From elastic!lethe!news.on.rogers.wave.ca!news.uunet.ca!newsfeeder.toronto.ican.net!visi.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!worldnet.att.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!207.126.101.65!supernews.com!news Wed Jan 15 23:27:36 1997 Xref: elastic alt.religion.scientology:69602 comp.org.eff.talk:567 misc.legal:21643 Path: elastic!lethe!news.on.rogers.wave.ca!news.uunet.ca!newsfeeder.toronto.ican.net!visi.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!worldnet.att.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!207.126.101.65!supernews.com!news From: grady@tidepool.com (Grady Ward) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.legal,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Grady's Opposition to Hogan's Motion to Strike Swedish NOTs exhibit Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 19:57:18 GMT Organization: +1 707 826 7712 Lines: 295 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <32d2a938.4455806@207.126.101.80> Reply-To: grady@tidepool.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.54.58.113 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, Plaintiff, v. GRADY WARD, an individual, Defendant. ) ) NO. C 96-20207 RMW EAI OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS FILED BY GRADY WARD ON OCTOBER 25, 1996; COUNTER-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS The defendant opposes the motion to strike by the plaintiff for the following reasons: 1. The copies of the NOTs documents (TXu 257 326) are self- authenticating under Federal Rules of Evidence § 902(3) They contain the signature and stamps of the foreign officials qualified to authenticate and the material is reasonably bound with official security strings and the official Swedish seal to prevent or detect alteration. Further, if the court has any doubt of the authenticity after its own inspection of the face and means of securing each document pack or the contents of such packs, the defendant would be most happy to ask that the court order a copy directly from the administrative section of the Primary Court of Stockholm to be delivered either directly to chambers or to a member of the Swedish legation in the United States for an addition affidavit of authenticity. However the plaintiff has not challenged the authenticity of the contents of the exhibit as being the NOTs in question in this litigation; 2. The declaration by Grady Ward filed with the NOTs material was properly qualified to distinguish matters of personal knowledge and matters based upon information and belief. On information and belief, both copies of the entire NOTs packs were ordered by Mr Lars Ek and fulfilled by clerk Danja Andersson at the Primary Court of Stockholm, Sweden at or about the date shown on the receipt exhibit accompanying the declaration of Grady Ward. Article 26(b) of the Swedish Constitution governs the principle of offentlighetsprincip. 3. The declaration was an "other paper" as described in F.R.C.P. 7(b) and correctly followed F.R.C.P.7 (b)(2) and (b)(3). Since the paper was not an application to the court for an order, but simply a fact significant to matters under litigation in this case, F.R.C.P. 7(b)(1) does not apply; 4. Similarly, since the declaration and exhibits was not a request to the court for an order, L.R. 7-1(a) does not apply; 5. The declaration and exhibit challenged by the plaintiff was not made for any improper purpose but was made to provide relevant judicial notice to crucial facts governing this litigation, namely proof that the NOTs documents that comprise Exhibit C of the Preliminary Injunction of Grady are publicly and freely available for reading, for anonymous copying using the copier's own equipment, or requesting official, certified copies - such as those filed in this litigation - from the Swedish government for the cost of copying; 6. The defendant pro se proceeding in forma pauperis has not violated L.R. 11-3(a)(3) or L.R. 11-6. The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte has praised the politeness and good manners of Grady Ward in court while on the other hand the plaintiff attorneys were forced to apologize to the Honorable Edward A. Infante for their behavior toward the defendant in his chambers. The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte has also mentioned in court that lawful expression on the Internet is not the courts concern. COUNTER-MOTION FOR SANCTION UNDER F.R.C.P. § 11 The defendant moves the court to award the defendant the reasonable expenses and attorney's fee of $300.00 as provided in F.R.C.P. 11(C)(1)(A) because of the plaintiff attorney's violation of the following provisions of F.R.C.P. 11(b) by filing the Motion to Strike: 1. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(2) for claiming the Swedish NOTs Exhibits are not authenticated despite F.R.E. 902(3) (Motion, at 1:9 and 2: footnote 1); 2. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(2) for claiming that a "Swedish defendant [Zenon Panoussis] was in violation of a number of Swedish court orders, including an injunction." (Id., at 1:9-11); (Decl. Zenon Panoussis) 3. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(2) for alleging defendant Ward has violated rules governing the filing of motions and the practice of an attorney before this court (Id., at 1:11-12); 4. