This is a letter, but amounts to a filled in book outline of years and years of the battle between Graham Berry and scientology. It will be very interesting for those with associative data bases to feed this one into them.

Graham has been too busy to look for a publisher, but if anyone wants to forward this to one, please do and let me know by email. I am going to act informally for a while as Graham's literary agent. I can provide the Word version instead of trying to make do with ascii text

Keith Henson

PS, the formatting inconsistencies are due to my converting to text from Word. The paragraph indents are irregular and all the bold/ital/ underlining was lost.

PPS just in skimming this, there are some gems in it.

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

grahameb@aol.com

October 1, 2001

Honorable Robert M. Talcott SETTLEMENT STATEMENT
State Bar Court -
Confidentiality Waived -
1149 South Hill Street.
Los Angeles, CA 90015

RE: Graham E. Berry, State Bar No.128503
Settlement Conference: October 2, 2001 at 2 pm.

[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; Barbara Reeves, Esq, Michael Turrill, Esq; Gerald Chaleff, Esq; Donald Wager, Esq; Michael Gerner, Esq; Thomas Byrnes, Esq; Jerry L. Bregman, Esq; Gary Soter, Esq; David Chodos, Esq; Eugene Ingram, Miguel Hurtado, Michael Hurtado, et al.]

Dear Judge Talcott:

The purpose of this letter is to comply with the Court's September 19,2001 Order by " [delineating] at the minimum the terms of the offers that have been exchanged and the parties position on the factual and legal issues in the proceedings."

" The Church of Scientology has hijacked the legal system and crashed it through the Constitution." PTSC, ARS Internet Newsgroup, Sept. 9,2001. At a Status Conference herein on September 7,2001, [shill] joint complainant Michael Gerner, Esq. conceded that he had been hired by Respondent's long-time litigation adversary, the Church of Scientology ("Scientology"), to file and pursue the complaint herein. It was commenced in connection with the now dismissed Hurtado v. Berry State and Federal cases which were voluntarily dismissed after Joint Complainant Wager testified that he and Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq. had solicited the representation of Hurtado (as they had done with Cipriano and earlier Jason Scott) and that he (Wager) had engaged in witness tampering. See Chronology and Privilege Brief. The State Bar now ignores the conduct of the perpetrators of a seven-year R.I.C.O. pattern of felony crime and other wrongful tortious and unethical conduct intentionally directed at Respondent and now proceeds against him - the victim of that misconduct. Indeed, there are duplicative proceedings pending before the Federal Bankruptcy Court. These concern Counts One to Three herein that are the gravaman of the Barton v. Berry Adverse action in Bankruptcy. Note: All statutory and rule references herein, unless otherwise indicated, are to the Cal. Business & Professions Code and the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

Although the California State Bar would not agree, I submit that the evidence shows, inter alia, the most blatant and serious imaginable violations, by the Real Parties in Interest listed above). They are document by testimony and documents and include the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1-120; 1-400 (C), (D) (1) & (2), (3), (4), (5); 2 - 100 (A); 3-110 (A); 3-200 (A) and (B); 3-210, 3-300, 3- 310 (B), (1), (2), (3), (4), (C) (1), (2), (3), (E), (F) (1), (2), (3); 3-400 (B); 3-500; 3-600 (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), 3-700 (B) (1), (2); 4-100 (B) (4); Rule 4-210 (A); 5-100 (A); 5-200 (A), (B), (C) and (E), 5-210, 5 -220, 5 - 310.In addition, Real Parties in Interest have also violated the following provisions of the State Bar Act; sections 6067, 6068 (a),(c),(d),(f),(g),(n),6106,6106.5, 6151,6152.Moreover,Moxon violated Insurance Code Sections 1871.7, 550 (a) (1),(a) (5),(b) (1) - (5),(c) (1)-(4). These are serious violations. Rule of Procedure Rule 264(b). See: Privilege Brief; Chronology; August 20,1999 Transcript; October 7,1999 Letter; March 5,2001 Letter; March 8,2001 Letter.

However, this year the State Bar has written two complainants (former clients Michael Pattinson and Keith Henson) and also myself stating that it has fully investigated these matters and found no misconduct on the part of the Moxon & Kobrin 'law firm'. See generally: Chronology, Wager letters, Double Crossed. Instead, the State Bar acts on the complaint of the Real Parties In Interest (through joint complainants Gerner and Wager) and seeks to severely punish their victim- me. There has been a substantial expression of public protest and demands to the State Bar that it appoint an Independent Panel of Three Retired Judges To investigate what has really occurred here. The State Bar has ignored those requests. The Office of Chief Trial Counsel has written stating that it has the exclusive jurisdiction in such matters. It has also written me asking me to state why the Rules of Professional Conduct should not be applied to me. It has never explained why the Rules of Professional Conduct should not be applied against the Real Parties In Interest (Bias, Selective Enforcement, Denial of Due Process, etc.) and Joint Complainant Wager. The trial date herein has been set, over Respondent's Due Process and Respondent's Doctor's objections, for December 11,2001.The same allegations (Counts One through Three) go to trial before the Bankruptcy Court six weeks later on January 28,2002 (Bankruptcy Court Order, September 20,2001). On September 24,2001,the State Bar Court herein refused to continue the trial herein until after the trial in the related and underlying civil proceeding. See also: Combined Opposition, Motions For Reconsideration and Extension of Time.Accordingly, as matters now stand, these proceedings appear headed for the Review Department, the California Supreme Court and perhaps the Federal Courts. Certainly, they are increasingly within the court of public opinion. The opinion of the public should not be irrelevant. It is their protection that should be the focus of theses proceedings-not Scientology's desire to be rid of, or to have tarnished, a litigation foe foiling their "psycho-terrorist" and other illegal activities directed at former members and those with whom the church takes offense. See generally, Support Letters.

ENCLOSURES

(a) Michael Gerner, Esq., Donald Wager, Esq., [Scientology], etc. correspondence with the State Bar, June 3,1999 to December 7,2001 ("Complainant's correspondence").

(b) State Bar Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed May 22,2001("NDC");

(c) Answer of Graham E. Berry to Notice of Disciplinary Charges filed June 15,2001 ("Answer");

(d) Respondent's Notice of Refiling Motion to Continue, etc; Settlement Offer dated September 6,2001 (" Refiling Motion");

(e) Letter, Respondent to Ava Paquette, Esq. dated October 7,1999 ("October 7,1999 Letter).

(f) Letter, Respondent To State Bar, March 5,2001 ("March 5, 2001 Letter");

(g) Letter, Respondent To State Bar, March 8,2001 ("March 8, 2001 Letter");

(h) Chronology [Partial] of Events and Reference To Supporting Evidence, July 18,2001 Draft ("Chronology");

(i) Responses To Interrogatories dated September 24,2001 ("Interrogatories");

(j) Transcript of Deposition of Donald Wager, Esq. taken January 19,2001 ("Wager Transcript");

(k) Hurtado v. Berry, Defendant's Motion re Plaintiff's Claims of Privilege, January 26,2001 (" Privilege Brief ");

(l) Transcript of Hearing, Berry v. Cipriano, August 20,1999 (" August 20,1999 Transcript");

(m) Letters of Public Support, etc ("Support Letters").

(n) Copy, Double Crossed, New Times LA. (" Double Crossed").

INTRODUCTION

As you will come to learn, the underlying matters involve ten years of litigation against the Church of Scientology in over 15 different cases. The underlying matters are complicated, intertwined and involve, as against me, the Real Parties In Interest commission of demonstrable and corroborated bankruptcy fraud, insurance fraud, frauds upon other courts, blackmail, bribery, solicitation, maintenance and champerty, perjury, use of a third person, wire tapping, obstruction of justice, false criminal reports, false state bar reports and other misconduct almost too numerous to list. Indisputably, complainant Wager [Gerner], and the other Real Parties In Interest, have committed a number of RICO predicate acts in the connection with the underlying matters of which they complain! For clarity and the convenience of others who may have occasion to read this, and humbly offered with no disrespect intended, I find that at times it is more convenient to write in the third person. I greatly appreciate your forbearance with regard to this matter.

Because of the complexity of the underlying matters, and in order to provide you with appropriate and accurate explanation about what has been committed and by whom, I have also lodged the above listed enclosures herewith. The State Bar is clearly under pressure from the Church of Scientology to make an example of me as a deterrent to other counsel accepting cases against it. Indeed, from the mistakes, mischaracterizations and misrepresentations in the draft State Bar complaint it would appear that scientology representatives might have drafted the initial 'draft' complaints herein. The scientology enterprise calls this " . . . putting the heads of critics and their counsel on a pike." It is written scientology policy and dogma. Accordingly, the State Bar refuses all additional time I request.

Because you have not been personally involved in these matters, this letter and the events herein may strike you, as they would any rational law-abiding person, as the paranoid ravings of a person who ought to be writing mystery novels and not the cool and rational explanations of an attorney with many years of experience in pleading his cases. Nevertheless, I can assure you that this is not so. The facts outlined herein are demonstrable, if incredible, and I beg your forbearance as you work through all of this material, even as your ability to accept these events as having actually occurred may well stretch it to the limit! The experience of dealing with all of this complex and convoluted material is, I am certain, much like Alice's experience in Wonderland.

SUMMARY OF FACTUAL ISSUES

Although even the Bard in all his creativity would have had difficulty in imagining the situation in which I now find myself, he nevertheless characterized it, as well the Real Parties In Interest part in this situation, when he wrote the immortal and oft repeated words, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." Indeed, as you will read, the defamatory Cipriano "pedophilia" falsehoods ["the First Cipriano Declaration"], criminally procured by certain of The Real Parties In Interest, continue to be published continuously and worldwide. As you will also learn, these matters involve a continuing and unbroken conspiracy to deprive me of certain constitutional, civil and human rights guaranteed to every citizen. In that regard, I have refused to roll over in the face of continuing, or easily continued, wrongs against me. The defense of justification in Church of Scientology related legal matters (or more relevantly, one's self-defense in litigation against the Church of Scientology) were expressly accepted in Church of Scientology v. Armstrong, 232 Cal.App.3d 1060,1067 (1991). See generally: 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. Wollersheim, 42 Cal.App.4th. 628, 648-649, 49 Cal.Rptr. 2d 620 (1996); Hart v. Cult Awareness Network, 13 Cal App. 4th 777, 16 Cal Rptr 705(19___); Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, 212 CalApp. 872, 888-891,260 Cal Rptr 331 (1989); Allard v. Church of Scientology, 58 Cal.App.3d 439,443n.1,129 Cal Rptr. 797 (1976); Christofferson v. Church of Scientology, 57 Ore.App. 203 (1983).

In essence, as you will see, from the history of these matters, and from sworn documents filed during the various relevant proceedings, the genesis of these matters commenced in late 1993 during Church of Scientology v. Fishman & Geertz, USDC Case No. 93 - 3843 - HLH. That was when Tim Bowles, Esq., then of Bowles & Moxon, admitted on the record, to US District Court Judge Harry Hupp, that his law firm was "investigating" me. Scientology Fair Game Policies state:" when we want someone "haunted" we "investigate." Rule 3-200. Moxon & Kobrin, successor partners to Bowles & Moxon, and Ingram, Abelson, Drescher and CSI, ignored the federal judge's admonition to, "Stop it." As Detective Petz can testify about Abelson and as the various Hurtado family members have already testified, in early 1999 Moxon and Ingram both stated that they had been after me for a very "long time". Indeed, Michael Hurtado testified that the only reason he sued me was Moxon, Ingram and Wager's use of the First Cipriano Declaration as their "evidence" of "pedophilia". See Complainant's correspondence, Privilege Brief, Chronology. The subsequent history of these matters is also well documented. For example: Privilege Brief; August 20,1999 transcript pages 40 to 73 ;October 7,1999 Letter; March 5,2001 Letter; March 8,2001 Letter; Chronology; Interrogatories.

One month before trial, on February 6, 2001, Hurtado/ Scientology/ Moxon/ Wager/ Byrnes/ Abelson/ Ingram unilaterally and voluntarily dismissed Hurtado v. Berry in California. Six months later the United States Bankruptcy Court ordered the Hurtado case dismissed after Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette filed a voluntary dismissal under F.R.Civ.P.Rule 41 (a) there. They did so rather than receive an inevitable ruling that the communications between the church, Moxon & Kobrin, Abelson, Wager, Byrnes, Hurtado, Paquette and others (such as complaining scientology attorney Michael Gerner, Esq.) were not subject to the attorney client or work product privileges because of the crime fraud exception. See Privilege Brief and exhibits thereo. Obviously, that ruling would have been extended to include the Paul, Hastings; Orrick, Herrington; Williams & Connolly, and other law firms. Clearly, it could be arguably extended to include all communications between complainants and the State Bar (privileged or otherwise). In addition, the Real Parties In Interest would have had to produce Eugene Ingram for deposition and to comply with various other discovery refusals and failures on their part. Thus, they dismissed the verified suit one month before trial. There were no mitigating factors.

Indeed, it is now clear and convincing, from the evidence on the court records of numerous federal and state cases, that the Real Parties In Interest (who include those listed above) have engaged in the most unimaginable and horrendous criminal, civil and unethical conduct toward me (and others). See above. This outrageous conduct was perpetrated in a now transparent conspiracy to apply the Church of Scientology's Fair Game policies and practices to me. This criminal and civil conspiracy includes numerous RICO predicate acts, which have now been corroborated by overwhelming oral and documentary testimony. See generally, Privilege Brief, Chronology. Indeed, one of non - party complainant Michael Gerner's co-counsel (Donald Wager, Esq.), who co -signed Gerner's numerous letters to the State Bar herein, has confirmed some of this serious criminal activity in his own recent deposition testimony (e.g., that he, Moxon & Kobrin, and the church solicited and paid money for perjury in legal proceedings underlying these matters before the State Bar which has consistently ignored evidence of similar unlawful conduct by certain of the Real Parties in Interest herein.).See Chronology. The ultimate outcome of this and the preceding matters is now clear and certain, whatever the ostrich -like position of the State Bar is. However, after two years of refusal to proscute, by numerous State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel, the matter reached Terri Goldade, Esq. in early January 2001 and she accepted the truth of all of Complainant's allegations (even after the voluntary dismissal of the Hurtado matter which was being pursued herein) and she proceeded with the instant complaint. See Complainant's correspondence. The original Eleventh Cause of Action was dismissed/withdrawn. On September 24,2001 the State Bar dismissed the Ninth Cause of Action herein after Respondent established the truth of what he had been asserting from day one as to that matter. For these and other reasons the State Bar has clearly failed to properly investigate before Ms. Goldade received the file, accepted the scientology complainants misrepresentations, and forged bullishly ahead-concerned only with prosecutorial success and not the pursuit of truth or furtherance of justice.

The Real Parties In Interest, representing the Church of Scientology, have convinced these particular two State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel that I, the victim of all of this attorney criminality, should be the counsel who is disciplined and actually disbarred. Then my opposing parties in the underlying related case, and other cases, will have a scarlet letter to hang around my neck like an albatross. To date this year, the State Bar has issued three different letters to three different people that nothing the Real Parties in Interest herein (including State Bar members Moxon, Wager, Abelson, Kobrin and Paquette) is wrongful, evidenced or actionable! The matters are now being pursued elsewhere and ultimately again here-perhaps to the ultimate embarrassment of the California State Bar Office of Chief Trial Counsel and the California State Bar Court.

Of course, there will also be my own prospective litigation ("malicious prosecution, abuse of process, etc.") at the very least against the individual lawyers, law firms, investigators and other individuals engaged in what has occurred since Complainants' "investigation" of me commenced back in 1993.When Scientology wants someone "haunted" they "investigate." But see, Rule 3-200,Section 6068 (c), (g). Scientology, Bowles, Moxon and Ingram have all sworn declarations that after I prevailed against them in the Church of Scientology v. Fishman & Geertz case they proceeded to "investigate me and the investigation led directly to the First Cipriano Declaration." Such a demonstrable, continuing conspiracy tars each of the Real Parties In Interest listed above. Section 6103. Unlike Moxon & Kobrin and Scientology, the other Real Parties In Interest will not have to have these serious repercussions explained to their respective law firms and insurance carriers. In that regard, all of them may be liable even if some of them will be claiming that they are less liable than others (such as Gary Soter and David Chodos who apparently terminated their involvement after the discovery abuse and vexatious litigant rulings in the Berry cases.) Others (such as Wager, Bregman, Gerner and Byrnes) joined later. Some actually engaged in criminal conduct and others only in civil or unethical conduct. One or two may be able to claim plain ignorance as a defense. Others may have vicarious and agent liabilities. However, it will be for the courts (criminal and civil as well as the State Bar here, various District Court Disciplinary Committees around the country and other States Bars) to determine issues relating to the allocation of liability, responsibility and damages. Indeed, it may be that the various malpractice insurance carriers (to the extent that there is coverage) for the Paul, Hastings /Williams & Connelly/ Wasserman, Comden & Casselman, etc. firms and other lawyer defendants seek contribution from the scientology enterprise.

Notwithstanding, it is crystal clear that Moxon, Kobrin, Abelson and Ingram are involved for the entire duration of the conspiracy and related criminal, civil and unethical conduct directed toward me. The damning testimony even includes the testimony of one of Hurtado's own lawyers in the identical, but now dismissed, state court case. There, Donald Wager, Esq., has recently testified to making illegal payments to a prisoner in exchange for false testimony against me, and to being reimbursed by Moxon (who we know was reimbursed either by Scientology). See Privilege Brief, Wager Transcript and Chronology. Remarkably, Wager is a President of the Los Angeles County Criminal Bar Association! The stunning and damning testimony includes the unimpeached testimony of at least ten other witnesses and over sixty exhibits in the state court Hurtado v. Berry case (LASC Case No. BC 208227). What is also troubling was their utter failure to amend the verified but perjured federal pleadings in the Hurtado v. Berry case or to dismiss them for six months after they voluntarily dismissed in State Court a few days after the disastrous Wager deposition. Amazingly, the State Bar has objected to the lodging of the Wager Deposition as being irrelevant and the Court herein has admonished Respondent and ordered the transcript stricken from the Court's files. All other documents incriminating Wager and the Real Parties in Interest have been order stricken by the trial judge herein, Hon. Eugene E. Brott. Interestingly, Wager is President of the Los Angeles County Criminal Bar Association.

Clearly, Real Parties and the State Bar have long had notice of the continuing perjury and utterly false Hurtado allegations, filed under the names of Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Wager and Bregman.Rule 3-200, Sections 6068 (c), (d), (f), 6106. In case the significance of this is not readily apparent, in late March 2001, the Acting U.S.Customs Commissioner properly stated in the press " there is no crime more revolting to law enforcement than the sexual exploitation of children." For nearly eight years, and on the basis of the Cipriano, Apodaca and Hurtado perjuries, the Real Parties In Interest have been publishing and filing the First Cipriano Declaration with baseless and never proven allegations, obtained through felony crimes and perjury, that I am a pedophile. Rule 3-200,Section 6106. The false, criminally procured and seriously damaging allegations mirror scientology dogma for handling their perceived enemies such as myself, who has successfully represented a number of those they have sued and sought to destroy. Rule 3-200. Hurtado v. Berry was part of the ensuing obstruction of justice and other serious felonies committed by certain of the Real Parties In Interest. Sections 6068 (a), (c), (d), (f), (g), 6106, etc.

Elliot Abelson, Esq., has said that it was a fatal mistake for Ingram, Moxon & Kobrin, Jerry Bregman, Donald Wager, Thomas Byrnes [and himself] to solicit, file and prosecute the Hurtado v. Berry federal and state cases. Rules 2-101(B), (C), 5-101,5-102,7-103;Section 6108 (c), (d), (f), (g); Sections 6103, 6106. Indeed, this Church of Scientology, Ingram, Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Rosen, Abelson, Byrnes, Wager, Gerner et. al., seven-year attack on me only gets worse and worse for all those involved. Even for those who have had very limited roles and knowledge of the relevant overall church operation, project or mission being carried out in the underlying matters. Every day, statutes of limitation are tolled by the continuing wrongful conduct, such as the worldwide publication of the perjured First Cipriano Declaration that merely aggravates the ultimate damage awards to me. ["There is no statute of limitations in attorney disciplinary proceedings. Matter of Bach (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.631 [15]. In this regard, Scientology was held liable for an ultimate $4M defamation award against a Canadian lawyer: Casey Hill v. Church of Scientology case. The sizable award made to Mr. Hill in that case was in Canada and it was the largest ever such award in Canada! Here in California the cult and its various counsel clearly have not ceased the type of conduct and Fair Game practices responsible, in part, for the $30 million jury awards in the Christofferson and Wollersheim cases. See generally: Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996 2nd.Dist.) 42 Cal.App. 4th. 628,648-649,49 Cal.Rptr.626; Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, (1989 2nd.Dist) 212 Cal.App.872, 888-891,260 Cal.Rptr. 331;Christofferson v. Church of Scientology (1983) 57 Ore.App.203. . Scientology (and possibly Moxon) also framed author Paulette Cooper [" The Scandal of Scientology"] on false bomb threat charges. Only when the F.B.I. raided scientology premises was the evidence of a Church of Scientology frame-up discovered and the scientology initiated criminal proceedings against Paulette Cooper dismissed.

