now owned
and operated by the Church of Scientology. During this meeting certain
of the Movants were present. Wager also testified that he believed
that the payment to Apodaca was reimbursed by Movant Moxon.App.A,
p.10: 9.
Retired Superior Court Judge Lachs stated his discovery referee's
recommendation that the crime-fraud exception barred any claims of
attorney-client privilege as between, at the very least, Movants Moxon
& Kobrin, Abelson, Byrnes, Wager and OSA/Scientology. OSA 's
out-lawyer Wager had blurted out the truth. Hurtado's representation
was intentionally and carefully solicited in serious breach of
applicable Rules of Ethics.App.A, p.7: 27-10:5. So was the
representation of Cipriano.App.B, Ex.2,  23-36.The Cipriano
confessions and testimony physically ties certain of the Movants to
serious criminal, civil and unethical conduct in connection with the
underlying Berry and Pattinson cases. Cipriano's testimony has never
been denied or rebutted on the relevant records, despite withering
cross-examination by his former lawyer and criminal co-conspirator,
Moxon.App.A, pp.4: 8-7:26. See generally, Temp.App.AA. [July 18, 2001,
draft and partial R.I.C.O.list. R.I.C.O. was pleaded in the underlying
Berry and 


Pattinson cases. Arrogantly, the same participants in such
unprecedented attorney criminality and conspiracy now baselessly
demand, as third parties, that Respondent's discovery be
unconstitutionally eliminated or restricted. Movant's eight motions.
In a case relevant to the Pattinson allegations herein, Scientology
was determined to have used such advance notice for the purpose of
massive evidence shredding and destruction.   Indeed, Movant Simke &
Chodos claim that they do not have responsive documents in connection
with the underlying Berry and Pattinson cases. Chodos, Dec.6. A "meet
and confer" conference, a statutory written response of "no documents"
and a statement of how the documents were disposed of would have
sufficed, along with any appropriate privilege log. Instead, a
vitriolic and vituperative argument is made that this Court deny
Respondent his due process rights. Movants cite no authority to
support such a departure from applicable constitutional, procedural
and other rights of the Respondent. Movants do not advise the Court
that relevant written church scriptures provide that Respondent has no
rights at all, because he impedes the church's intended takeover of
the heads of government, business and the media - and the subsequent
extermination of more than 2 ½%, or 650 million of the planet's
population (644 million people more than Hitler exterminated in his
concentration camps). See generally, L.Ron Hubbard, Science of
Survival, pp.39, 88-90,115-116,131(13th.printing).
At the July 16, 2001, Status Conference herein, the Court accepted
Respondent's due process submissions. These concerned the underlying
Berry, Pattinson and Jeavons cases, amazingly alleged to have been
filed without any factual or legal merit. Plaintiffs in those cases
had also been denied the opportunity of meaningful discovery. Neither
case had involved any form of determination upon the factual and legal
merits of the allegations now charged to have
been frivolously filed. There is a long line of analogous legal
malpractice authorities holding in 
favor of the "case within a case" litigation of such matters. In
essence, Respondent has to be afforded a reasonable opportunity, in
all of the circumstances herein, to take the discovery, and to present
the evidence that establishes that the allegations in the underlying
Berry, Pattinson 
and Jeavons cases were asserted in good objective and subjective
faith, factually and legally, and
in connection with evidence reasonably likely to be developed through
discovery. App.F, Exhs.1-5.Accordingly, as happens in the case within
a case presentation of proof, Respondent has and must be afforded the
opportunity to present the cases that would have been presented in the
underlying but largely voluntarily dismissed cases. The cases were
dismissed after Respondent was overwhelmed by Scientology's litigation
juggernaut of expensive lawyers flown in from the East Coast. However,
not before the same cases survived demurrers, SLAPP suit motions, nine
months of litigation, massive discovery by Scientology and $100,000 in
settlements.
Movants appear perturbed that they and their clients are not able to
participate in these proceedings in their own inimitable
obsrtuctionist manner. However, Movants must be deemed to have
realized that when they repeatedly and improperly instigated, demanded
and assisted the now defunct Hurtado proceeding which actually
initiated the State Bar matter now being partially prosecuted.
Scientology is desperate to obtain some, nay any, criticism of
Respondent in for the strategic purpose of hanging it around his neck
in every courtroom in which he might 


potentially appear. However, certain of the Movants and their clients
actively engaged in the underlying seven years of continuous criminal,
civil and unethical misconduct intentionally directed against
Respondent. That misconduct permeates, pollutes and poisons all
aspects of the intertwined, concurrent and underlying Berry, Cipriano,
Barton, Miscavige (Moxon, Abelson & Ingram), Pattinson and Jeavons
cases. " "Tis strange but true; for truth is always strange, Stranger
than fiction." Byron, Don Juan.
III. ARGUMENT 
A. MOVANTS MAKE MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS HEREIN
Page 1 lines 21-23 of each of the motions state "the Subpoena is
invalid…as it was improperly signed by Respondent…" These
representations are repeated on subsequent pages of each of the
motions: Moxon & Kobrin, p.5: 4-8; Lenske, p.4: 23-27; Gerner, p.
4:18-22; Abelson, p.4: 25-5:2. Certain of the attorneys then compound
their express misrepresentations to the Court with testimony that
Respondent signed the subpoenas served herein (Gerner Decl. para.2,
p.1: 11-12; Lenske Decl. para.2, p: 1:9-10; Kobrin Decl. para.2, p.1:
11-12).  Movant's Exhibit A dramatically illustrates what is a blatant
and obviously intentional misrepresentation, by these six California
attorneys, to the California State Bar Court. Page one of Exhibit A is
a copy of one of the SDTs at issue. For present purposes, all are
identical in this regard. At the bottom of page one is the signature
of the issuing State Bar Clerk (within the State Bar seal on the
original). At the bottom of page two, in almost the same position, is
the signature of the Respondent and "server." There is zero degree of
similarity between the two signatures.
//


Such blatant and material misrepresentations to the Court are not new
to certain of the Movants. Only last month, the Federal Bankruptcy
Court took the trial in Barton v. Berry off 
calendar after receiving a deluge of the most material of
misrepresentations from Moxon & 
Kobrin, on matters concerning the same alleged facts that are the
basis of Count Three of the State Bar's Notice of Disciplinary Charges
herein .On August 14, 2001, the usually understated Federal Court
scathingly denied the Moxon & Kobrin/Glenn Barton motion for summary
judgment, "because of inaccuracies in the foregoing allegations". The
State Bar herein has
parroted certain of those allegations herein. Indeed, the very next
day, August 15, 2001,the State Bar issued interrogatories and requests
for admission. They were narrowly tailored to the sole Jane Scott
Account issue that the Federal Court retained in the Scientology/
Barton case, even though incapable of affirmative proof. Discovery has
closed in the Scientology/Barton v. Berry case Federal Court action
but has just opened in the Scientology/State Bar v. Berry case! In
addition, the Federal Court unilaterally dismissed almost the entirety
of the Scientology/Barton v. Berry case, except for the narrow and
factual question that Scientology/State Bar sought discovery upon the
very next day. Respondent will formally and subsequently address this
Court on those and related 'unusual' matters now requiring unusual
enquiry.
B. MOVANTS HAVE MISUSED THE DISCOVERY PROCESS AND THEIR MOTIONS MUST
BE DENIED
	The Rules of Procedure Rule 180 provides that the Civil
Discovery Act (C.C.P.§§ 2016 -2036 applies in these proceedings,
except as modified by the Rules of Procedure. In that regard, each of
the final definitions and instructions in Respondent's subpoenas
expressly "directed " 

Movants to the "meet and confer" provisions of Rule 185 and C.C.P.2023
(9). (i.e., Gerner SDT, p.5: 26, L). Movants object to, and ignore,
that paragraph in each and every subpoena. (i.e., 
Gerner SDT, p.7: 4-12.) However, as a threshold and dispositive matter
herein, that is absolutely fatal to each of the motions at bar.
Accordingly, and for this reason alone, the pending motions must be
denied as a matter of law and various additional sanctions imposed.
"When an inspection of documents, tangible things or places has been
demanded, the 
party to whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or
affected person or 
organization may promptly move for a protective order. This motion
shall be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a
reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each
issue presented by the motion…" C.C.P.§ 2031(e). emphasis added
"Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the
following…
 Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an
opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to
resolve informally any dispute involving discovery, if the section
governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a 
declaration stating facts showing that such an attempt has been made. 
Notwithstanding the outcome of a particular discovery motion, the
court shall impose a monetary sanction ordering that any party or
attorney who fails to confer as required pay the reasonable expenses,
including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that
conduct." C.C.P.§2023 (a)(9). emphasis added

	Additionally, C.C.P.§ 2023 (b) provides for the imposition of
various additional sanctions including terminating ("doomsday")
sanctions, issue and preclusionary sanctions. In the case at bar, the
Court is requested to issue orders regulating Movant's conduct at
deposition which should include a ruling that the crime fraud
exception precludes any claims of attorney-client 

privilege by Movants herein at their later depositions, and that
privacy may not be asserted as a deposition objection by those
persons, just as certain of the Movants herein prevailed upon Hon.
Alexander Williams, III, to rule in the underlying Berry
litigation.App.H, Ex.1-7; App.M, Ex.1.	
In addition to expressly reminding Movants of the mandatory "meet and
confer " requirements, and expecting delays in production and
inspection caused by the "meet and confer" requirements, Respondent
also foreshadowed scheduling changes (i.e., Gerner SDT, p.2: 12-14.)
However, Movants made none of the mandatory attempts to "meet and
confer" and have also
failed to file the mandatory "meet and confer" declaration (Berry
Decl.para.12). For this reason alone, the statute mandates this Court
to deny the motions at bar and to impose the sanctions provided by
statute, except as otherwise provided by Rule of Procedure 186.
	The Court has no discretion in this regard. The burden of
initiation was on the Movant's. Volkenwagenwerk Aktienesellshaft v.
Superior Court, (1998) 122 Cal.App.3d 326,330.The Court must deny
Movants motion. It acts in excess of jurisdiction to do otherwise.
Townsend v. Superior Court, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th. 1431,
Volkenwagenwerk Aktienesellshaft v. Superior Court, (1998) 122
Cal.App.3d 326,328-329.
C. THE SUBPEONAS ARE VALID AND WERE PROPERLY SERVED
Movants violate professional canons, with their submissions, and
material omissions, regarding the issuance and service of the subject
subpoenas. They raise the specter of attorneys avoiding service.
The SDTs at bar each expressly stated that they were being
"propounded, inter alia, pursuant to C.C.P.§§ 94,1011 (a) - 1013 (a),
1987.3, 2016 to 2031 (specifically § 2020 (d), Cal. 


Evidence Code § 1560 (e) and Rules 151 to 187 of the Rules of
Procedure of the State Bar of 
California.) (Movant's Exhibit A, p.2: 5-8). Moreover, Movant Gerner,
representing both himself and all of the other Movants at bar,
expressly holds himself out as a State Bar Court specialist and
"ethics" advisor. (Gerner Decl. para.3). Notwithstanding this, Movants
ignore, materially omit and blatantly misrepresent the applicable law.
Rules of Procedure 151 (a) and 152 provide, inter alia, that ". . .
any party may issue subpoenas" (emphasis added) for both discovery and
trial purposes. Indeed, Respondent
researched this issue before proceeding with discovery herein (Berry
Decl. 4). 
Notwithstanding, out of an abundance of caution, and contrary to
Movants express misrepresentations to this Court, each of the SDT's at
bar was obtained from the clerk (Rule 151(c)) and duly signed by the
Clerk of the State Bar Court (Berry Decl.5). Furthermore, C.C.P.§ 1987
(a) provides, in pertinent part, that "the service may be made by any
person." Emphasis added. Respondent did not personally sign any of the
relevant SDTs.See generally, Respondent's Motion For Reconsideration
and/or Stay Filed August 30, 2001.
Each of the Movants are [currently] active members of the California
State Bar (Gerner, Kobrin, Paquette, Abelson, and Lenske Declarations
1). Each of the Movants is required to "maintain" their "current
office address and telephone number… on the official membership
records of the State Bar" (B&P Code § 6002.1(a)(1)) Respondent served
the SDTs upon 
Movants at their addresses "on the official membership records of the
State Bar. Movants have not denied that the addresses served are their
"office addresses" for State Bar purposes. Moreover, the law does not
contemplate the prospect that attorneys will avoid service of process,


and so obstruct or needlessly increase the cost of proceedings. They
are "officers of the court" (See generally, Rule of Procedure  6002.1
(c)).
Method and Place of Service of Notice on Attorney or Party:
The service may be personal, by delivery to the party or attorney on
whom the service is required to be made, or it may be as follows: (a)
If upon an attorney, service may be made at the attorney's office, by
leaving the notice or other papers in an envelope clearly labeled to
identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or with a
person having charge thereof. When there is no person in the office
with whom the notice or papers may be left for purposes of this
subsection at the time service is to be affected, service may be made
by leaving them between the hours of nine in the morning and five in
the afternoon in a conspicuous place in the office…" (C.C.P. Section
1011(a)).

Each of the SDT's were served in the requisite envelope. A copy of
each "clearly labeled" "envelope" is attached to each SDT as Exhibit
A. Each of the SDT's have proper proofs of service attached. Gerner's
SDT was left upon the desk of his receptionist. A secretary confirmed
the location was that of Mr. Gerner and that the receptionist's
location also was Mr. Gerner's. "Leave it on the receptionist's desk,"
she said. Donald Wager, Esq., said he was "expecting" the SDT and also
confirmed that Mr. Gerner's office was proximate, but that Mr. Gerner
was out of the office. The subpoena was left as permitted by CCP §
1011(a). Mr. Gerner confirms this, "I am informed and believe that it
[the SDT] was left at the reception at my 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard
office" (Gerner Decl. 3 (1:12-13)). Similarly, Sherman D. Lenske,
Esq., acknowledges that the SDT was left with his receptionist (Lenske
Decl. 2 (1:10-11)). Indeed, his receptionist, Ms. Penny Ward, stated
that Mr. Lenske would not be available and she was asked to
immediately bring the delivered envelope to his attention.


The Church of Scientology, as a matter of policy and practice,
actively avoids service of process. App.Ex.4.In 1977 the FBI targeted
the Washington, DC and Los Angeles offices of the Church of
Scientology. They seized documents confirming that the church had, and
was, engaged in the largest ever known criminal infiltration of the
United States government. Nine senior scientology executives were
convicted and jailed, including then number two church official Mary
Sue Hubbard.App.K, Ex.2, 3.United States v. Hubbard, (1979) 474
F.Supp.64; Movant Moxon & Kobrin's Kendrick L. Moxon was named as an
unindicted co-conspirator for attempted obstruction of justice in
connection with his provision of fake and forged handwriting exemplars
to the investigating FBI. App.I, Ex.13.It was just after these very
same events that 
Sherman D. Lenske became personal attorney to the head of the church,
L. Ron Hubbard, and set about preparing for Hubbard's death (with
several different wills and trusts) as well as preparing for
Miscavige's (the current leader of scientology) seizure of power and
takeover. Church of Spiritual Technology v. United States, (1992)
U.S.Cl.Ct. 713.
In 1982, Captain David Miscavige ('DM"), now "ecclesiastical" leader
of the church, 
headed a group of scientologists and lawyers in a project to ensure
that law enforcement raids would never again implicate the church in
criminal conduct. This project was named Mission Corporate Category
Sort-Out ("MCCS") At the same time, Church of Scientology of
California and the Guardian's Office ("GO") was replaced by Church of
Scientology International and the Office of Special Affairs ("OSA").
In essence, the plan was to insulate the church's criminal activities
behind the attorney-client privilege.  OSA would hire and pay
attorneys who would hire and pay private investigators .OSA
International ("OSA INT") has its principal offices at 

6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles, in the Hollywood Guaranty
Building. It is also officed in Clearwater, FL.  Lawyers Moxon,
Kobrin, Paquette, Drescher and Abelson actually work in the offices of
OSA at the Hollywood Guaranty Building (Berry Decl. 9) However,
Abelson and Drescher also maintain mail drops, which are their
designated offices for State Bar Act (B & P Code § 6002.1(a)(1).
Abelson expressly acknowledges receipt of the SDT at his "mailing
address" listed with the State Bar as his State Bar Act section
6002.1(a) office.
As explained above, Moxon & Kobrin maintain an "official" office
"front", for security and State Bar Act section 6002.1(a) purposes.
They take depositions there and the receptionist receives their
visitors and mail. Ms. Kobrin testifies herein that the SDT was
received at the Moxon & Kobrin address for State Bar Act section
6002.1(a) purposes by  "[t] he receptionist" (Kobrin Decl.2 (1:9-11)).
Significantly, and contrary to the implicit arguments of the Movants,
CCP § 10011(a) does not require that the "receptionist or person
having charge thereof" be expressly "authorized" to accept service.
Section 1011(a) only requires the document being served to be
"left…with…a person…or…in a conspicuous place in the office." Clearly,
the SDTs were brought to the attention of the Movants consistent with
the purpose of service, which is to provide notice. The Movants have
appeared with motions to quash. Significantly and fatally, there has
been no compliance whatsoever with the provisions of C.C.P.§2031
(f)-(k). For example, C.C.P § 2031 (f) (3) required Movants to include
a privilege log with their 20 day response under C.C.P. § 2031 (h). No
extension of time was sought under C.C.P.2031 (i).       Consequently,
Movants have waived "any objection to the demand, including one based
on privilege or on the protection of work product under Section 2018
and they cannot make the requisite showing for relief from their
default (C.C.P. § 2031(k)).
D. MOVANTS UNTIMELY MOTIONS MUST BE DENIED
Rule of Procedure 10 provides that "the rules in Title II [Rules 10 -
711] govern the 
procedure in all State Bar Court proceedings…," thus those rules
govern this proceeding. Rule 155(a) "governs all discovery and trial
subpoenas" including those at bar. Rule 155 (d)(1) further provides
that " [w] ithin five (5) court days after service of a subpoena under
this rule, any person or entity served with the subpoena may file a
motion with the State Bar Court to quash the subpoena." It is
undisputed that each of the SDTs was served, and that the five court
day period to move to quash expired, as set forth on Exhibit A:
No extensions of time have either been requested or filed for (Berry
Decl.12). However, requests for extensions and/or continuances were
expressly contemplated by Respondent's. SDTs (Exhibit A (p.2: 13-15)).
E.SERIOUS CRIME AND FRAUD IS BEING DIRECTED AT RESPONDENT.
  	There is overwhelming evidence that a large, long, convulated
criminal and fraudulent conspiracy is being perpetrated against
Respondent: Temporary App.; App., pp 4:8 - 12:18,Ex.17; App.B,
Ex.2&3;App.C, Ex.B; App.D, Exs.1-8, 11-33,37-46,49-50.The CSI v.
Fishman & Geertz defamation case was filed in connection with Time
magazine allegations that the Church of Scientology was involved in
murders, sucides and financial frauds.App.I, Exs.2, 3,5,7. Berry
prevailed over OSA, Moxon and Abelson in CSI v. Fishman &
Geertz.App.I, Ex.4. 


