The following is the text of the order by Judge Williams finding that Graham E. Berry is a Vexatious Litigant:
FILED
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
AU6 2O 1999
SUPEROR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
GRAHAM E. BERRY
vs.
ROBERT J. CIPRIANO, et al.,
ORDER FINDING GRAHAM E. BERRY TO BE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
DATE: August 20, 1999
The Court having read and considered the moving papers of Petitioners Church[sic] of Scientology Intemational,.Isadore Chair and Glenn Barton, opposing papers of Graham E. Berry and supplemental papers filed by the parties and having heard oral argument thereon, the Court hereby finds Graham E. Berry to be a vexatious litigant within the meaning of C.C.P. ss ss 391 (b)(1)(3)(4).
Effective immediately, Graham E. Berry is required to comply with the procedures set forth in C.C.P. ss 391.7.
Alexander H. Williams, III
Superior Court Judge
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS -
FRIDAY, AUGUST 20, 1999
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: GRAHAM BERRY
FOR THE DEFENDANT: MOXON & KOBRIN
BY: KENDRICK MOXON
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY
BY: MR. SAMUEL ROSEN
ORRICK, HERRINGTON, SUTCLIFFE
BY: GERALD L. CHALEFF
SIMKE CHODOS
BY: DAVID M. CHODOS
MR. BARRY SOTER
CHARLES KUHN, CSR 17810
OFFICIAL REPORTER
THE COURT: GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME BACK. WE ARE ON THE RECORD
IN CASE NUMBER BC184355 AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED MATTERS. THE
LEAD NAME IS GRAMAM BERRY VERSUS ROBERT CIPRIANO. COUNSEL, GOOD
MORNING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE THIS MORNING. MAY I HAVE
YOUR APPEARANCES. AND I REMIND YOU THAT ONE COUNSEL IS
APPEARING BY PHONE, THAT APPEARANCE, MR. SOTER?
MR. SOTER: BARRY SOTER OF WASSERMAN, SOTER AND COUNSEL, FORMALLY ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR THE DISMISSED DEFENDANT, ROBERT CIPRIANO.
THE COURT: I KNOW YOU ARE OUT OF TOWN, AND I DO WANT TO REPEAT MY REQUEST OF YOU. IF AT ANY TIME YOU DON'T HEAR, SOUND OFF IN SOME WAY AND I WILL ASSURE THAT THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN A WAY THAT EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND, OKAY, SIR?
MR. SOTER: I WILL DO THAT.
THE COURT: OTHER APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL HERE IN COURT.
MR. CHALEFF: GERALD CHALEFF OF ORRICK, HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFF FOR CHURCH[SIC] OF SCIENTOLOGY ...
(snip)
THE COURT: ... YOUR PASSION AND YOUR CONCERN WOULD RECEIVE LAWFUL HEARING AND LAWFUL ACCESS.
IT IS THE DIFFICULT CASES THAT MAKE A JUDGE A JUDGE, AND I HAVE TRIED VERY HARD TO RESPOND WITH THE BEST JUDICIAL FIBER I CAN MUSTER TO THIS VERY CHALLENGING CASE.
I REPEAT NOW WHAT I HAD SUGGESTED IN MY DIALOGUE WITH YOU IN YOUR ARGUMENT. I THINK THE PETITION IS MORE ABOUT NOT SO MUCH ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN SEEKING TO REDRESS FOR THE CLAIMS YOU HAVE BROUGHT TO THIS COURT THAN IT IS ABOUT HOW YOU HAVE DONE IT.
THIRDLY, THERE IS AN IRONY HERE. MY POSITION AS A NEUTRAL JUDICIAL ARMS-LENGTH OBSERVER OF THE PASSIONS AND ACCUSATIONS AND RECRIMINATIONS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH LITIGATION BY AND AGAINST THE CHURCH[SIC] OF SCINTOLOGY AND ITS PRESENT AND FORMER DECIPLES HAS CAUSED ME TO SEE A LOT OF C'ONSPIRACY THEORIES AND SUGGESTIONS AND SUSPICIONS AND FINGER POINTING. AND THAT LEADS TO A GREAT AND SAD IRONY.
IF ONE LOOKS FOR ONE PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILURE OF THE MATTERS AND CLAIMS YOU HAVE .BROUGHT TO THIS COURT, IF ONE LOOKS FOR ONE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHURCH[SIC] OF SCIENTOLOGY AND ITS ALLIES PREVAILING AS YOU MIGHT PRESUMPTIVELY PRESUME THEM TO HAVE PREVAILED IN THIS CASE THE ONE PERSON MOST RESPONSIBLE IS GRAHAM BERRY. THAT IS WHAT THE MOTION IS ABOUT. THAT IS WHAT THE PETITTION IS ABOUT.