The wrongful manner in which Wager, Moxon, Abelson and Ingram certain of the Real Parties In Interest misused Cipriano, Apodaca and Hurtado during the underlying Berry v. Cipriano/Barton/ Miscavige, (Moxon/Abelson) cases is now established beyond any reasonable doubt. Certainly, it is established to the clear and convincing standard required for punitive damages and State Bar discipline. This wrongful conduct, directed specifically at me, and committed by the generously paid army of lawyers, from nearly a dozen different law firms across the nation, has driven me from professional practice, home, health and society. This was just as the church's Fair Game practices, carried out by the Real Parties In Interest, intended. They now manipulate the California State Bar to complete their "cycle of action"," operation" , "mission" and "Battle plan".

Consequently, driven from my career of nearly thirty years, my home and my ailing and elderly vehicle, I am now writing a book on the events and people that comprise the background of the incredible matters before you. Previous and ignored Sate Bar complainants such as Dr. Uwe Geertz, Keith Henson, Arel Lucas, Jane Scott and others are waiving confidentiality in connection with the matters they have unsuccessfully sought state bar action upon. The book is to be entitled Surviving Scientology - A Vexatious Litigant? A television documentary team has requested a meeting with me. I intend to have the book completed within a year. Numerous people in the movie industry have urged me not to sell the visual rights before speaking with them. I then intend to write further books including a history of scientology's abuse of the legal system entitled Scientology - Church of Crime, Fraud and Fair Game; a history of the church entitled Scientology: The lives, lies and legacies of L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige; and my own version of What is Scientology? I may have to do so from a foreign safe haven. This was of great concern to Ava Paquette, Esq. when she took my debtor's examination (yet again) in Jeavons v. Church of Scientology (Count seven herein). Rule 3-200. It is for that reason that I have said I will not settle with the cult and its various complicit counsel. They have taken my career, life (figuratively, if not yet literally), assets and retirement prospects. Writing about how that happened, including what is now happening before the State Bar Court, is my only remaining prospect for an appropriate retirement. Some suggest that I should stipulate to the Bar's ill-considered demands in order to further martyr myself and provoke even further public outrage. I disagree. I am proud of my hitherto unblemished legal practice in five jurisdictions and four nations. There has been significant public support. See, Support Letters.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

This factual summary deals primarily with the Tenth Count [Maintaining Unjust Actions against the Church of Scientology]. However, the events regarding the other Counts are necessarily intertwined, at least chronologically. A summary of the facts regarding the other Counts in the NIC is set forth in the Interrogatories. A summary of the conspiracy and other wrongful conduct by certain parties among the Real Parties In Interest is also set forth below. See generally: Chronology; Interrogatories; August 20,1999 Transcript; Petition; October 7,1999 Letter; March 5,2001 Letter; March 8,2001 Letter; Privilege Brief.

Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Abelson, Rosen and Ingram have consistently alleged that their activities, directed against me, are to protect the Church of Scientology from harassment. However, Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Abelson, Rosen and Ingram know, or ought to have known, that this defense was resoundingly rejected in Allard v. Church of Scientology of California, 68 Cal. App. 3d 439, 129 Cal. Rptr. 797 (CT at 1976) cert. denied, 97 S. Ct 1101 (1977) where it was held as follows:

The defendants' [the Church of Scientology's leaders] contention that they committed the crimes of which they stand convicted in order to protect their church from government harassment collapses when one reviews a sample of the remaining documents seized by the FBI during the execution of the two Los Angeles search warrants. If anything, these documents establish beyond question that the defendants, their convicted codefendants, and their unindicted co-conspirators [which included Commodore Hubbard and current Scientology counsel Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq.], as well as their organization [the Church of Scientology], considered themselves above the law. They believe they had carte blanche to violate the rights of others, frame critics in order to destroy them, burglarize private and public offices and steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and organizations that the church had sued. The church filed these suits for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting its critics and in order to create an atmosphere of fear so that critics would shy away from the First Amendment Rights secured them by the Constitution. The defendants and their cohorts [such as unindicted co-conspirator Moxon] launched vicious smear campaigns, spreading falsehoods against those they perceive to be enemies of Scientology in order to discredit them and, in some instances, to cause them to lose their employment . . . To these defendants and their associates, however, anyone who did not agree with them was considered to be an enemy against whom the so-called 'Fair Game' doctrine could be invoked . . . (emphasis added)

. . . It is interesting to note that the founder of their organization, unindicted co-conspirator, L. Ron Hubbard, wrote in his Modern Management Technology that, ' . . . truth is what is true for you,' and 'illegal' is that which is, 'contrary to Scientology policy' and not pursuant to Scientology's 'approved program.' Thus, with the Commodore's blessing they could wantonly commit crimes as long as it were in the interests of Scientology. These defendants rewarded criminal activities that ended in success and sternly rebuked those that failed. In view of this, it defies the imagination that these defendants have the unmitigated audacity to seek to defend their actions in the name of religion. (emphasis added)

Jerry Bregman, Esq. jointly filed the Hurtado v. Berry federal court complaint of the very same unindicted co-conspirator, Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq., and certain of the other Real Parties In Interest. CSI, Wager and Byrnes were involved in the identical state court case. Abelson and Ingram were also extensively involved throughout. It appears that it was Wager who recruited Gerner (the actual non - party complainant herein) to badger the State Bar into having me removed as being one of less than a handful of counsel nationwide who have been willing to litigate against the Church of Scientology. Rule 3-200, Section 6068 (c), (d) and (e). Clearly, the many Complainants Letters (full of false representations) are not written in the usual manner of a dispassionate, objective and personally uninvolved counsel - a fact that the State Bar seems unwilling to acknowledge. Curiously, every letter to the State Bar by Gerner is counter-signed by Wager. Indeed, it has long been rumored among various members of the California Bar that shockingly, if regrettably not surprisingly, the Church of Scientology has operatives within the State Bar to ensure that opposing counsel are harassed and scientology counsel remain undisciplined! The evidence is that Wager and Moxon have worked together for a number of years. Indeed, Wager and Scientology first took covert actions against me in 1995.

The evidence establishes that Moxon is, in essence, an in-house attorney for the Church of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs ("OSA"). OSA is similar to the C.I.A. which, until 1947,was known as OSS. The evidence herein (much of it corroborated) clearly and convincingly establishes that what follows, in so far as the Berry, Hurtado, Moxon, Barton, Pattinson, Henson, Jeavons and Anders cases are concerned, is correct. See Chronology.

Seven years ago, the Los Angeles Daily Journal published a lead article under the headline "Church Calls It Quits." The Church of Scientology had dismissed its defamation lawsuit against former adherent Steven Fishman and his Florida psychologist Uwe Geertz. The church had sought at least $1 million in damages against each of the two defendants for their comments in the May 6, 1991, issue of Time Magazine, "Scientology; Thriving Cult of Greed and Power." The complaint in the Fishman case alleged that Fishman and Geertz had falsely claimed that Fishman was ordered by church officials to kill Dr. Geertz and then commit suicide in the wake of Fishman's arrest in a fraudulent financial scheme that had allegedly involved the church. In a related matter, the president of the Church of Scientology International jumped $1M bail and is now on the lam avoiding Spanish Government trial and request for a sixty year prison sentence. I had successfully represented Dr. Geertz and assisted Steven Fishman who was representing himself. "Besides serving as a legal setback, the action in the case may also hinder Scientology's pursuit of a related libel lawsuit against Time Magazine," the Daily Journal commented. It did and Time Magazine's successful motion for summary judgment was recently affirmed on appeal. According to the Daily Journal article," Scientology had claimed in its 34-page motion to voluntarily dismiss its lawsuit," that it, "always has been willing to litigate to achieve justice, but when it is told it must subject its parishioners and anybody associated with it in any way to such blatant harassment and sacrilege [it] cannot pursue its claims."

The Daily Journal article went on to say that these claims resulted from my Christmas "raid" at Scientology's Celebrity Center where Kelly Preston-Travolta, Juliette Lewis, Isaac Hayes and Maxine Nightingale were served with deposition subpoenas. Actor Charles Durning who had been appearing as Santa Claus and who is not a scientologist was also served. Despite the appeals of the some of LA's leading entertainment law firms, John Travolta and the other Scientology celebrities were ordered into immediate deposition along with Scientology leader David Miscavige and the church's entire senior management team. Actor Tom Cruise twice threatened to sue me in connection with testimony concerning Nicole Kidman and him and their activities at the church's heavily armed desert fortress near Hemet, California. Actor John Travolta has long been involved in some of the matters set forth herein. Both Cruise and Travolta are scientology spokespersons. The related, unsuccessful church litigation (involving five cases) cost an aggregate of approximately $20 million.

The Church of Scientology openly blamed me for its retreat in the Fishman-Geertz case, the publication of its Upper Level materials ("the Fishman Declaration") and set about employing its controversial fair game policy, which says that anyone interfering with scientology could be "tricked, lied to or destroyed," for his or her actions. Among other things, the filing of the Fishman Declaration attaching the church's confidential trade secret scriptures ("OT I - VIII") set the stage for a series of high profile Internet lawsuits alleging thousands of purported copyright violations. Since the Fishman-Geertz case the church's fortunes, irrespective of what you may have been led to believe, have never been the same.

I have paid dearly for the largely successful defense of my various clients being sued by Moxon and others on behalf of the Church of Scientology. As stated, over the past seven years I have been driven from my career, my home and car, and into the Bankruptcy Court where the Church of Scientology, Moxon & Kobrin, Rosen, Hurtado and Barton continued to pursue me. In the process, they wrongfully obtained a vexatious litigant ruling against me, as well as multiple sanctions awards based thereon, and made/instigated over thirteen successive attempts to have me professionally disciplined as well as at least three different attempts to have me arrested for contrived offenses. Rule 3-200.

Kendrick Moxon of the church's in-house law firm, Moxon & Kobrin, spearheaded scientology's persecution of me. At various times he was joined by then LA Police Commission Chairman Gerald Chaleff of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; Samuel D. Rosen, Barbara Reeves, Michael Turrill of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker; Gary S. Soter of Wasserman, Comden & Casselman; David Chodos and James Martin of Simke Chodos; as well as Jerry Bregman, Esq.; Donald Wager, Esq.; Michael Gerner, Esq.; and Thomas S. Byrnes, Esq. The efforts of Moxon's "chief investigator" [intimidator and "psycho-terrorist"], Eugene Ingram, and various of these lawyers culminated in Moxon and Wager's 1999, filing of Hurtado v. Berry in Los Angeles Superior Court as well as in federal court. Rules 2-101(B), (C), 3-200, 5-101,5-102,7-103;Section 6108 (c), (d), (f), (g); Sections 6103, 6106.Through CNA, my malpractice insurance carrier, I hired Edith Matthai and Kim Sellars of Los Angeles' Robie & Matthai to successfully defend me. (Ms. Matthai is President of The Southern California Association of Defense Counsel.) I cannot adequately thank, congratulate and compliment their expertise and professionalism.

To reiterate, so that there is no confusion as to what has happened (and to quote scientology's founder L. Ron Hubbard, "The number of times through the material equals certainty"), recently (February 6, 2001), Moxon and Byrnes suddenly, unilaterally and voluntarily dismissed the verified Hurtado v. Berry state court lawsuit less than one month before trial. However, the Hurtado dismissal came as Moxon unsuccessfully tried to replace discovery referee Hon. Stephen Lachs and while Moxon awaited the outcome of a motion to compel the deposition of his chief "investigator" Eugene Ingram and an almost certain ruling that the crime-fraud exception (Cal. Evidence Code § 956) to the attorney-client privilege applied at the least to communications between the Moxon & Kobrin lawyers, Elliot Abelson, Donald Wager, Thomas Byrnes, Miguel Hurtado, Michael Hurtado, Anthony Apodaca, Robert Cipriano and the Church of Scientology. Clearly, communications between them and Michael Gerner would also have been ruled non - privileged because of the crime-fraud exception (Cal. Evidence Code § 956). Facing inevitable defeat at trial, the Church of Scientology, through its pawn, Hurtado, again in the eleventh hour, attempted to cut its losses, hoisted the white flag of surrender and fled from the battlefield. Six months later they did so in Federal Court pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.Rule 41 (a), which provides that, such was a termination in my favor, particularly because of the prior State Court dismissal. I am now seeking counsel to file the malicious prosecution and abuse of process action against the various culpable parties (some of whom have very deep insurance pockets). The evidence in the Hurtado v. Berry case is unusually damning because it is corroborated by a lawyer's testimony/confession (a Los Angeles County Criminal Bar Association President), over ten different witnesses as well as over sixty different documents - many of which bear Moxon's own signature and handwriting. The oral and written testimony, and corroborating documents, include multiple incidents of blackmail, bribery, extortion, witness tampering, subornation of perjury, perjury, wire tapping, obstruction of justice, frauds upon various courts, attorney misrepresentations and lies to various courts, false criminal complaints, false state bar complaints and possible judicial corruption. The evidence trail commences in late 1993, and constitutes an unbroken continuum and pattern of criminal, tortious and unethical conduct through to the present day. See generally: Cannon v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 1103,1115. Complainant Wager [Gerner] commenced his involvement back in 1994, when he sought out my friend and previously engaged expert R. Vaughan Young as a potential expert in prospective litigation, now known to have been bogus. This was a pretext for trying to turn Young against me. Mr. Young memorialized this by contemporaneous letter to Wager. Later, Wager would recruit his office neighbour Michael Gerner, to file the pending State Bar complaints against me. Curiously, Wager co-signed most of the several dozen Gerner letters urging exigent and summary State Bar disbarment action against me. In addition, numerous phone calls were made and photographs of me were even provided to the State Bar! See, Complainant's correspondence, November 29,2001.The photograph evidences the Church of Scientology's ulterior motives and real agenda herein - the punishment and suppression of first amendment picketing and debate!

The Gerner/Wager State Bar complaint related, among other things, to an attempted levy under the fraudulently obtained Barton $28,000 prevailing party costs' order issued against me in Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige (Moxon/Abelson) following my February 1999, discovery default described above. NIC Counts One to Three and the pending Barton v. Berry Adversary Proceeding. Wager and Gerner then engaged in almost daily pressure upon numerous, different State Bar officials (including Supreme Court Justice Lui) to have me disbarred. See Complainants Correspondence. Their unrelenting pressure upon the State Bar was built upon misrepresentation and distortion, until finally they managed to move the Gerner/Wager complaint file to a State Bar official (Terri Goldade, Esq) who agreed to commence a disciplinary proceeding against me, despite the horrendous circumstances into which Gerner's and Wager's principals had intentionally driven me. Again, and curiously, this was at the same time as Moxon, Wager and Byrnes voluntarily dismissed the Hurtado State Court proceedings as described above. Less than one month before, on January 3,2001 the State Bar (through another official) had dismissed the Gerner /Wager complaint (which was part of this complaint/proceeding) that I be disciplined on the basis the of the perjured allegations that they solicited, suborned and prosecuted against me in the Hurtado v. Berry State and Federal Court cases. Rules 2-101(B), (C), 3-200, 5-101,5-102,7-103;Section 6108 (c), (d), (f), (g); Sections 6103, 6106.Undeterred by Wager's recent confession under oath, Gerner arrogantly and shamelessly continued to aggressively pursue Scientology's State Bar attempts to "utterly destroy" me by "whatever means possible". Thus, Moxon and Scientology continue the conduct for which they were so scathingly condemned in, among other decisions, the Allard opinion quoted above. See also: United States v. Hubbard (1979) 474 F.Supp.64 where Moxon had been identified as an unindicted co-conspirator. The California State Bar continues to exonerate and cover-up their conduct including that of Los Angeles County Criminal Bar Association President Donald Wager, Esq.

The evidence in Hurtado v. Berry is shockingly reminiscent of John Grisham's novels such as The Firm and The Street Lawyer. In 1994, the Church Of Scientology, through Moxon & Kobrin and their investigator Eugene Ingram, set about fabricating evidence that I was a pedophile. This was done in accordance with the teachings, examples and policies of church founder L. Ron Hubbard. Former New York resident, Robert Cipriano, has repeatedly testified that Ingram, impersonating an LAPD detective, blackmailed/extorted him into signing a declaration falsely alleging that I had molested between 40 and 60, 14 to 16 year olds during one six month period. Rule 2-300,Sections 6068 and 6106,etc. This was the First Cipriano Declaration. Unable to produce anything more than the allegations, and in the face of evidence to the contrary, Moxon explained that all of the alleged victims were, "Street hustlers who must have died of AIDS!" Section 6068(d). Scientologist Russell Shaw posted the First Cipriano Declaration, to the worldwide Internet.Cipriano was the primary defendant in Berry v.Cipriano.He was a defendant in the Berry v. Barton case. The original publication was by a scientology front group, The CAN Reform Group, which included Glenn Barton herein. Scientology also had the fabricated First Cipriano Declaration, distributed worldwide to most of my friends, business and professional associates, even to judges and politicians. It still posted to the Internet and distributed to any the Church and its lawyers care to try and bias against me. Abelson and Moxon directly participated in this activity. Rule 3-200,Sections 6068 and 6106. Astoundingly, the scientology enterprise has even leafleted the wipers of every car within a three-bock radius of my home! One of Scientology many different versions of their leaflets is particularly disturbing. It was taken within my apartment and not by a known friend or myself. But then again, Elliot Abelson, Esq and Scientology have been found interfering with/tapping my telephone line. See Chronology, December 11,1996 (p.18/34). It occurred again in the Hurtado matter. See, Chronology.Indeed, many people and myself assume that Scientology is currently tapping my telephone and others, and Internet communications, and adjust the communications accordingly. The regular and sometimes frequent telephone calls with no one at the other end generally go click if I say: "Hubbard was crazy and so is Miscavige" (who seized control of the cult after Hubbard's death).

At the time the church, Bowles & Moxon, and Ingram commenced their [Rule 3-200] "investigation" of me in 1993, I was about to become, and later did become, an equity partner in the large Los Angeles law firm of Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard and had had an eight year average of over 2,300 billable and 2,700 aggregate hours per year. As you know, I had represented the Disciplinary Committee of the United States District Court for the Central District of California in its high profile District Court and Ninth Circuit proceedings against Stephen Yagman [Standing Committee v. Yagman (9th Cir.1995) 55 F.3d 1430] had been involved in various celebrity law suits and was representing former attorney James Tierney in high profile proceedings involving Brian Wilson and Mike Love of the Beach Boys. I had been involved in defending some of the biggest legal malpractice cases of the previous decade and was rocketing up the Lewis, D'Amato partnership ladder. I was in a long-term relationship, owned my own home, my car and had healthy retirement prospects and dreams. Then, Moxon and Ingram obtained the perjured First Cipriano ["pedophilia"] Declaration and through people such as Barton, Chait, Casselman and Shaw, published it on the Internet (where, incredibly, it remains published today!). Lewis, D'Amato employees read the First Cipriano Declaration on the Internet, discussed it among themselves and mentioned it to me. Correctly, pedophilia is one of the most serious crimes in society and pedophiles properly wear a permanent scarlet letter. My denials aside, I felt that I would never escape the destructive "where there's smoke, there's fire" attitude. As a member of the gay community, I am particularly sensitive to being baselessly and permanently labeled a pedophile.

For those and other reasons, I resigned from the Lewis, D'Amato law firm and joined the Musick, Peeler & Garret law firm as an equity partner. Subsequently, scientology private investigators spent several days waiting in the reception area of the Musick, Peeler & Garret law firm. They were waiting in vain for the firm's senior partners to meet with them. They said they had an envelope containing information about me and had to personally deliver it. They delivered their packages {which they call "Black Propaganda" and " Dead Agent Packs") to many of Musick, Peeler's clients, partners and former partners. Moxon and Abelson were participating. They made Internet Posts that a Musick, Peeler & Garrett partner, myself, was a child molester. This type of harassment [Rule 3-200] and constantly distributed perjurious defamation [Sections 6068 (c), (d), (f), (g), 6106] was a factor in my ultimate decision to resign my partnership in the Musick, Peeler & Garret law firm and seek redress against the scientology enterprise. I filed the Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige (Moxon, Abelson) consolidated cases.