OSA was vengeful.App.D, Ex.30. Respondent had survived the long
scientology litigation learning curve and knew too much.App.F, Ex.C
40-50,147-151.Respondent also had to be eliminated ("destroyed") as an
available legal recourse for the Church's "enemies" and litigation
"targets". App.D, 34-36.The evidence is that OSA instructed Bowles &
Moxon/Moxon & Kobrin to retain private investigator Ingram to
investigate Respondent.App.D, Exs.8, 11,12,26.OSA's investigators
employ the Church's "Fair Game Policies and Practices" and all manner
of illegal activity.App.F, Ex.3, 62-146;App.I, Ex.8; App.K, Ex.4;
App.L, Ex.25A; App.M, Exs.2-3.The Church keeps evidence of its
criminal activities in Red Boxes.App.F, Ex.C,  77-146;App.C, Ex.C;
App.E, Exs.A&B; App.I, Exs.1-3; App.I, Exs.1-7; App.M, Exs.2-3.This
investigation led directly to the First Cipriano Declaration.App.D,
Ex.1.It was the basis of the Berry v. Cipriano /Barton /Miscavige
(Moxon/Abelson/Ingram) consolidated lawsuits.App.F, Exs.1-3.Count Ten
of the Notice of Charges herein alleges that this consolidated lawsuit
was vexatious and frivolous! Yet, the defamatory publications continue
forever on the Internet.
 There is testimony that the "investigation" engaged in the
obstruction of justice, extortion, subornation of perjury,
solicitation of clients, blackmail, bribery, business relationship
with clients, non-waivable conflicts of interest, paying for perjury,
false criminal complaints, false state bar complaints, etc., etc.,
etc.Temp.App.AA; App.A; App.B; App.C, Ex.B; App.D, Exs.17-21, 27,
32-33.For example, the First Cipriano Declaration was perjury and
obstruction of justice obtained through extortion.App.A; App.B,
Exs.1-3; App.D, Exs.2, 3.Moxon, Abelson and OSA have distributed the
defamatory statements as alleged in the Berry consolidated defamation
case.App.A, p.4: 8-12:18,Ex.17; App., Ex.8-12, App.F, Exs.1, 2,3  155-
237.The documentary 


Evidence establishes the role of Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Abelson,
Drescher, Byrnes, Wager and Gerner in the seven year convoluted
octopus- like conspiracy of fraud and crime upon the Respondent and
the Courts before which he and his clients properly sought redress for
the wrongs the Church, OSA and these Movant lawyers had
perpetrated.App.A, Exs.1-17; App.B, Exs.1-3; App.C, Ex.B; App.D,
Exs.5-29, 31-33,37-46,49-50;App.F, Exs.1-3; App.G, Ex.3; App.J, Ex.
[5A]-7(F.R.Civ.P.Rule 60(b) Motion and
Exhibits);App.L,Exs.1-11B,14A,14B. Amazingly, this Church and its
lawyers have regularly engaged in this incredible litany of crime:
App.C, Ex.C; App.D, Ex.47; App.I, Exs.1-3, 10-12;App.K, Ex.1-7; App.L,
Exs.1-7, 25A;App.M, Ex.2, 3. Even Federal Judges have complained of
Scientology harassment in cases involving Moxon and his cohorts.App.D,
Ex.2 (attached press report). This is not an isolated event. American
Lawyer, Scientology's War Against The Judges, 1976.Indeed, judicial
misconduct occurred in the underlying consolidated Berry cases.App.G,
Ex.7.With the newly acquired evidence, the matter is being pursued.
F. MOVANTS HAVE WAIVED THEIR ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE CLAIMS.
	Any attorney work product claims have been waived for a number
of reasons. Judge Lachs opined that the crime-fraud exception applied
to any attorney client privilege claims by the Movants because of the
conduct engaged in and the inter-locking relationships between the
conduct of the culpable counsel. Lodged Wager Depo.35: 3-5
-134:20-135:15. The Hurtado case and the Berry v. Cipriano cases are
intertwined. See generally, section G below and TempApp.AA. In
addition, Movants have totally and fatally failed to provide a 20-day
written response and privilege log as mandated by C.C.P.§ 2031 (f)
-(k). No extensions of time were 

requested. Berry Decl.12. Indeed, C.C.P.2031 (k) specifically provides
that: "if a party to whom an inspection demand has been directed fails
to serve a timely response to it, that party waives any objection to
the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for
Work Product under Section 2018." Emphasis added. Moreover, Cipriano
has waived his attorney-client privilege. He implicitly did that in
connection with App.B, Exs.1-3.Furthermore, he testified for two days
in deposition and was cross-examined by Movants Moxon and Paquette.See
generally, App.A, Exs.1-11.Cipriano's waiver cannot be clearer and
thus abrogates Movants specious and baseless attorney-client privilege
claims.
G. MOVANTS HAVE WAIVED THEIR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT CLAIMS.
 As explained in the preceding subsections, Movants' have fatally
failed to comply with the mandatory procedural pre-requisites to their
motions. However, they have also waived their attorney work product
objections for a further reason. Applicable law provides that the
attorney client and work product privileges are waived by disclosure
and production. The important Ingram Investigations file has already
been produced by Moxon's co-counsel in the Berry cases, Gary Soter,
Esq.App.K, Exs.8, 9.Berry Decl.para.21.
H.THE SUBPOENAS SEEK PERMISSIBLE DISCOVERY.
	The attached Berry declaration provides the requisite detail
as to why the discovery sought is relevant, necessary and adequately
specific and detailed. Berry Decl.  6,13-18. Moreover, the purpose of
the mandatory "meet and confer" provisions are to require attempted
pre-filing informal resolution of the complaints and arguments that
Movants address for the very first time by their pending motion
instead of in accord with the provisions described 

in subsection B above. If they had done so then many of the alleged
issues, however bogus, could have been worked out. Berry Decl.12.For
example, the Lenske claims run counter to the findings of the United
States Claims Court in Church of Spiritual Technology v. United
States, (1992) 26 Cl.Ct.713.According to that decision, Lenske holds a
pivotal position within CST and the Church generally. He has enormous
tax and fiduciary responsibilities. They appear to have been breached,
at least in relation to the conduct outlined in Temp.App.AA, App.A-C.
	Movant's reliance on Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court,
(1997) 53 Cal.App.216, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 567, is misplaced. First, it is
factually distinguishable. The Calcor SDT referred to "all gun mounts"
which were a major portion of the Rockwell Division business. The
instant SDT is limited to documents involving Respondent, his defined
associates and other identified persons. The documents are "described
with reasonable particularity". A "meet and confer" could have
resolved many or all of Movant's express issues. Furthermore, the
"definitions" section is not "abusive" in the Calcor sense. There the
court held that the particular definitions section was, in context,
abusive." The statute does not expressly prohibit the practice of
expanding on categories in this manner." Id.223. In any event, this
court need not reach Movants legal arguments at all. In the absence of
timely filing their motion, after meeting and conferring, providing a
timely 20 day response and privilege log, Movants have waived any
right to even be proceeding in the manner herein or at all herein.
//
//
//


I. THE CRIME FRAUD EXCEPTION TO THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE APPLIES.
The crime fraud exception is set forth in section 956 of the Evidence
Code: "There is no privilege under this article if the services of the
lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or
plan to commit a crime or a fraud." Nowell v. Superior Court, (1963)
223 Cal App.2d 652,658,36 Cal.Rptr.21. In other words, the privilege
is a shield and not a sword. The privilege cannot be perverted so as
to make it safe to seek legal assistance to perpetrate a crime or
fraud, as happened here.Temp.App.AA, App.A, B, C, etc. For example,
the identity of persons who have knowledge of relevant facts and who
may be potential witnesses are outside the scope of both the
attorney-client and work product privilges. Furthermore, it does not
permit defense counsel to secrete physical evidence which his or her
client has given to him or her. People v. Lee, (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d
514,524,83 Cal.Rptr.715; People v. Superior Court (Fairbank), (1987)
192 Cal.App.3d 32,34,237 Cal.Rptr.158.
The client's intent is pivotal to the crime fraud exception. The
attorney does not have to be aware of the planned fraud. Freedom Trust
v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies (1999 C.D.Ca.) 38 F.Supp.2d
1170,1171.The crime fraud exception merely requires a prima facie
showing that the lawyer's services were sought and obtained to enable
or aid someone in committing or planning to commit a crime or fraud.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Superior Court, (1997) 54
Cal.App.4th 625,645; citing BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior
Court, (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240,1262.A prima facie showing is one
which will suffice for proof of a particular fact unless contradicted
and overcome by other evidence. In other words, 


evidence from which reasonable inferences can be drawn to establish
the fact asserted, i.e., the fraud. BP Alaska.199 Cal.App.3d at
1240."Evidence Code 956 does not require a completed crime or fraud.
It applies to attorney communications sought to enable the client to
plan to commit a fraud, whether successful or not." BP Alaska, 199
Cal.App.3d at 1263.The exception is applied in a variety of ways. For
example, in BP Alaska, BP Alaska Exploration ("BPAE") asked both its
in-house counsel and its outside counsel to assist in an investigation
to respond to a letter from Nahama & Weagant Company ("NAWC") asking
why Nahama had been cut out of an exploration agreement. NAWC filed
suit and propounded discovery to BPAE regarding it's investigation of
NAWC's claim, including the reports and communications between BPAE
and its counsel. NAWC argued that these attorney-client communications
were used in the preparation of letters sent to NAWC which contained
misrepresentations. The Court of Appeal concluded that NAWC had made a
prima facie showing that BP Alaska sought its attorney's services to
assist in the commission or planning of a fraud.
Here, just as in BP Alaska, the record contains prima facie evidence
that the Church of Scientology, and /or its agents, retained the
services of Moxon & Kobrin, Eugene Ingram, Donald Wager, William
Drescher, Elliott Abelson, Michael Gerner, David Chodos/Simke Chodos,
Thomas Byrnes and others as part of Scientology's continuing campaign
to manufacture false statements to use against Respondent to destroy
him, both personally and professionally. Lodged Depo.Transcript of
Donald Wager; Temp. App.AA; App. and Exhibits 1-17; App.B; App.C;
App., Exs .8,11,12,17,19-21,26-28,3345,49-50;App.E; App.F, Exs.1-3;
App.G, Ex.3; App.J, Exs.5-7; App.K, Exs.8, 9; App.L, Exs.1-44; App.M,
Ex.1.


IV.CONCLUSION.
	For all of the foregoing reasons, and in the interests and
furtherance of justice, the Court must deny the pending motions and
order the requested inspection and production of documents to
immediately proceed in accordance with the contents of the SDTs served
on the Movants herein.

Dated: August 31,2001                          Respectfully Submitted,


___________________________
GRAHAM E. BERRY













DECLARATION OF GRAHAM E. BERRY

I, Graham E. Berry, declare and state as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice law before all of the
courts of the States of California and New York, the State of New
South Wales in the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of New
Zealand. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and
if called upon, would so testify thereto.
2. This declaration is filed in connection with my opposition to the
pending eight motions to quash service of subpoenas duces tecums
herein.
3. (A) I have filed Appendices of Trial Exhibits marked A-M and
Temporary Appendix AA.I have also lodged the original SDTs and a copy
of the Wager deposition transcript in which he admits (in essence) to
paying for testimony, etc. The filing of trial exhibits was discussed
in the first Status Conference herein. Because I cannot afford
unnecessary (even any) expense, I can only file these once .The filing
and hearing dates on the Movants motioned required more haste and a
few errors in connection with the compilation of trial exhibits. Also,
because of the discovery dates, trial dates, motions to quash, etc. I
have been unable to place those exhibits in color-coded three ring
binders as I had intended. Movants Moxon & Kobrin continue to use the
litigation process to harass and pre-occupy me in Barton v. Berry and
in Jeavons v. Church of Scientology International. Most recently, such
conduct continued yesterday.
(B) For example, yesterday, I wrote the following letter to Movants
Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette.



GRAHAM E. BERRY
3384 McLaughlin Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone/Fax: (310) 745-3771 (Call First for Fax)

grahameb@aol.com

August 29, 2001

By Facsimile (213) 487-5385

Ava M. Paquette, Esq.
Moxon & Kobrin
3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90010

Re: Jeavons v. CSI Judgment Debtor Examination(s).

Dear Ms.Paquette:
This will confirm personal service, upon you, of a deposition subpoena
and $45.00 attendance fee, in the matter of State Bar v. Berry. You
responded: "Is this for my deposition? Why did I expect this?" You
went on to add that you had done nothing wrong. I said if you
seriously believe that you should be going back to law school. I said
it was a fact that you had engaged in wrongful conduct and I was
seeking Federal intervention and filing complaints in the other
jurisdictions the wrongdoing attorneys are admitted. You said you
would tell your attorney I had threatened you. I told you I had not.
The facts were the facts.
You then said I was in a lot of trouble with the State Bar and that I
would be in even more if I did not proceed with the Judgment Debtors
examination. I told you that I would be moving to vacate the
underlying cases. You said I could not. I said that the State Bar
Court, after hearing what had occurred and of my inability to pay
sanctions, had suggested I move to vacate the underlying judgments and
orders. You denied that had or would happen. The supervising judge did
so suggest it! I am so moving.                             


 The judgment debtor exam was focused on whether I had received
financial assistance from your antagonists such as the German
government (and whether I was to go back and provide further advice),
Bob Minton, Stacy Brooks, Michael Pattinson and Jesse Prince. Who had
approved my public assistance, etc? Indeed, you said that your
attorney had told you I had filed 5,000 different documents with the
State Bar. You questioned me on how I could afford to defend myself
before the State Bar and who had loaned me money so I could provide
copies of exhibits to the State Bar.
Finally, at 2-30pm, when you could no longer interfere with the
preparation of my opposition to your State Bar motion to quash, etc.
you confidently and smirking stated that your attorney would quash the
deposition subpoena served on you personally that morning. Is there
some concealed and corrupt basis for such confidence in what the State
Bar and State Bar Court will do or will not do at your attorney's
behest? Certainly, the mounting circumstantial evidence suggests that
.Not only to myself but to the tens of thousands of people who are
following these proceedings via the Internet.