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(3) for alleging that defendant Ward is conspiring with Keith Henson and/or Zenon Panoussis in Sweden to feloniously submit forged documents before this court (Id., at 1:12); 5. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(3) for alleging that the defendant's filing is evidence of collusion for an improper purpose (Id., at 1:23); 6. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(2) for alleging that defendant Ward did not serve copies of these exhibits for the purpose of causing the plaintiff and the court wasted time and effort. (Id., at 1:23-26). The plaintiff is well aware that the defendant is enjoined from making copies of these documents by April 1, 1996 order of this court; 7. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(2) and (3) for alleging that "RTC's suspicions are confirmed" (Id., at 2:9); 8. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(2) for making the false statement that defendant Ward "is in contempt of the preliminary injunction" for having destroyed material extraneous to the significant contents of the United Parcel Service package containing the NOTs documents from Sweden (Id., at 2: footnote 3); 9. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(1) for claiming that defendant Ward is "poisoning the well" or misleading the court in any way (Id., at 2: footnote 3); 10. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(3) for claiming that there is "every indication that Ward has participated in these actions [SCAMIDAT, Vorlon, and the Lar Ek NOTs packs]" (Id., at 3:6); (Decl. Grady Ward) 11. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(3) for alleging that the NOTs packs filed in the exhibit did not emanate from the Swedish Justice Chancellory or the Justice Department files when they did originate there, although copied, to the defendant's knowledge, at the administrative section of the Primary Court of Sweden by clerk Danja Andersson; (Id., at 4:7-14) In fact this entire allegation by the plaintiff appears to be a calculated diversion to re- interpret the statement of Thomas R. Hogan that "the plaintiff believes these exhibits to be forgeries" in a letter to this court, which the defendant has alleged is evidence of Obstruction of Justice, a RICO predicate act, by the plaintiff for "anticipating" the thefts and forgeries later discovered by the Swedish authorities as documented in exhibits to the defendant's amended counterclaim (Id., at 4 generally). To my knowledge and belief, after the reported theft of at least one of the official NOTs pack by scientologist Thierry Duchaunac, the scientologists are now guarded by the Chief Registrar's Wardens when "checking out" the NOTs packs; other members of the public may read or copy them completely anonymously; 12. L.R. 11-3(a)(2) for calling the 300 year old principle of public availability of Swedish court documents "offentlighetsprincip" described under article 26(b) of the Swedish Constitution a "quirk" (Id., at 5:13); 13. L.R. 11-3(a)(3) for misleading this court about the actual availability of the NOTs packs internationally by implying that the NOTs materials are sealed by all of the many official government outlets where they have been - and will be -- continuously and publicly available forever in Sweden. (Id., at 6:1-3); 14. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(3) for stating that defendant Ward is acting in concert with anyone to violate the plaintiff's intellectual property rights (Id., at 6:4); 15. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(2) for stating that defendant has destroyed material evidence accompanying the NOTs exhibits. (Id., at 6:16); 16. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(2) and L.R. 11-3(a)(3) for alluding to alleged postings by defendant Ward that were "obscene and disgusting" (Id., at 6:19). This kind of scandalous, immaterial and prejudicial characterization is clearly inadmissible, even if the postings in question were authenticated, not hearsay, and had any competent foundation; 17. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(2) and L.R. 11-3(a)(3) and California Business and Professional Code 6068(f) for similar quoting of alleged postings by defendant Ward that plaintiff calls "vile and obscene." (Id., at 7:4 and footnote 11). The court has already mentioned in court that lawful expression on the Internet is not a concern of the court. In spite of this admonition, attorney's for the plaintiff continue to poison the well by quoting and appending as exhibits such quotes of alleged indecent and scandalous material. 18. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(3) for alleging that defendant Ward concealed communications with Zenon Panoussis. (Id., at 7:19 and 8:1-4). The document request was fulfilled on October 7, 1996 and the alleged communication by fax was on November 1, 1996. The answer to the document request was correct when propounded and answered. As required by the F.R.C.P. 26(e), the defendant will seasonably amend and supplement his responses in discovery; 19. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(2) for continuing to state as admissible evidence an alleged e-mail between one Arnaldo Lerma and the defendant (Id., at 8:17-21) when the plaintiff has not deposed Mr Lerma so that defendant Grady Ward can cross-examine and such allusions are inadmissible as hearsay, as are all postings alleged to be from Grady Ward have been moved to be struck as inadmissible at hearsay, unauthenticated, and lacking competent foundation; 20. F.R.C.P. 11((b)(3), L.R. 11(3)(a)(3), and California Business and Professional Code § 6128(a) and CB&P Code § 6068(d) ? for alleging that defendant Grady Ward is the same as "Vorlon," a person who distributed the NOTs pack world-wide repeatedly over the Internet on May 6, 1996 and several other times. (Id., at 9:16). The plaintiff is well aware that the identity of "Vorlon" is a person named Johan Wevers, a citizen of the Netherlands and a customer of the anonymous remailer service xs4all. He admitted it, Helena K. Kobrin wrote e-mails about the incident, and an RTC delegation led by Warren McShane personally visited Johan Wevers in order to dissuade him from posting the NOTs further under "Vorlon" or any other name. This instance of misleading the court about "Vorlon" is malicious and reprehensible and deserves a special sanction just for itself (Decl. Grady Ward); 21. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(2) for plaintiff's entire section III beginning on page 10 of their Motion. Defendant Grady Ward did not make his filing of the NOTs for any improper purpose, has not colluded with anyone to misappropriate other's property rights, and has not been dishonest in any way with this court; 22. F.R.C.P. 11(b)(2) for Helena K. Kobrin's false affidavit claiming she has "personal knowledge" of the purported Usenet exhibit postings attached; 23. Finally, F.R.C.P. 11(b)(1) for plaintiff's entire motion to strike. Taken in its entirety, with unsupported accusations of felonious conduct, gratuitous examples of alleged and inadmissible indecent comments, and in the case of the "Vorlon" attribution, indefensible allegations, the overall purpose of the motion is to harass the pro se defendant proceeding in forma pauperis. While I agree that a pro se must abide by all Federal and Local Rules, it is even more important that an experienced counsel to this court do so - and more shocking when he or she clearly and continually does not. The defendant urges that the court award him the sanction he asks for as reasonable compensation for the unnecessary time and expense of defending against this scurrilous motion and requests that the court admonish the plaintiff not to repeat this conduct in matters before it. MISCELLANEOUS As he has done similarly in other pleadings, the defendant moves to strike the following of the plaintiff's exhibits for the specific reasons indicated: 1. Exhibit A. hearsay, unauthenticated, no foundation; 2. Exhibit B. hearsay, unauthenticated, no foundation; 3. Exhibit C. hearsay, unauthenticated, no foundation, scandalous and prejudicial; 4. Exhibit E. hearsay, unauthenticated, no foundation; 5. Exhibit F. on the grounds that the corrected appendix to the deposition was unfairly withheld showing that the defendant Grady Ward did in fact challenge all alleged postings entered as exhibits by the plaintiff as hearsay, unauthenticated, and without competent foundation; 6. Exhibit H. hearsay, unauthenticated, no foundation; 7. Exhibit I. hearsay, unauthenticated, no foundation; 8. The entire affidavit of Marcus Nyman as hearsay; Respectfully submitted, DATED: January 6, 1997 ______________________________________ GRADY WARD, in pro per "F.R.E. 902(3) Foreign public documents. A document purporting to be executed or attested in an official capacity by a person authorized by the laws of a foreign country to make the execution or attestation, and accompanied by a final certification as to the genuineness of the signature and official position (A) of the executing or attesting person, or (B) of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness of signature and official position relates to the execution or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness of signature and official position relating to the execution or attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States, or a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States. If reasonable opportunity has been given to all parties to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official documents, the court may, for good cause shown, order that they be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification or permit them to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification." CA B&P § 6068(f) To abstain from all offensive personality, and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he or she is charged." CA B&P § 6128. Every attorney is guilty of a misdemeanor who either: (a) Is guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party…" ? CA B&P § 6068(d) "To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her such means only as are consistent with truth, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law." 3 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS FILED BY GRADY WARD ON OCTOBER 25, 1996; COUNTER-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS No. C 96-20207 RMW EAI