The redress and justice that I sought and received is described both above and below. The perpetual risk of scientology doing this again in the future, whether through Chodos, Moxon, Ingram, Wager, Moxon, Gerner, Kobrin, Paquette or other scientology agents makes it impossible for me to seek employment with another law firm, even when treatment of my consequential "severe depression" has been successfully completed-which I hope and expect will be by February, 2002.

As set forth in the pleadings in the Cipriano, Barton and Miscavige, (Moxon /Abelson) cases, Ingram and other Moxon & Kobrin/church representatives were provided with packages of defamatory materials about me. The perjurious First Cipriano ["pedophilia"] Declaration was the central piece in these packages and resulting visits. Moxon and Abelson were actively involved. See, e.g: Chronology, April1, 1994-May 24,1994 (pp.19/2-9/26). The packages were provided to, and visits made to, most of my friends, clients, partners, firms' clients, political contacts, judges, educational officials and others. The "investigation" [to "haunt" me] extended across the US (it was particularly active in Los Angeles and New York, places in which I am a member of the bar), Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand (places where I have either lived or practiced law or both). Ingram's "investigations", and those of the numerous other firms of private investigators hired by Bowles & Moxon/Moxon & Bartilson/Moxon & Kobrin, did cause many of my friends and others to fear what he might do with their own employers unless they "disconnected" from (severed contact with) me. The annual fundraiser I had co-sponsored is no longer held. Ingram had made a false police report against 17 of the attendees. Many of the attendees were judges, local politicians and lawyers. Accordingly, the Bowles & Moxon/Moxon & Bartilson/Moxon & Kobrin/Ingram "investigation" of me has almost totally destroyed my network of college (high school in the US) and university friendships, other friendships and acquaintances, professional and peer relationships. Thus, my professional, social, recreational, charitable and political activities have been nearly eliminated, as was the collective intention of certain of the Real Parties In Interest (including California admitted attorneys). Clearly, the involved lawyers violated a number of State Bar Rules including Rule 3-200 (A). Indeed Ingram, as well as Beverly Hills attorney Jeffrey W. Steinberger and State Assemblyman Baldwin of San Diego, called a television and press conference, apparently in an unsuccessful effort to have the LAPD arrest me for the pedophilia which was falsely alleged in the First Cipriano Declaration and to try and protect the publication of the defamation through the litigation privilege. Church representatives (e.g. Farny, Ingram, Moxon, Edwin Richardson and others) made over thirteen unsuccessful complaints to the New York and California Bar Associations. Amazingly, in March 2001,while pressuring the State Bar to proceed herein, Moxon & Kobrin, through their agent, Ingram stated that they knew highly personal details about my friend Jane Scott's life (and mine) and attempted to defame me to my friend, Jane Scott's, closest friends. Clearly, this was done in an effort to have Ms. Scott "disconnect" from me, thus furthering Moxon & Kobrin's seven year application of the scientology enterprises' Fair Game policies and practices as directed against me. Obviously, this was done for the purpose of "destroying" me in accordance with church/client directives, but in breach of applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. See Rule 3-200 (A).

Eventually in early 1998, goaded on by church operatives, I sued Cipriano and various church representatives (including Isadore Chait, Donna Casselman, Russell Shaw and Glenn Barton) for defamation and other torts. These were the Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige, (Moxon and Abelson) cases. Despite being percipient witnesses, culpable parties and announced eventual defendants, Moxon and Ingram solicited the legal representation of Cipriano (and probably the representation of other clients and defendants such as Barton, Chait, Shaw and Casselman) and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, for personal and business expenses, for a IRS § 501(c)(3) "charity" which Cipriano and Moxon & Kobrin established (in consultation with members of the Paul, Hastings law firm) to have Cipriano maintain and embellish the original blackmailed perjury alleging my pedophilia. Rules 1-400(C), (D), 3-310,4-210.The various multiple layers of non-waivable conflicts of interest and ethics breaches were never discussed with Cipriano. Moxon ignored Cipriano's April 1998, request that the case be settled immediately on my proposed terms. See Privilege Brief, Chronology. See also: Rules 1-120,1-400 (C), 2-200, 4-210; Sections 6068,6106, and 6151,6152. Several years earlier, Moxon had engaged in similar conduct and breaches when he solicited the representation of Jason Scott through whom he conducted the Church of Scientology's successful scheme to bankrupt and take-over the Cult Awareness Network. See also: Rules 1-120,1-400 (C), 2-100,2-111, 2-200, 4-210; Sections 6068,6106, and 6151,6152. Moxon paid Cipriano hundreds of thousands of dollars in living and business expenses and even went into business with him offering up to $750,000.00 for Cipriano's continued co-operation in Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige (Moxon, Abelson). See Rules 3-300,3-310,3-400,4-210,5-210,5-220.See Chronology, Privilege Brief, Double Crossed. The church itself has written policies permitting and encouraging Moxon [and all scientologists] to lie to protect the "greater good" of the Church of Scientology and him [Moxon] as an individual scientologist!)

New York attorney Samuel Rosen, Barbara Reeves and Michael Turrill of the large Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker law firm were retained to take a lead role in the Berry v. Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige litigation. They filed appearances and served a deposition subpoena on me without even waiting to be served with the complaint. Judge Hiroshige dismissed their demurrer and CCP Section 425.17 (SLAPP) motion. Together, Moxon, Barton, and Paul, Hastings had the case moved to Hon. Alexander H. Williams. Cipriano has testified that Moxon claimed Judge Williams was a "friend" of the church. Just before the vexatious litigant hearing on August 20,1999, it became clear that the judge's fiancée also worked for defendant Church of Scientology International itself. Indeed she worked for the very same branch of the church that employs Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Abelson and Ingram! They were counsel to a number of different parties, proposed parties and material witnesses. This did not concern Judge Williams (who refused to recuse himself in connection to the contrived vexatious litigant proceeding) and it demonstrably does not concern the California State Bar See Rules 2-101(B), (C), 3-200,3-300,3-310, 5-101,5-102,5-210,7-103;Section 6108 (c), (d), (f), (g); Sections 6103, 6106. Additionally, the Paul, Hastings firm, had just employed the judge's most recent law clerk.

The church defendants were also represented by the Los Angeles firms of Wasserman, Comden & Casselman (Gary S. Soter, Esq.) and Simke Chodos (David Chodos, Esq. and James Martin, Esq.), William T. Drescher, Esq., and Elliot Abelson, Esq. In addition, the Washington, DC, law firm of Williams & Connolly (Gerald Feffer) and MoniqueYingling, of yet another Washington, DC, law firm, represented the church defendants. Gerald Feffer is also personally well acquainted with Judge Williams. Moxon admitted that he had known for years that Respondent was threatening to sue in connection with the First Cipriano Declaration. From the first day it was known that Moxon and Abelson were to be the subjects of subsequent Civ.Code § 1714.10 motions to add them as co-conspiring defendants. Moreover, they were also major percipient and material witnesses. Rules 3-300,3-310,3-700, 5-210,5-220.These ethical and tactical issues did not deter Moxon from being a lead defense counsel and this most certainly was not disclosed to his client, Cipriano or the multiple other clients (e.g. Chait, Casselman, etc.) that he was actually representing in the same proceedings where he was also one of the most material witnesses and to be added as a defendant. In addition, Moxon surreptitiously "ghost wrote" papers for another of his perjury sources, convicted murderer serving life, Bernard Le Geros. Moxon's chief investigator had visited Le Geros in an Upper New York State jail and obtained a perjurious Le Geros Declaration. See Rules 3-300, 3-310, 5-210. Respondent did not even know Le Geros or his criminal accomplice (Andrew Crispo) .Le Geros filed death threats directed at Respondent during the Berry v. Cipriano proceedings. Judge Williams ignored them. Moxon continued to ghostwrite the Le Geros pleadings and motions.

Paul, Hastings and Moxon & Kobrin pursued a brutal and crushing motion and deposition strategy in the Berry cases. Paul, Hastings' client was Glenn Barton, a Church of Scientology staff member earning approximately $50 per week. Moxon now represents Barton. Barton was alleged to be one of a group of scientologists responsible for initially and continuously posting the highly defamatory First Cipriano Declaration to the Internet. Rosen, billing nearly $500 per hour, headed a team of at least four expensive Paul, Hastings attorneys. I was required to pay crippling private judge's fees despite my lack of means. Judge Williams was "persuaded" that the defendants had discovery "priority". Judge Williams told the Paul, Hastings counsel that being a former federal prosecutor they knew more about civil procedure than he. Rosen erroneously convinced the Judge that there was discovery priority in California that there was no trial setting priority for defamation proceedings and so I was precluded from taking depositions until Paul, Hastings and Moxon had completed theirs. I was unable to take a single deposition during this defense onslaught. I was also ordered to, "just sit there and take it," by the judge who permitted me to be deposed for over 14 days. He ordered me to answer over 2,000 interrogatories, to produce many dozens of boxes of documents and to permit numerous other depositions. I was expressly ordered that I could not assert any privacy objections. Meanwhile, I was afforded virtually no discovery. There was even testimony, by a former Paul Hastings' employee, that certain attorneys in the Paul, Hastings law firm had been paying $300.00 to have court documents back-dated. Remarkably, Judge Williams ignored it. However, several non-church defendants (including Dr. Mathilde Krim and Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard) settled with me for an aggregate sum of $100,000.This went to my fledgling law firm and mortgages.

Moxon, Wager, and Ingram, aided by Cipriano, then procured a transvestite "Street hustler", Anthony Apodaca, and videotaped him falsely alleging that I had hired him to engage in sadomasochistic sexual practices with me. See Privilege Brief, Chronology. Rule 3-200,Sections 6068 and 6106. The Paul, Hastings law firm also tried to use Apodaca to testify in the Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson) case. When Moxon introduced this videotape in my deposition in the Berry v. Hurtado state court case, I denied ever having seen Apodaca before. Section 6068 and 6106. In Apodaca's deposition, in the Hurtado v. Berry case, Anthony Apodaca also denied ever having seen me and claimed that a lawyer had come to LA County Jail and had given him $300.00 and other benefits to testify falsely against me. See exhibits to Privilege Brief. Recently, prominent Santa Monica criminal defense attorney and Los Angeles County Criminal Bar Association President, Donald Wager, Esq., testified that it was he who went to the LA County jail to pay Anthony Apodaca the $300.00 and that he believed that Moxon, who represents the Church of Scientology, reimbursed him. See Wager Deposition Transcript, Chronology). Also see: Rules 1-120,1-400(C), 2-100,3-310,4-210,5-210,5-220, Sections 5-104, 6068 (c), (d), (g), 6150,6151,etc.

Moxon's motion to dismiss (on behalf of Can Reform Group "publisher" Chait) for my alleged failure to "adequately" respond to over 2,000 form interrogatories that Judge Williams ordered answered, was granted. The Judge invited further terminating motions. I was forced by the overwhelming and judicially sanctioned discovery barrage to immediately and voluntarily dismiss the rest of the litigation without prejudice (as against Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige [Moxon and Abelson], etc.). This was before Hurtado and Apodaca's depositions could be taken in the Berry/ Barton/ Miscavige / (Moxon/ Abelson/Ingram) cases as Moxon, Rosen, Reeves and Turrill were expressly intent on doing. Sections 6068 and 6106. These dismissals (although in consolidated litigation) provided much of the contrived basis for the Chaleff/Moxon/Rosen/Chodos erroneous vexatious litigant ruling - effectively preventing me from ever again suing, in pro per, the church as well as Moxon, Ingram, etc., for procuring and permanently publishing the First Cipriano "pedophilia" Declaration; thereby effectively ending my legal career and ultimately leading to the loss of my home and vehicle. See August 20,1999 Transcript. Meanwhile, during the Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson) case, Paul, Hastings and Moxon had insisted that I provide the identities of various pro bono clients and that I testify as to whether I had had sex with any of them. Judge Williams had ruled that I could not assert any privacy objections or refusals to answer! I am an openly gay man who, when forced to, testified that I had had a sexual relationship with then 24-year old, Michael Hurtado, who I had subsequently represented on several misdemeanors. At the time, Hurtado was my client in another matter. Rule 2-100. Moxon's chief investigator Ingram took my Berry v. Cipriano, et al. testimony to Hurtado's parents. He then took Hurtado's parents to Wager's law office to meet with Wager and Moxon as well as with him. Mr. and Mrs. Hurtado were shown the First Cipriano Declaration and were persuaded that I was a "pedophile" who may have "molested" their irrefutably adult son, my then client, Michael. See: Rules 1-120,1-400(C), 2-100,3-310,4-210,5-210,5-220, State Bar Act sections 5-104, 6068 (c), (d), (f), (g), 6106, 6150,6151,etc.

Without even discussing the claims with their son Michael, Mr. and Mrs. Hurtado agreed to retain Moxon and Wager to sue me. I would be discharged as Hurtado's counsel and replaced by Wager. Later, Moxon and Wager met with Michael Hurtado himself who was my current client. Rule 2-100.They told him that there was money to be made, and had him agree to go along with the plan. Rule 3-200,Section 6068 and 6106.Michael Hurtado has testified that he relied solely upon the First Cipriano ["pedophilia"] Declaration in agreeing to be part of Moxon's, Wager and Ingram's solicitations to sue me.C.C.P. §128.7, F.R.Civ.P.Rule 11. The numerous material inconsistencies between Hurtado's two verified complaints, his discovery responses and deposition testimony were minor compared with the total contradiction of material allegations by numerous other, unrelated witnesses. See Privilege Brief, Chronology [December 1998 -July 17,2001 pp 42- 84/98]. See also, Rules 1-120,1-400 (C), 2-200,6068,6106, 6151,6152.According to testimony, my phones were then unlawfully tapped (again) and my calls unlawfully taped by Ingram, Moxon and Wager. See Privilege Brief, Chronology. Although there were no cross-complaints were asserted in the Berry cases, Paul, Hastings and Moxon improperly had Judge Williams compel me (Plaintiff) to provide discovery as to my malpractice and all other insurance coverages and those of my prior law firms. Moxon and Paul, Hastings (Samuel D.Rosen, Barbara Reeves and Michael Turrill) tried to use Apodaca against me in deposition. Hurtado, at the solicitation of Moxon, was also expected to testify in the Berry v. Cipriano/ Barton/ Miscavige [Moxon, Abelson] cases. Again, Rosen, Reeves and Turrill of Paul, Hastings were demonstrably involved.

However, when I was forced into a voluntary dismissal of the Cipriano/ Barton/ Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson) case, and into bankruptcy, Moxon [later joined by Wager] immediately filed Hurtado v. Berry in state court and Moxon and Jerry Bregman, Esq., subsequently filed the same case as an adversary action in the Federal Bankruptcy Court. These attorneys then made a $700,000 settlement demand upon my insurance carrier, CNA. Thus, they engaged in both bankruptcy fraud and attempted insurance fraud! See Insurance Code sections 1871.7 and 550.

Later, Wager withdrew from the state court Hurtado litigation and was replaced by Thomas S. Byrnes, Esq. Subsequent lesser insurance proceeds settlement demands followed until Moxon and Thomas Byrnes, Esq., voluntarily and unilaterally dismissed the State court Hurtado case on February 6, 2001 - shortly after the damning and self-incriminating Wager deposition testimony. Until July 10, 2001,the Hurtado litigation remained pending in Federal Bankruptcy Court where Moxon, Bregman and Paul, Hastings had been pursuing adversary actions against me based upon the orders obtained through criminal fraud in the Berry v. Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson) and Pattinson v. Miscavige/Church of Scientology cases. Bregman has never properly withdrawn from his representation and involvement against me. He just "dropped out" and disappeared from his offices, which are now closed.

After Moxon and Wager filed Hurtado v. Berry in state court, Wager, Abelson and Ingram met with Detective Petz of the West Hollywood Sheriff's Department and made a false criminal complaint seeking my arrest and indictment over the attorney solicited and perjured Hurtado allegations. Rule 3-200, Section 6068,6106. After an investigation, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office declined to proceed with an indictment and prosecution of me. Wager also used Hurtado's perjury to make a motion to the Santa Monica court to change Hurtado's drug diversion plea. Section 6068 and 6106. The motion papers then "disappeared" from the Santa Monica Court files! Upon review of the Wager motion on Hurtado's behalf, the presiding judge properly referred the allegations (albeit perjurious) to the State Bar. This triggered yet another scientology instigated California State Bar complaint against me. Rule 3-200,Section 6068,6106.

The "disappearance" of Hurtado's motion from the court's files as described above is deserving of further comment in light of the fact that, remarkably and undoubtedly not coincidentally, other court files relating to these matters have also "disappeared" from the court's files! In Berry v. Cipriano I filed a motion for contempt and for terminating sanctions against Moxon for his repeated use of a fraudulently altered document. Twice I filed this motion and twice it "disappeared". Considering the sworn testimony of the former Paul, Hastings employee previously delineated herein, I find these seemingly unrelated events remarkably coincidental.

Cipriano also testified that in December 1998, while the Hurtado/Ingram, Wager, Moxon and Abelson shenanigans were occurring, that Moxon was also having improper communications with my then law partners Stephen J. Lewis and Christian Scali. Suddenly and surprisingly on December 31, 1998, they dissolved the firm. Wager was already billing Moxon for his representation of Hurtado, with whom he had not yet even met! Chronology, December 1998,page 49/63. In early January 1999, as I faced a solid month of depositions and discovery responses, Judge Williams permitted my two former partners to withdraw from representing me on only four days' notice. I was not permitted significant discovery relief. Paul, Hastings (through Barbara Reeves, Esq) and Moxon started harassing and threatening me with the depositions of Apodaca and Hurtado. Overwhelmed by events, and the abusive discovery demands and orders, I was unable to timely respond to Judge Williams' satisfaction. In early February 1999 Moxon filed a successful motion to terminate the Chait portion of the Barton case on the basis of my alleged discovery abuse (being unable to respond to the unceasing avalanches of written discovery and demands for revised responses to literally thousands of interrogatories). Paul, Hastings said, on behalf of Barton, that they would be next to file a motion to terminate on the basis of my alleged discovery abuse [default]. Judge Williams granted the Moxon motion for terminating sanctions (and later, on the same basis, Moxon's and Chaleff's vexatious litigant petition). Almost immediately, Moxon and Wager filed the Hurtado v. Berry cases. Moxon served me, in court, moments before I took to my feet to oppose Moxon's Rule 11 motion in Pattinson v. Miscavige.Chronogy, April 5,1999,page 63/77.

At this juncture, Barbara Reeves, Esq., then of the Paul, Hastings law firm, persuaded me that scientology's leader, David Miscavige, wanted to engage in "serious settlement discussions." However, she made it clear that Miscavige would not talk without my voluntarily dismissing (without prejudice) the Miscavige/Moxon portion of the Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige cases. I did so. In spite of my acquiescing to her request, no serious discussion was held in connection with any settlement. However, and clearly the point of the entire exercise, scientology then had sufficient dismissals with which to make a specious motion that I should lose certain of my civil rights upon the erroneous argument that I am a vexatious litigant for filing and pursuing the Berry v. Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson) and Pattinson v. Miscavige/Church of Scientology cases. Perhaps not so coincidentally, Ms. Reeves and Mr. Terrill resigned from the Paul, Hastings law firm shortly afterwards.

As stated above, Moxon & Wager served the Hurtado v. Berry lawsuit on me as I took to my feet, in Pattinson v. Miscavige to argue against a successful Paul, Hastings and Moxon & Kobrin Rule 11 Motion relying heavily upon the improperly obtained sanctions rulings obtained from Judge Williams in the Berry v. Cipriano/ Barton/ Miscavige/ (Moxon/Abelson) cases. The Pattinson v. Miscavige case never progressed beyond the complaint. Subsequently, they also relied upon the vexatious litigant ruling of Judge Williams. Thus, upon the basis of their crimes and fraud upon the court in Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson), they ultimately persuaded Judge Snyder to sanction me with the $56,000 that the church had paid Paul, Hastings, to briefly represent Moxon in the Pattinson v. Miscavige[ Church of Scientology] case. The court held that it was reasonable for the Moxon/Scientology to hire among the most expensive of New York lawyers to defend what are now alleged to be "unjust" actions.