Very truly yours,

                        	Graham E. Berry

(c) Yesterday, at this judgment debtor examination, Ms.Kobrin also
advised me that she was going to seek the turnover of my domain names
scientologylitigation.com, org and .net. Furthermore, that she would
be seizing my few remaining household accessories including posters,
ornaments, art, etc.all within the bankruptcy exemption. Last week,
despite Ms.Kobrin's continuing attacks upon me in bankruptcy court, my
bankruptcy was discharged. Even if I successfully oppose her efforts
to seize my last remaining possessions and to try and force me into
the ranks of street-living homeless, she will have succeeded as a
matter of Fair Game-forcing me to divert attention, time and
resources. The Scientologists also define this as 



Developed Traffic or Dev-T. It could be loosely described as creating
unnecessary but burdensome work for others to do.
(d) In January this year, Ms.Kobrin seized my ailing old vehicle in
connection with the unpaid sanctions at issue herein. She represented
to the court, under oath, that it was worth approx.$8,300.Blue book
value was only $1,900.The vehicle was sold for $900.00.The Church
received no proceeds but that was not the purpose of the seizure and
is not the purpose of Fair Game.
4.I did not personally any of the SDTs at issue herein. After the
Initial Status Conference herein, on July 16,2001, I enquired of both
Ms.Goldade and the Clerk's Office of my right to serve discovery as a
party on inactive status. They each told me to check the rules. I
checked the rules. Specifically, I noted the provisions of Rules 151
and 152.
5.In accordance with the provisions of Rule 152(c), I requested the
State Bar Court's office in San Francisco to send me a set of signed
subpoenas for me to issue herein. In addition, I personally obtained
further supplies of duly signed Subpoenas Duces Tecums and appearance
only subpoenas from the State Bar Court's office in Los Angeles.
Samples of such originals are attached hereto as Exhibits C and D.
After service, I signed the proofs of service. A sample copy of that
proof of service is attached hereto as Exhibit D.There is no
resemblance between the signatures on the face of the subpoenas and
the proofs of service. I have 'lodged' the original copies of the SDTs
with this Court.
6.If unable to proceed with the service of discovery herein, my
constitutional rights of due process and equal protection herein will
be prejudiced and I will be unable to properly present a defense at
trial herein. In the each of the relevant underlying cases, either my
clients of myself 



were effectively and improperly denied discovery. 
7.I can conceive of no proper or explicable basis for the moving third
party's material misrepresentations to the Court, that I personally
signed the eight Subpoena Duces Tecum in connection with the eight
pending motions to quash and for protective orders.
8.At the August 20,2001 Status Conference herein I advised the Court
that I did not personally sign the subpoenas at issue and that such
was readily apparent from a comparison of the face of the subpoenas
and the proofs of service. At the Status Conference I advised the
Court I would file one opposition memorandum, not to exceed 30 pages,
to the pending different motions to quash.
9.It is very difficult to personally serve certain of the Movant's.
That is why I took the opportunity to personally serve Ava Paquette
when she took yet another Judgment Debtor examination of me yesterday.
Over the past 26 months, Moxon & Kobrin have participated in approx.
19 days of deposition, Rule 2001 and Judgment Debtor examinations.
They have always blocked all my discovery, and that of certain
clients, even though they were to be parties in certain of the
underlying cases. Indeed, there is documentation that attorney
Paquette has actively avoided service.App.G, Ex.3, ex. E, G.The Church
of Scientology Office of Special Affairs, where the actual offices of
Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Drescher and Abelson are located, have
written policies intended to avoid the service of process or
writs.App.G, Ex.4.
10.Movants claim that the definitions and instructions section of the
SDTs is too long and the documents requested too expansive. Respondent
refers the Court to Appendix G, Ex.1.It was 


propounded upon Respondent in the underlying Berry consolidated cases.
It was one of thousands of interrogatories and document demands that
many of the Movants used to overwhelm me into a discovery default
there. It is little different to the SDT that Movants now seek to
quash. Surely, sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander?
11.In preparing Attachment A, I researched the applicable code and
rule provisions and specified them in the request. Thus, I put the
Movants on actual notice of the "meet and confer", written response,
privilege log and other requirements. I anticipated a lengthy meet and
confer process and provided for the dates to be extended. See SDT,
Attachment A, page 2,lines 1-15.
12.Movants never requested a Meet and Confer meeting at all or by any
means. Movants have not filed any written response or privilege logs
as required by CCP section 2031 (f)-(k). They made no requests for
extensions of time even though I anticipated such and would have
extended such professional courtesy. Had a "meet and confer" process
occurred I am sure we could have resolved many of Movants stated
objections as to categories and specific documents being sought. If
they did not have documents at all, relating to particular categories
or to particular people, the process would have been simple: "no
responsive documents." In this way, court intervention would not have
been necessary or would have been more limited. However, it would have
been less painful, time-consuming and expensive for me. That is
contrary to OSA's Fair Game Policies and Practises.Appendix F, Ex.3,
para.77-146, pp.179 (46:2)- 211(78:2)."The purpose of the [Law] suit
is to harass and discourage rather than to win..." One could
substitute [State Bar Complaint/State Bar Court motion]. App., Ex.3,
para.86, p.183 (50:13-25).


13.It is not widely known that the Church of Scientology has its own
lexicon. They call non-scientologists "wogs" and they know this court
as a "Wog" court. They re-define many "Wog" words. They have their own
dictionary's setting forth their own special meanings. In my extensive
litigation experience with the scientology enterprise, I have found
that they do not respond to discovery requests that are not
sufficiently specific or consistent with their own lexicon. For that
reason I added, as I have before, Definition B.It uses scientology
terms for the documents sought. The Movants claim that is nonsense.
That is a lie. Appendix E, Exhibit A proves it. Appendix A is the
examination under oath of a former OSA intelligence operative. It is
called the Intelligence Officers Hat Pack. It contains his job
description, training, practices and policies. These include: App.E,
Ex.6 [the OSA Org Board]; Ex.7 [How to steal other peoples frequent
flyer miles and invest. communications]; Ex.10 [Volunteer
Minister/Investigations Officer training manual, including espionage,
covert ops, noisy investigations, security infiltration, on waging
war, BATTLE TATICS (p.138), BLACK PROPAGANDA (p.145), On War
(p.149),]. Ex.11 is the document that describes how the volunteer
minister/investigation officers are going to handle "attackers" and
how their productivity/success/failure statistics will be calculated
for job performance and punishment purposes.Ex.12 is an 'Invest Drill'
or set of staff instructions regarding the employment of private
investigators through OSA lawyers.Ex.12 and 13 are two OSA
investigation check lists. Ex.15 is the Church of
Scientology/OSA/Moxon & Kobrin "Manual of Justice." Pages 183 and 184
describe the purpose of scientology investigations: " when we need
someone haunted we investigate." Page 186 describes the punishment of
church critics who have been driven into bankruptcy, suicide and
mysterious 

Death.Ex.16 is a Church of Scientology form for the preparation of a
BATTLEPLAN. p.189.Ex.17, p.191 states that the church's "attackers"
have "appointed {the Church] their executioners."Ex.17, p.185 defines
Black Propaganda. The seven-year campaign to defame, discredit and
destroy Respondent relied heavily upon Black Propaganda. For example,
Abelson's letter to my parents.App.A, Ex.17.The Esquire Magazine
article, App., Ex.30.The CAN Reform Group publication [Barton, Chait,
Shaw], App., Ex.31. Moxon's Declaration and the OSA letter to Hon.
David Caygil.App.D, Ex.26, 26A, 26B.The history detailed in App.,
Ex.3, para.152 (p.235)-para.237 (p.253). Page 204/205 describes how
the Intelligence files are to be kept.Ex.18, p.213, describes how to
engage in Black Propaganda of critics: " In modern times there is no
such check on Black Propaganda." Ex.17, p.217 describes the process of
Dead Agenting critics. OSA, Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Wager, Abelson,
et al.engaged in this Hubbard technology against Respondent.App.F,
Ex.3, 152-137(p.235-253). See also page 222-225.On page 223: "PR IS
OVERT, INTELLIGENCE IS COVERT." Page 227 further describes
"Intelligence Actions." On page 230 TARGETS, DEFENSE mandates
"obliterating" all non-scientologists and taking over the news media,
key political figures, international finance, etc. See page 231.Pages
233-235 further deal with BATTLE TACTICS: " one cuts off…funds,
connections…he raids and harasses." Pages 236-238 describe how the
Church's Public Investigations Section is to operate. Pages 243 to 317
deal with the handling of Suppressive Persons such as myself and lists
of Church of Scientology enemies (out of date). Since the death of
Hubbard the scientology enterprise cannot change any of these
policies. Indeed, these forgoing exhibits from App. A, Ex. were issued
less than ten years to Frank Oliver. He will be 

designated as an expert witness in connection with these Intelligence
Activities by certain of the Movants, against me and in connection
with the allegations of Moxon's involvement in church related criminal
conduct that concern the Pattinson case allegations herein. Jesse
Prince is also expected to testify to relevant matters set forth in
App.Ex.6 and 7, App., Ex.2, 3, and also an attempted attorney midnight
visit to a presiding judge in a Los Angeles Federal Court case. This
is relevant to the operative allegations in the Pattinson cases that
are part of Count Ten herein.
14.Movants make blanket objections to the persons identified in the
SDTs.However, these are primarily the people who were listed in
underlying pleadings and discovery responses as having been contacted
by private investigators, certain of Movants, other church
investigators, etc. in connection with the obtaining and dissemination
of the underlying defamations in the Berry cases, the allegations in
the Pattinson and Jeavons cases, the obstruction of justice that
occurred during the underlying cases. Many of the Movants blocked and
obstructed the same discovery there as part of the seven-year campaign
I describe and evidence in Temporary Exhibit AA.Most of the Appendix D
exhibits will be ultimately cross-referenced on the Temporary Exhibit
AA R.I.C.O. chronology. Many of the people identified in the SDTs are
also identified in Berry v. Miscavige (Moxon, Abelson, Ingram). App.,
Ex.3, para.323 (pp.234-235) App.G.Ex.3, para. 151,152,p.140, 141. This
was in relation to the activities of Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Abelson,
Drescher, Wager, Brynes and Gerner.This is generally described in:
Temporary Appendix AA; App. A; App.; App., Ex.2; App., Ex.1-50, App.,
Ex. A, para.2-37, pp.0005-0019; App., Ex.2, para.2-52, pp.0082-0103;
App., Ex.3, para.152-237, pp.235-253.


15.The Church of Spiritual Technology ("CST") was a defendant in both
the underlying Berry and Pattinson cases.App.F; Exs.3-5.It is
specifically the subject of Counts Eight and Ten pending herein.
Accordingly, the litigation of claims against CST is part of the
Movants complaints to the State Bar. The legal and factual merits in
connection with the naming of CST are therefore at issue herein in
connection with Count Ten and the related Counts in the Notice of
Charges herein. The inter-relationships of the parties are described
in App., Ex.3; paras.2-30.CST is specifically described in App., Ex.3,
para.7, p.146 (p.13:8). Sherman Lenske is specifically identified as
one of its founders and special directors. It is also discussed in
Appendix I, Exhibit 16.In effect, Sherman Lenske, Esq. along with one
scientologist and two other non-scientology lawyers control the most
senior and powerful organization in the Scientology enterprise.
Ultimately, CST owns everything within the 150 or more separate
scientology corporations. Lenske is one of less than a handful who
control CST and perhaps own the entire Church of Scientology. It is a
necessary party for judgment collection purposes, alter ego purposes,
and for numerous matters relevant to the two Pattinson cases, which
are the subject of Count Ten herein. It brought a spurious but
successful SLAPP suit motion in the Pattinson case, relying heavily
upon the vexatious litigant motion before Judge Williams. Far from
being a n occasional corporate counsel, Lenske participated in the
estate planning and death arrangements relating to L.Ron Hubbard, the
restructuring of the Church, the transfer of Church assets and other
matters actually pleaded within the Pattison case and now within Count
Ten and the related counts herein, at the insistence of certain of
these very same Movants.Appendix L, Ex.1-11B.Lenske has corresponded
with me before in connection with the mysterious 

circumstances of L.Ron Hubbard's death as I set forth in filings in
the L.Ron Hubbard Probate Court in 1997.These matters were directly
alleged in the Pattinson cases. For example, App., Ex.4, para.62 (a),
(c), (i), 114(f), 120.
16. The Discovery being sought of Movants is also relevant for the
following reasons:
A. The Pattinson cases.
(1)	The two Pattinson cases (Appendix F, Ex.4&5) are the subject
of Notice of Charges Counts Four, Eight and Ten herein. The Pattinson
cases are generally described and discussed in Appendix J, Ex.1, Ex.5,
6 and 10.The allegations are factually supported by the Declaration of
Michael Pattinson.App.J, Ex.2.Also see: App.; App.; Ex.4,
27,32,33,37;App.E, Ex. A; App. I, Ex.1-14, App.; App., Ex.1-7; App.,
Ex.32, 48(birthing abuses), 49 (ordered abortions), 50(scientology
corporate and government infiltration). Thus, legally the case was
pleaded on all fours, right down to the allegations and causes of
actions, with existing authorities and prior cases where damages of up
to $30 million had been awarded against the Church - for the same and
similar alleged conduct. Indeed, at least twelve prior cases had
decided most of Pattinson case allegations in favor of the Pattinson
situated party. Notwithstanding the State Bar is alleging that case
had no legal basis, was an unjust action and that Respondent should be
disbarred. It relies solely upon an erroneous Rule 11 Order. However,
the Rule 11 Order does not support the State Bars case.
(2)	The Pattinson cases were voluntarily dismissed after certain
of the Movants had waged
an abusive discovery blitzkrieg with a juggernaut of lawyers from
large firms from across the 

nation. Consistent with Fair Game, they "overwhelmed" Respondent and
his client(s) physically, emotionally and financially. Respondent was
deposed for nearly 14 days. Pattinson was deposed for nearly 10 days.
Thousands of interrogatories were ordered answered and carefully and
strictly organized productions of dozens of boxes of documents ordered
in the contemporaneous Berry cases. App., Ex.1.
(3)	Pattinson had sued Moxon alleging he had been part of the
Church fraud through the conduct of criminal activity on its behalf
contrary to the church misrepresentations of being as pure as the
driven snow and having ceased its criminal conduct.App.C, Ex.; App.;
App., Ex.1-12; App., Ex.5-9; App., Ex.2-3.The Rule 11 orders merely
held that there was an inadequate connection between Moxon and the
allegations of criminal conduct and that therefore Moxon (and only
Moxon) had been sued in bad faith.App.J,Ex.3-4.Of course, we now know
that at the very same time Moxon was engaging in criminal conduct, on
behalf of the Church, against Respondent. Temp. Appendix AA; App. A;
App.; App., Ex.5.
B.The Berry Cases.
(1)	The State Bar alleges that the Berry cases were also filed in
bad faith and without factual or legal merit. These are Counts One to
Three and Ten. It relies solely upon the flawed vexatious litigant
ruling. However, the vexatious litigant ruling was based upon the
Pattinson Rule 11 Order, the voluntary Berry dismissals and the Chait
discovery default order.App.D, Ex.2, 3;App.G, Ex.2-3, App., Ex.1-7.

(2)	On July 31,2001 I explained the flaws in the State Bars
adoption of the Movants arguments that the vexatious litigant ruling
meant the Berry cases necessarily meant the Berry cases lacked legal
and factual merit.

Dear Ms. Goldade and Mr. Hernandez:

Since writing my July 27, 2001, letter to you, I have been receiving
counsel from a practitioner among those most knowledgeable as to the
history and constitutional defects of C.C.P.§ 391-391.7 (the "
Vexatious Litigant Statute" or "the statute"). In short, the advice is
that I should file proceedings in the federal courts requesting
declaratory relief, preliminary injunctive relief and damages against
both the State Bar as an entity, and the directly involved individual
prosecutors who do not enjoy absolute immunity - as the LA DA has just
learned! Wolfgram expressly held that Taliaferro and Muller did not
immunize the statute from every form of constitutional attack.
Moreover, pro se non-lawyers/lay persons argued Taliaferro and Muller.
Indeed, the language in those two cases, relied upon by subsequent
cases, is mere dicta in decisions decided upon res judicata
principles.

Your tenth cause of action, and by extension because of the
fraudulently obtained costs and sanctions orders, your first, second,
fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth causes of actions, are based upon
the August 20,1999, CCP§391 ruling, that the cult retained then
Chairman of the Police Commission to appear and obtain from Judge
Williams: " . . . not because of what I did but the way I did it." In
fact, the Berry v. Cipriano, et al., cases survived both motions to
dismiss under the SLAPP statute, and demurrers, before the cult had
the case moved to their "friend" Judge Williams whose fiancée worked
for one of the principal defendants, as did counsel and to be named
[Civ.Code §1714.10] defendants Moxon and Abelson. The State Bar now
contends that it may prove its allegations - that the Berry v.
Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige (Moxon, Abelson and Ingram), the two
Pattinson cases, and the Jeavons case lacked any legal and factual
merit - with Judge Williams' vexatious litigant ruling, and that there
is no need for the State Bar Court to look behind and/or beyond Judge
William's non-appealable ruling.

I am only one of a significant number of California attorneys against
whom the CCP § 391 ruling has been obtained. To my knowledge, I am the
only one who has been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding
alleging that I am therefore guilty of filing litigation that lacks
legal and factual merit. A selective prosecution!






Furthermore, the vexatious litigant statute is misnamed. The statute
requires no showing that litigation was filed to "vex", "annoy" or
"harass" and there has been no such finding as against me. The statute
does not even require a showing that the subject litigation lacked
merit or that there was any "intent" or mens rea to commence and
maintain meritless actions. Subsequently, the statute deprives subject
citizens of basic constitutional, civil and human rights, preventing
people on the state (and by automatic inclusion federal [LR 27A])
vexatious litigant list, from obtaining a hearing on the merits of any
future law suit without first seeking permission to file from the
chief judge, hiring one's own attorney and posting security for the
other side's legal expenses (amounting to millions of dollars in most
cases involving the Church of Scientology).

The statute treats the filing and dismissal of litigation per se as a
wrong irrespective of constitutional rights and the merits of the
particular litigation. It therefore has a chilling impact contrary to
the provisions of the First Amendment. When S.B.2675 was introduced
and passed in 1990, the Judicial Council knew that its provisions were
unconstitutional (see Legislative Analysis for April 17, 1990
hearing). Since then, no California court has subjected the statute to
"strict scrutiny", or examined its constitutionality, even though the
statute deprives and restricts citizens in the exercise of their
fundamental right to petition for redress of grievances before the
courts. 

This basic right is not only enshrined in the United States
Constitution but has its genesis in the English Magna Carta.Indeed,
Wolfgram v. Wells Fargo Bank, 53 C.A.4th 43,61 Cal.Rptr.2d.694 (3rd
Dist. 1997) held that the statute must be subjected to strict scrutiny
and then failed to do so. This should not be surprising when one looks
to the special interest groups (which included the State Bar of
California) that were involved in the original enactment, and
subsequent amendment, of the statute. In fact, as one peels back the
layers of the statute, and its legislative history, it becomes
apparent that there was and is a dark underside of special interest
groups, including the California State Bar, which sought to enact the
statute, and then target certain individuals, whose litigation might
disturb certain powerful business, insurance, political and legal
interests.

Very briefly, and to touch upon only several of a multiplicity of
relevant constitutional and other legal issues, the statute creates a
sub-class of litigants and then treats the litigants in the different
classes differently. Thus, the statute not only denies Due Process but
also denies the Equal Protection of the laws. Among other things, it
can bar a meritorious case from being determined upon its merits but
permit an unmeritorious case to proceed, merely because the litigant
is rich enough to hire an attorney and/or post a bond to cover the
opposing side's legal fees and costs. Consequently, the statute is a
special law, creating special classes and imposing special penalties
upon a specific sub-group of pro se litigants despite the sanctions
and other bad faith litigation provisions that already address the
specific evil (perhaps the specific lawyer) targeted by the statute.
It is also an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.