THE WAY THINGS HAVE HAPPENED IN THIS LITIGATION AND THE WAY IT HAS BEEN CONDUCTED HAVE GIVEN .' .. SUPPORT TO THE PETITION. WITH ALL THE DUE RESPECT, SIR, I HAVE TO SADLY STATE THAT IF THERE IS SUCH A THING ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH AS A VEXATIOUS LITIGENT YOU, SIR, SADLY, ARE IT.
GEORGES SANTIATA G-E-O-R-G-E-S SAID, THOSE WHO DO NOT LEE FROM HISTORY ARE CONDEMNED TO RELIVE IT. THEREFORE, IT IS WITH GREAT REGRET THAT I FIND MYSELF JUDICIALLY OBLIGED TO GRANT THE PETITION.
I DO NOT DO SO LIGHTLY. ACCESS TO JUSTICE IS THE CENTHAL FIBER OF MY JUDICIAL OBLIGATION AND THE HIGHEST PRIDE OF MY DAILY DUTY.
I AM IN THE BUSINESS OF AFFORDING OPPORTUNITIES TO PEOPLE TO BE HEARD. NOT JUST ON PLEASANT MATTER BUT ON UNPLEASANT. NOT JUST ON EASY MATTERS, BUT ON DIFFICULT. TO HOLD THE DOORS OF THIS COURTROOM OPEN TO ALL WHO SEEK TO DRAW NEAR, AND BE HEARD, IN THE WORDS, THE OPENING WORDS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND COURTS THROUGHOUT THIS LAND, HOLD THAT INVITATION PROUDLY TO DRAW YOU IN AND YOU SHALL BE HEARD.
I TAKE COMFORT IN GRANTING THIS PETITION. I'M NOT PREVENTING ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR YOU OR THOSE YOU REPRESENT, BUT ONLY REQUIRING THAT THAT ACCESS BE LAWFUL, MORE COURTLY, AND MORE LEGAL THAN THOSE THAT OCCURRED AT TIMES IN THIS COURT.
I'M GOING TO ASK. THE MOVING PARTY PREPARE AN APPROPRIATE ORDER. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE LOGISTICS OF THAT AND I THEN ALSO WANT TO TALK ABOUT OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE ON CALENDAR.
ROBERT, YOU MAY AT THIS TIME CALL IN MR. SOTER.
WITH REGARD TO THE PETITION, I WANT TO PROCEED WITH GREAT CARE. I WANT AN ORDER THAT ACCURATELY REFLECTS THAT THIS COURT IS FINDING THAT PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED ON ALL THE GROUNDS ADVANCED.
I'M DECIDING NO MORE THAN THAT, BUT I AM DECIDING THAT, THAT THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION PRESENTED TO THIS COURT SUPPORT THE PETITION IN EACH OF ITS SEVERAL GROUNDS AND THE COURT SO FINDS TO THAT EXTENT, BUT TO THAT EXTENT ONLY. MY MISSION TODAY IS ONLY TO ANSWER THE MAIL, NOT TO RESOLVE ALL MATTERS IN THIS DISPUTE.
SECONDLY, I AM PREPARED TO ENTERTAIN APPROPRIATE ADDITIONS TO THE ORDER IF THEY ARE WITHIN MY JURISDICTION. THE OLDER I GET THE MORE I BELIEVE IN THE PROCESS AND I AM NOT ABOUT TO MAKE AN ORDER ABOUT WHICH I HAVE NO AUTHORITY. I SIMPLY WANT TO DO MY DUTY IN LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
IT THEREFORE OCCURS TO ME THAT PROBABLY THE APPROPRIATE ACTION IS FOR AN ORDER TO BE PREPARED TO BE PRESENT TO MR. BERRY AND ANYBODY ELSE THAT SHOULD BE OBLIGED TO ANSWER A FORM INTERROGATORY NUMBER THREE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SOMEBODY CAN TAKE THE ADVANTAGE OF DUMPING INTO THE COURT FILE ALL MANNER OF HEINOUS MATERIAL AND SAY, WELL, NOW IT'S A, NOT UNDER SEAL; AND B, IT'S THERE FOR ME TOREPUBLISH AND CLAIM A PRIVILEGE.