In essence, the sanctions award in Pattinson v. Miscavige related to the single allegation that Moxon was engaged in criminal conduct on behalf of the Church of Scientology. There was absolutely no finding in connection with the substantive merits of the rest of the Pattinson v. Miscavige lawsuit. Notwithstanding, upon Wager and Gerner pressure, the State Bar charges that the entire Pattinson v. Miscavige was "maintaining an unjust action." See: NIC Count Ten; Complainant's correspondence. Judge Snyder's Rule 11 order expressly relied upon, and quoted the language of, Judge Williams' vexatious litigant ruling and hearing comments. Additionally, Paul, Hastings on behalf of Barton, obtained a $28,000 costs order against me from Judge Williams. This is the same Barton who participated in the continuing worldwide publication of the original and perjurious First Cipriano ["pedophilia"] Declaration. [During the same time period, Barton (and scientology investigator Edwin Richardson) physically attacked and made a citizen's arrest of my client, Keith Henson. Barton, who was then LAPD scientology "chaplain", was subsequently dismissed, following a complaint by Mr. Henson, from the LAPD.] Moxon then took over the representation of Barton and started pursuing me with bank levies to collect the Barton $28,000 costs' order [NIC Counts One to Three]. In other words, Kendrick Moxon, Esq. engaged in extortion through his agent Ingram and obtained the First Cipriano ["pedophilia"] Declaration full of admitted perjury by blackmail. Elliot Abelson, Esq. Kendrick Moxon, Esq., Ingram, Barton, Chait and Shaw published it world wide as did Miscavige through the church. Then when I sued, Moxon (engaging in solicitation and multiple actual unwaivable and unwaived conflicts of interest) successfully drove me out of the lawsuit using further blackmail, bribery and other serious criminal, tortious, abuse of process and unethical conduct. Thus, Moxon engaged in serious felony crimes and, with the active assistance of several of the Real Parties In Interest such as lawyers Rosen/Reeves/Terrill, Soter and Chodos/Miller. They perpetrated frauds upon the underlying courts and then obtained a fraudulent, tainted judgment for his co-conspirators' defense costs. Next, with the assistance of Chaleff (then Chairman of the L.A.P.D.Police Commission), they used that fraudulently obtained judgment to have me declared a vexatious litigant and to pursue me for defense costs arising from terminations procured by crime and fraud upon both the courts and upon me. Indeed, Moxon unabashedly continues to use these "fruits of the poisonous tree" to engage in unlawful conduct to "punish" me as an "enemy" of the Church of Scientology.

Moxon's then five-year crusade to "utterly destroy" me "by any means possible" has taken its toll on me and I would be a liar if I were to suggest that it had not. I was, and am, under medical treatment (commencing mid-1998) for severe depression and I was previously drinking heavily. By January 1999, the church - Moxon & Kobrin and their hired guns such as Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker; Williams & Connolly; Ingram and others had totally and maliciously overwhelmed me in every sense of that word. Indeed, the concept of "overwhelm" is a significant part of the written church Fait Game Policies and Practices that were used to "utterly destroy" me and to "cause [my] professional demise." On April 25, 1999, my friend and some-time legal assistant, Jane Scott, intervened with regard to my abuse of alcohol, and I sought help from Alcoholics Anonymous. I have been free of alcohol ever since.

In the meantime, in June 1999, Moxon no longer needed Cipriano and stopped paying for all of his living and business expenses. (Rules 3-300, 4-210). Cipriano realized that Ingram, Moxon, Barton, Chait and the church had exploited him. He came to me and confessed the truth to me. He wrote a long declaration, corroborated by various financial and other documents, detailing the frauds, crimes and obstruction of justice that Moxon and Paul, Hastings engaged in order to force me out of the Cipriano/ Barton /Miscavige/ (Moxon/Abelson/Ingram) cases and to incur the resulting costs and other sanctions' orders against me for having sued Cipriano, Barton and Miscavige (Moxon/Abelson/ Ingram). Moxon. Paul, Hastings and the rest of the attorney army accomplished this on the eve of my filing of a Civ.Code § 1714.10 motion to add Moxon and Abelson as named defendants. Subsequently, after "confessing", Cipriano was taken into Moxon's "custody". At Mr. Cipriano's request, Jane Scott and I rescued him moments before Moxon's agents arrived to take him "away". The idea that he was going to be taken away by Moxon's agents was a concept that truly terrified Mr. Cipriano! The Church of Scientology then hired then LA Police Commission Chairman Gerald Chaleff of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe to argue a Petition to Declare [me] to be a Vexatious Litigant for having sued Cipriano/ Barton / Miscavige (and shortly Moxon/Abelson).

Kendrick Moxon, Samuel Rosen, David Chodos and Gary Soter also joined in Gerald Chaleff's contrived and aerobic vexatious litigant motion. This was the only appearance in the entire litigation by Gerald Chaleff, Esq., and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. Cipriano also filed opposition to the Petition of his former lawyers, Moxon and Soter. They continued on against the written opposition of their former client, Cipriano.See Rule 3-310.Indeed to this day (25 months later), Moxon has not returned Cipriano's files in spite of the fact that Cipriano has repeatedly demanded their return. Section 6068 (n). In fact, on behalf of Cipriano, I made several requests for the return of his files. At no time did I engage in any conflicts of interest; I represented Mr. Cipriano only for the very limited and unsuccessful purpose of getting his files returned from the Moxon & Kobrin firm (and others).

Cipriano and I filed a motion to recuse Judge Williams, in part, because it had just been learned that Judge Williams' fiancée worked for Moxon's actual client, the moving party, Church of Scientology International. Earlier it was mistakenly understood to be Bridge Publications, Inc., which employed her. However, and amazingly, the transcript read differently. Judge Williams refused either to recuse himself or to follow the mandatory procedure for the handling of such motions. See Petition for Mandate. Observers remarked that it was "a hangin' court hell bent upon a lynchin'" just to satisfy certain influential lawyers (LAPD Commission Chairman Chaleff, Rosen/Reeves/Paul Hastings, etc.). Judge Williams refused to allow Robert Cipriano to participate in this proceeding despite it being in Berry v. Cipriano /Barton/ Miscavige/ (Moxon/Abelson). The judge did this despite notices being filed and accepted in connection with Cipriano's written termination of representation by Moxon & Kobrin and Wasserman, Comden & Casselman. Over the objections of their former client, Cipriano, they were permitted to proceed with their Petition to have me declared a vexatious litigant! See Rule 3-310.The judge refused to proceed with a C.C.P. 877.6 motion for good faith determination of a settlement between Cipriano and myself. Judge Williams said that he had read the new (August 6, 1999) Cipriano declaration (detailing the massive crimes and frauds upon the court) and that it was "irrelevant". See August 20,1999 Transcript. In declaring me to be a vexatious litigant, Judge Williams amazingly stated that he was in his "final term", had been "re-elected" and was, " . . . like a federal judge in a state court." In short, Judge Williams ignored criminal acts procuring a false statement that instigated a legitimate lawsuit. Judge Williams then declared me to be a vexatious litigant for seeking relief based upon those same criminal and civil violations of the law by Moxon, Abelson, Ingram, Scientology and others. As if to underscore the clearly erroneous decision unappealable as of right, Judge Williams said, "It is not what you did but they way in which you did it." However, it must be noted that that is not the applicable statutory standard.

I appealed [Berry v. Cipriano, B134724 Div.7]. The Court of Appeals ignored my complying brief, expressly extended time to respond, and then prematurely dismissed the appeal before the extension date. Suffering from severe depression, overwhelmed, losing faith in what I had previously presumed to be the integrity of judges and lawyers, unable to afford even the transcript and copying costs on appeal, I had little choice but to accept the outrageous situation, at least momentarily.

Meanwhile, Moxon and Rosen of Paul, Hastings were using Judge Williams' vexatious litigant order, and excerpts from the judge's transcribed "comments" to convince other courts to issue sanctions and costs awards against me. In so doing, they were using a criminally and fraudulently procured result in Berry v. Cipriano/ Barton/ Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson) as the basis for misrepresentations to other courts that I should be similarly treated there. It is hard to imagine more reprehensible violations of F.R. Civ. P. Rule 11, C.C.P. § 128.7 and the Rules of Professional Conduct - not to mention a variety of serious felony crimes and torts. Moxon even provided a declaration for use in a case in which he had absolutely no involvement or participation, arguing that I should also be sanctioned there- Anders v. Northwestern Mutual Life). See Interrogatories, Count Nine (dismissed 9/24/01). This is the Ninth Count which the State Bar dismissed on September 24,2001. Again, Moxon cited the various remarks and attacks by Judge Williams upon me, as well as remarks and attacks made on the basis of misrepresentations to Judge Williams by Chaleff, Rosen, Chodos and Moxon. Indeed, Chaleff's representations were not made on the basis of any personal knowledge. Curiously and no doubt significantly, Moxon identified Chairman of the Police Commission Chaleff as his own [Moxon's] lawyer! The Los Angeles County Sheriff could not get the deputy District Attorney to focus on the Cipriano and Hurtado materials Then District Attorney Garcetti refused to investigate for political reasons. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) could not determine which of their departments should handle the matter and the U.S. Attorney-General Janet Reno could not determine what I wanted done regarding the Cipriano criminal matters! It appears that things are changing under a new administration.

All of this crushing litigation, by so many high priced, high powered national law firms on scientology's payroll, and had pushed me into personal bankruptcy. Kendrick Moxon, Helena Kobrin, Eva Paquette and Samuel Rosen of Paul, Hastings, then pursued me in Bankruptcy Court. Moxon, Barton and the Church of Scientology all filed adversary actions vigorously seeking non-dischargeability of the costs and sanctions orders that had been obtained as a result of felony crimes and frauds in the scientology-related Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson), Pattinson and Jeavons cases. Their litigation costs have vastly exceeded, by many multiples, the aggregate value of those ill-gotten claims. Clearly they seek to profit from their own misconduct. See, Civil Code Sections 3517,3520,3523.

The Bankruptcy Court has already ruled that the Moxon (Count Four-Pattinson v. Miscavige) and Church of Scientology (Count Seven-Jeavons) costs/sanctions awards are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy as a consequence of recent appellate decision. However, it did so before the newly discovered evidence in the just-dismissed Hurtado v. Berry case. Moxon/Paquette/Barton now seek a similar ruling with regard to Barton's expenses in the Berry v. Cipriano/ Barton/ Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson) litigation. Clearly, either the tax - exempt Church of Scientology International or the group-exempt International Association of Scientologists paid these expenses, in relation to the commission of massive serious felony criminal and civil misconduct. On the bright side, the evidence herein, when coupled with some of the evidence that Judge Brott has stricken from this Court's record, clearly establishes that the Church of Scientology has perpetrated the largest ever financial fraud on the United States Government in connection with it's 1991 application for tax free status and the 1993 "conditional" IRS grant of tax free status (with which to wage the domestic "psycho-terrorism " described herein and it's W.I.S.E. "Albania Project" where other terrorist monies have also been routed). In 1993 the IRS relieved the Church of Scientology corporately, and certain of it's leaders personally, of over one billion dollars in past due taxes, penalties and interest. Moxon and certain private investigators were instrumental in securing the 'materials' that convinced the then Commissioner to do a 25-year about face and immediately grant the tax-free status. Apparently, Church of Scientology attorney Moxon paid over a million dollars to his "investigator" to obtain the necessary 'evidence' to show the Commissioner. The Church of Scientology specially honored him. If the Federal Government accepts the two smoking guns, and agrees to proceed, the past due taxes, interest, penalties and fines could provide substantial monies to rebuild New York. Perhaps as much as six to ten billion dollars. See generally: Scientology's Puzzling Journey From Tax Rebel To Tax Exempt, Douglas Frantz, The New York Times, March 9,1997;Scientologits and I.R.S. Settled For $12.5 Million, Elizabeth McDonald, The Wall Street Journal, December 30,1997. [http://wpx02.toxi.uni-wuerzberg.de/~cowen/essays/wj301297.html]

As Tony Ortega noted in his New Times LA article, "Double Crossed", in the December 16-22, 1999, edition, Kendrick Moxon, had a serious problem explaining the source(s) of the funds used to commit these massive crimes and torts as well as a clear problem explaining exactly how it was that Michael Hurtado had found him and his firm amongst the thousands of lawyers in Los Angeles County. . . . But when Moxon was asked about the [Cipriano exhibits], he balked, refusing to answer questions about why he sent $20,000 on Cipriano's behalf [to erase his criminal record] or about where the money came from ... Moxon refused to answer New Times questions about how he became Hurtado's attorney. New Times LA, "Double Crossed", December 16 - 22,1999.

Hurtado, the church's "pawn", has fared badly since joining forces with Moxon, Paquette, Abelson, Kobrin, Wager, Byrnes and Ingram. Hurtado has had numerous subsequent arrests and imprisonments. Currently, he is back in LA County Jail, to serve a three year sentence, after the revocation of his five year probation term arising from being arrested while passed out drunk in a woman's bedroom closet holding a butcher's knife, while awaiting her return. Additionally, Moxon's "investigator", Ingram, tried to intimidate Hurtado's victim into not testifying against Hurtado. Ingram's actions cost the victim her job, but she steadfastly refused to be intimidated and refused to drop her prosecution of Hurtado. Ingram, Abelson, Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Rosen, Wager and Byrnes (as well as others) have now cost me my career, condominium, car and comradeship. Few want Moxon's "investigator", Ingram, to visit their employers and provide copies of the now demonstrable perjurious and defamatory First Cipriano ["pedophilia"] Declaration and related materials, which they still circulate about me even after their having been repeatedly recanted. Amazingly, Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette continue to pursue me before the Bankruptcy Court and the State Bar, relying on what are clearly the "fruits of the poisonous tree" and therefore frauds upon the various courts. The Church of Scientology has a defined word for this, "crim-mind" or the "criminal mind". In essence, it calls for the church's representatives to accuse others of what the church and its representatives are guilty of themselves. They are also taught to tell "acceptable truths" and to lie ["On Control and Lying" and "Hatting the Witness"].

In terms of recent events, when Real Parties In Interest dismissed the Hurtado v. Berry state court case rather than receive a ruling that the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applied, Elliot Abelson, Esq. stated that they should never have filed the Hurtado v. Berry litigation. Nevertheless, that was what they and their clients had chosen to do. In addition, Ingram would finally have to testify about the seven-year Church of Scientology/Ingram/Moxon & Kobrin operation to professionally and personally destroy me after scientology's crushing defeats in their litigation against Joseph A.Yanny, Esq., Steven Fishman and Dr. Uwe Geertz and subsequently other cases that scientology had filed against critics.

Temporarily driven from the law, I took a job with a then-client, hi-tech start-up, Lumin-oZ, LLP. I no longer work for Lumin-oZ. I became concerned that there had been fraud perpetrated upon the minority stockholders, and that the company's founder, who at that time was my friend, had misappropriated over $150,000. At the same time, Elliot Abelson, Esq., who works with Moxon at OSA, paid the founder of Lumin-oZ a visit. I was terminated for "economic reasons". Elliot Abelson, Esq. then telephoned me, gloated that I had been fired and said that scientology wanted me back in New Zealand "where your [my] talents would be better appreciated." I cannot sue to recover the $28,000 that Lumin-oZ owes me in unpaid salary because lawyers Chaleff, Moxon, Chodos and Rosen had me declared a vexatious litigant, which severely limits my access to the courts. Realistically, that is an order from which one cannot easily appeal. I have offered Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Barton and the church these Lumin-oZ monies owed me. They have taken no steps to recover them although they have advised the company not to pay me. I remain under treatment for temporary and partially disabling depression.

As if all of this were not already bad enough, recently, in late October 2000, Moxon's oft co-counsel, Samuel D. Rosen, Esq. of Paul, Hastings commented to a Deputy District Attorney (Riverside, CA) with whom I was discussing a Scientology case. "Don't talk to Berry. We're [scientology/Paul Hastings, etc.] having him disbarred." The case I was discussing was the Henson case (the ninth of ten that the Church of Scientology has instigated against Mr. Henson). Rosen of Paul, Hastings and Gerald Feffer of Williams & Connolly were both involved in the instigation and prosecution of this bogus criminal case against Mr. Henson in Hemet, CA [Case No. HEM 014371], and had intervened personally with the Riverside County District Attorney to ensure that it was filed. Several local investigating sheriffs had reported in writing that there was no evidence to support such a prosecution, nevertheless, with correspondence from Gerald Feffer and in court "coaching" by Samuel Rosen, the District Attorney's office has pursued it. The third [retired] trial judge, who was acquainted with Elliot Abelson, Esq. granted scientology's [the Peoples] motion to preclude almost the entirety of Henson's defense and evidence. Henson was convicted of "interfering with the practice of a religion" by picketing outside the scientology "film making facility" Golden Era Studios [in reality a heavily armed scientology 'gulag' for 're-educating' dissidents [The Rehabilitation Project Force or RPF]. Henson was sentenced to six months in prison. It was reported that Scientology had instigated baseless prison rumors that Henson was coming and that he was a child molester. Fearful for his safety and life, Henson fled to Canada and sought asylum. Scientology reported that Henson was an armed and dangerous munitions terrorist and a Canadian SWAT team took him down. Henson was unarmed but spent ten days in jail before the Scientology false report and connection was discovered. The Canadian Government has now demanded that the U.S.State Department investigate what really occurred with lawyers Abelson, Rosen, Feffer, the Riverside District Attorney and the retired Hemet judge.

Rosen's record of using the legal system to harass his clients' litigation opponents is also well documented. In Unique Concepts, Inc. and Baslow v. Brown, et. al., 115 F.R.D. 292 (DC SDNY 1987) Hon. Milton Pollack stated he had,

. . . reviewed the transcript of the... deposition attempt; it is hard to find a page on which Rosen does not intrude on the examination with a speech, a question to the examiner, or an attempt to engage in colloquy distracting to the examiner. Rosen's constant interruptions continue throughout the transcript; his silencing of the witness and obstructive demands for explanations from the examiner rendered the deposition worthless and an exercise in futility.

The judge's scathing comments did not end there, "Rosen's conduct was harassing, wasteful, vexatious, and ruined the usefulness of the December 30th deposition. It was a sad and embarrassing display of professionalism." Finally, the noted jurist concluded, "This Court finds that Rosen's conduct was undertaken in bad faith, intended to harass and delay, and reflected a willful disregard for the orderly process of justice."

In Schering Corporation v. Vitarine Pharmaceuticals, 124 F.R.D. 580 (DC NJ 1989), the court also held that Rosen had made false and misleading representations to the court and had subjected the court and the other parties to unnecessary expense, procedural and other burdens and through that brought "everyone to their knees." Id. 590. Indeed, the court held, ". . . it bears mention that there was nothing inadvertent about what was represented to [the court by Rosen] and what transpired as a result."

The court imposed monetary sanctions totaling $150,000 upon Rosen and his co-counsel holding that, "Rosen, an individual clearly responsible for the contents of the bulk of those papers and for the oral representations made to this court, may be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 11." Id.594.

In Cury v. Philip Morris USA, 1195 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14798 (DC SDNY 1995), the Senior District Judge granted a motion in limine to exclude the deposition of a non-party witness from trial because of Rosen's deposition misconduct, which deprived opposing counsel of an adequate opportunity for cross-examination. Rosen's behavior during many weeks of depositions and hearings in the Berry cases and Pattinson cases reflects the circumstances and findings in each of these three cases. Indeed, one might rightfully question what is the objective justification for bringing a $500 per hour New York intellectual property counsel, who travels expensively, into numerous California cases that do not involve his intellectual property specialty? Clearly, he led the obstruction and travesty of justice that occurred in the Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson) cases (and in other semi - related litigation). The State Bar claims that the Berry cases were "unjust". However, they apparently were sufficiently just to require the massive resources of an army of lawyers from across the nation, survived demurrer, a SLAPP motion to dismiss, and resulted in two settlements aggregating $100,000.00.There was never a decision upon the substantive merits of either the Berry consolidated cases or the Pattinson cases. They were forced into voluntary dismissal by overwhelming abuse of process and discovery abuse. Now that I have finally obtained the damning Hurtado v. Berry evidence that I have been long awaiting, I can proceed to attempt to undo many of the adverse rulings that Moxon the others of the Real Parties In Interest obtained through crime and fraud upon the courts. Indeed, there are clear federal, criminal RICO violations by certain of the Real Parties In Interest herein.