In addition, the statute mandates the public wearing of a permanent
scarlet letter, badge of infamy, a stigma, forever destroying the good
name, reputation, and credibility of a particular pro se litigant in
any state or federal court without appeal or redress. In my own
particular case, that is in on top of the permanent publication of the
"highly defamatory" First Cipriano Declaration for which I initially
sought redress from the very same court which forever took my most
basic of civil rights. It also took the ability to practice my
profession, because of this one compromised judge, improperly refusing
to recuse himself. A judge who considered the overwhelming evidence of
criminality and fraud upon the court to be irrelevant and not worthy
of consideration. There is no right to appeal the statute's
application (even in my own egregious circumstances) and no right to
challenge the constitutionality of the statute in the state trial and
appellate courts. 

The fact that I have lost my right to defend my property (such as a
$28,000.00 debt) is evident from paragraph 3, page 5 of my July 27,
2001, letter to Ava Paquette, Esq. As a result of the cult's vexatious
litigant ruling (from a previously, severely and publicly disciplined
judge; Soliz v. Williams), I have only a very limited, conditional,
burdensome and expensive privilege to pursue these unpaid wages
acknowledged as being owed me by the creditor. Even if the finding of
purported facts by Judge Williams (and there were none besides what
Chaleff, Moxon, Rosen, Chodos and Soter alleged) is ever reversed on
appeal, my name upon the Judicial Blacklist is permanent. Indeed, it
constitutes a criminal conviction based upon alleged civil misconduct
with no means to purge the alleged wrongdoing, as in civil contempt.

In other words, the statute violates due process by treating civil
conduct as criminal contempt solely because of a failure to prevail or
a decision to dismiss irrespective of reasons or circumstances. The
statute does not require a showing of bad faith and excludes evidence
that a litigant acted in either objective and/or subjective good
faith, relied upon the advice of counsel, made an honest mistake of
fact (negating any intent to vex, annoy, or harass). In my own case,
the determination was made after denying me almost all discovery and
without any reference to the actual merits of the litigation then
before Judge Williams. The cult then had Judges Snyder and Minning
expressly rule on the basis of the prior "vexatious litigant" ruling
by Judge Williams.

Accordingly, and in connection with the defense of these proceedings,
I shall be serving a number of contention interrogatories addressed to
your factual and legal positions in connection with the statute and
its application to me by Judges Williams, Snyder and Minning. Of
course, t	here is the separate issue (both here and in
connection with a number of complaints soon to be filed) of the
misrepresentations to those judges, and the misconduct of counsel, as
well as at least one of those judges, which are separate matters for
determination herein and, perhaps, before the federal courts  - if I
accept the advice of counsel, and the offer of counsel, to proceed
with an action before the federal courts. This 




is described in paragraph one above. In that regard, a significant
number of people urge that this is the best available case with which
to challenge both the statute, and its application by the California
State Bar, before the Federal Courts - as well as to seek damages for
what has been done to destroy my career and livelihood since the
commencement of the proceedings herein (nearly two years ago) in
connection initially with the two now dismissed Hurtado v. Berry
cases.

Please promptly advise me whether you will stipulate to an abatement
of these proceedings, so that federal proceedings may be filed to
determine, among other things, the constitutional issues outlined
above.


Very truly yours,



Graham E.Berry


(3)	Clearly, the Berry cases are now known to have had
overwhelming merit. Indeed, there is no doubt that the First Cipriano
Declaration was perjury and its continuing widespread publication
therefore defamatory. Furthermore, as plead in Berry v. Miscavige
(Moxon, Abelson, Ingram) App., Ex.3, Moxon, Abelson, Ingram, et al.
engaged in the most horrendous abuses of conduct and
R.I.C.O.activity.Temp.App.AA; App. A: App.; App. C; App., Ex.2-50;
App., para.152-237.
C.The Non-Payment of Sanctions.
       Notice of Charges Counts Four, Five, Seven, Eight and Nine
charge Respondent with willful violations of court sanctions orders
totaling nearly $100,000.00 and owed primarily to Moxon and Barton.
Those orders were obtained on the basis of the wrongful conduct of
Moxon, Barton and others of the Movants.Temporary Appendix AA; App. A;
App., etc. The others were 


obtained as a direct result of the stress and overwhelm that Movants
employment of Scientology's Fair Game Policies wrought upon
Respondent, his practice, health and finances. He is now in
bankruptcy. He has no credit worthiness anymore. Certain of Movants
have used their ill-gotten sanctions orders to take his career, condo,
car and retirement prospects. As described above, even yesterday
Respondent was being harassed in deposition and now they Moxon,
Kobrin, Paquette and CSI announce they will take his Internet domain
names and last remaining ornaments, etc. At the Early Neutral
Evaluation Conference, Judge Marcus suggested I move to vacate all of
the underlying orders. However, since then Moxon & Kobrin have kept me
tied down opposing their unsuccessful summary judgment motion in
connection with the matters the State Bar alleges in Count Three
herein, and holding expressly in accord with Respondent's testimony
before the federal court. These pending motions, and preparation of
trial exhibits and organization of documents for yesterdays Paquette
deposition, have prevented the completion of Temp.Appendix AA which I
need to prepare in order to succinctly set forth the underlying
wrongful conduct and inability to pay the underlying sanctions orders.
I have just been discharged in bankruptcy. Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette and
CSI are harassing me through the Jeavons sanctions. They are
determined that I should not receive financial assistance (Movants Ex.
A) and appear frustrated that I am now receiving Food Stamps and may
receive general relief of $280 per month.Ms.Paquette is now pursuing
discovery as to how I can afford to participate in and defend these
State Bar proceedings. See para.3 (B) above. Since I filed for
bankruptcy protection, CSI, Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette and Barton have
spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation against me,
ostensibly in relation to alleged debts (the unpaid sanctions) of many
times less in aggregate amount, and probably never recoverable in
light of my current situation.
D.The Jane Scott Account.
Count Three of the Notice of Charges relates to " the Jane Scott
account." There is testimony that as soon as Movants had overwhelmed
in January-February 1999, and forced my discovery default and
voluntary dismissals, they sought to attach all of my moneys, personal
and clients. I was going to be absent with my parents. For reasons of
convienance, Jane Scott opened a "pass through" account. Later, it was
used to pay current trade creditors and thus enable me to continue
representing myself and my clients such as Pattinson and Henson
against Movants and their scientology clients. Barton, Moxon, Kobrin
and Paquette filed two adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court. They
alleged fraud. The State Bar alleges moral turpitude (even though I
was acting in the best interests of clients and in my own self defense
[see Church of Scientology v. Armstrong]). The Bankruptcy Court has
just denied the Barton (Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette) summary judgment
motion. In effect, it held that my testimony was truthful. I had only
sought to prefer current creditors to Barton, and applicable authority
held that that was not wrongful or fraudulent conduct. Furthermore,
the court commented upon Ms.Paquette numerous misrepresentations to
the Court. They mirrored the State Bar Count Three claim herein. The
same facts and the same or similar law will be determinative here.
Furthermore, the State Bar's contention that Barton is "a valid
creditor" is itself a justiciable issue herein.
//
//
//



E. The Jeavons Case. (Count Ten - "maintaining unjust actions")
(a) The Jeavons v. Church of Scientology International case arose out
of the German A.R.D.Television documentary: "the Dark Side of
Scientology." In particular, a helicopter facility over part of
Scientology's Hemet, California "Gold" desert base.App.D, Ex.48,
366-368.Also see, App.D, Ex.18. 'Scientology is Armed and Dangerous.'
In essence, Scientology quickly tracked the helicopter pilot, Robert
Jeavons.It filed a F.A.A. complaint seeking suspension of the pilots
license for allegedly flying too low. Jeavons believed that
Scientology was misrepresenting and falsely portraying the
photographic evidence. Furthermore, that the ground facilities were
not a "scientology school" but part of Scientology's prison or
concentration camp system: " the Rehabilitation Project Force" or
"RPF."App.D, Ex.18.Jeavons consulted with me. I also formed the belief
that Scientology was misusing the F.A.A. complaint process with false
evidence to use Jeavons as an example to other pilots not to fly over
or near their high security desert base(s). However, I was too busy to
assist him because of the Berry and Pattinson cases. I did agree, in
order to preserve the expiring statute of limitations, to draft a pro
per complaint that I would walk through the filing process for
Jeavons. Moxon immediately appeared and filed a SLAPP motion
(C.C.P.§425.16). Moxon sought sanctions from me for representing
Jeavons and filing the complaint, albeit in pro per. He argued, in
effect, that the litigation privilege (Civ.Code § 47(b)) insulated the
FAA complaint from civil liability irrespective of however bad,
abusive and improper the Church's motives and purposes in filing the
F.A.A.complaint were! The trial judge commented that it was a tough
decision but on balance he had too go with the broad "petition
activity" privilege set forth in Civil Code Section 47(b). 
Sanctions of $3,023.00 in sanctions were awarded to the Church. Only
yesterday, as set forth above, Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette were using
this sanctions order to interfere with and prejudice the preparation
of my response herein.
(b) The Jeavons sanctions decision genuinely surprised me. Only twelve
months earlier, in Berry v. Cipriano, L.A.S.C. superior Court Judge
Hiroshige had denied demurrers and Moxon's motion to dismiss the Berry
v. Cipriano, et al. cases under C.C.P.§425.16.On that occasion, Moxon
unsuccessfully argued that the procurement and [still continuing]
publication of the First Cipriano declaration was immunized under
C.C.P.§ 425.16 by all of the [false] criminal and state bar complaints
they had filed as a result, and the press conference they had called
to unsuccessfully pressure an L.A.P.D. prosecution of me - on the
basis of the false First Cipriano
Declaration.App.F,Ex.3,paras.295-297.Pages 288 -289. After Judge
Hiroshige's unfavorable ruling, Moxon had the Berry v. Cipriano case
moved to Judge Alexander Williams who conducted a "kangaroo" vexatious
litigant hearing.App.B, Ex.2, para.48, page 17,App.M, Ex.1.In
addition, I was very familiar with Moxon's further unsuccessful use of
C.C.P.§ 425.16 in Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim, 42
Cal.App.4th. 628, 648-649, 49 Cal.Rptr. 2d 620 (1996.
F.The Kaleel Case.
(a)	Count Five of the Notice of Charges alleges that I engaged in
current actual conflicts of interest. I agreed to represent John
Kaleel less than one week before a complex partnership fight where his
previous counsel had withdrawn. As a legal malpractice defense
attorney I had often had to step into such last minute complex trials,
which we would often call " barn burners." The case was Hollywood At
The


 El Rey Theater v. Kaleel.The trial lasted six weeks. It had nothing
to do with either the Church of Scientology or any of its counsel.
(b)	At the same time I was still counsel for Factnet (Fight
Against Coercive Tactics) in a Federal Court copyright case in Denver,
Colorado. Scientology (Religious Technology Center) was the plaintiff:
RTC v. Factnet, Wollersheim, and Penny. in I had just filed a Petition
in the L.Ron Hubbard Probate case in San Luis Obispo Superior Court.
Among other things, it dealt extensively with Movant Sherman Lenske
who engaged in written correspondence with me at the time. As soon as
the L.Ron Hubbard Probate Petition was filed, Scientology commenced
settlement negotiations in the RTC v. Factnet case and three months
later the case did settle. It was during the settlement talks in RTC
v. Factnet (where I was not directly involved) that I agreed to handle
the Kaleel defense.
(c)	Moxon attended the Kaleel trial on a number of occasions. At
all times during the Kaleel trial, the Church of Scientology Office of
Special Affairs ("OSA") had a representative in the Kaleel case
courtroom. For the first few sessions the OSA rep did not appear to
know or consort with opposing counsel Bradley Brook, Esq. However,
very soon after they began arriving, talking and leaving together.
Very quickly things began happening, which prompted a fear of
scientology jury tampering. There was evidence of various wrongful,
criminal and tax fraud conduct on the part of Bradley Brook's client.
To the surprise of the judge and myself, the jury returned an
illogical and inconsistent verdict against Kaleel.That

 was after Judge Workman had questioned the jury as to whether any
Church of Scientology representatives were, in effect, engaged in jury
tampering. 
(d)	After the Kaleel trial jury had been discharged, we
interviewed some of the jurors. Several refused to be interviewed
saying to me and my client: "you're a liar and so is he." I was
surprised but thought nothing of it. Only recently have I reflected on
the fact that Scientology representatives almost always "confront" me
with the charge "Berry's a liar", "you're a liar Berry." In the
scientology lexicon, this is an example of "crim mind" or the
"criminal mind." This is to accuse the Scientology opponent of what
the Church of Scientology is guilty of itself! It seems to work.
(e)	As a result of the Kaleel trial judgment, even after
remittitur, Kaleel declared bankruptcy. The Kaleel family loan to the
Hollywood at the EL Rey Theater was wiped out by the inconsistent jury
judgment. The Kaleel family wanted to sue to recover their
approx.$36,000.00.The statute of limitations was expiring. Kaleel also
persuaded the bankruptcy that Bradley Brook's client had engaged in
fraud and should be sued. The Bankruptcy Trustee (a senior bankruptcy
counsel) and his attorney agreed that I should represent both the
Estate and the Kaleel family. The Bankruptcy Trustee and his counsel
handled the motion to the bankruptcy court to have me appointed
Special Counsel to the Bankruptcy Trustee. Remuneration was never an
issue for me. I was outraged by the wrongs that had occurred. A
complaint by the Estate was filed against Bradley Brook's client. I
prepared a Kaleel family retainer agreement containing waivers of
conflict of interest. They lived in Australia. The Statute of
Limitations was expiring and I agreed to file the Kaleel family
complaint - while the family signed the retainer agreement, containing
the waiver of conflict of interest, and refunded the filing fee.
(f)	The Kaleel family failed to respond to my requests for
signature of the Retainer Agreement containing the conflict of
interest waiver and never refunded the filing fee. I took no
significant further litigation steps on their behalf. Furthermore, I
become so embattled and overwhelmed by the scientology/Movants
blitzkrieg in the Berry cases, Pattinson case, Hurtado v. Berry, etc.
that I did not take further significant steps on behalf of the
bankruptcy estate. In the late summer of 1999, I was overwhelmed by
what Movants had done before Judge Williams with the bogus vexatious
litigant ruling [App., Ex.1], the Pattinson case travesty and my
bankruptcy as result of the Pattinson, Berry and Jeavons matters, that
I had to exit most of my cases. Moxon & Kobrin even appeared in the
Anders v. Northwestern Mutual case. They had no client or attorney
interests there but inserted themselves to support and argue for the
discovery default sanctions that are the subject of the State Bars
Notice of Charges Count Nine. The State Bar pursues this Count even
though the sanctions were timely paid through my successor counsel.
(g)	As explained, after the Kaleel family failed to sign the
written waiver of conflicts of interest, I took virtually no further
steps in the Kaleel matters. Notwithstanding, Bradley Brook brought a
motion for sanctions against me for failing to respond to discovery
motions. I was overwhelmed by events, temporarily disabled by 


clinical and severe depression. I filed no opposition papers and took
no other steps in my own defense. A default sanctions motion was
obtained.
(h)	The State Bar now alleges that I owed a duty to a third party,
opposing counsels client, and that I continued in litigation " in
which the interests of the clients actually conflicted without the
informed consent of each client. Notice of Charges, Count Six,
para.30.All of the evidence is to the contrary.
(i)	I have recently learned that Moxon and the Church of
Scientology have rewarded Bradley Brook, Esq. well for whatever may
have occurred in the Kaleel Superior Court case in which Kaleel lost
everything! Bradley Brook, Esq. is now number two (second chair)
counsel for scientologist Reed Slatkin in the largest ever known
"ponzi" investment scam in U.S.history (see below). I believe that
significant amounts of the six hundred and fifty million dollar fraud
can be traced into the Church of Scientology and that it probably had
knowledge of the Slatkin scam and the source of monies the Church was
receiving from Slatkin.It is not dissimilar from other financial
frauds involving the Church of Scientology, both here and in Europe.
G.The Commingling Claim.
   By the spring of 1999, Movants and their clients litigation and
discovery abuse had virtually destroyed me. I was in "overwhelm",
"severe depression" and experiencing an emotional breakdown.
Accidentally, I deposited some client advance fees and costs into my
office bank account instead of first depositing them in my trust
account. Approx. $5,800.00 was involved. Immediately, apparently with
inside information, Moxon & Kobrin/Barton levied my office bank
account. I then realized that I had mistakenly paid the said advance
fees and costs into the office account .I filed a Claim for Exemption
on the express basis that the $5,800.00 were Client Monies that should
have been first deposited in a Client Trust Account, and then
transferred to the Office account as appropriate. The Court released
the Barton/Scientology levy and no client was prejudiced or suffered
any loss. The State Bar wrongly repeats baseless Wager/Gerner
allegations to the Bar - that the account was an undisclosed attorney
trust account containing personal monies, when no such claim was ever
made. The relevant motion papers expressly made clear that a portion
of the office account had briefly and mistakenly contained client
monies for fees and costs, that should have first gone into the Client
Trust Account before transfer to the Office account. I have
unsuccessfully offered to stipulate to a three-month suspension for
this mistake. The State Bar insists that there be a finding of Moral
Turpitude and either disbarment or a long period of suspension-just
what the Movants and Church of Scientology demand!
17.I believe that one reason Movants have so outrageously pressured
the filing of the Notice of Charges herein [App., Ex.1-11A] is to keep
me "benched" and unavailable professionally to church litigation
opponents. For example, in the Fishman-Geertz case I introduced
evidence as to how the Church was involved in various financial
frauds. Indeed, the Fishman securities class action fraud netted
Fishman approx.$1.3 million of which the church received approx.25%.
The
currently pending Slatkin fraud (involving dozens of wealthy
scientologists) is the largest known "ponzi" investment fraud in
U.S.history.There is a $650 million loss! The Church and Movants have
to keep me away from the Slatkin proceedings. Meanwhile, Spain is
currently seeking extradition of Rev.Heber Jentzch, the President of
Church of Scientology International. He was 


free on $1 million bail. Spain seeks a 60-year sentence against him
and other senior scientology officials in connection with financial
crimes. I deposed Rev. Jentzch on church related financial fraud and
crime in the Fishman case. The Church and Movants need these
proceedings to keep me unavailable to assist the Spanish Government. I
have previously provided the German Government with assistance
regarding the Church of Scientology. The German Government deems the
Church (in effect) to be a totalitarian, subversive, terrorist,
criminal and commercial enterprise. On each occasion I am flown to
Germany I am provided with German Security Police escorts to protect
me against agents of Movant's clients. Local L.A. law enforcement have
also warned me in connection with my safety at the hands of the
scientologists. Thus, for self-defense, I maintain a high Internet
profile. These matters are much discussed upon the Internet. App.,
Ex.42-47.Indeed; there has been much Internet and public protest over
the State Bars pursuit over these proceedings. For example, App.,
Ex.21 to 41.
18. In addition, these proceedings are intertwined with the
obstruction of justice in the recent Riverside County case involving
Keith Henson, as well as earlier Church of Scientology copyright and
trade secret litigation against Mr.Henson.The Church used the
deposition process in Hurtado v. Berry to try and manipulate Mr.
Henson's non-appearance and subsequent arrest while picketing. For
this, Mr. Henson was recently convicted of interfering with the
practice of a
Religion.Mr.Henson was sentenced to prison. He received information
that scientology operatives were spreading the word around the prison
to be that Henson was coming, and that he is a child molester. Henson
feared for his life and fled to Canada where his petition for asylum
is pending.