THE COURT: I GUESS I'VE BEEN'THE PUBLIC EYE SO LONG, INCLUDING GOING THROUGH JUDICIAL ELECTION THAT X HAVE LEARNED AT SOME POINT THAT THE PUBLIC DOESN'T BEGIN TO CARE HALF AS MUCH AS WE DO ABOUT WHAT IS SAID ABOUT US, AND THAT AT SOME POINT' YOU JUST HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT PEOPLE SAY STUFF AND THAT IN AN OPEN SOCIETY SOONER OR lATER THE TRUTH WILL OUT AND THAT THOSE WHO SAY THINGS ABOUT PEOPLE SOONER OR LATER BECOME SELF IMPEACHING.
INDEED, I KNOW PEOPLE THAT ARE OFFENDED IF THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF CERTAIN ACCUSATIONS THAT COME FROM CERTAIN SOURCES, THEIR PRINCIPLE RESPONSE IS THAT YOU TELL A FRIEND. I URGE A GROWN UP APPROACH OF THIS.
I FULLY APPRECIATE THE SLINGS AND ARROWS OF OUTRAGEOUS OVER STATEMENT TO PUT IT IN YOUR PERSPECTIVE AND I AM NO FAN OF THE WAY LITIGATION PRIVILEGE IS IMPLEMENTED IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE IT ENCOURAGES EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE THIS COURT.
MY REACTION TO IT IS NUMBER ONE THIS IS EXHIBIT LETTER A, AND IF THE RULE STINKS, HERE IS A GOOD REASON WHY IT DOES BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY THIS I COURT HAS SEEN THE DUMPING OF HUGE AMOUNTS OF BORDERLINE IRRELEVANT MATERIAL WITH UNDUE GLEE BY MR. BERRY BECAUSE IT IS IN HIS JUDGMENT AND MY OBSERVATION A LICENSE TO BASH AND TRASH. I HAVE SEEN IT. I HAVE WATCHED IT AND IT'S TIME FOR SOMEBODY TO CALL IT WHAT IT IS AND THAT IS WHAT IT IS.
IT IS BORDERLINE CHILDISH BUT BY THAT STANDARD AN AWFUL LOT OF STUFF I SEE IN THIS COURT WOULD GO DOWN THE TUBES.
THE NEXT POINT I MAKE IS I DON'T SEE MY HAVING AUTHORITY TO SCREEN IT. IT IS MY DUTY TO FOLLOW THE LAW WITH CARE AND WITH BALANCE, AND I WON'T PUT THINGS UNDER SEAL, I JUST DON'T BELIEVE IT.
MR. ROSEN: I DIDN'T ASK YOU TO, I ASKED YOU TO EXERCISE YOUR AUTHORITY TO STRIKE.
THE COURT: AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT AND WHAT I WILL TELL YOU IS, I WILL, AS I SAID TO MR. BERRY ON SO MANY THINGS, I AM OPEN TO TELL YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO DO AND WHY. I DON'T HAVE IT BEFORE ME AND THEREFORE MY PROPOSAL IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO SET IT DOWN ON A DATE AND YOU ALL COME AND ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO, WHAT DID WE SAY EARLIER, THOSE OF YOU WHO WISH TO BE HEARD DRAW NEIGH AND YOU SHALL BE HEARD.
EVEN IF IT'S FROM NEW YORK CITY, WE ARE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COURTROOM. REMEMBER THAT I WAS TEN YEARS OLD BEFORE I KNEW THAT YANKEES WAS A BASEBALL TEAM TOO.
YOU ARE TRAINED AND EQUIPPED AND OBVIOUSLY QUITE CAPABLE OF DOING, AND THOSE THAT ARE AGAINST YOU I EXPECT THEM TO DO THE SAME.
MR. BERRY: FINALLY, YOUR HONOR, IS MR. CIPRIANO A PARTY BEFORE THIS COURT OR IS HE NOT?
THE COURT: HE IS NOT. AS OF MY POSITION TODAY, HE IS A, AND I WANT TO SAY ON THE RECORD HE IS A DEFENDANT AS TO MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
I WELCOME HIM TO THIS COURT AS I WELCOME EVERYBODY HERE AND I OFFER HIM, I HOPE COURTESY AND RESPECT AS I DO EVERYONE ELSE. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT HE HAS A LEGAL STANDING BEFORE THIS COURT UNLESS I'M MISSING SOMETHING. YOU KNOW YOU HAVE A LAWSUIT AND PEOPLE GET SUED AND PEOPLE GET DISMISSED AND THEY ARE ENTITLED TO CLOSURE. AND THANK INCLUDES ALL OF US.
ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE OR ANY COMMENTS? THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. I KNOW YOU HAVE SPENT MORE OF YOUR DAY THAN YOU PLANNED TO I GUESS YOU ARE ON NOTICE FOR THAT.
-end of transcript-