Further corroboration of the matters herein is also set forth in the 1994 through 1999, declarations of Robert Vaughan Young, Stacy Brooks, Andre Tabayoyan and Gary Scarff. These deponents separately and independently testified that they were offered money to recant prior truthful declarations and fabricate testimony against me. Not coincidentally, Abelson was directly involved as was Moxon's then law partner, Timothy Bowles, Esq. Young and Brooks were offered over $200,000 each. Mr. Scarff, along with his coach Abelson, were videotaped recanting and fabricating testimony. Mr. Tabayoyan was both threatened with physical harm and offered $25,000 for the prospective alteration of his testimony. OSA Chief, Michael Rinder, and senior Church of Scientology official Michael Sutter were also directly involved. Many individuals, from various states, who were "visited" by Moxon & Kobrin's agent, "investigator" Ingram, and other private investigators hired by Moxon & Kobrin, have also executed corroborating declarations. Ingram has also been the subject of arrest warrants issued by at least three different states. One warrant was issued for impersonating a peace officer, just as he is known to have done in his blackmailing of Robert Cipriano as detailed above. See generally, Chronology. As I have already explained above, writing for publication, about the scientology enterprise, and about what Real Parties In Interest and their co-conspirators have done to me, and suing for malicious prosecution and abuse of process are my only remaining prospects for an appropriate retirement.

As a result of the misconduct of the Real Parties In Interest herein, my home has been foreclosed upon. I did have the opportunity for an advantageous sale, but Moxon & Kobrin's and Paquette's Barton v. Berry Adversary Bankruptcy proceeding, and the consequent closing complications and delays, caused the cancellation of escrow. As a result, I have lost approximately $70,000 in equity and approximately $350,000 in mortgage payments and remain liable on the second mortgage of approx.$20,000.See Interrogatories, Count Four.

Not only is the State Bar's refusal, to date, to proceed against Moxon, Abelson, etc. surprising, but so is the State Bar Court's handling of this matter. It has pre-determined one matter. See Motion For Reconsideration. It has refused to Continue the December 11,2001 Trial Date despite the contrary medical opinion of my Doctor. See Motion to Continue Trial. In particular, it has decided that this case must be tried before the State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel goes on maternity leave for six months. It has refused to Continue the December 11,2001 trial date even though Counts One through Three are result for the complaint of opposing parties in civil litigation, upon the same matters. The trial in those same civil matters has just been set for January 28,2001.The State Bar Court refuses to continue the trial herein contrary to applicable rules and case authority because the State Bar Deputy Trial Counsels maternity calendar and personal investment in this case demands it.

The enclosed Interrogatory Responses, although incomplete, provide factual responses in connection with most of the State Bar's other Counts herein.

SUMMARY OF PERTINENT LEGAL ISSUES

A. FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER-Counts Four, Five, Seven, Eight. See Interrogatories pages 17-25,38-44 (49). The State Bar has just dismissed Count Nine. Each of the four remaining counts of Failure To Obey a Court Order relate to the non-payment of sanctions orders in the circumstances outlined above and in the Interrogatory Responses enclosed herewith. Counts Four, Seven and Eight directly involve Scientology litigation being conducted with the intention of "utterly destroying" respondent in accordance with Scientology's psycho-terror tactics set forth in it's written Fair Game Policies and Practises.The sanctions holders intentionally engaged in "psycho-terrorism" and litigation terrorism against Resondent, intending to drive him into Bankruptcy and permanent unemployment-even suicide. The sanctions are the product of the felonies, torts and ethical violations set forth herein and in the enclosed documents. The perpetrators of that wrongful conduct include complainant Wager and the principals and other agents of their client the Church of Scientology.

Indeed, the Count Eight [Rule 11] sanctions were imposed in connection with pleading allegations that Moxon was engaged in criminal conduct on behalf of the Church. And while denying so, and obtaining the Count Eight Rule 11 sanctions within the courtroom, he was concurrently conducting serious felony crimes against Respondent/opposing counsel outside the courtroom (e.g. see Chronology and Privilege Brief.) Accordingly, the Moxon Rule 11 sanctions order is the product of a fraud upon the court and is void/voidable. [Civil Code § 3539-"Time does not confirm a void act."]

Respondent has just been discharged in bankruptcy. He is living on food stamps, general relief and charity. He is unable ("inability") to pay. It is impossible for him to pay. " The law never requires impossibilities." Civil Code § 3531. Moreover, there are extreme mitigating factors in connection with Count Five, as set forth in the Interrogatory Responses.

The State Bar repetitively pleads that "Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6103,by willfully disobeying an order of the court requiring him to do or forebear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent's profession which he ought in good faith to do or forbear." NIC Counts Four, Five, Seven and Eight. It has long been settled that willfulness with regard to a rule of professional does not require proof of an evil intent or purpose, but merely proof that the attorney intended to do that which the rule prohibits. Citations omitted.

Matter off Rodriguez (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.480, 489. This is a unique case of first impression distinguishable on the facts from all others ever before the Bar. The State Bar offers no evidence that the Respondent intended/purposefully not to pay the sanctions. The irrefutable evidence is that Respondent has been financially unable to do so and actually prevented from doing so. Primarily because of the actions of the sanctions holders in refusing to release the Barton lien from his property and thereby causing the loss of $50-70,000 in real estate equity- much of would have been available to them. The same recipients were offered, but have failed to take any steps to recover, unpaid wages due to Respondent of $28,000, which those same sanction-holders were offered. Indeed, they advised the creditor of their claim, said not to pay me, and have done nothing further to collect. Thus, but for the bad faith of the sanctions holders themselves (Church of Scientology/Barton/Moxon and Paquette) the sanctions would have been paid. In other words, the sanction-holders could have received up to $90,000.00, which would have fully satisfied the sanctions orders, but for the past twelve months they have refused to release their own liens or take the steps to recover that $28,000.00. The unpaid sanctions permit continuing intelligence ("Intel ops") under the guise of Debtors examinations. Respondent could not sue to recover the $28,000.00 in unpaid salary. The sanctions holders had obtained a vexatious litigant ruling permanently preventing him from ever being a plaintiff again-ever. Again we are in Alice in Wonderland. Scientology engaged in felony crime and wrongdoing against a litigation opponent to get void orders including sanctions orders. They then take all possible steps to prevent him from paying those orders-even with the equity in his real estate - after they file a State Bar proceeding complaining that he has intentionally not paid them. It is not Respondent who has acted in bad faith, it is the sanction holders.

Interestingly, they have received $950.00 improperly in connection with Count Seven where Moxon/Kobrin/Paquette have already taken three abusive examinations under oath since February, 2001.Most recently this week on September 26,2001 in the Jeavons v. Church of Scientology collection matter. They seized my only vehicle (a 1988 Cherokee) on approx. January 26,2001. I made a Claim for Exemption on the basis of value and business need. Ava Paquette, Esq. opposed it and the $1,900.00 statutory exemption. Attorney Paquette's supporting declaration stated the blue book value to be approx.$8,300.00.Section 6068(d). My declaration recited the blue book value of approx. $1,800.00. Commissioner Gross denied my motion stating that the vehicle is not exempt-only the first $1,900.00 in auction proceeds. That conclusion is not disputed. After April I heard no more. Not even a report on the sale. The Notice of Sale on record shows the vehicle was sold on May 11,2001.Recently, Ava Paquette advised Judge Gross that she had received $950.00 from the sale. On September 26,2001 I checked the Sheriff's file. I had received no notices because the documents had changed my address by one single digit. I had received no proceeds of sale because I owned two cars [never in my life]! Someone at the DMV had reported to the Sheriff that I owned two cars. The fine print shows it: Berry Graham E, Santa Monica; Berry Graham R., Arcadia. I had frequently testified to Moxon and Paquette that I only own one car. They have me under regular surveillance and investigation so they would know if I had more than one vehicle. On May 16,2001 Moxon & Kobrin were sent $942.00 - the entire proceeds of sale less expenses. They were advised of the sale price. They knew of the judge's order and statutory exemption. They did and said nothing until advising the Court earlier this month that she had received $950.00.I have raised "how?" with her twice. Ms.Paquette has not explained.

Paragraphs 22, 29, 40 and 47 allege that I ought to have "in good faith" paid the four orders. This implies I acted in bad faith. However, "an attorney's disobedience of a court order involves moral turpitude for disciplinary purposes only if the attorney acted in either subjective or objective bad faith." Matter of Jeffers (Review Dept.1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.211. Moreover, Section 6103 is not a charging provision. Matter of Mapps (Review Dept.1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.1; Matter of Kenyon (Review Dept.1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Rptr.267, 276.In other words, there are two prongs to section 6103 and both must be satisfied by clear and convincing evidence. First, that "Respondent disobeyed and order of the court; Second, that Respondent did not act in "good faith." Matter of Respondent X (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rpt. 592

Respondent admits that he has violated Section 6103.He contends that he has not acted in bad faith. On the contrary he has, in good faith, tried to make the payments with the proceeds of sale of his most valuable assets and assignment of a liquidated and admitted debt. First, during most of the intervening time Respondent has been on partial and temporary disability, unable to work. Second, Respondent had been involved in a protracted bankruptcy involving a multiplicity of adversary proceedings filed by the sanction holders at a vast legal cost (including expensive New York copyright counsel Rosen). The legal costs exceed the sanctions amounts by many multiples. Third, the sanction holders have unreasonably obstructed (in bad faith) Respondents efforts to close a pre-foreclosure sale of his property, and collect on the unpaid salary, which would have substantially if not entirely satisfied the sanctions payments however voidable. It was Respondents intention to later seek their recovery in subsequent proceedings for malicious prosecution [Hurtado] and abuse of process [Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige (Abelson, Moxon) and Hurtado].

In early spring, when apprised of Respondents dire financial straits, ENEC judge Hon. Michael Marcus suggested Respondent file motions to vacate the various rulings. Respondent proceeded to prepare the necessary Chronology of Events.However, Moxon/Kobrin/Paquette immediately filed a substantial and unsuccessful motion for summary judgment in connection with Count One through Three herein. Nonetheless, it kept Respondent pre-occupied until late June. Shortly after returning to the chronology of events he served discovery in these proceedings on lawyers Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Abelson, Wager, Byrnes and Gerner.They filed eight motions in opposition and Respondent was preoccupied with their papers through early September. Even though the motions were procedurally and fatally defective for a number of reasons, Judge Brott engaged in an excess of jurisdiction, and granted them. Judge Brott also struck all of Respondents' discovery rights and ordered that Respondent could only conduct discovery herein upon a court order after having shown good cause by formal motion. The State Bar then served comprehensive discovery on myself which, along with the settlement conference, is now fully engaging me along with the Scientology on-going proceedings in connection with counts one, two, three and seven. The State Bar and the State Bar Court refuse to permit me time to file these motions to vacate the underlying matters. Despite medical opinion stating that I should not be involved in a trial before another appraisal in February, the State Bar Court insists this matter be tried before Ms.Goldade goes on six months maternity leave in late December. I have offered to remain on inactive status until after she returns to work. Both she and the court refuse. In essence, my due process rights, and discovery rights are being held hostage to, and prejudiced by, the prosecutors maternity schedule. Only recently have I become aware of the decisions in Matter of Respondent Y (Review Dept.1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.862, Matter of Boyne (Review Dept.1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 389.

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent should receive either no or only minor discipline in connection with these counts. " Even though an attorney's willful violation of his statutory duty to obey orders issued in connection with his profession is stated grounds for disbarment or suspension, discpline within that range is not mandated. Thus, in light of the unusual circumstances surrounding respondent's violation of this duty, a private reproval was the appropriate level of discipline."

Matter of Respondent X (Review Dept.1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 592. In addition, not only must the State Bar prove disciplinary charges by clear and convincing evidence but also " all reasonable doubts must be resolved in favor of the respondent." Kapelus v. State Bar (1987) 44 Cal.3d 179, 184, fn.1. "Culpability must not be debateable."Aronin v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 276,289.

B. ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST-COUNT SIX

See Interrogatories pages 25-37. The facts and some of mitigating circumstances are set fully forth in those Interrogatory Responses. On those facts, Respondent contends that he did not violate Rule 3-310(C)(2) as alleged. Alternatively, and again upon the facts set forth in the Interrogatory Responses, any violation was of brief duration and de minims in that rightly or wrongly Respondent took little or no role in maintaining the action after the Kaleel family failed to sign the retainer agreement containing a conflict of interest waiver. Also, he was so emotionally traumatized by scientology's "psycho-terror" activities that he did not even oppose the issuance of the relevant court order. He now desires the time/opportunity to do so.

Only in rare circumstances does an attorney owe a third party of duty of care. Primarily in the fields of wills and trusts and the preparation of financial and similar documents on which third parties (e.g. corporate investors) might forseeably rely Respondent is unaware of any authority holding that a third party fiduciary duty is owed to adverse parties in litigation.

Respondent had defended John Kaleel in the underlying litigation. Rodney Nardi and Hollywood at the El Rey were the adverse litigation parties represented by Bradley Brook, Esq.After the inconsistent and unjust decision before the trial court (see Interrogatories) John Kaleel convinced the Bankruptcy Trustee and his counsel that Rodney Nardi and Hollywood at the El Rey were indebted to the John Kaleel bankruptcy estate and that the Estate should proceed to recover John Kaleel's fifty per cent equity interest in Hollywood At The El Rey from his equal joint stockholder Rodney Nardi.The Trustee and his counsel suggested and requested Respondent to represent them, prepared the motion and Respondents supporting declaration (Interrogatories).Nardi had filed a proof of claim against the Estate for the very stock assets that the Estate was claiming against Nardi.The Trustee and his counsel did not raise the issue of a conflict. I did not see one either. Certainly, there was no "past representation" conflict. On the other hand, I saw a "potential/actual concurrent representation" issue involving the representation of both the Estate and the Kaleel family. The Trustee and his counsel knew of it and I failed to notice their non-disclosure in the declaration they prepared/assisted me to sign and which they (not me) presented to the court. As the interrogatories explain, I took no action beyond filing the Kaleel family complaint in circumstances where the statute of limitations was about to expire. This was because they did not sign the retainer agreement containing the waiver of conflict provision. The State Bar prove disciplinary charges by clear and convincing evidence and " all reasonable doubts must be resolved in favor of the respondent." Kapelus v. State Bar (1987) 44 Cal.3d 179, 184, fn.1. "Culpability must not be debateable."Aronin v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 276,289. In the Kaleel bankruptcy matter I did not, and to the best of knowledge, the Trustee and his counsel did not, perceive Rodney Nardi and Hollywood At The El Rey to be other than in breach of their corporate duties and the holders of assets that should belong to the Estate. In fact, shortly after my retention in mid 1998 (and shortly before I took little further action in the matter), the Trustee, his counsel, Rodney Nardi, Bradley Brook, Esq., John Kaleel and myself met to explore settlement potential. Neither Bradley Brook, Esq. nor Rodney Nardi raised even a suggestion of any potential or actual conflict of interest. To my knowledge, it was first raised in the Motion For Sanctions, which I did not oppose, as explained above and in the Interrogatories. By this time, Bradley Brook, Esq. was moving towards his representation of scientologist Slatkin in connection with largest "ponzi" scheme in American history-$650,000,000.00.After my success upon similar facts in the Church of Scientology International v. Fishman-Geertz case, Scientology and it's lawyer-agents must keep me benched and uninvolved in the Slatkin/Scientology fraud.

Because the duty to avoid conflicts under former rule 5-102 (B) arises at the outset of the employment when there has been little if any opportunity for investigation of the merits of the case, the intent of the rule is clearly prophylactic... [t] he rule against conflicting interests is designed not only to 'prevent the dishonest practitioner from, but as well to preclude the honest practitioner from putting himself in a position where he may be required to choose between conflicting duties, or be led to an attempt to reconcile conflicting interests, rather than to enforce the rights of the interest which he alone should represent." Citation omitted.

Anderson v. Eaton (1930) 211 Cal.113, 116-118.

Respondent has never represented either Rodney Kaleel or Hollywood at the El Rey.Thus, he never obtained any confidential information from them. Matter of Klein (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 1. Thus there was no actual conflict and no over-reaching. Matter of Fandey (Review Dept. 1994) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rpt. 752.The potential conflict of interest issue is fairly debatable. Matter of Sklar (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 602.

Moreover, any arguable potential conflict of interest never materialized. After the late 1998 settlement meeting described above, Respondent dropped out of the litigation because of the punishing litigation avalanche that the scientology litigation juggernaut was subjecting him to. Clearly, even if an actual conflict had developed, the "prophylactic" purpose of Rule 3-310 (C)(2) had been achieved. Respondent was not actually representing anyone at any such point in time.

C. MAINTAINING AN UNJUST ACTION-COUNT TEN

See Interrogatories pages 49-51. NIC Count Ten charges that Respondent violated Section 6068 (c) which provides that an attorney must "counsel or maintain such actions, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him or her legal or just, except the defense of a person charged with a public offense." There are federal and state provisions that provide the analytical starting point, F.R.Civ.P. Rule 11 and Cal.C.C.P.Sections 128.5. In essence, Rule 11 (b) (1)-(4), requires that pleadings: (1) are not filed for improper purposes such as to delay, harass or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;(2) are warranted by existing law or the non-frivolous argument for the modification or change of existing law; and (3) either have evidentiary support or are likely to have evidentiary support after further investigation and/or discovery. Section 128.5 also sets forth a similar state law test. Furthermore, it statutorily defines "frivolous" to mean "(A) totally and completely without merit or (B) for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party." In Young v. Rosenthal (2nd. Dist. 1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 96,122, it was held that the attorney's motion papers were known to be false at the time of filing, were frivolus, made in bad faith, without substantial justification and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. Sanctions under C.C.P. 128.5 were therefore properly imposed. The Day v. Rosenthal, infra, court further held that a similar test also applied to the filing of an appeal under C.C.P § 907.Id.100.See also: Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d.637, 646-652; 183 Cal.Rptr. 508; Matter of Respondent D (Review Dept.1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rpt. 517, 523.

The trial court standard was earlier explained in Tool Research & Engineering Corp. v. Henigson (1975) 46 Cal. App.3d.675; 120 Cal.Rprtr. 291.

"An attorney has probable cause to represent a client in litigation when, after a reasonable investigation and industrious search of legal authority, he has an honest belief that his client's claim is tenable in the forum in which it is to be tried. Citations omitted. The test is twofold. The attorney must entertain a subjective belief that the claim merits litigation and that belief must satisfy an objective standard... It is the attorney's reasonable and honest belief that his client has a tenable claim that is the attorney's probable cause for representation. Citations omitted. The attorney is not an insurer too his client's adversary that his client will win in litigation. Rather, he has a duty 'to represent his client zealously... [seeking] any lawful objective through legally permissible means... [and presenting] for adjudication and lawful claim, issue or defense.' Citations omitted. So long as the attorney does not abuse that duty by prosecuting a claim which a reasonable lawyer would not regard as tenable or by unreasonably neglecting to investigate the facts and law in making his determination to proceed, his client's adversary has no right to assert malicious prosecution against the attorney if the lawyer's efforts prove unsuccessful." Id.683, 684.

However, the standard should not be applied without regard to the particular circumstances of each case. In Silver v. Shemanski, 89 C.A.2d, at 546, it was held that "[i] if the issue which the attorney is called upon to decide is fairly debatable, then under his oath of office, he is not only authorized but obligated to present and urge his clients claim upon the court. And if it subsequently is determined that the position honestly taken was erroneous he should be relieved of responsibility." In fact, the California courts have long refused to hold attorney's responsible for filing client's claims that have been asserted in good faith, as under any subjective and reasonable objective review, clearly occurred here. See generally: Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.App.3d 335,334,134 Cal.Rptr.375; Weaver v. Superior Court (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 166,182-183,156 Cal.Rptr.745; Norton v. Hines (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 917, 921-924, 123 Cal.Rptr.237. Moreover, "if the issue the attorney is called upon to decide is fairly debatable, then under his oath of office, he is not only authorized but obligated to present and urge his client's claim upon the court." Murdock v. Gerth (1944) 65 Cal.App.2d 170,179. See also: Kirsch v. Duryea (1978) 21 Cal.3d 303,309,146 Cal.Rptr.218. In Sorenson v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1036,1042; 277 Cal.Rptr.858, it was held that [Respondent herein] " has the burden of 'demonstrat[ing] that the [underlying] findings are not supported by the evidence or that the [disciplinary recommendations] are erroneous or unlawful." Citations omitted. He can do so by the preferred and venerable case-within-a case vehicle.

As regards the consolidated Berry cases, the Tenth Count, and by extension because of the fraudulently obtained costs and sanctions orders, the first, second, fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth causes of actions, are based upon the August 20,1999, C.C.P §391 ruling that the cult retained then Chairman of the L.A. Police Commission Gerald Chaleff, Esq., 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 because of Judge Williams' vexatious litigant ruling, and there is no need for the State Bar court to look behind and/or beyond Judge William's non-appealable ruling. The State Bar similarly has contended that it's evidential proof may merely rely upon the Rule 11,etc. sanctions order of Judge Snyder (Pattinson) and the "SLAPP" mandatory prevailing party costs ruling of Judge Minning (Jeavons). That is not the current state of applicable law. That cannot be applied to the actual operative facts, existing evidence and applicable authorities.