Consequently, as in all asylum cases, the Canada Government has
demanded that the U.S.State Department investigate 'what really went
down' with the scientology attorneys Abelson and Feffer and the
Riverside District Attorneys Office. Meanwhile, there are reports that
Sandee Oglivie, named on page 9:16 of Attachment A to the SDTs, has
been the subject of further Moxon obstruction of justice and witness
tampering in connection with Robert Cipriano [App., Ex.2, 3.]. Because
of Cipriano's new connections, there have been reports of Chinese
Government interest in aspects of all this. Consequently, I believe
that these proceedings are not only largely unfounded but are
maintained to harass me and keep me professionally unavailable to the
Church's litigation opponents. It is very difficult to find attorneys
to litigate against the Church.App.D, Ex.34-36.
19.Yesterday, at my continuing judgment debtor examination in the
Jeavons v Church of Scientology sanctions matter, Ms.Paquette asked
many questions regarding my communications with others involved in
scientology-related litigation and requests from European governments
for my specialist assistance. In particular, Ms.Paquette focused on
assistance and requests that I might have received from the Government
of Germany.
20.I believe that there is strong circumstantial evidence of
prosecutorial misconduct herein. Inter alia, the State Bar has
provided informal discovery of only some of its communications with
the 
Movants and Complainants herein.App.L, Ex.1-11A.The Bar has refused to
permit review of any
other communications claiming privilege. However, any such privilege
has already been waived by selective disclosure of App.,
Ex.1-11A.Furthermore, the overwhelming (not just prima facie) evidence
of crime -fraud in these proceedings should cause it to yield to the
interests of 

justice and full discovery of evidence and  'victim' communications,
as in any criminal prosecution.
21.Filed herewith as Appendix K, Ex.8 and 9 are copies of files
received from defendant Robert Cipriano's co-counsel, Gary Soter,
Esq., in Berry v. Cipriano. App., Ex.2, para.36, page 21(p.13). I was
with Mr.Cipriano when he received potions of his files (five boxes)
from former counsel Gerry Soter, Esq. in approx. July, 2000.App.K,
Ex.8 is the Moxon private investigator Eugene Ingram investigation
file (presumptively attorney work product privilege unless waived).
App., Ex.9 is also attorney work product presumptively privileged
unless waived. I was with Robert Cipriano when he went through his
files. At the time he provided me with App., Ex.8 and 9. Mr.Cipriano
unsuccessfully requested Judge Williams to order Moxon to return his
files on August 20,1999.App.M, Ex.1.All subsequent written requests by
Cipriano to Moxon for return of his files have been either refused or
ignored. However, for a brief period of time last summer, Moxon did
offer to let Cipriano "come to his office and collect the two boxes of
files". Two boxes! There should be dozens of boxes. Moxon & Kobrin
still refuse to turnover Cipriano's 
files, two years after being requested to do so.
22. Certain of the movements, and their clients/agents/employees have
submitted at least eight previous complaints to the California State
Bar alone. The Bar has investigated and dismissed each of these. Many
of the documents already submitted to the State Bar in connection with
those prior investigations are relevant to the discovery the bar seeks
herein. I have requested the State Bar to review previous exhibits
submitted in connection with those closed investigations. The State
Bar's written response is that it will not incur the expense of
accessing and reviewing the previously dismissed complaints and if I
wish the State Bar to review and consider any such documents I must
submit new copies. Many are voluminous and the copying expense would
be enormous. The State Bar access to storage cost would be/should be
minimal. Furthermore, on three occasions in the past six months,
senior State Bar Chief Trial Counsel have responded to three different
complaints involving these matters and Moxon, Kobrin and Abelson.On
each occasion the State Bar has written that it has fully investigated
all of these matters and reviewed all of the evidence and concluded
that Moxon, Kobrin, Abelson, etc.have engaged in no wrongdoing or
conduct violating the ethical rules it administers.
I declare under penalty of perjury according to the laws of the United
States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed this 31 st day of August 2001 at Los Angeles, CA.

_______________________
Graham E. Berry





















PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE

 	I, Graham E.Berry, certify and declare as follows:

	I am over the age of 18 years, I am an officer of this court
and I am the respondent herein. My business and personal address is
3384 McLaughlin Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90066.
           
            On August 31, 2001, I personally served the following
documents described as:
 
ERRATUM
RESPONDENT'S COMBINED OPPOSITION TO EIGHT SEPARATE MOTIONS TO QUASH
SUBPOENAS AND REQUESTS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS FILED BY THIRD PARTIES
MICHAEL G. GERNER, ET. AL., DECLARATION OF GRAHAM E.BERRY.
 	
            On the interested parties in this proceeding, addressed as
follows:
The State Bar of California                            Michael
G.Gerner, Esq.
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel                  10100 Santa Monica
Boulevard, Suite 800
Terrie L.Goldade, Esq.                                    Los Angeles,
CA 90067
Agustin Hernandez, Esq.
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299



              
          I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United States and the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct.

Executed on this 31st. day of August 2001, at Los Angeles, California.

     
__________________________
Graham E. Berry



From hkhenson@home.com Sat Sep 22 03:44:36 2001
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-04!supernews.com!upp1.onvoy!onvoy.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.lightlink.com!news2.lightlink.com
From: hkhenson@home.com (Keith Henson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: More Berry vs the Bar.
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 07:44:36 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
Lines: 536
Message-ID: <3bae40bf.97396946@news2.lightlink.com>
References: <3bad3f84.97082369@news2.lightlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.40.229
X-Original-Trace: 22 Sep 2001 03:44:02 -0400, 24.141.40.229
Xref: sn-us alt.religion.scientology:981157

On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 07:38:00 GMT, hkhenson@home.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:

GRAHAM E. BERRY (SBN 128503)                 
3384 McLaughlin Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 745-3771
Facsimile:  (310) 745-3772

Email: grahameb@aol.com

Respondent Pro Per



THE STATE BAR COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES

In the Matter ofGRAHAM EDWARD BERRYNo.128503A Member of the State Bar
)))))))))))))))))))))	Case No.: 99-0-12791RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND/OR STAY; DECLARATION OF GRAHAM E. BERRY AND
EXHIBITS THERETO.(Rules 244 & 300)Status Conference: September
24,2001,10:00 amSettlement Conference: October 2,2001,10:00 a.m.Trial
Date: December 11, 2001, 9:00 am
	)	












TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND ALL PARTIES OF RECORD HEREIN:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondent Graham E.Berry hereby moves this
Court for reconsideration of it's August 20,2001 Order herein and/or
for a Stay of these proceedings pending Interlocutory Review.
This motion is brought pursuant to State Bar Rules of Procedure Rules
224 ("Rule 224") and Rule 300 ("Rule 300") and upon the grounds that:
(a)	This court, in it's August 20,2001 order herein,
pre-determined' a 'significant issue' prior to receiving Respondent's
argument and evidence thereon;
(b)	The error is not readily remediable after trial;
(c)	The August 20,2001 order is erroneous as a matter of law
and/or fact.
(d)	The sworn evidence upon which the Court based its factual
finding has been recanted and the other declarant's testimony, in
effect, acknowledged by Movants as either perjurious or mistakenly
false.
This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the
annexed Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying
Declaration of Graham E.Berry and the Exhibits attached thereto.
This motion had previously been "received" but rejected by the Court
for service defects.
Dated: September _, 2001                     Respectfully Submitted,


___________________
                                                             Graham
E.Berry

Respondent Pro Per



MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

FACTUAL STATEMENT

On two dates, Respondent served eight Subpoenas Duces Tecum (Business
Records Only) on certain third parties ("the SDTs"). Berry
Decl.para.3.Each of those third parties filed motions to quash those
SDTs and for protective orders ('the Motions"). Each of the eight
motions was almost identical. They were served in two waves of four. A
significant issue that Respondent was to address in his opposition was
whether or not he personally served the eight SDTs and whether he was
permitted to do so while on voluntary inactive status. 

 On August 20,2001 the Court held a telephonic status conference.
During the August 20,2001,Status Conference, Respondent advised the
Court that he had researched the issue and concluded that he could
issue subpoenas. However, he had not done so. He had not personally
signed the SDTs. Berry Decl.para.4. Moreover, the Court was advised
that it could see this for itself on Exhibit A to each of the Motions
To Quash. Respondent had signed the proofs of service. His signature
and name was totally different to the signature and name on the SDTs.
Berry Decl.para.5, 8. 

On August 20,2001, the Court filed a Status Conference Order herein.
Berry Decl. Exhibit A. In pertinent part, it read as follows:
"Mr. Berry has sent out subpoenas duces tecum in connection with this
case which he personally signed at a time when he was not eligible to
practice law." Emphasis added. Berry Decl.3.



In ruling that "Mr. Berry has sent out subpoenas duces tecum in
connection with this case which he personally signed at a time when he
was not eligible to practice law", this Court pre-determined a
"significant issue" for determination after receipt of Respondent's
Opposition to the pending motion. Moreover, the Court's order
contained one or more errors of fact or law based upon the evidence
already before the Court." Respondent attempted to file a Motion for
Reconsideration. He mail served it. Berry Decl. Exhibit B. It was
rejected by the Court .The Court advised Respondent that he could
personally serve documents but he could not mail serve documents.
Berry Decl.Exhibit C.Thereafter, Respondent filed opposition papers
that referenced Trial Exhibits Appendices A through M, Temporary
Appendix AA and lodged the deposition transcript of Donald Wager, Esq.
On September 7,2001,the Court held a further Status Conference in this
case. Among other things, the Court addressed the following matters:
Movant Gerner's, et.al. eight motions to quash "records only"
subpoenas; Respondent's Notice of Refiling Motion To Continue Trial
and Discovery Cutoff Dates Due Process Issue and Settlement Offer.
That Notice of Refiling also alerted to the Court to a Motion for
Reconsideration that had also been rejected for similar 
service reasons to those addressed in the Notice of Refiling.The
Motion for Reconsideration 
is attached hereto as Exhibits B. The Notice denying filing of the
Motion for Reconsideration is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The Notice
of Refiling is attached hereto as Exhibit D. The Court had given no
notice that it would be considering oral argument of the Motions To
Quash, etc. The State Bar filed it's own motion to strike the lodging
of the Wager deposition. It had just been filed and received by
Respondent the previous day. In those circumstances, there was no 
opposition on file. Also participating in the telephonic status
conference (for the motion to quash) was Movant Gerner for himself and
the other seven Movants.

During the hearing Movant Gerner responded to Court questions and
stated that he had been retained by the Church of Scientology to
review and then file a complaint (s) regarding these matters. Mr.
Gerner also Gerner withdrew his verified statement of fact that
Respondent had signed the eight subpoenas in issue while on voluntary
inactive status and that they had been issued by the Clerk of the
Court. He explained that he was not familiar with Respondents
signature. However, all the other Movants, but Lenske, were or should
have been so familiar. No explanation was offered for their
misrepresentations under oath or why it was not apparent from the face
of the records subpoenas themselves, that their sworn statements of
fact against Respondent were false. Mr. Gerner also conceded that he
had filed the eight motions beyond the requisite time period because
he was not able to get his papers together in time. He also admitted
that he had made no attempt to "meet and confer" and had not filed the
mandatory "meet and confer" statement. Although Mr. Gerner had not
previously dealt with Respondent, he stated that it would have been a
waste of time to "meet and confer" so he had not done so. There were
no motions for relief from default, written or oral. Respondent
repeated his written argument that the Court as acting in excess of
jurisdiction if it did other than deny the Motions to Quash and their
requests that Respondent be permitted no discovery without first
filing a motion to show good cause why he should be permitted
discovery.
Instead, the Court granted the Motions to quash the records only
subpoenas-without prejudice. It ordered that Respondent could not
issue any discovery without first obtaining a
 

court order after a showing of good cause. Respondent reminded the
Court of his written submission that the Church of Scientology v.
Armstrong case expressly found that the Church had engaged in massive
document shredding after receiving notice of prospective discovery
requests. In addition, Gerner stipulated that he would receive mail
service of any future discovery requests and/or subpoenas for himself
and his seven clients.
The Court interrogated Respondent as to why he had lodged the Wager
deposition transcript. Respondent advised the Court that his Trial
Exhibits Appendix A contained extracts of testimony from the Wager
deposition transcript taken in the Hurtado v. Berry case. Mr. Wager
had testified that he and Mr.Moxon had solicited the change of
representation of Respondent's then client, made payments to alleged
witness Apodaca and filed the false Hurtado testimony with the Santa
Monica Court which led to the commencement of these proceedings. It
was part of Moxon's defense in Cipriano. Hurtado and Apodaca were to
be used as "witnesses" in the Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige
(Moxon, Abelson, Barton) cases. Indeed, Keith Henson was also
subpoenaed to testify in the Hurtado travesties as part of a fraud
perpetrated upon the Riverside County Court, Hemet Branch, in People
v. Henson (another Church of Scientology instigated perversion and
obstruction of justice).
 The Church of Scientology. Bowles, Moxon and Ingram had testified, in
the underlying cases, that they had obtained the First Cipriano
Declaration. Cipriano had repeatedly testified, 
even under cross-examination by his former attorney Moxon, that his
testimony during the underlying cases was perjury extorted by Ingram,
Moxon and others. Respondent had alleged he was improperly denied
discovery during the underlying cases. Respondent referred the Court
to 


his Temporary Appendix AA and Appendix A of Trial Exhibits as support
for the argument that the Hurtado case is intertwined with the
underlying cases (Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige (Moxon,
Abelson, Ingram) and was the initiating matter in the current
proceedings. He advised the Court that he had lodged the Wager
deposition transcript with a self addressed stamped envelope as a
matter of common civil and trial practice, and civil procedural rules,
in case the Court wished to view the excerpts of testimony in context.
The Court admonished Respondent and ordered the lodged Wager
transcript returned.
	The Court also ordered all of Respondent's other trial
exhibits (and used in connection with Respondent's opposition to the
Gerner motions) stricken from the record and returned to Respondent.
Respondent reminded the Court that at the first and/or second status
conference herein the Respondent had told the Court of: his limited
means to pay for copying; that many documents that would be the
subject of discovery disputes would be also trial exhibits; that he
proposed filing his trial exhibits for use during discovery disputes.
The Court had agreed and the presentation was discussed. The Court
stated that Respondent must have misunderstood, the Court was not a
document repository and storage facility and all of the submitted
exhibits were being returned.
	Although the motion to continue trial was not before it, the
Court requested Respondent to read his Doctors letter attached to that
motion as Exhibit A. The Court heard that Respondent was already
working 10-16 hours a day on these matters. The Court refused to
continue the trial date. It did keep the discovery cut-off open.	