In essence, the State Bar is wrongfully contending herein, that it may rely upon the doctrines and principles of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel in satisfying the burden and standard of proof in connection with Count Ten. However, it may not so rely as a matter of established law. The same argument was expressly rejected by the California Supreme Court in Maltaman v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 924; 239 Cal.Rptr. 687.

"The State Bar noted the civil determination that petitioner committed fraud and undue influence in the Sprang case, but the civil verdict and judgment have no disciplinary significance apart from the underlying facts. While the civil findings bear a strong presumption of validity if supported by substantial evidence, we must nonetheless assess them independently under the more stringent standard of proof applicable to disciplinary proceedings" Citations omitted. Id.947.

The Supreme Court then found "that the evidence produced at the disciplinary hearing fails to support [the State Bar's claims] 'by clear and convincing proof and to a reasonable certainty." Id. 947. The reasoning was further explained in Matter of Kittrell (Review Dept.2000) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.195, 205.

"Principles of collateral estoppel may be applied to preclude an attorney from re-litigating, in the State Bar Court, 'an issue that was actually litigated and resolved adversely to [the attorney] in a prior proceeding, provided (1) that the issue resulting in the civil finding is substantially identical to the issue in the State Bar Court, (2) that the civil finding was made under the same burden of proof applicable to the substantially identical issue in the State Bar Court, (3) that the [attorney] was a party to the civil proceeding,(4) that there is a final judgment on the merits in the civil proceeding, and (5) that no unfairness in precluding relitigation of the issue is demonstrated by the attorney." Citations omitted."Furthermore, in order for a civil finding to be given preclusive effect under collateral estoppel principles, it must be necessary to the civil judgment. (Citations omitted). 'This requirement ' prevents the incidental or collateral determination of a non-essential issue from precluding reconsideration of that issue in later litigation (Citation). The requirement is 'necessary in the name of procedural fairness, if not due process itself... "

Kittrell held that even party admissions in the underlying civil proceedings must be independently reassessed under the clear and convincing standard of proof. Id.206.See also: Matter of Torres (Review Dept.2000) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.138, 146; Matter of Berg (Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.725, 731;Matter of Lane (Review Dept.1994) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.735; Matter of Respondent D (Review Dept.1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.517, 523;Matter of Farrell (Review Dept.1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.490, 496. The State Bar has contended that the Judge Williams vexatious litigant (C.C.P.§ 391)ruling of August 20,1999 is conclusive evidence that the Berry consolidated cases were "unjust" actions. Nothing could be further from the truth- except to a scientologist or scientology representative. To the Church of Scientology, any action against the scientology enterprise and its representatives is deemed to be "criminal", unable to be understood and unjust! 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. Again, there has been no such finding against me. As applied, 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 courts have held that this is not an unconstitutional procedure because it is done on a case-by-case basis! However, that does not cure the basic constitional and human right deprivations that I now suffer upon the basis of the crime and corruption of the moving Scientology parties and lawyers fraudulently obtaining the vexatious litigant order.

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 to petition for redress of grievances before the courts 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.

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. In addition, the statute mandates the public wearing of a permanent scarlet letter, a 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 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.

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 legal proceedings. Even if the finding of purported facts [the contrived number of voluntary dismissals plus Federal Judge Snyder's ruling] 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, as in my own particular case, 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. Judge Williams ruled partially on the basis of the Judge Snyder Rule 11 order. The cult then had Judge Minning expressly rule on the basis of the prior "vexatious litigant" ruling by Judge Williams and the Rule 11 order by Judge Snyder. Judge Snyder then denied Respondents Rule 60 (b) motion to vacate, quoting Judge William's Vexatious Litigant ruling which relied, in part, upon her previous Rule 11 order. There is massive and voluminous evidence to support Respondent's defense that the Tenth Count cases were anything but "unjust" actions. However, for present purposes, Respondent shall make only a summary or skeletal showing that he reasonably formed the conclusion that the various Count Ten actions involving the Church of Scientology and its members were meritorious and not asserted to delay, harass or injure.

(1) BERRY V. CIPRIANO, BARTON AND MISCAVIGE

The State Bar must independently establish that the Berry v. Cipriano, Barton and Miscavige (Moxon and Abelson) cases .As the relevant documents that the State Bar had for review clearly and convincingly demonstrate, the vexatious litigant ruling did not address, at all, the pre-filing factual or legal merits and motivations in connection with the Berry consolidated cases. It had nothing at all to do with whether they were "unjust" actions filed in violation of Section 6068 (c). The grounds for the vexatious litigant ruling were expressed to be the same grounds on which the Church of Scientology, and its associates, made their motion.

The only appearance then Police Commission Chairman Gerald Chaleff, Esq., or the large Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe law firm made in the cases, was to file and argue the vexatious litigant motion. It falsely argued that the Pattinson v. Miscavige federal case involved substantially similar facts and occurrences, transactions and occurrences as the Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige (Abelson/Moxon) case. [Interestingly, it's Notice of Related Case in the Pattinson State Court proceeding was denied.] It also falsely argued that there had been five different case dismissals for the purposes Section 391 (b) (1). The underlying merits were irrelevant. Only the fact of the five dismissals- four of which were voluntary and without prejudice. One as part of a settlement negotiation between Scientology (through Barbara Reeves, Esq) and Respondent. There was never any decision upon the factual or legal merits, and motivations, in connection with the Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige (Abelson and Moxon) cases. They survived Demurrer, a SLAPP (C.C.P.§ 425.16) motion, attempted removal to Federal Court and resulted in nearly $100,000.00 in settlements.

Consequently: (1) "the issue resulting in the [vexatious litigant] civil finding is [not] substantially identical to the issue in the State Bar Court";(2) " the civil finding was [not] made under the same burden of proof applicable to the substantially identical issue in the State Bar Court";(3)"There is [not] a final judgment on the merits in the civil proceeding";(4) Respondent has thus "demonstrated"... "unfairness in precluding litigation of the issue." Therefore, the burden is on the State Bar to independently establish that the Berry consolidated cases were "unjustly" filed and maintained as analyzed above. See, Matter of Kittrell (Review Dept. 2000) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rpt. 195,205.

Very briefly, the gravaman of Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige (Abelson, Moxon) litigation was a claim for defamation arising out of the [continuing] publication of the First Cipriano Declaration. As stated above, they survived Demurrer, a SLAPP (C.C.P.§ 425.16) motion, attempted removal to Federal Court and resulted in nearly $100,000.00 in settlements. For those reasons alone they are prima facie "just." Moreover, the defamation claims not evenly fairly debatable. They were based upon Respondent's honest belief that they were tenable in the County of Los Angeles. Respondent conducted necessary pre-filing factual investigation and research. Respondent had a subjective belief that the defamation claims merited litigation. Obviously, for the forgoing reasons, both a court and several litigants considered the Berry consolidated case claims to have been properly filed and maintained. They entered into expensive settlements. Indeed, Cipriano himself confessed to the defamation (and the mountain of associated felony crime, fraud and obstruction) and expressly opposed the vexatious litigant motion and its filing by his former counsel Moxon and L.A.Police Commission Chairman Chaleff in the same litigation. Rules 3-310,5-220.Judge Williams refused to "hear" the defendant Cipriano and considered all of the crime, fraud and the confession as to the false and damaging First Cipriano Declaration (the gravaman of the litigation) to be "irrelevant".

In fact, despite the Church of Scientology's seven-year campaign of "psycho-terrorism", harassment, intimidation, abuse of process and worldwide expensive "investigation" of Respondent, there are only three witnesses to the outrageous pedophilia allegations of the "highly defamatory" First Cipriano Declaration. Robert Cipriano, who has testified that he was so intimidated by Ingram (Moxon's self-admitted agent) that he agreed to be highly paid to give false testimony against Respondent. Anthony Apodaca, who testified that he too was intimidated and paid by Ingram, Moxon and Wager to give false testimony against Respondent. And Michael Hurtado who Ingram, Wager and Moxon also solicited and suborned to testify falsely against Respondent and to file a perjured, malicious and abusive $8 M law suit against Respondent which they dismissed upon the eve of the trial court ruling that they could not assert the attorney-client privilege among themselves - because of the crime-fraud exception (Evidence Code §956). Accordingly, the defamation claim is clearly established. So is the fact that the defendants and their attorney's maintained "defenses " that were subjectively and objectively clearly not "legal" or "just" and that therefore violated Section 6068 (c). These attorneys comprise a small army from a number of major national law firms. Indeed, it is amazing that L.A.County Criminal Bar Association President Donald Wager has the chutzpah to engage in the mountain of ethical braches and felony crime that he clearly and convincingly did in the various Hurtado matters, and then shamelessly pressure the filing and pursuit of the Hurtado and other proceedings herein-without the California State Bar raising an eyebrow or question!

The reasons why Respondent was forced, by the Church of Scientology's tax free defense litigation juggernaut, blitzreig and abuse, to default on the alleged adequacy of some 2,000 Moxon form interrogatories [after 12 days of Respondent's deposition], and subsequently forced to voluntarily dismiss the Berry consolidated cases, are detailed in Respondent's Petition For Mandate, August 20,1999 Oral argument, Opposition To Petition To Find Graham E.Berry To Be a Vexatious Litigant and Amended Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Chait's Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Comply With Discovery Order re Form Interrogatories. As stated above, Judge William's refused to disqualify himself even though the Church of Scientology International was the moving party on the vexatious litigant motion, which employed his own fiancée as well as moving counsel Moxon & Kobrin and then L.A.Police Commission Chairman Gerald Chaleff and his firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.In addition, Judge Williams refused to even follow the mandatory statutory procedures when he ruled on Respondent's and Robert Cipriano's motion that he be disqualified because of his fiancée's employment by the moving party. His incredible response appeared to be that he had "been re-elected and [was] in [his] final term. I am like a Federal Court in a State Court." (T.102: 15-21]. Prior to finding an alleged discovery default upon Moxon's representation, he had ruled that Defendant's had discovery priority and that Respondent could take no discovery until defendant's concluded his deposition which commenced in May 1998 and was still incomplete 12 deposition days later, in February, 1999.In addition, Respondent was precluded from making any privacy objections and was ordered, among other things, to respond to:

(a) Over 2,000 form interrogatories;

(b) 289 special interrogatories;

(c) 121 Requests for Admission (each accompanied by 5 interropgatories, totaling an additional 605 interrogatories);

(d) 532 Requests for Authentication;

(e) 316 categories document demands (responding documents to be carefully organized in accordance therewith);

Defendants took depositions of another twelve persons and had noticed the depositions of over 30 others. They delayed the case by unsuccessfully removing Berry v. Miscavige to Federal Court. They persuaded Judge Williams that Respondent could not have an early and preferential trial date by law despite the express provisions of C.C.P.§ 465.5 (c). Incredibly, Judge William's reason for rejecting Respondent's C.C.P. § 465.5(c) preferential trial setting request was that the law disfavors actions for defamation!

(2) PATTINSON V. MISCAVIGE - Federal Court

The Pattinson federal case was filed on May 21,1998 and assigned to Hon. Christina A.Snyder.The First Amended Complaint was filed on August 18,1998.It even set forth much of legal and factual basis for the case. The State Bar now alleges, in Count Ten, that the entire case has been judicially determined to be "unjust". The Tenth Count expressly includes paragraph 18: " On or about September 28,1998, the court dismissed the Pattinson matter, but Respondent continued to file pleadings with the court." Paragraph 19 continues, in pertinent part, "[o] n or about April 15,1999, the court issued an order that defendant Kendrick L.Moxon ("Moxon") was entitled to costs, expenses and attorneys' fees because Respondent had asserted claims in bad faith and resulted in an unnecessary duplication of proceedings." Thus, the California State Bar alleges that on September 28,1998 Judge Snyder dismissed the Pattinson case from her Federal Court but permitted Respondent to continue litigating it through April 15,1999! Although falsely alleged by Donald Wager, Esq. and Michael Gerner, Esq (both representing the Church of Scientology), the very idea defies even imagination.

Instead, and only in pertinent part, the true procedural history is as follows. On September 28,1998 the court heard and denied Moxon's Rule 11 motion. However, it directed Respondent's client to re-plead in conformity with F.R.Civ.P.Rule 8,to ensure that the fraud claims were pled with specificity, and to replead the R.I.C.O. claims. Minute Order, September 28,1998. Pattinson's second Amended Complaint was filed on October 28,1998.Subsequently, the court granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint which was done on February 9,1999.Moxon's New York attorney and co-counsel, Eric M.Lieberman, Esq. then refiled the Moxon Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 motion. It was served while Respondent was absent from the country at his parent's 50th wedding anniversary celebration. An Illinois attorney and California law clerk who was relatively unfamiliar with the intricate facts necessarily prepared absent Respondent's opposition. The Church of Scientology and Moxon had repeatedly argued that the Pattinson case really belonged in State Court.Pattinson's proposed amended complaint had dropped the contentious R.I.C.O. allegations in an unsuccessful effort to get the case past the pleading stage and the incessant pleading motions being filed by New York lawyers Samuel Rosen and Eric Lieberman in association with Los Angeles lawyers Barbara Reeves of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker and Kendrick L.Moxon.The other defendants were not involved with these pleading battles. Again, through bombastic Rosen of New York, they had [mis] convinced Judge Snyder that they had discovery priority to the exclusion of Pattinsin, until his deposition was concluded. Of course, it proceeded in daily segments month after month.

In addition, Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette found a way to delay and disrupt Pattinson's lawsuit against the Church of Scientology. Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette, on behalf of Scientologist Michel Revelliere of the Scientology Office of Special Affairs in Copenhagen, Denmark, filed an obviously solicited retaliatory lawsuit. Many years ago, in Paris, France, Revelliere had loaned Pattinson approx. $40,000.00.Pattinson had repaid some of it and had not heard from Revelliere for over ten years. However, because of OSA's intelligence tentacles it would have always known of Pattinson's whereabouts. Scientology knew of Pattinson's whereabouts and social support network .This is because Moxon & Kobrin unleashed their "chief investigator" Ingram to conduct the usual "defamatory" and "haunting" "investigation" pursuant to the Scientology Fair Game Policies and Practises.Meanwhile, Moxon's action on the unpaid note (to which there are few defenses) was filed in Orange County Superior Court, quickly proceeded through discovery and onto summary judgment. With the Reveillere v. Pattinson judgment in hand, Moxon proceeded to harass Pattinson and his ability to finance and obtain money for the litigation of Pattinson v. Miscavige. Pattinson was forced into bankruptcy at the time he was dismissing in federal court and refiling in State Court without the R.I.C.O. and federal civil rights claims. Pattinson advised Respondent that he could no longer afford to litigate, that his funding sources had been cut-off due to the Fair Game harassment and his emotional ability to proceed destroyed by Moxon and Rosen's deposition tactics in the Pattinson v. Miscavige case, and Moxon's discovery conduct in the Pattinson v. Revelliere retaliatory case. In or about August 1999 Pattinson instructed Respondent to voluntarily dismiss the Pattinson v. Church of Scientology state court case without prejudice.

Again, the State Bar misrepresents the material facts. N.I.C. paragraph 58 states "Respondent filed the second Pattinson case in state court after the Pattinson matter had been dismissed in federal court over a year previously. Respondent knew that the federal court had imposed sanctions upon him pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.11 (as a frivolous complaint) and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1927 (as a vexatious proceeding)." However, the documents and information that the State Bar had, and should have investigated, evidence as follows:

(a) The Pattinson v. Miscavige state court case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on March 19,1999.The Pattinson v. Miscavige federal case was voluntarily dismissed (without prejudice) within the same hour. The filing and dismissal was done in the manner to preserve the statutes of limitation. Accordingly, for this reason alone NIC paragraph 58 seriously misrepresents the material facts.

(b) When the Pattinson v. Miscavige state court case was filed on March 19,1999 there were no sanctions orders as falsely alleged by the State Bar. Moxon's sanctions motion was granted on April 15,1999, one month after the state court case was filed. The sanctions order was the result of subsequent additional briefing and was entered on July 15,1999, four months after the Pattinson v. Miscavige case was filed in State Court and shortly before it's voluntary dismissal (without prejudice) after the retaliatory and solicited Reveillere P.Pattinson lawsuit had obstructed Pattinson's ability to proceed further.

There can be no subjective or reasonable subjective belief that the Pattinson v. Miscavige cases were properly pleaded and, if allowed to proceed, may have resulted in successful summary adjudication of many of the claims. The pleadings were carefully based and drafted on all fours with the controlling California Supreme Court authority and analysis of Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092. In addition, they were also modeled upon Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App. 3d 872 and the applicable factual findings of Hon. Paul G.Breckinridge in his Memorandum of Intended Decision, June 20,1984.Church of Scientology v. Armstrong, LASC Case No.C 420153.See also, Church of Scientology v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1060,283 Cal.Rptr.917.For example, the Pattinson Third Amended Complaint filed February 9,1999 in Federal Court alleged, among other things, causes of action for fraud, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with business relations and negligence. For example, fraud count one (scientifically proven claims to cure illness and disease) was also the subject of favorable adjudication in Founding Church of Washington v. United States (1969) 409 F.2d 1146.Fraud count four (Hubbard's Achievements and Character) was pleaded in conformity with the factual determination in the Memorandum of Intended Decision in Church of Scientology v. Armstrong, Id.This provided a strong case for the application of collateral estoppel principles. Fraud count five (Confidentiality of Files) had also been favorably determined in a number of previous Church cases. Similarly, Fraud count six (Fair Game) had been favorably determined in other analogous cases. See generally: 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. Wollersheim, 42 Cal.App.4th. 628, 648-649, 49 Cal.Rptr. 2d 620 (1996); Hart v. Cult Awareness Network, 13 Cal App. 4th 777, 16 Cal Rptr 705(19___); Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, 212 Cal.App. 872, 888-891,260 Cal. Rptr 331 (1989); Allard v. Church of Scientology, 58 Cal.App.3d 439,443n.1, 129 Cal Rptr. 797 (1976); Christofferson v. Church of Scientology, 57 Ore.App. 203 (1983). These are some of the reasons for Bombastic Rosen's mantra to judge after judge that "Berry has to be stopped."

The Third Amended Pattinson federal court complaint asserted claims against defendants Church of Scientology International, Religious Technology Center, Church of Spiritual Technology, Building Management Services, The Sea Organization, Captain David Miscavige and Kendrick L.Moxon. No parties obtained orders involuntarilarily dismissing the case for any reasons. The only party who sought and obtained the Rule 11 section 1927 order was Moxon. The two relevant related sanctions orders are only in relation to the allegations pleaded against Moxon. Consequently, the State Bar cannot rely upon res judicata and collateral estoppel principles that the Pattinson federal court case was "unjust". The case must be independently litigated herein (through case within a case) in order to determine the "justness" of the cases enumerated in NIC Count Ten according to the clear and convincing standard, as explained above.

Accrdingly,the Moxon Rule 11 order is expressly limited to Moxon and the allegations asserted against him, in essence, that contrary to the Church's [mis] representations as to it's character and reformed conduct, it was still engaging in criminal activity and doing so through co-conspirator Kendrick L.Moxon, Esq. Some of his judicially recognized criminal activity is set forth above in cases such as U.S. v. Hubbard, (1979) 474 F.Supp.64, where he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator (also see Allard, p.12 above). It is also clear and convincing that at the very same time as Moxon was inside the Federal Court obtaining sanctions for an allegation that he was involved in criminal conduct on behalf of the Church of Scientology, he was outside the courtroom concurrently engaged in felony crime with Abelson, Ingram and Wager. At the very same time as swearing to the Federal Court in the Pattinson case that he was not engaged in criminal conduct he was concurrently committing serious felony crimes with Cipriano, Apodaca and Hurtado.Amazingly, neither Moxon, Wager, Abelson nor Ingram, or any of their other henchmen in this disgusting display of lawlessness and contempt for the legal system, have filed a declaration or other evidence controverting, rebutting or even just denying Respondent's evidence of the Cipriano, Apodaca and Hurtado felony crimes involving Ingram, Moxon, Abelson, Wager and others. Accordingly, all of Respondent's allegations of fact stand uncontroverted by any evidence from Moxon.

Consequently, a relatively simple, basic and fundamental jurisprudential, equitable and policy issue remains for the State Bar Court. Should the Section 1927 and Rule 11 Sanctions orders against Respondent be the basis for discipline when the uncontroverted material evidence establishes that the precise criminal conduct Respondent had alleged of Moxon inside the Courtroom, was being brazenly perpetrated by Moxon upon Respondent outside of this Court room, and that Respondent's representation of his clients was impaired and adversely affected? Similarly, the uncontroverted evidence herein establishes that the vexatious litigant order was also obtained by Moxon's fraud upon that court and more. In essence, Moxon has amazingly argued that it is permissible and ethical to build fraud upon fraud, in court after court, and for so long as "the litigation misconduct" is not " ' harmful' to the extent of 'affect[ing] the substantial rights' of the adverse parties in that litigation." The "Doctrine of fraud upon the court is solely concerned with the integrity of the judicial process." Where the charges implicate counsel they implicate the integrity of the judicial process." Kerwit Medical Products Inc. N & H Instruments, 27 FR Serv 2d 250 (ND Tex 1978), affd 616 F2d 833 (5th Cir.), 207 USPQ 625, 29 FR Serv 2d 1190. "Since attorneys are officers of court, their allegedly dishonest conduct involving misrepresentation and perjury would constitute fraud on the court." H.K.Porter Co. v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 536 F2d 1115 (6th Cir.Ohio 1976), 191 USPQ 481, 21 FR Serv 2d 1429. " If attorney was implicated in fabrication of evidence by party, such implication would constitute fraud upon the court." United States V. International Tel. & Tel.Corp. 349 F Supp 22 (DC Conn 1972), affd without opp 410 US 919,35 L Ed 2d 582, 93 S Ct 1363(1973)."If there was corruption on part of officers of court, court was under duty to take whatever action might be appropriate to sustain its integrity and to undo any resulting harm or injustice." Chicago Title & Trust Co. Fox Theatres Corp. 182 F Supp 18 (SD NY 1960).

Cipriano's belated but still timely decision to recant and finally tell the truth, and to testify about Moxon's smorgasbord of corruption and criminality directed at Berry during the pendency of this litigation, corroborated by at least 50 exhibits (many emanating from, or signed by, Moxon himself) clearly and convincingly evidences the infection and contamination that attorney Moxon has wrought upon every forum in which Moxon has appeared against Berry since the blackmailing of Cipriano on May 4-5, 1994 .The uncontroverted testimony of Cipriano, Apodaca and Anna Hurtado irrefutably establishes that Moxon [Ingram,Abelson and Wager]were engaged in conduct that constitutes witness and evidence tampering, suborning perjury, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, use of an intermediary and obstruction of justice. The Starr Report reached the same conclusion in connection with the President. In his testimony to the House, Judge Starr stated: " Perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes". (page 59). "Moreover, the Constitution lists bribery as a high crime or misdemeanor". Page 60. Judge Starr's prepared remarks made clear that he had not been concerned with the alleged relationship underlying his investigation (or, as here, the underlying case). "The referral is instead about obstruction of justice, lying under oath, tampering with witnesses, and misuse of power" [here, by an officer of the court]. The referral cannot be understood without appreciating this vital distinction." Page 90. "Given the serious nature of perjury and obstruction of justice, regardless of its setting, it is obvious that the actions of [Moxon, Ingram, Cipriano, Apodaca, Hurtado and others] to conceal the truth warranted criminal investigation." Page 109. "Perjury is extraordinarily serious business. It is insidious. The courthouse cannot operate if perjury is allowed to be either excused or minimized." Page 175. It is immaterial that the case during which it is perpetrated is either settled or dismissed. Page 188. "The offense is the despoiling and the attack on the integrity of the judicial system." Page 242.Professor Hogue's rebuttal of the President's disbarment defense continued by citing from Judge Wright's findings in Jones v. Clinton, 36 F.Supp.2d 1118 (E.D.Ark.1999): It is simply not acceptable for anyone, but especially an attorney, to employ deceptions and falsehoods in an attempt to obstruct the judicial process. [Moxon's] conduct coming as it did from a member of the bar... was without justification and undermined the integrity of the judicial system... Our adversary system depends on a most jealous safeguarding of truth and candor, and the system can provide no harbor for clever devices to divert the search, mislead opposing counsel or the court, or cover up that which is necessary for justice in the end.

During the pendency of this lawsuit alone, Moxon's corroborated criminal conduct, directed at Berry, included violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621, 1603, 1503, 1512, 371 2(a), 2(b) (perjury, obstruction of justice, witness and evidence tampering, conspiracy, aiding and abetting and the use of an intermediary). Specifically, Moxon's fraudulent acts included: (1) The May 5th, 1994 presentation of the first Cipriano Declaration with numerous fabrications and exaggerated statements regarding Graham Berry's sexual history to Robert Cipriano, which Cipriano was forced to sign under duress and the coercive threats of attorney Moxon's agent Ingram; (2) The use of less than candid investigators to obtain information and the subsequent use of that information obtained through the practice of intimidation and coercion ;(3) The deposition preparation of Cipriano by Moxon on June 29th, 1998 during which Moxon (later Samuel D. Rosen, Esq.) instructed Cipriano to lie about the ages of Berry's sexual relationships, violated of Rule 3-210 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and C.C.P. §1209(8) [18 U.S.C. §§371, 1512, 2(B), 1503, 1621 and 1623 (conspiracy, obstruction of justice, witness and evidence tampering, perjury]; (4) The further testimonial preparation of Cipriano by Moxon comprised of instructions to lie on June 30th, 1998, also in violation of Rule 3-210 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and C.C.P. §1209(8) ;(5) Violating the oath taken by all attorneys at law under Business and Professions Code §6067, in which attorneys promise "... faithfully to discharge the duties of any attorney at law to the best of his knowledge and ability," violating C.C.P. §1209(3); (6) The unlawful business dealings between attorney and client prohibited by Rule 5-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and C.C.P. §1209(8), undertaken in order to maintain Cipriano's livelihood in exchange for perjurious testimony against Berry; (7) the promise of up to three quarters of a million dollar ($750,000) donation to the Moxon/ Scientology-founded charity, Day of the Child ; (8) The provision of a $2,500 loan to Cipriano (9) The provision for Cipriano's room and board at Joanne Wheaton's Franklin House; (10) The rental of a Palm Springs condominium, a five bedroom Palm Springs home complete with swimming pool and monthly provisions for Cipriano's board and living expenses by the law firm of Moxon & Kobrin; (11) The provision by Moxon, at no cost to Cipriano, of a $20,000 lawyer in New Jersey to clear and expunge Cipriano's criminal record;(12) The subsequent provision of settlement monies in the amount of $1,500 (13) Moxon's provision of legal services to incorporate Cipriano's "Day of the Child" Charity in Nevada; (14) Moxon's provision of a new Saturn automobile for Cipriano on October 6, 1998 ;and Moxon's provision of a Packard-Bell computer for Cipriano at a cost of $1,000.

Clearly, the State Bar cannot independently establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent "unjustly" included Moxon as one of the defendants in the Pattinson v. Miscavige federal court case.

(3) PATTINSON V. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY- State Court See interrogatories 37- 40.Also discussion above, particularly with reference to NIC para. 58. The State Bar alleges in NIC paragraph 57 that " Respondent sued C.S.T in the second Pattison matter even though the client had never had any communication with anyone who worked for CST."

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. United States v. Hubbard, (1979) 474 F.Supp.64. Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq. [the very same one as herein] 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. It was just after these very same events that Woodland Hills attorney Sherman D. Lenske, Esq. 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, harassment, intimidation and "psycho-terror" 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 However, Abelson and Drescher also maintain mail drops, which are their designated offices for State Bar Act (B & P Code § 6002.1(a)(1) purposes. The MCCS sessions between DM, Sherman D.Lenske, Esq. and other attorneys were taped. The session tapes fell into the hands of the I.R.S. Scientology claimed that the I.R.S. had obtained the tapes illegally and objected to their production pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. The I.R.S. opposed the attorney-client privilege claim on the ground that the tapes revealed a plan to commit a crime or fraud and therefore were subject to the crime-fraud exception. See generally: Church of Scientology of California v. United States (1992) 506 U.S.9; United States v. Zolin (1987 9th Cir.) 809 F.2d 1411.The result of M.C.C.S. was a complex labyrinthine of hundreds of corporations and an octopod organization of front groups that reach into corporations and government. For example, the new President of O.P.E.C. (the Organization of petroleum Exporting Countries is Dr. Rilwanu Lukman of Nigeria. Dr.Lukman is claimed to be a scientologist who has assisted the Church of Scientology and Kendrick Moxon Esq.'s efforts to "utterly destroy" Scientology critic Robert Minton. Moxon is now trying to destroy the Lisa McPherson Trust, which Minton founded in order to assist former scientologists and to educate the public about the 'dark side' of the Church. See generally: www.lisamcpherson.org; www.lisatrust.net; www.xenutv.com; www.xenunet; www.lerma.net .In addition, the Internet ISP Earthlink has had strong Church of Scientology involvement. So has All State Insurance. Members of the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises ("W.I.S.E.") include Survival Insurance and the large national company Atkinson - Baker Court Reporters.W.I.S.E. companies are represented on the Church of Scientology governing entity known as the Watch Dog Committee (WDC). Approx.10% of the gross profit of a W.I.S.E. corporation eventually ends up in the Church of Scientology Internationals Central Reserves.W.I.S.E. corporations, such as the Atkinson-Baker court reporting firm are subject to potential total control (and shut down) being exercised ultimately by senior church corporate entities Religious Technology Center ("RTC") and Church of Spiritual Technology ("CST"). This organizational hierarchy is examined in detail in Church of Spiritual Technology v. United States (1992) 26 Cl.Ct 713,730-732, and the various Church of Scientology cases cited therein.

In fact, with the grant of tax status in 1993, "CST is ... at the apex of a pyramid of both ecclesiastical authority and financial control over Scientology." Id.732.

The court explained that CST would be collecting the balance of all the income producing property and was the ultimate owner of the trademarks, copyrights and other items of international property that comprises the Church's trade secrets and ability to eliminate unpaid access to Hubbard's scriptural writings. Sherman Lenske is specifically identified as one of its founders and special directors. 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. It is possible that they own the entire Church of Scientology. Former I.R.S.Assistant Commissioner Meade Emery, Esq. is one of the other C.S.T.Special Trustees. On the basis of Respondent's knowledge, experience, investigation and research into Church of Scientology matters, Respondent honestly believed C.S.T. to be a necessary and proper party for both liability and judgment collection purposes, alter ego purposes, and for numerous matters relevant to the two Pattinson cases, which are the subject of Count Ten herein. C.S.T. brought a spurious but successful C.C.P.§ 425.16 'SLAPP' suit motion in the State Court Pattinson case. The 'SLAPP' motion relied heavily and expressly upon the vexatious litigant order of Judge Williams in the Berry consolidated cases and Judge Snyder's ruling in the Federal Court Pattinson case. Under C.C.P.§ 425.16(c) a "prevailing party ... shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs." CST had retained both expensive Washington, D.C. tax counsel to appear with Kendrick L.Moxon, Esq. on the motion. Attorney's fees and costs were awarded against Respondent and his client jointly in the amount of $12,500.00.The SLAPP motion was filed by a corporation that is a religious corporation but not a church. That has no members, several staff and no parishioners. The corporation exists to own intellectual property and other assets. Most scientologists are unaware it even exists because it intentionally maintains a low profile to be free from lawsuits such as Respondent filed. However, it successfully and wrongly convinced the court that a lawsuit for fraud interfered with its constitutional freedom of speech! It is extremely important to the Church that the State Bar punishes Respondent for the analysis that led to the naming of C.S.T. The illusion must be maintained that C.S.T. (and it's ultimate asset control) should never be sued. What better than a California State Bar disciplinary finding and penalty with which to deter other counsel and litigants from naming the ultimate entity from which a judgment might have to be collected? Such is the deceptive purpose of the octopi of over 150 Church of Scientology corporations.

The dilemma for counsel can be illustrated by the history of Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California (2nd.Dist.1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872; 260 Cal.Rptr. 331. The Pattinson complaints were, in part, based upon the Wollersheim complaint where a $30M judgment at trial was entered against the Church of Scientology of California. After two appeals to the U.S.Supreme Court, the Church had the judgment reduced to $2.5 M.The judgment has never been paid and is now approx. $8M with post-judgment interest. The Church of Scientology has vowed never to pay the judgment ("not one thin dime to Wollersheim"). During the original case the Church carried out it's M.C.C.S. restructuring, stripped the assets from Church of Scientology of California and transferred them to Church of Scientology International. For the past approx. eight years the Church of Scientology has fiercely resisted and repeatedly appealed all attempts and rulings to have the original Wollersheim judgment amended to add Church of Scientology International. That litigation itself has cost all parties almost as much as the outstanding judgment and is on-going at this time. Moreover, the Church's history of fiercely avoiding (and forever appealing and re-litigating) the payment of court judgments led Respondent to conclude, honestly, reasonably, subjectively and objectively, that C.S.T. was a proper party for both liability and collection purposes. The pleadings contained both alter ego and conspiracy allegations so that it was immaterial whether Pattinson had ever had communication with the handful of "shadowy" people comprising C.S.T., which operates from a mail drop in Los Angeles even though it ultimately controls and owns the entire scientology enterprise. The SLAPP statute decision in favor of C.S.T. did not apply to any of the other parties in the State Court Pattinson v. Scientology case. It did not, as erroneously claimed by the State Bar, result in the dismissal of any party or cause of action except as to C.S.T.Accordingly, the dismissal cannot be accorded res judicata or collateral estoppel treatment as, at to the entire case, contrary to the contentions of the State Bar and the assertions of the Church of Scientology representatives. C.C.P. §425.16 motions are granted daily along with the automatic cost-shifting provision. Moreover , the organized Bar will likely be shocked that the State Bar now deems that such cost shifting orders are proof of a Section 6068 (c) violation.

(4) JEAVONS V. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

The Jeavons v. Church of Scientology International case arose out of the German A.R.D.Television documentary on "the Dark Side of Scientology." Respondent's legal work was featured in the documentary film. The Church was very disturbed by a helicopter flight over part of Scientology's heavily armed and dangerous Hemet, California "Gold" desert base. In essence, Scientology quickly tracked the helicopter pilot, Robert Jeavons. It filed a F.A.A. complaint seeking suspension of the pilot's 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." Jeavons consulted with me. Respondent also formed the honest 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, he was too busy to assist him because of the Berry and Pattinson cases. Respondent did agree, in order to preserve the expiring statute of limitations, to draft a pro per complaint that he 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 Respondent 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 purpose in filing the F.A.A.complaint was. 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. Again,C.C.P. §425.16 motions are granted daily along with the automatic cost-shifting provision.Consequently, the organized Bar will likely be shocked that the State Bar now deems that such cost shifting orders are proof of a Section 6068 (c) violation.

The Jeavons sanctions decision genuinely surprised Respondent. 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 Respondent on the basis of the false First Cipriano Declaration. In addition, Respondent was very familiar with Moxon's further unsuccessful use of C.C.P.§ 425.16 in Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim, (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th. 628, 648-649, 49 Cal.Rptr. 2d 620.

D. FAILURE TO DEPOSIT CLIENT TRUST FUNDS IN TRUST ACCOUNT COUNT ONE See Interrogatories pages 2 to 10. The Interrogatory Responses, along with the Claim of Exemption itself, clearly and convincingly rebuts the allegations of the Church of Scientology (parroted herein by the California State Bar) that Respondent falsely sated that "his business account was a client trust account." Nowhere is any misappropriation alleged or existing. Nowhere is there any credible evidence or allegation that Respondent used a Trust account for personal purposes. Matter of Heiser (Review Dept.1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 47 [5]. At most there is a minor ($853.00), brief and accidental co-mingling in Respondent's business account under extreme mitigating circumstances and despicable intentional harassment and worse by the Real Parties in Interest herein. See generally, Matter of Boyne (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.335 [7]. Moreover, the State Bar ignores the relevant law as set forth on below: Matter of Respondent H; Baranowski; The Rutter Group, Professional Responsibility. In a sentence, expenses and costs go into the Trust Account and Advance Fees can go into the Business account. Of the $5,853.00 in issue, only $ 853.00 was for expenses and costs. $5,000.00 was advance fees. Those advance retainer fees and costs were returned to the client after release from levy, because Respondent subsequently agreed with the State Bar that he would dissolve his practice and transfer to voluntary inactive status pending his recovery from partially and temporarily disabling "severe depression." Matter of Lais (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.179.

Accordingly, the aggregate amount mistakenly paid into the wrong account was $853.00, which was nevertheless applied to the proper purpose-costs and expenses. Despite this fact, Respondent recognizes that the "... trust account rules are designed to safeguard client funds from the serious risk of loss or misappropiation, whether through carelessness or design," and that there is "no de minimis exception". Matter of Jones (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 411 [6], Matter of Respondent K (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rpt. 389 [13]. However, the Court in Matter of Respondent K, Id., also held that "the amount of client trust funds that that an attorney mishandles goes to the issue of discipline." Id.335 [7]. See also: Matter of Respondent F (Review Dept.1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.17 [8]; Matter of Respondent E (Review Dept.1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 732 [6].

This case is more analogous to Matter of Respondent E (Review Dept.1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 716.This case involved an attorney of similar experience and track record to Respondent herein .The attorney was a litigator and had "never had any claim for any financial impropriety other than the instant case... No other clients were adversely affected. The hearing judge concluded that the instant problem was aberrational." Citations omitted. Id.721. "This case involves aberrational negligence in handling one client check intended for reimbursement of an expert witness fee that had not in fact been paid by respondent... [he left] the disputed sum of $1,754.00 in his general account when it should have been placed in his trust account or returned to the client. For that reason discipline is appropriate and, in light of the very strong mitigation, we impose a private reproval." Id.716.

E. MORAL TURPITUDE-FILING FALSE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION COUNT TWO

See Interrogatories pages 2 to10, 10 to12, 12 to17. The State Bar continues to parrot the Church of Scientology and misrepresent that Respondent "falsely stated under penalty of perjury that his business account was a client trust account." This is absolutely incorrect as demonstrated in the Interrogatories (Response No.2, p.5: 14-8:11.) More-over, neither Scientology nor the State Bar have proffered any evidence that despite the fact that the documents do not state what they allege, Respondent intentionally committed any misconduct. Indeed, Respondent has sworn to the contrary.

In any event, Counts Two and Three charge that Respondent has engaged in "moral turpitude". The Church of Scientology desperately seeks such a finding with which to further blacken Respondents name. Indeed, already they misrepresent the nature of these proceedings on the Internet. However, the State Bar and the Church of Scientology offer no evidence to support such a finding. Only allegations, misrepresentations, and conjecture. Moreover, "disbelief of a Respondent's testimony does not create evidence to the contrary." Matter of Johnson (Review Dept. 1995) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 233 [2]. In Johnson it was alleged that an attorney had misrepresented that his business account was a client trust account. The only evidence was an insurance companies notation on a document. That notation was held insufficient to establish the alleged misrepresentation even where the trial judge did not believe the respondent attorney. Here, the evidence is either irrefutably in Respondents favor .At best, for Scientology-State Bar, it is equivocal or ambiguous. Interrogatories, No.2, pp.6: 9-7:7. " Reasonable doubts in proving a charge of professional misconduct must be resolved in the accused's attorney's favor". Matter of Heifer, Id.55 (citing Pollard v. State Bar (1983) 35 Cal.3d 274, 291.Also see Matter of Respondent E (Review Dept.1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.716, 725. Accordingly, this charge should be immediately dismissed as well.

Ultimately, moral turpitude is a matter of law to be determined by the Supreme Court. Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 103,109, In re Struck (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 891,901. "Moral Turpitude has been defined as 'an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowman, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man. (Citation).'(In re Higbie (1972) 6 Cal.3d 562,569)." Matter of Priamos (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Rptr. 824,830.See also: Matter of Rech (Review Dept. 1995) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 310,315;Matter of Nelson (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rpt. 178,187. In Calando v. Sinclair (1970 2nd Dis) 6 Cal.App.3d 903,915, 86 Cal.Rprt.387, the court held that "moral turpitude, broadly defined, is conduct contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals." However, "moral conduct cannot be predicated upon errors of judgment as to the law... " In re Kling (1919) 44 Cal.App.267, 186 P.152.In addition, a violation of a standard of professional conduct not yet clarified by case law is less reprehensible than violations of more clear-cut and well-established rules. Matter of Hagen (Review Dept.1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 153 [5]. This is a unique and novel case. Respondent is not aware of any authority regarding the discipline of an attorney on the complaint of opposing counsel and parties in litigation where the parties and counsel have demonstrably and intentionally engaged in a pattern of felonies and other wrongful conduct intended to destroy the respondent attorney and permanently remove him from being able to litigate against them. Moreover, the State Bar has no evidence to support most of its allegations. " Since Respondent's testimony is plausible and uncontradicted, it 'should be regarded as proof of the fact testified to, especially where contrary evidence, if it existed, would be readily available but was not offered." Citations omitted. Edmondson v. State Bar (1983) 29 Cal.3d 339,343. The degree of punishment for acts of moral turpitude depends "upon the harm to which the victim of the misconduct is harmed or misled and depending on the magnitude of the misconduct and the degree to which it relates to the members practice of law... . Although not argued by respondent, we note that proof of 'harm to the victim '(standard 2.3) was minimal. In fact, it does not appear that [victims] suffered any harm." Matter of Mitchell (Review Dept.1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 332,339. Indeed, as explained above, the true facts, uncontroverted testimony and evidence is that Respondent is the victim of the complainants. See Chronology, Interrogatories and Privilege motion. There is absolutely no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent (as opposed to complainants) engaged in acts of "moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption." Section 6106. At most, Respondent made errors of judgment during unique, besieging and over-whelming intentional and wrongful attacks by the Church of Scientology and it's agents including the Real Parties In Interest herein (Abelson, Wager, Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Rosen, etc.) See Matter of Mitchell, Id.339, citing Matter of Lavery (1978) 90 Wn. 2d 463,587 P.2d 157 ("Lavery's actions were not corrupt but only ' seriously misguided judgment.") In Matter of Klien (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr, 1 it was held that the respondent did not commit acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption where respondent did not intend to deliberately defy a court order and did not have any dishonest or wrongful intent, and where respondent's improper conduct was based on beliefs and understandings which, although not only mistaken but also objectively held, were honestly held.