Respondent raised the issue of voluminous discovery issued by the
State Bar and requested an extension of time (the first such request).
The 

State Bar refused. The court ordered the Respondent to answer the
State Bar's entire discovery either by the Settlement Conference but
no later than September 24,2001.There was no motion before it by
Respondent. The State Bar refused to meet and confer with Respondent
under any circumstances, saying that Respondent had distorted and
misrepresented its statements in the past. Respondent submits that the
State Bar has never once indicated what it considers Respondent to
have misrepresented or distorted. Certainly, it has never denied
saying, during the E.N.E.C. conference before Judge Marcus that it was
not familiar with all of the facts and documents because their were
too many to review, and that attorneys in the underlying cases,
including complainant Wager, may have engaged in criminal conduct -
but how did that affect Respondent's culpability in connection with
those same lawyers allegations in this case! The Court openly laughed
at the very suggestion in the faxed Notice of Refiling that the State
Bar was in bed with the Church of Scientology in this case. It ordered
Respondent to send no more faxes to the Court until further order or
exception. It did not take up the matter of the Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's previous order that Respondent had
unsuccessfully tried to present to the court. Those statements under
oath by Gerner were self-admittedly false. Gerner's clients made, and
could make, no such claim of unfamiliarity with Respondent's
signature-even if the Gerner excuse was plausible or even reasonable!
A copy of the Court's September 7,2001 order is attached hereto as
Exhibit E.
Respondent continues to seek reconsideration of the Court's August
20,2001order. 
//
//


APPLICABLE LAW.
Rule 224.Motion For Reconsideration.
(a)	Within fifteen (15) days of service of the decision in a
proceeding, any party may make a motion in the hearing department for
Reconsideration.
(b)	A motion for reconsideration shall be accompanied by a
memorandum of points and authorities supporting the moving party's
contention that the decision contains one or more errors of fact
and/or law based on the evidence already before the Court. 
 	Rule 300 (a) provides, in pertinent part, that a party may
seek interlocutory review of the trial courts "with respect to
significant issues…that are not readily remediable after trial." Rule
300(b) further provides that the Petition For Review must be filed
within fifteen days of service of the trial court's order and that the
filing of a motion for reconsideration tolls this period.  
III. ARGUMENT 
A.	MOVANTS MAKE MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS HEREIN

Page 1 lines 21-23 of each of the motions state "the Subpoena is
invalid…as it was improperly signed by Respondent…" These
representations are repeated on subsequent pages of each of the
motions: Moxon & Kobrin, p.5: 4-8; Lenske, p.4: 23-27; Gerner, p.
4:18-22; Abelson, p.4: 25-5:2. Certain of the attorneys then compound
their express misrepresentations to the Court with testimony that
Respondent signed the subpoenas served herein (Gerner Decl. para.2,
p.1: 11-12; Lenske Decl. para.2, p: 1:9-10; Kobrin Decl. para.2, p.1:
11-12).  
Such blatant and material misrepresentations to the Court are not new
to certain of the Movant's. Only two months ago, the Federal
Bankruptcy Court took the trial in Barton v. Berry off calendar after
receiving a deluge of the most material of misrepresentations from
Moxon & 
Kobrin, on matters concerning the same alleged facts that are the
basis of Count Three of the State Bar's Notice of Disciplinary Charges
herein On August 14, 2001, the usually understated Federal Court
scathingly denied the Moxon & Kobrin/Glenn Barton motion for summary 
judgment, "because of inaccuracies in the foregoing allegations". 
B. RESPONDENT DID NOT PERSONALLY SIGN THE EIGHT SDTS
Rules of Procedure 151 (a) and 152 provide, inter alia, that " . . .
any party may issue subpoenas" (emphasis added) for both discovery and
trial purposes. The rule does not state counsel for any party may
issue, etc. Indeed, Respondent carefully researched this issue before
proceeding with discovery herein (Berry Decl.4). Notwithstanding, out
of an abundance of caution, and contrary to Movant's express and
material misrepresentations to this Court, each of the SDT's at bar
was obtained from the clerk (Rule 151(c)) and, although not
necessarily required, duly signed by the Clerk of the State Bar Court
(Berry Decl 5)
The SDTs themselves dramatically illustrate what is a blatant and
obviously intentional misrepresentation, by these six California
attorneys, to the California State Bar Court.  Berry Decl.7.For
present purposes, all are identical in this regard. At the bottom of
page one is the signature of the issuing State Bar Clerk (within the
State Bar seal on the original). At the bottom of page two, in almost
the same position, is the signature of the Respondent and "server."
There is zero degree of similarity between the two signatures.
Accordingly, the Court has erred as a matter of both fact and law. See
generally, Rule 224.
//
//


C.THE ERRORS OF LAW AND FACT INVOLVE A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE
At the heart of the pending third party motions is Respondent's
constitional right, as a matter of due process and equal protection,
to take discovery herein and in accordance with applicable law. That
is a "significant issue." It impacts upon the Respondent's rights as
an 
unrepresented party appearing in pro per herein. Any restriction of
Respondent's discovery 
rights herein are not "readily remediable after trial." Berry Decl.6.
See generally, Rule 300(a).
Rule 300 (h) (1) provides, inter alia, that a party seeking a stay of
proceedings pending appellate review must first make a motion to the
hearing judge for a stay. In the event this Court denies this Motion
for Reconsideration, Respondent will so move the Court.
D. RELIEF IS REQUIRED TO PREVENT FRAUDS UPON OTHER COURT'S
            This Court has issued an order (August 20,2001) utterly
contrary to the true facts and in accordance with the Church of
Scientology lawyer's blatant and inexplicable misrepresentations to
this Court. The real complainant herein (the Church of Scientology) is
a long-standing litigation opponent of Respondent. Both it and its
shills have previously made between 15 and 30 unsuccessful criminal,
disciplinary and other complaints against Respondent, and have
recently voluntarily dismissed two previous cases that they solicited
and criminally manufactured and pursued. Indeed, those two vexatious
proceedings were the genesis of the current proceedings.
	The Church of Scientology will not hesitate to cite this
courts erroneous August 20,2001 order against Respondent unless it is
immediately vacated nunc pro tunc. Berry Decl.Exhibit 10. Accordingly,
Respondent respectfully moves the Court to correct it's own record
herein which it may do at any time in the interests and furtherance of
justice and in it's own inherent discretion.


IV. CONCLUSION
	For the foregoing reasons, the Court must grant Respondent's
motion for reconsideration and vacate it's August 20,2001 Order
finding that Respondent had "personally signed" the eight SDTs.
Respectfully Submitted,                                    
Dated: September _, 2001.                        Graham E. Berry
//

//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//

DECLARATION OF GRAHAM E. BERRY
I, Graham E. Berry, declare and state as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice law before all of the
courts of the States of California and New York, the State of New
South Wales in the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of New
Zealand. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and
if called upon, would so testify thereto.
2. This declaration is filed in connection with my motion for
reconsideration and/or stay of the Court's August 20,2001 order
herein.
3.Attached hereto, and marked by the letters indicated, are true and
correct copies of the following documents:
Exhibit A: August 20,2001 Order herein.
Exhibit B:  Motion For Reconsideration.
Exhibit C:  Rejection of Motion For Reconsideration.
Exhibit D:  Notice of Refiling.
Exhibit E:  September 7,2001 Order herein.
4.I did not personally any of the SDTs at issue herein. After the
Initial Status Conference herein, on July 16,2001, I enquired of both
Ms.Goldade and the Clerk's Office of my right to serve discovery as a
party on inactive status. They each told me to check the rules. I
checked the rules. Specifically, I noted the provisions of Rules 151
and 152.


5.In accordance with the provisions of Rule 152(c), I requested the
State Bar Court's office in San Francisco to send me a set of signed
subpoenas for me to issue herein. In addition, I personally obtained
further supplies of duly signed Subpoenas Duces Tecums and appearance
only subpoenas from the State Bar Court's office in Los Angeles.
Samples of such originals are attached hereto as Exhibits Band C.
After service, I signed the proofs of service. There is no resemblance
between the signatures on the face of the subpoenas and the proofs of
service.
6.If unable to proceed with the service of discovery herein, in
accordance with the rules and not the unsubstantiated allegations of
Mr.Gerner and his clients, my constitutional rights of due process and
equal protection herein will be prejudiced, I will have insufficient
time to both make and have motions determined and take timely
discovery. I will be unable to properly present a defense at trial
herein. In the each of the relevant underlying cases, either my
clients of myself were effectively and improperly denied discovery.
Thus, the court's ruling herein, if not reconsidered and vacated, has
irremediably affected my constitutional, property and other rights and
now fatally taints the remainder of these proceedings.
7.I can conceive of no proper or explicable basis for the moving third
party's material misrepresentations to the Court, that I personally
the eight Subpoena Duces Tecum in connection with the eight pending
motions to quash and for protective orders.
8.At the August 20,2001 Status Conference herein I advised the Court
that I did not personally sign the subpoenas at issue and that such
was readily apparent from a comparison of the face of the subpoenas
and the proofs of service. 
//


9. At the September 7,2001 Status Conference herein, Mr.Gerner
admitted that he had been retained by the Church of Scientology to
file the dismissed Hurtado and other charges herein, and the still
pending complaints herein [which the Church desperately needs
adjudicated in it's favor, in order to ensure Respondent can be
rendered unable to represent those who it wishes to destroy with
litigation terrorisim.Mr.Gerner also stated he was no longer relying
on defective service arguments. He had not "met and conferred" and had
not filed a "meet and confer declaration". It was his opinion that it
would have been futile to "meet and confer". He had not filed his
motions timely because he had not been able to get his papers together
in time. He withdrew his allegation that Respondent had personally
signed the records only subpoenas. He said he was unfamiliar with
Respondent's signature. He did not explain how so many of his attorney
client declarants, and himself, had sworn under oath that Respondent
did sign the subpoenas when the Clerk of the Court had issued them. He
did not explain how many of his clients, who had litigated against
Respondent for up to ten years, were able to testify that Respondent
and not the Court's Clerk had signed the subpoenas or how that was not
apparent from the face of the subpoenas and Exhibit A thereto. The
Court did not vacate it's August 20,2001 Order, incorporating the
misrepresentations of Mr.Gerner and his seven clients, as an order of
the court.
//
//
//
//
//

10.On the basis of ten years of litigation against the Church of
Scientology, and seven years of subjection to it's psycho and
litigation terrorism and abuse of process, I believe the cult will
misuse the Court's August 20,2001 Order unless it is vacated in
accordance with the accompanying Motion.
I declare under penalty of perjury according to the laws of the United
States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed this __ day of September 2001 at Los Angeles, CA.

_______________________
Graham E. Berry


























PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE

 	I, Graham E.Berry, certify and declare as follows:

	I am over the age of 18 years, I am an officer of this court
and I am the respondent herein. My business and personal address is
3384 McLaughlin Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90066.
           
            On September _, 2001, I served the following documents
described as: 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR STAY; DECLARATION OF
GRAHAM E. BERRY AND EXHIBITS THERETO.
(Rules 244 & 300).	

            On the interested parties in this proceeding, addressed as
follows, by delivery to the receptionist at the State Bar offices:
The State Bar of California                            
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel                  
Terrie L.Goldade, Esq.                                    
Augustin Hernandez, Esq.
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299

              
          I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United States and the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct.

Executed on this __ day of September 2001, at Los Angeles, California.

     
__________________________
Graham E. Berry




From hkhenson@home.com Sat Sep 22 03:45:50 2001
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.lightlink.com!news2.lightlink.com
From: hkhenson@home.com (Keith Henson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: More Berry vs the Bar.
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 07:45:50 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
Lines: 808
Message-ID: <3baf416d.97571578@news2.lightlink.com>
References: <3bad3f84.97082369@news2.lightlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.40.229
X-Original-Trace: 22 Sep 2001 03:45:18 -0400, 24.141.40.229
Xref: sn-us alt.religion.scientology:981159

On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 07:38:00 GMT, hkhenson@home.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:

GRAHAM E. BERRY (SBN 128503)                 
3384 McLaughlin Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 745-3771
Facsimile:  (310) 745-3772

Email: grahameb@aol.com

Respondent Pro Per



THE STATE BAR COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES

In the Matter ofGRAHAM EDWARD BERRYNo.128503A Member of the State Bar
)))))))))))))))))))))	Case No.: 99-0-12791RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO
EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS; DECLARATION OF GRAHAM E.
BERRY AND EXHIBITS THERETO.(Rule 115)Status Conf: September
24,2001,10:00 amSettlement Conf: October 2,2001, 2:00 p.m.Trial Date:
December 11, 2001, 9:00 am
	)	












TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND ALL PARTIES OF RECORD HEREIN:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondent Graham E.Berry hereby moves this
Court for an order extending Respondents time to respond for 21 days,
without objection, to the State Bar's current discovery.
This motion is brought pursuant to State Bar Rules of Procedure Rule
115 ("Rule 115") and upon the grounds that "good cause" has been shown
including:
(a)	Respondent's substantial efforts in responding to a
significant portion of the discovery already and also by September
24,2001;
(b)	Respondent is engaged in other litigation brought against him
by the Church of Scientology. That litigation involves many of the
same matters (counts one to three) at issue herein. Trial therein has
been set for January 28,2001. The Church of Scientology is pursuing
discovery against Respondent in the matters involving count seven
herein and certain of that discovery has been and is on-going;
(c)	Respondent's partial and temporary disability brought about by
the Church of Scientology's actions towards him;
(d)	The imminent settlement conference and attendant briefing
requirements.
This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the
attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying
Declaration of Graham E.Berry and the Exhibits attached thereto.
Respondent has engaged in "meet and confer" communications. Berry
Decl.para.2 (a).
Dated: September 21, 2001                   Respectfully Submitted,

___________________
                                                             Graham
E.Berry

Respondent Pro Per

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

The genesis of these matters is Respondent's willingness to do what
all but less than a handful of lawyers, nation-wide, are willing to do
on any kind of successive basis: represent victims of a recognized
psycho -terror group which mandates that such lawyers are to be
"utterly destroyed by any means possible." Scientology litigation is
different from all other-because of the church's litigation and
related terrorism. It has a steep learning curve that takes years to
accomplish. Berry Decl.paras.10, 15.
       During most of the 1990s Respondent was engaged in a number of
successful defenses of people being sued by the Church of Scientology.
These included one of it's former lawyers, a psychologist and certain
persons critical of the Church and it's policies and practices for
intimidating, harassing and "shuddering" all opposition into silence -
as it pursues it agenda to impose a totalitarian world rule and
exterminate all non-scientologists (billions of people) "quietly and
without sorrow."
"It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a
meaningful and responsible social order; it is only necessary to
delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing
them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line or simply
quarantining them from the society."

L.Ron Hubbard, Science of Survival, p.157.
Relevant written church scriptures also provide that Respondent has no
rights at all, because he impedes the church's intended takeover of
the heads of government, business and the media - and the subsequent
extermination of more than 2 ½%, or 650 million of the planet's
population (644 million people more than Hitler exterminated in his
concentration camps). See generally, L.Ron Hubbard, Science of
survival, pp.39, 88-90,115-116,131(13th.printing).


Respondent's defense herein, inter alia, alleges that he has been the
subject of massive and intentional criminal, tortious and unethical
conduct by the Church of Scientology; it's Office of Special Affairs
("OSA") and certain of OSA's attorneys and private investigators. As a
direct consequence, as will be proven at trial herein, this
intentional abuse and misuse of process caused Respondent to suffer
from a nervous or emotional breakdown ("Major Depressive Disorder").
He is still recuperating from that diagnosis under continuing medical
supervision. See Barry Decl.paras.10, 13,15.
His recovery has not been helped by the continue massive
over-litigation being waged against him by the Church of Scientology
and it's lawyer representatives such as Moxon & Kobrin, Ava Paquette,
Elliot Abelson, Donald Wager, Michael Gerner and others. Scientology's
massive over-litigation and abuse of the judicial system was also
documented and discussed in Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim,
(1996) 42 Clap. 4th 628, 648-649.  Finding that the Cult had engaged
"in a course of oppressive litigation conduct" the court stated, "When
one party to a lawsuit continuously and unsuccessfully uses the
litigation process to bludgeon the opponent into submission, those
actions must be closely scrutinized for constitutional implications.
[emphasis added.] Costs of $500,000 were upheld against Moxon and
others in this decision. Although Moxon has claimed that Scientology
cancelled Fair Game, "for public relations purposes" in 1966, it has
been subsequently recognized in numerous judicial decisions, e.g.:
United States v. Kattar, 840 F2d 118, 125 (1st Cir. 1988); Church of
Scientology v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 83 U.S. Tax Ct. Rpt,
381, 429-442 (1984); Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology, 535
F.Supp.1125, 1131, n.4 (U.S.D.C. Mass. 1982); Church of Scientology v.
Armstrong, 232 


Cal.App.3d 1060, 1067  (1991); Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology
212 Cal.App.3d 827, 888-891 (1989); Allard v Church of Scientology, 58
Cal. app. 3d 439, 443n.1, (1976).
  	There is overwhelming evidence that a large, long, convoluted
criminal and fraudulent conspiracy is being perpetrated against
Respondent. The CSI v. Fishman & Geertz defamation case was filed in
connection with Time magazine allegations that the Church of
Scientology was involved in murders, suicides and financial frauds.
Berry prevailed over OSA, Moxon and Abelson in CSI v. Fishman &
Geertz. Scientology was vengeful. Respondent had survived the long
scientology litigation learning curve and knew too much. He also had
to be eliminated ("destroyed") as an available legal recourse for the
Church's "enemies" and litigation "targets". Berry Dcel.para.10,
13.The testimonial evidence is that Scientology instructed Bowles &
Moxon/Moxon & Kobrin to retain private investigator Ingram to
investigate Respondent. Scientology's investigators employ the
Church's "Fair Game Policies and Practices" and all manner of illegal
and litigation-related activity. The Church keeps evidence of its
criminal activities in 'Red Boxes'. The Church of Scientology/Bowles -
Moxon-Kobrin/Eugene Ingram investigation led directly to the First
Cipriano Declaration. It was published and distributed worldwide by
Church shills including Ingram, the CAN Reform Group [Barton], Elliot
Abelson, Esq. and others. It was the basis of the Berry v. Cipriano
/Barton / Miscavige/ Moxon/ Abelson / Ingram) consolidated lawsuits
where there was never any decision upon the substantive merits of the
litigation. Count Ten of the Notice of Charges herein alleges that
this consolidated lawsuit was vexatious and frivolous! Yet, the
defamation allegations are uncontroverted and the "highly defamatory"
publications continue forever on the Internet. There is uncontroverted
testimony, of 


a number of different people, that the Church of Scientology/ Bowles/
Moxon/ Kobrin/ 
Abelson/Ingram "investigation" engaged in the obstruction of justice,
extortion, subornation of perjury, solicitation of clients, blackmail,
bribery, business relationship with clients, non-waivable conflicts of
interest, paying for perjury, false criminal complaints, false state
bar complaints, etc. For example, the First Cipriano Declaration was
perjury and obstruction of justice obtained through extortion. Moxon,
Abelson and Scientology (Barton) have distributed, and continue
distributing, the defamatory statements as alleged in the Berry
consolidated defamation cases. 
The documentary evidence establishes the role of Moxon, Kobrin,
Paquette, Abelson, Drescher, Byrnes, Wager and Gerner in the seven
year convoluted octopus- like conspiracy of fraud and crime upon the
Respondent and the Courts before which he and his clients properly
sought redress for the wrongs the Church, OSA and these Movant lawyers
had perpetrated. Amazingly, this Church and its lawyers have regularly
engaged in this incredible litany of crime. Even Federal Judges have
complained of Scientology harassment in cases involving Moxon and his
cohorts. This is not an isolated event. American Lawyer, Scientology's
War Against The Judges, 1976. 
FACTUAL STATEMENT

On September 7,2001,the Court held a further Status Conference in this
case. Although the Motion to Continue Trial, filed in Los Angeles, had
not been received or read by the Court sitting in San Francisco, the
Court requested Respondent to read his Doctors letter attached to that
motion as Exhibit A. The Court heard that Respondent was already
working 10-16 hours a 

day on these matters. The Court refused to continue the trial date. It
did keep the discovery cut-off open. 
Respondent raised the issue of voluminous discovery issued by the
State Bar and requested an extension of time (the first such request).
The State Bar refused. The court ordered the Respondent to answer the
State Bar's entire discovery either by the Settlement Conference but
no later than September 24,2001.There was no motion before it by
Respondent. The State Bar refused to "meet and confer" with Respondent
under any circumstances, saying that Respondent had distorted and
misrepresented its statements in the past. Respondent submits that the
State Bar has never once indicated what it considers Respondent to
have misrepresented or distorted in the past despite express
invitations to do so. For example, Berry Decl. Exh. Certainly, it has
never denied saying, during the E.N.E.C. conference before Judge
Marcus that it was not familiar with all of the facts and documents
because their were too many to review, and that attorneys in the
underlying cases, including complainant Wager, may have engaged in
criminal conduct - but how did that affect Respondent's culpability in
connection with those same lawyers allegations in this case!
Respondent now files a formal motion to extend time to respond to the
State Bar's discovery requests.
II. APPLICABLE RULES
Rules 115 and 1131 set forth the criteria for the granting of
continuances herein. Rule 115 provides, inter alia, that any motion
for continuance must be in writing and "shall only be granted upon a
showing of good cause."
//
//
//
III. DISCUSSION
	Respondent has been diligent in proceeding with discovery
herein but already complainant's Wager, Gerner, Moxon, Kobrin,
Paquette, Abelson et. al. have already and 
irreparably denied Respondent due process herein - and improperly
erected barriers to the discovery he sought to take - before being
subjected to a substantial volume of State Bar discovery with the
effect that he cannot prepare his own or the motions to show good
cause why he should be permitted to serve that discovery. 
Respondent is currently upon voluntary inactive status and has
undertaken that he will not resume active status either before the
ultimate resolution of these proceedings or without first providing
the State Bar and this Court with 30 days notice of his intent so to
do. Indeed, his 
intention is not to immediately (if ever) return to the practice of
law but to write three books on the Church of Scientology. The first
book will detail the matters addressed above which includes these
proceedings. Considerable media interest has been expressed in this
incredible but well-documented story of Scientology lawlessness and
corruption of the legal, criminal and disciplinary system.
III. ARGUMENT 
A. RESPONDENT HAS "MET AND CONFERRED."
	As set forth in the attached Berry declaration para.2 (a) and
Exhibits A, B and C, Respondent has engaged in "meet and confer"
communications in an attempt to informally resolve this matter by
stipulation submitted for court approval. The State Bar has insisted,
as in all previous requests that a formal motion be made without prior
stipulation between the parties. Berry Decl.Exh.B.

B. REASONABLE RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED.
Respondent is seeking a mere 21-day extension of time in which to
respond to voluminous 
discovery which, properly responded to, will provide an invaluable and
time saving resource in 
these proceedings. Respondent is carefully preparing his responses
with this in mind. Berry Decl. paras. 2(b) and 2(c), 12, 15.
Approx.300 boxes of scientology litigation related documents are
involved. Berry Decl.para.17.Indeed, the completed Interrogatory
responses will enable Respondent to then seek the assistance of pro
bono defense counsel. Berry Decl.para.12.
C. RESPONDENT HAS SHOWN "GOOD CAUSE" FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF.
	Despite the demands of the real complainant herein, upon
Respondent in other related matters (see Section III D below)
Respondent has been diligently responding to the State Bar's
comprehensive discovery requests. He has completed the Responses to
the Requests For Admission. Berry Decl. paras. 2(b), Exhibit E may be
amended subsequently when further documents are expected to enable the
nature of the monies deposited into the Jane Scott account. The
Federal Court has already approved of applicable law stating that it
is not wrongful to prefer paying current trade creditors over other
creditors such as Barton/Church of Scientology. Such is even more
permissible where Respondent had on-going obligations to the
representation of other clients, which the Barton/Church of
Scientology machinations were intended to disrupt and prejudice. The
Church of Scientology policies behind such actions are briefly
described in the Berry Declaration, paras.6, 7,9,10,15,17.
	Respondent has also provided answers to approx. one third of
the Interrogatories and expects to serve responses to another approx.
one third of the responses by September 24,2001.It is expected that
answers to the extensive Count Ten requests will be all that remain
and the Court 


and State Bar should already have a basic grasp of the major pertinent
facts in the Berry, Jeavons and Pattinson cases. See Berry Decl. para.
3 and Exhibits A, C, G.
	The conduct of the Church of Scientology, through it's
representative attorneys, have already cost Respondent his health,
career, condominium, car, retirement prospects and approx.$400,000.00
in lost equity, mortgage payments, etc. Berry Decl.paras.6,
7,9,13,15,16.10,13.
D.COMPLAINANTS ARE ALSO CONCURRENTLY DEMANDING DISCOVERY IN RELATED
MATTERS.
	Counts One to Three of the State Bars charges herein involve
matters still being litigated between the real complainants herein and
the Respondent. The Church of Scientology has been concurrently
engaged in an unsuccessful summary judgment motion therein. Berry
Dcel.paras.5, 6. The Church of Scientology is also using the Jeavons
mandatory prevailing party costs order for discovery intended to
benefit them in Barton v. Berry and these State Bar proceedings. Berry
Decl.paras.7-9.
E.THE TRIAL DATE HEREIN NOW PRECEDES TRIAL IN BARTON V. BERRY.
	Irrespective of its ultimate outcome, Counts One through Three
of the State Bars Notice of Charges concern the very same legal and
factual matters as Barton [Church of Scientology] v. Berry. The trial
date as to Counts One through Three is set for December 11,2001.The
trial date in Barton [Church of Scientology] v. Berry has just been
set for January 28,2001 in the Federal Bankruptcy Court. In the past,
the State Bar of California has refrained from proceeding with 

disciplinary complaints from an opposing party while the underlying
litigation, as here, is still unresolved. Berry Decl.paras.4, 5,6.
F.THESE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED IN A BAD FAITH ATTEMPT TO
DEPRIVE RESPONDENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS.
The terrorism policies of the Church of Scientology, and their
application within this country, Europe and Australia are provable and
have been judicially determined by this States Courts. See pages 4:24
- 5: 3 above. They are also well documented in the matters giving rise
to the Church of Scientology's complaint and pressures upon the State
Bar. Berry Decl.paras.6 -10,13,15.The Los Angeles Police Department
has recently entered into a consent decree with the United States
Department of Justice Civil Rights Division as a result, among other
things, of witness tampering and evidence manufacture in the Rampart
scandals. Obviously, the Civil Rights Division's work and concerns
with the Los Angeles County legal system is far from over.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court must grant Respondent's
motion________.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: September 21, 2001.                        Graham E. Berry
//
//
//
//
//
//
DECLARATION OF GRAHAM E. BERRY
I, Graham E. Berry, declare and state as follows:
1. I am the Respondent herein.  I am an attorney at law licensed to
practice law before all of the courts of the States of California and
New York, the State of New South Wales in the Commonwealth of
Australia and the Dominion of New Zealand. I have also practiced as an
'overseas lawyer' with a New York law firm office in London England .I
have practiced law in California since I was admitted here in June,
1987.I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if
called upon, would so testify thereto.
2. This declaration is filed in connection with my motion to extend
time to respond to the State Bars pending Discovery Requests. 
(a)	I have engaged in "meet and confer" communications with the
State Bar. They have been unsuccessful and no reply to my latest
letter has been received. See Exhibits A, B and C hereto. 
(b) Through this motion I am requesting a further 21 days to complete
the State Bar's discovery. As already offered to the State Bar, I am
prepared to submit my responses to the State Bar on an on-going
section-by-section process. The Requests for Admission have been
answered and served. Exhibit E hereto. To show my good faith in this
regard, I have already served draft partial responses to nearly one
third of the interrogatories responses and I expect to serve responses
to approx. another third of the interrogatories on September
24,2001.See Exhibits C, E and G hereto. The documents can then be made
available, organized as requested. There will be many 'bankers boxes'.


(c) I am completing these Interrogatory responses very carefully. I am
of the view that the completed responses, along with the related
Chronology of Events and References to Supporting
Evidence, will be invaluable to this Court, and to other courts and
agencies in these and the related matters, and the motions to vacate
the underlying orders that are at issue herein. Among other things,
the Wager deposition confession, and similar evidence of criminal
conduct by certain of the Church of Scientology attorneys, constitutes
newly obtained evidence. Also, it is financially impossible for me to
pay those sanctions orders-notwithstanding the State Bar's Counts
charging me with "willful disobedience" of those orders (Counts Four,
Five, Seven, Eight and Nine). If I could pay the orders I would not be
living on food stamps, general relief and the charity of friends and
strangers. Then there is the Ninth Count regarding the Ander's case.
See Exhibit B (Interrogatory Responses 33-35), Exhibit J.
3.Attached hereto, and marked by the letters indicated, are true and
correct copies of the following documents:
Exhibit A: "Meet and confer" letter from Respondent to The State Bar
dated September 17,2001.
Exhibit B: "Meet and confer" letter from State Bar to Respondent dated
September 18,2001.
Exhibit C: "Meet and confer" letter from Respondent to State Bar dated
September 19,2001.
Exhibit D:  State Bar Requests for Admissions 1-16.
Exhibit E:  Respondent's Response to Requests For Admission 1-16.
Exhibit F: State Bar Interrogatories 1-44, served September 19,2001.
Exhibit G: Respondents [draft] partial responses to State Bar
Interrogatories, served September 19,2001.

Exhibit H:  State Bar Demand for Inspection and Copying 1-13.
Exhibit I:  In re Graham E. Berry, Barton v. Berry: Memorandum of
Decision re Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Exhibit J:  Letter from Respondent to plaintiff's counsel in
Northwestern v. Anders dated September 19,2001.
Exhibit K: Fax letter from Successor counsel for Anders to the State
Bar dated September 21,2001.
4. Certain of the matters herein are still being litigated against the
Church of Scientology which retained Gerner and Wager to file and
pressure the pursuit of these State Bar proceedings in respect of the
same matters. The same allegations made in Counts One, Two and Three
of the State Bar's Notice of Charges are the basis for the Church of
Scientology's Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding In re Graham E. Berry;
Barton v. Berry, Case No. LA 99-32264/Adv.No. LA
00-02817-ER.Ordinarily, the State Bar would not proceed with a
disciplinary complaint filed by an opposing litigant while an
underlying case is still proceeding. However, there is little about
these matters that is ordinary. In I have requested the State Bar
stipulate to an Abatement of these proceedings. It refused.
5.On August 16,2001 the Bankruptcy Court denied the Cult's Motion For
Summary Judgment in Barton v. Berry. See Exhibit I. At a Status
Conference on September 20,2001 the Federal Bankruptcy Court scheduled
a trial date of January 28,2001 concerning the very same allegations,
in essence, that the State Bar Court is trying in Counts One to Three
on December 11,2001.The State Bar has insisted upon the December
11,2001 trial date not 

being moved because of the lead Deputy Trial Counsel's (Terri Goldade,
Esq) maternity and birth schedule. However, these absolute and other
matters herein are effectively denying me Due Process in these and the
related underlying matters.
6. The Church, through Moxon & Kobrin, placed a Barton costs lien on
my condominium. The condominium could have been sold privately for
$367,500.00 but the Church refused to release it's lien even though it
could have received over half of it's claimed costs order in the
Barton v. Berry matter. It claimed the lien gave it better security!
Other sales were available but the Church of Scientology (through
Moxon/Kobrin/Paquette) refused to lift the lien in exchange for a
partial payment. On or about August 9,2001 the property was sold in
foreclosure for approx.$329,000.00-suffuciant only to meet the
outstanding first and second mortgages. Because of the Church of
Scientology's illusory "security", none of my other creditors
(including the Home Owners Association) could share in some of the
real value and equity in the property. Why? Because the outstanding
Barton costs order, and the outstanding Jeavons sanctions order enable
the Church of Scientology's lawyers to regularly "examine under oath"
[depose] me in what are really Church of Scientology "intelligence
cycles" or " intell ops."
7.Using the Jeavons v. Church of Scientology sanctions order (State
Bar Notice of Charges Count Seven) the Church of Scientology is now
conducting discovery to try and find something incriminating in the
foreclosure proceedings, and attempts to sell the property prior to
foreclosure for the benefit of other creditors, to use in the Barton
v. Berry case where discovery has long been closed. The State Bars
pending discovery is also right on point for the Church of
Scientology's use in it's Barton v. Berry trial one month later. The
Church of Scientology filed 


the Barton and Jeavons matters at the same approximate time that it
had complainants Gerner and Wager commence and pressure these
proceedings-at that time primarily in connection with the Hurtado v.
Berry case (really part of Count Ten herein - Berry v. Cipriano,
Barton, Miscavige (Moxon, Abelson & Ingram). The evidence of serious
criminal conduct involving attorneys Moxon, Kobrin, Abelson, Wager and
others is now irrefutably evidenced, despite the State Bar's refusal
to recognize it and determination to keep such evidence out of this
case and off any public record (e.g. the Wager deposition transcript).
Wager is President of the Los Angeles County Criminal Lawyer's Bar
Association! In the Jeavons v. Church of Scientology sanctions matter
(Count Seven herein), the Church of Scientology (through Paquette of
Moxon & Kobrin) deposed (examined under oath) Respondent on August
8,2001, require a document production on September 25,2001 and are
conducting yet another deposition (examination under oath) of
Respondent on September 26,2001.Perhaps posthumously. Using the
Jeavons sanctions order, the Church of Scientology seized and sold
Respondent's 1988 vehicle earlier this year. Ava Paquette, Esq.
submitted a declaration to the court stating that the vehicle was
worth $8,300.00.Respondent submitted a declaration as to Kelly Blue
book value of less than $1,900.00 
and repairs in excess of $2,000.00 being required. The vehicle was
apparently sold for $900.00.Respondent has received no subsequent
notifications as to the disposition of his vehicle. Applicable law
requires that Respondent receive the first $1,900.00 of any sale. Ava
Paquette, Esq had advised both court and respondent that the Church of
Scientology has received the sum of $900.00 from the sale of
Respondent's vehicle.
//

8. Again using (or misusing) the Jeavons sanctions order, the Church
of Scientology, through Ava Paquette, Esq. of Moxon & Kobrin, is now
seeking discovery as to the identity and details of those involved in
the grant of food stamps and general relief to me. They are also
taking discovery as to how I am managing to pay the photocopying and
other expenses involved in these State Bar proceedings that were
initiated by the very same Church of Scientology. 
9. The Church of Scientology operates its intelligence, intimidation
and harassment activities through its Office of Special Affairs ("OSA"
or Department 20 on the Organization Chart or "Org. Board). Department
20 includes a large Legal Unit. It includes: Kendrick L.Moxon, Esq;
Helena Kobrin, Esq; Ava Paquette, Esq; Elliot Abelson, Esq; and
William T.Dresher Esq. That is where their real offices are located
despite their State Bar addresses on record. They practice "law"
behind armed high security and dozens of surveillance cameras.
Documents seized by the F.B.I. evidence that the Church of
Scientology's written policies and procedures require that all
evidence connecting the Church of Scientology and it's lawyers to
criminal activity be kept in locked "Red Boxes". This is known to
Department 20 as "Red Box Data."
10. All of the matters herein stem from the First Cipriano declaration
executed May 5,1994.The Church's policies state that when it wants
someone "haunted" it "investigates". This part of the 
Church of Scientology's 'psycho-terror' tactics is set forth in it's
Fair Game Policies and Practices. Some of these Fair Game Policies and
Practices can be outlined briefly. The purpose of the [law] suit is to
harass and discourage rather than to win..." One could substitute
State Bar Complaint. See generally, SB Rule 3-200. I previously filed
a Trial Exhibits Appendix E herein which the court, on September
7,2001,ordered removed the court files. Exhibit A thereto 

was the examination under oath of a former Church of Scientology
intelligence operative. It is called the Intelligence Officers Hat
Pack. It contains his job description, training, practices and
policies. These include: How to steal other peoples frequent flyer
miles and invest. communications; Volunteer Minister/Investigations
Officer training Manuel, including espionage, covert ops, noisy
investigations, security infiltration, on waging war, BATTLE TATICS
(p.138), BLACK PROPAGANDA (p.145), On War (p.149),]. Ex.11 was the
document that describes how the volunteer minister/investigation
officers are going to handle "attackers" and how their
productivity/success/failure statistics will be calculated for job
performance and punishment purposes.Ex.12 was an 'Invest Drill' or set
of staff instructions regarding the employment of private
investigators through OSA lawyers.Ex.12 and 13 were two OSA
investigation check lists. Ex.15 was the Church of
Scientology/OSA/Moxon & Kobrin "Manual of Justice." Pages 183 and 184
described the purpose of scientology investigations: " when we need
someone haunted we investigate." Page 186 described the punishment of
church critics who have been driven into bankruptcy, suicide and
mysterious death. Ex.16 was a Church of Scientology form for the
preparation of a BATTLE PLAN. p.189.Ex.17; p.191 states that the
church's "attackers" have "appointed [the Church] their executioners."
Ex.17, p.185 
defines Black Propaganda. The seven-year campaign to defame, discredit
and destroy me relied heavily upon Black Propaganda. For example:
Elliot Abelson, Esq.'s letter to my parents; the Esquire Magazine
article; the Can Reform Group publication [Barton, Chait, Shaw];
Moxon's Declaration and the "highly defamatory" Church of Scientology
letter to my friend former New Zealand Government Minister of Finance
Hon. David Caygil. App. D, Ex.26, 26A, 26B;the 

history detailed in App., Ex.3, para.152 (p.235)-para.237 (p.253).
Page 204/205 described how the Church's Intelligence files are to be
kept. Ex.18, p.213, describes how Volunteer Ministers and Intelligence
Officers are to engage in Black Propaganda of critics: Hubbard, the
Church's founder, wrote "In modern times there is no such check on
Black Propaganda." Ex.17, p.217 describes the process of Dead Agenting
critics. The Church of Scientology, Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Wager,
Abelson, et al. engaged in this Hubbard technology against me. App.F,
Ex.3, 152-137(p.235-253). See also page 222-225.The manufacture and
continuing world-wide publication of the First Cipriano Declaration is
an egregious example of the Church of Scientology's "psycho -terror"
policies such as Fair Game, Black Properganda, Dead Agenting and
Battle Tatics.And these activities have been demonstrably engaged in
by the Church of Scientology lawyers identified herein. On page 223:
"PR IS OVERT. INTELLIGENCE IS COVERT." Page 227 further describes
"Intelligence Actions." On page 230 TARGETS, DEFENSE mandates
"obliterating" all non-scientologists and taking over the news media,
key political figures, international finance, etc. See page 231.Pages
233-235 further deal with BATTLE TATICS: " one cuts of…funds,
connections…he raids and harasses." Pages 236-238 describe how the
Church's Public Investigations Section is to operate. Pages 243 to 317
deal 
with the handling of Suppressive Persons such as myself and lists of
Church of Scientology enemies (out of date). Since the death of its
founder L.Ron Hubbard, the scientology enterprise cannot change any of
these policies (" The Integrity of Source"). Indeed, these forgoing
exhibits from App. A, Ex. B were issued less than ten years ago, and
after I was retained to successfully represent former Church of
Scientology lawyer Joseph Yanny. He terminated his legal services 

to the Church of Scientology after being requested by the Church of
Scientology to engage in illegal conduct, including the theft of
opposing counsel Charles B.O'Reilly's medical records. He still looks
over his shoulder. He was also severely damaged by the cults terror
operatives. Their activities broke up his partnership with the Brown,
Green & Broilett law firm in Santa Monica. Michael Flynn, Esq.
suffered through 23 Massachusetts State Bar complaints filed against
him by the Church of Scientology. Eventually he was paid over six
million dollars never to represent anyone against the Church of
Scientology again. I have refused to discuss such possibilities
although the Church has denied they were the ones who brought the
subject up. SB Rule 2-109.Indeed, there is a long list of lawyer
victims of the cult that causes almost all lawyers to refuse to
represent any litigant against it. Indeed, there are now people being
victimized by the cult as a result of my being "benched" by the cults
activities against me and it's initiation of these largely baseless
proceedings. I happen to have been schooled in the belief that all
lawyers should accept such requested representation despite the threat
of facing Scientology litigation terrorism. I further believe that our
citizens should not be deprived of legal representation by the
terror-tactics and corruption of a wealthy litigation juggernaut
engaged in legal blitzkriegs at an annual Church of Scientology cost
exceeding $40 million. The Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & 
Walker and Williams & Connally law firms are the major beneficiaries
of this litigation blood money. So are non-scientologist lawyers such
as Elliot Abelson and William T. Drescher. And the terrorist and
financial misdeeds of this organization are still unraveling. I
possess Church of Scientology documents relating to "the Albania
Project". This was a Church of Scientology and
World Institute of Scientologists operation to take over Albania and
it's banking system. 

Interestingly, it is now being reported that much of the terrorist
money involved in the September 11,2001 tragedies, and other acts of
terrorism involving Osama bin Laden, has been channeled through the
Albania banking system.
11. At the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference herein, it was
recommended that I move to vacate the underlying sanctions orders upon
the grounds of impossibility to pay. Moreover, the related Criminal
conduct constitutes a fraud upon the underlying courts, invalidating
those and the vexatious litigant order. The impact of that order,
however improperly obtained, makes that an onerous process. Orders
must be obtained in the underlying Berry v. Cipriano, Barton,
Miscavige [Moxon, Abelson/Ingram] case, the underlying State and
Federal Pattinson v. Church of Scientology cases and the Jeavons v.
Church of Scientology case. This process alone will require approx.90
days. The current disputes and State Bar discovery have interrupted
the commencement of that process which also requires considerable
additional research and briefing. Indeed, the Chronology of Events
being prepared is critical to the interests of justice herein and in
putting the newly obtained Wager and related evidence before the
underlying courts. The Court has already seen that evolving 84-page
chronology and reference to supporting evidence. It requires approx.30
days of further work and document review to complete. The Chronology
is also necessary in connection with the court's denial of due process
herein by, inter alia, requiring me to prepare motions showing "good
cause" before I serve any discovery herein and striking my existing
discovery in response to an improperly filed motion. Of course, if the
these motions to vacate are successful then these, or part of these,
proceedings would be mooted or, if trial has already taken place
herein, then this Court's orders may have to be vacated. None of 


those scenarios promote judicial economy, judicial efficiency or
promote the furtherance of justice.
12. Completion of the Chronology of Events and Reference to Supporting
Evidence, and the State Bar's Interrogatories, will enable me to seek
the assistance of pro bono State Bar specialist counsel, and also
malicious prosecution and abuse of process counsel in connection with
the Hurtado State and Federal cases involving the Church of
Scientology, Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq., Helena Kobrin, Esq., Ava
Paquette, Esq., Donald Wager, Esq., Elliot Abelson, Esq., Thomas
Byrnes, Esq. and others. The Church of Scientology, through it's
complainants herein, continues to engage in the obstruction, inter
alia, in that regard. Of course, much of my requested discovery
(including post December 2000 communications between the Church of
Scientology representatives and the State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel)
that the Church of Scientology and the State Bar has thus far
obstructed herein, will likely and ultimately be permitted in the
later malicious prosecution and abuse of process litigation concerning
the Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige (Moxon, Abelson, Ingram) and
Hurtado v. Berry cases - that have been and are at issue herein. The
State Bars refusal to stipulate to any extensions, and the continuing
State Bar and Church of Scientology discovery and trial pressure are
hampering my ability to provide requested documents to law enforcement
in connection with aspects of these pending matters. 
13. I am not only partially and temporarily disabled by severe
depression due to the obstruction and corruption of justice by the
Church of Scientology and it's represesntatives, I am also on food
stamps and general relief. I have no legal, secretarial or
administrative assistance at all. I must do every little detail
myself. I have little to no formal word processing and computer 


training. Thus I am disadvantaged more than most attorneys. The Church
of Scientology must have intended I be dead by now. Others have
claimed that. And a Church of Scientology lawyer has written: " Like
Lazarus, Berry has risen from the dead." I have been warned by senior
Los Angeles law enforcement that my physical safety may be at risk.
When assisting the German government I have been provided with German
Secret Service protection against the Church of Scientology. Many
German States preclude government and judicial employment of
scientologists because their oaths to serve the greater good of
scientology prevail over, and are inconsistent with, their oaths to
serve the German constitution and laws. Indeed, the German government
has had the Church of Scientology under total surveillance. Like many
other governments outside of the United States, the German government
considers the Church of Scientology to be a subversive organization
engaged in terrorism, totalitarian political domination, commercial
activities, financial fraud and criminal activities. These are matters
creating their own unique stress levels and leading me to request the
relief I have in these proceedings.
14. In addition, like many other Americans, I was shocked out of
productivity for nearly one week following the tragic events of
September 11,2001 in New York, where I used to practice and
subsequently do business from California. But for the pending trial on
these State Bar matters, I would have traveled to New York and
volunteered at ground zero of the World Trade
Center terrorist attacks.
15. I am one of the few attorneys who have successfully and repeatedly
litigated against the Church of Scientology. In 1993 the Church told
me that if I were not leading a team of ten 


lawyers it would have destroyed me long ago. As indicated above, the
Church of Scientology's subsequent seven-year campaign to "utterly
destroy" me " by any means possible " [primarily using the perjured
First Cipriano Declaration] caused me to stand alone and cost me my
residence of over ten years in which I had planned to retire.
16. In April of this year I moved into a house owned by a former
scientologist whose husband had given over a million dollars of the
community property to the Church of Scientology during their marriage.
He testified, in essence, during the divorce, that he would have
killed her if scientology required him to do so. One of their sons
slept with an axe under his bed as protection against his
scientologist father. She, and her friends, bravely refuse to let the
Church of Scientology intimidate her into throwing me into the street-
where the church of Scientology wants me. Indeed, the Church of
Scientology v. Fishman & Geertz defamation case, which I successfully
defended, involved allegations of Church of Scientology involved in
financial fraud, murder and instructions to commit suicide ("end of
cycle processing").
17. As a result of the move from my condo to her home I had to move
approx.300 boxes of documents. Many contain materials relevant to
these proceedings. Days and days of time are required to properly go
through those boxes for the documents being required by the current
State Bar discover requests. Concurrent with my move, the Church of
Scientology filed an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment in the
Barton [Church of Scientology] v. Berry case. It consumed me until
late June. The Jeavons and State Bar matters have consumed me since 
then. The Barton v. Berry trial (involving the State Bars Counts One
through Three) must now
also consume me. And somehow I must find time for Rule 11 motions and
to vacate the 


underlying orders that are at issue herein. The State Bar refuses an
Abatement or continuance for any reason. The lead Deputy Trial Counsel
has stated to the Court, in effect, that she must 
personally prosecute these proceedings before mid-December because of
her maternity and childbirth schedule. That is an interesting position
in light of the January 28,2002 trial date for the Barton v. Berry
case which is a component part of these proceedings.
18. In any event, I am now being denied, in all of the unique
circumstances herein, an opportunity to conduct discovery and to
prepare an effective defense at trial. I need the requested 21-day
extension of time for health, workload and due process reasons. Even
then I will have received and aggregate extension of less than 30
days. An unusual situation in connection with such comprehensive
discovery requests-particularly in the circumstances herein.
I declare under penalty of perjury according to the laws of the United
States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed this __ day of September 2001 at Los Angeles, CA.

_______________________
Graham E. Berry














--PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE

 	I, Graham E.Berry, certify and declare as follows:

	I am over the age of 18 years, I am an officer of this court
and I am the respondent herein. My business and personal address is
3384 McLaughlin Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90066.
           
            On September _, 2001, I personally served the following
documents described as: 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS;
DECLARATION OF GRAHAM E. BERRY AND EXHIBITS THERETO.
(Rule 115)

            On the interested parties in this proceeding, addressed as
follows, by delivery to the receptionist at the State Bar offices:
The State Bar of California                            
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel                  
Terrie L.Goldade, Esq.                                    
Agustin Hernandez, Esq.
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299

              
          I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United States and the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct.

Executed on this __ day of September 2001, at Los Angeles, California.

     
__________________________
Graham E. Berry




From hkhenson@home.com Sat Sep 22 03:47:20 2001
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!feeder.qis.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.lightlink.com!news2.lightlink.com
From: hkhenson@home.com (Keith Henson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: More Berry vs the Bar.
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 07:47:20 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <3bb041f0.97702417@news2.lightlink.com>
References: <3bad3f84.97082369@news2.lightlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.40.229
X-Original-Trace: 22 Sep 2001 03:46:47 -0400, 24.141.40.229
Xref: sn-us alt.religion.scientology:981160

On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 07:38:00 GMT, hkhenson@home.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:


GRAHAM E. BERRY
3384 McLaughlin Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone: (310) 745-3771
Fax:     (310) 745-3772

grahameb@aol.com

September 17,2001

By fax: (213) 765 1383
                                       
Terrie Goldade, Esq. 
Agustin Hernandez, Esq.

Deputy Trial Counsel
The State Bar of California
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel Enforcement
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299

Re: Case No. 99-0-12791, Complainants: Michael Gerner, Esq., and
Donald Wager, Esq.

[Real Parties In Interest: Church of Scientology International Office
of Special Affairs; Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq.; Helena Kobrin, Esq.; Ava
Paquette, Esq.; Elliot Abelson, Esq.; Samuel D. Rosen, Esq.; Donald
Wager, Esq.; Thomas Byrnes, Esq.; Eugene Ingram]

Dear Ms. Goldade and Mr. Hernandez:

	I am in receipt of your September 17,2001 fax. As things have
turned out, I cannot borrow a vehicle tomorrow afternoon but I can on
Wednesday September 14,2001 at 3 p.m. Accordingly, I shall be picking
up the specified documents at that time. Please advise me if that is
not convenient.

	I will be in a position to provide a substantial response to
your pending discovery by weeks end. You will receive a response to
the Requests For Admission on Wednesday afternoon. However, I will
need some additional time for a complete response to the
interrogatories and inspection demands. Bearing in mind the
requirements in connection with the Settlement Conference, three
additional weeks (effectively two) should suffice if I am not snowed
with additional demands by either you or the Church of Scientology,
which also continues to seek discovery against me. Accordingly, please
treat this letter as a "Meet and Confer" in connection with a Request
For Extension of Time until Friday October 12, 2001 .I would agree to
fax serve you partial interrogatory responses by 9 a.m. Monday.
Otherwise, I will need to file a motion for a similar extension of
time. If you are so agreeable, I am prepared to fax you updated draft
responses every few days or otherwise in accordance with your
reasonable requests. Please advise me of your response by close of
business Tuesday September 18, 2001.

	In addition, you have repeatedly alleged that I have
misrepresented statements by you. However, you have never indicated
what it is that I have allegedly misrepresented or taken out of
context. Accordingly, I would be grateful for your views as to what I
have allegedly misrepresented or taken out of context. That way I can
take any appropriate corrective action, if I agree. In any event, I
submit that it is improper to accuse opposing counsel of wrongful
conduct without being willing to specify what the alleged wrongful
conduct is.
	As for your statements as to a discrepancy in the boxes being
returned, all documents listed were delivered. Ms.Barnes made no
post-delivery observations as to any missing documents. However, in
any matters involving the Church of Scientology, documents regularly
disappear from official government files, court files, libraries,
offices, homes, etc. According to testimony and documents, this is in
accordance with the Church's policies and practices in connection with
"removing entheta from the environment and the planet." In normal
non-cult English, 'removing' documents, which are critical of the
church or represent bad public relations for the church. There is
available testimony on this very issue. Indeed, Kendrick L. Moxon,
Esq. was named as a co-conspirator in connection with a massive theft
of documents from the United States Government. The Church did not
want the U.S.Government in continued possession of those "entheta" or
critical documents. This church infiltration and "culling" of federal
government records was called "Operation Snow White." It is believed
to continue today. Official church documents evidence that Operation
Snow White was still in existence in 1989.Accordingly, it would not
surprise scientology litigation veterans if documents involving
scientology and its covert operations have disappeared from the State
Bar files. They also disappeared from court files in Berry v. Cipriano
and in the Berry bankruptcy cases filed by the Church of Scientology
and its shills Moxon, Barton, Church of Scientology International etc.
They have also disappeared in other cases. Within the last two years,
Scientology documents were also stolen from the Swedish Parliament
records and files concerning the scientology cult. Indeed, Germany has
the Church of Scientology under surveillance as a psycho-terrorism
group, totalitarian political movement, commercial and criminal
enterprise. 


Very truly yours,



Graham E. Berry





From hkhenson@home.com Sat Sep 22 03:49:17 2001
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-04!supernews.com!news.airnews.net!cabal10.airnews.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.lightlink.com!news2.lightlink.com
From: hkhenson@home.com (Keith Henson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: More Berry vs the Bar.
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 07:49:17 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <3bb14234.97769989@news2.lightlink.com>
References: <3bad3f84.97082369@news2.lightlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.40.229
X-Original-Trace: 22 Sep 2001 03:48:43 -0400, 24.141.40.229
Xref: sn-us alt.religion.scientology:981161

On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 07:38:00 GMT, hkhenson@home.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:


GRAHAM E. BERRY
3384 McLaughlin Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90066

Phone: (310) 745-3771
Fax:     (310) 745-3772

grahameb@aol.com

September 19, 2001



By Hand
                                        
Terrie Goldade, Esq.
Confidentiality Waived.
Deputy Trial Counsel
The State Bar of California
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel Enforcement
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299

Re: Case No. 99-0-12791, Complainants: Michael Gerner, Esq., and
Donald Wager, Esq.

[Real Parties In Interest: Church of Scientology International Office
of Special Affairs; Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq.; Helena Kobrin, Esq.; Ava
Paquette, Esq.; Elliot Abelson, Esq.; Samuel D. Rosen, Esq.; Donald
Wager, Esq.; Thomas Byrnes, Esq.; Eugene Ingram]

Dear Ms. Goldade:

I am in receipt of your fax dated and transmitted September 18,2001.I
will file a short motion to extend the discover cut off date on
Friday. Do you have any objection to the extension and arrangements
proposed in my September 17,2001 letter? Please advise me so that I
may make the appropriate representation as part of my "meet and
confer" declaration.

To demonstrate my good faith, I am enclosing Responses to the Request
For Admissions and a partial draft of the Interrogatory Responses. In
that regard, I am happy to fax you partial Interrogatory Responses,
charge by charge/count by count, as they are completed. The same
applies to documents. For example, the documents in connection with
Count Nine comprise approx. one expanded redwell folder. My only
concern is security for these originals while you are inspecting or
copying. These responses are consuming 8-12 hours of my time every
day. In light of the volume of materials involved, and my health, I
cannot move faster. After the interrogatory responses are completed, I
will consult with several ethics counsel in an effort to obtain pro
bono representation.

I await your response.

Sincerely yours,



Graham E. Berry

Enclosures: Responses to Requests For Admission.
                    Partial Draft, Interrogatory Responses.