G. MORAL TURPITUDE-PREFERING OTHER CREDITORS TO BARTON

See Interrogatories pages 2-10,10-12,12-17.See also the argument and analysis in Counts One and Two above. Contrary to Scientology's and the State Bar's allegations, the uncontroverted testimony is that Jane Scott and not Respondent urged the opening of the Jane Scott account, so that she could better handle his current trade creditor payments from San Francisco.

The crux of Church of Scientology/Barton's complaint in the pending Barton v. Berry case, and in the State Bars' complaint herein, is that Respondent has committed fraud upon his creditors and the Bankruptcy Court. Barton Adversary Complaint paras. 22- 49.State Bar Complaint, Counts One to Three. The burden of proof is upon Scientology/Barton there, and the State Bar here, is to prove (by clear and convincing evidence) that Respondent "knowingly" and "purposefully" engaged in the alleged conduct for the purpose of avoiding payments to his valid creditors." Respondent denies any fraudulent or willful intent in connection with any of Barton's and the State Bar's allegations. Indeed, the first time that the cult filed Barton v. Berry in bankruptcy court it was dismissed, without prejudice, upon my motion. Approx. one year later Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette filed Barton v. Berry again. It was filed within a short time of the ENEC before Judge Marcus in early April, 2001.As explained in connection with Section A above, the Judge had suggested I move to vacate the underlying orders. The Bankruptcy Court accepted my following argument in opposition to the Barton motion for summary judgment, at it had done in connection with a Moxon v. Berry motion for summary judgment in December 1998.

As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in re Adobe, "transferred" as used in Bankruptcy Code section 727(a)(2)(A) should be read to mean transferred and remained transferred. Section 727(a)(2)(A) was intended to deny the discharge to debtors who take actions designed to keep their assets from their creditors either by hiding the assets until after they obtain their discharge in bankruptcy or by destroying them. As the court noted, it is not uncommon for an uncounseled or poorly counseled debtor faced with the mounting debts and pressure from creditors by transferring it to others."

Section 727(a)(2) further provides that the act complained of must be done with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or an officer of the estate. Absent a specific intent to defraud creditors, a discharge should not be denied. In the case at bar, the applicable facts are on all fours with Commerce Bank. Commerce Bank found that there was no intent to defraud regarding transfers of company account receivables proceeds to the debtor's personal bank account because the debtors were trying to save the business by using the money to meet payroll obligations. Commerce Bank, Id. Accordingly, a transfer in good faith is not made with actual intent to defraud, and constructive intent is not sufficient to bar a discharge. In the Matter of Simon, 197 F.Supp.301 (D.C.N.Y. 1961) aff'd sub nom, Simon v. Agar, 299 F.2d 853 (2d Cir 1962). As to both Barton's and the State Bar's allegations of misconduct by Respondent, even if proven (and they are denied), Commerce Bank is on all fours in favor of Defendant/Debtor. Indeed, and consistent with the above holding in Commerce Bank, the testimony herein evidences that Respondent's specific intention in connection with "the Jane Scott pass through account" was to facilitate the cashing of a settlement check in connection with the underlying litigation and payment of Debtor's creditor's while he was abroad at his parent's golden wedding anniversary celebration, and by Jane Scott who then lived 400 miles from Debtor, and later, to keep his then business going by being able to continue to pay his staff and current creditors.

In that regard, the intent to prefer creditors is not equivalent to the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors. In re Miller, 39 F.2d 301, 32 C.B. 2d 854 (11th Cir.1994); Matter of Richter, 57 F.2d 159 (2d Cir.1932); Matter of Gould, 31 F.Supp.793 (D.C.Conn. 1929); In re Parnell Lumber Co., 107 F.Supp. 793 (D.C.Ohio 1951). Indeed, to justify the refusal of discharge, there must have been more than a preferential payment or preferential transfer. Hultman v. Lewis, 82 F.2d.940 (9th Cir.1936). At most, that is all that Barton and the State Bar can argue here. See generally, In re Magallanes, 96 B.R. 253, 255-256 (BAP 9th Cir.1988).

The gravaman of Scientology/Barton's and the State Bar's complaints (NIC) is that Respondent has committed fraud upon his creditors and the Bankruptcy Court. Barton Adversary Complaint paras. 22-49,NIC Count Three. The burden of proof is upon the State Bar and Scientology to prove that Respondent "willfully"," knowingly" and "purposefully" engaged in the alleged conduct for the purpose of avoiding payments to his valid creditors." Bankruptcy Service Ed § 57:639.See generally: In re Varrasso, 37 F.3d 760 (1st.Cir.1994); In re Quinones Rivera, 184 B.R. 178 (D.P.R.1995); Matter of Earhart, 68 B.R.14 (Bankr.N.D.Iowa 1986).

Respondent denies any fraudulent intent in connection with any of the Scientology and State Bar's allegations. As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in re Adobe, "transferred" as used in Bankruptcy Code section 727(a)(2)(A) should be read to mean transferred and remained transferred. Section 727(a)(2)(A) was intended to deny the discharge to debtors who take actions designed to keep their assets from their creditors either by hiding the assets until after they obtain their discharge in bankruptcy or by destroying them. As the court noted, it is not uncommon for an uncounseled or poorly counseled debtor faced with the mounting debts and pressure from creditors by transferring it to others."

Section 727(a)(2) further provides that the act complained of must be done with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or an officer of the estate. Absent a specific intent to defraud creditors, a discharge should not be denied. In the case at bar, the applicable facts are on all fours with Commerce Bank. Id. Commerce Bank found that there was no intent to defraud regarding transfers of company account receivables proceeds to the debtor's personal bank account because the debtors were trying to save the business by using the money to meet payroll obligations. Commerce Bank, Id. Accordingly, a transfer in good faith is not made with actual intent to defraud, and constructive intent is not sufficient to bar a discharge. In the Matter of Simon, 197 F.Supp.301 (D.C.N.Y. 1961) aff'd sub nom, Simon v. Agar, 299 F.2d 853 (2d Cir 1962). As to Plaintiff's allegations of misconduct by Defendant, even if proven (and they are denied), Commerce Bank is on all fours in favor of Defendant/Debtor. Indeed, and consistent with the above holding in Commerce Bank, the testimony herein evidences that Respondent/Debtor's specific intention in connection with "the Jane Scott pass through account" was to facilitate the cashing of a settlement check in connection with the underlying litigation and payment of Debtor's creditor's while he was abroad at his parent's golden wedding anniversary celebration, and by Jane Scott who then lived 400 miles from Debtor, and later, to keep his then business going by being able to continue to pay his staff and current creditors.

In that regard, the intent to prefer creditors is not equivalent to the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors. In re Miller, 39 F.2d 301, 32 C.B. 2d 854 (11th Cir.1994); Matter of Richter, 57 F.2d 159 (2d Cir.1932); Matter of Gould, 31 F.Supp.793 (D.C.Conn. 1929); In re Parnell Lumber Co., 107 F. Supp. 793 (D.C.Ohio 1951). Indeed, to justify the refusal of discharge, there must have been more than a preferential payment or preferential transfer. Hultman v. Lewis, 82 F.2d.940 (9th Cir.1936). At most, that is all that Plaintiff and the State Bar can argue here. The Bankruptcy Court did not accept the summary judgment allegations of the Church of Scientology [and the California State Bar] that the Scott account was to "thwart the levies of valid creditors." Barton v. Berry, Memorandum of Decision, August 14,2001, p.4: 3-6.

One reason was the numerous and blatant representations of fact by Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette. " Based on the foregoing, the Court shall deny the Motion... and there are inaccuracies in the allegations and genuine issues of material fact... " Memorandum of Decision, August 14,2001, p.9: 12-14.Emphasis added. As stated just above, "the intent to prefer creditors is not equivalent to the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors." Citations omitted. The judicially accepted evidence herein is that there was nothing improper about the use of the Jane Scott account "to keep his then business going by being able to continue to pay his staff and current creditors." Respondent was acting in self-defense and with justification. Respondent is provided with German Secret Service protection when the German government seeks his knowledge about scientology terrorism, fraud and crime. Senior L.A.Sherriff's Officers have cautioned him as to his physical security and safety in connection with the Church of Scientology and it's representatives. There have been concerns for Respondents physical security and life posted to the Internet.

The Scientology Fair Game documents evidence what the Churchs lawyers were to, and did do, to try and obstruct Respondents ability to practice law and represent clients, irrespective of his obligations to any other clients. Subsequent testimony confirms that Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette were doing just that. Indeed, the constant mantra of Samuel D.Rosen, Esq., Eric Lieberman, Esq. (from another New York law firm), Barbara Reeves, Esq and Moxon/Kobrin/Paquette before Judges Snyder, Williams and Minning was that "Berry has to be stopped." [from getting the truth and evidence out]. The Barton judgment was obtained by fraud [through Cipriano, Hurtado, Apodaca, Rosen, Moxon, Abelson, Wager, Ingram, etc.). It was being used to try and obstruct Respondent's representation of any on-going client ["he is to be utterly destroyed by any means possible"]. Respondent had a fiduciary duty to his then clients, faced with an unlawfully motivated attack to indirectly and immediately prejudice [and destroy] their representation and legal matters. Respondent had to act to try and preserve at least some ability to protect the interests of his then clients. In his view, his fiduciary duties required nothing less. In essence, this is the lesser of two evils defense. It is the defense of justification and self defense.

The defense of self-defense and justification in legal matters involving the Church of Scientology has been expressly accepted in this State. Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong (1991 2nd.Dist.Div.3) 232 Cal.App. 3d 1060,283 Cal.Rptr. 917. Following this decision, the Church of Scientology has retaliated with over six separate lawsuits against Armstrong and has driven him out of America, as they also did with Werner Erhard (founder of 'Est') and Keith Henson. Kendrick Moxon, Esq., Eric Lieberman, Esq and Timothy Bowles, Esq. were also counsel in the CSC v. Armstrong case ("Armstrong One").

Armstrong was a former church member. He was close to L.Ron Hubbard who even hosted Armstrong's wedding. Armstrong witnessed a massive shredding of documents by the church-to avoid them being seized or produced in discovery.Id.1065-1066.Armstrong became concerned that the Church was fraudulently portraying the truth about L.Ron Hubbard and the Scientology.Id.1066.Later, Armstrong and his wife scrumptiously left the cult. Id.1066.Armstrong was in fear of his life and expensive church retaliatory litigation. "For these reasons, Armstrong took a number of [Hubbard archival documents] ... and sent them to his attorney". Id.1067. "He believed his physical and mental well-being as well as that of his wife, were being threatened because the [scientology] organization was aware of what he knew... " Id.1073. " Armstrong's defense was predicated on his claim that he reasonably believed the Church intended to cause him harm, and that he could prevent the apprehended harm only by taking the documents, even though the taking resulted in harm to the Church."Id.1073. The Court of Appeals held, among other things, as follows:

" [Scientology] complain[s] that certain testimony of defense witnesses was irrelevant, as there was no showing that Armstrong was aware of the facts to which each of the witnesses testified. The testimony in question was largely corroborative of Armstrong's testimony wit respect to Church practices affecting his state of mind, and was relevant to the issue of the reasonableness of his belief that the Church intended to cause him harm." Id.1074.

The Court of Appeals upheld Armstrong's defense of justification and self defense. Id.1074. In doing so they cited the following with approval:

" one is privileged to commit an act which would otherwise be a trespass or conversion of a chattel in the possession of another, for the purpose of defending himself or a third person against the other, under the same conditions which would afford a privilege to inflict a harmful or offensive contact upon the other for the same purpose."(Rest.2d Torts, § 261.) " For the purpose of defending his own person, an actor is privileged to make intentional invasions of another's interests or personality when the actor reasonably believes that such other person intends to cause a confinement or harmful contact to the actor, of that such invasion of his interests is reasonably probable, and the actor reasonably believes that the intended harm can safely be prevented only by the infliction of such harm upon the other. (See § 63.) A similar privilege is afforded an actor for the protection of certain third persons. (See § 76.)" (Rest. 2d Torts, § 261,com.b.)"Emphasis added. Id.1072.

The situation facing Respondent and his clients was the same as the Court of Appeals was considering. And the Court was doing so with regard to the same Scientology enterprise acting through the very same attorneys, Moxon and Leiberman. Moreover, this is not the type of situation that has been addressed in previous concealment cases before the State Bar. There was no attempt to conceal monies for private purposes unrelated to Respondent's then besieged law practise. See generally: Matter of Bleeker (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rpt. 113; Matter of Heiser (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar 47; Crane v. State Bar (1981) 30 Cal.3d 117,124.

The State Bar also asserts that " [o] n June 4,1999,a check in the amount of $6,400.00 was deposited into the Jane Scott account. Respondent was to keep the money as earned fees." State Bar letter to Hon. Robert Talcott, September 27,2001." The client has stated these were earned fees. The State Bars allegation is that these earned fess had to be first paid into a trust account irrespective of client authority. However, such is not the settled law in the State of California. All monies received from a client need not go into the trust account Although Respondent's experience and research herein persuades him that should be the preferred and prudent practice, it is not the law in the State of California. It is the "character and nature of the funds... which must ultimately determine their status." Matter of Respondent H (Review Dept. 1992) 2 State Bar Ct.Rptr.234. The law in the Sate of California, contrary to ABA Model Rule DR-102A, is that advance payments for client costs and expenses must be deposited in the client trust account. Rule 4-100A.See: Aronin v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal. 3d. 276,280,283-284, 276 Cal. Rptr. 160,161,163; Stevens v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal. 3d.283-287, 272 Cal. Rptr. 167,169.

The law regarding the deposit of fees is much less clear and has been expressly left open by the California Supreme Court in Baranowski v. State Bar (1979) 24 Cal.3d 153, 154 Cal.Rptr. 752. It held that there was no dispute that an advanced fee payment of $5,000.00 had been received by the attorney.Id.163.

"Rule 8-101 (the old rule) expressly requires that sums advanced to pay costs or expenses be placed in a separate trust account; it does not expressly deal with advance legal fees. Thus the present case poses two issues: Whether any portion of the monies advanced by [the clients] were for costs or expenses, and, if not, whether rule 8-101 nevertheless requires that unearned fees be placed in a separate trust account. ... Thus, if the invocation of rule 8-101 depends on the distinction between money for costs and money for fees, it is reasonable to conclude that the State Bar has failed to sustain its burden of proof in the matter... The novel aspect of the issue is the seemingly implicit contention of the respondent State Bar that the issue of costs and fess is irrelevant. Its argument would appear to be that any advance fee payment must be deposited in an identifiable trust account until such time as it is earned. We do not, however, resolve the issue of whether or not an advance fee payment is correctly characterized as money 'received or held for the benefit of clients... " Id.163, 164.

Moreover, and contrary to the State Bar's position herein, the law has not changed.

Subsequently, " the California Supreme Court did approve current CRPC 4-100 as proposed by the State Bar. In recommending the current Rule, the State Bar specifically noted that it did not intend the Rule to require advance fees to be deposited in a client's trust account: 'The concept of including in paragraph (4-100)(A) a requirement that 'advances for fees' be placed in the client trust account was considered but rejected because it is believed that such provision is unworkable in light of the realities of the practice of law.'[In the Matter of the Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct, California Supreme Court Case No. Bar Misc. 5626,at "Request that the Supreme Court of California Approve Amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, and Memorandum and Supporting Documents in Explanation," at Memorandum, Dec.1987, p.42 (Emphasis added)]

Vapneck, Tuft, Peck & Weiner, CAL.PRAC.GUIDE: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILTY (The Rutter Group 2001).

Fatally, the State Bar expressly states the true fact that "Respondent was to keep the proceeds as earned fees" and there is no evidence to the contrary. There is no suggestion of any misappropriation in any respect in the N.I.C. " Reasonable doubts in proving a charge of professional misconduct must be resolved in the accused's attorney's favor". Matter of Heiser, Id.55 (citing Pollard v. State Bar (1983) 35 Cal.3d 274, 291.Accordingly, this charge should be immediately dismissed as well.

PREFACE TO SETTLEMENT OFFER

All of the alleged, and any admitted, misconduct occurred after 28 years of blemish free practice and within the 1998/1999 year. Indeed, disregarding Count Ten, it all occurred in 1999.It was the result of a seven year campaign to harass, terrorise and destroy Respondent in accordance with the Church of Scientology's Fair Game Policies and Practises.Having caused Respondent to slide into 'severe depression" through their ethical and other violations, Scientology caused the initiation of theses proceedings-at approximately the same time as they initiated Adversary Actions in the Bankruptcy Court. Scientology's purposes in all of this are contrary to the statutes, rules and authorities applied by the State Bar. More over, the Scientology campaign against me continues.

Accordingly, it is submitted that this is a unique and novel case. Moreover, there are strong mitigating factors in favor of Respondent. He is currently on voluntary inactive status because of his severe depression. He has represented to the State Bar Court that he will not seek to reinstate 'active' status without first providing a medical opinion confirming his recovery for the purposes and stresses of litigation and trial practice. If he were to seek to do otherwise such would be contempt. Consequently, there is no present risk to the public. No clients have complained herein. No clients have lost monies herein. Nothing has been done which has not or cannot be undone. Indeed, Respondent's clients are supporting him and some have even written the State Bar and the State Bar Court complaining at what the State Bar has done to him and calling for an investigation of those involved in the underlying events at the behest of the Church of Scientology (see the Real Parties In Interest above). Several have filed their own unsuccessful complaints against Moxon.

These matters are the result of complaint by notorious and infamous litigation adversaries little different from the Mafia. Indeed, Elliot Abelson, Esq. used to be an attorney to the mafia Gambino crime family. For all these reasons, particularly on-going matters involving the Real Parties In Interest, Respondent cannot stipulate to anything that the culpable Real Parties In Interest might subsequently use to try and cause prejudice and bias against him-as they have demonstrably done in connection with all of the underlying matters reflected in the NIC.

Respondent denies the propriety of Counts Two through Five, Seven, Eight and Ten. Moreover, Counts One and Six are strongly mitigated. Respondent dissolved his legal practice (for medical reasons at the urging of the State Bar on December 2,1999) and took voluntary in active status in February of this year.

Despite the strong mitigating circumstances (see Interrogatories) in relation to Counts One and Six, Respondent recognizes that (although under extreme and intended pressure) he nonetheless made mistakes in connection with Counts Two and Six. He accepts that these were still mistakes no matter how accidental and unintentional. Respondent's self-condemnation and criticism has been far more severe than anything a Court can ever say. He has suffered indescribably.

What the Real Parties In Interest have done to cause him to be here before this Court (rightly or wrongly), has already irreparably damaged and destroyed his career (through the continuing publication of the First Cipriano Declaration), has cost him his home of many years (and an approx. $400,000.00 in lost equity and mortgage payments) and his car (Barton and Jeavons). He now has no-retirement prospects and survives on food stamps and general relief - which the Church of Scientology is already trying to disrupt and terminate (through Paquette and the Jeavon's sanctions). Nothing can ever be done by Real Parties In Interest to undone this intended result of intentional misconduct by the Real Parties In Interest who, as part of their despicable conduct, pressured the State Bar for 18 months in order to ensure the filing of the Counts within.

At all times, Respondents actions were taken in good faith and for the benefit of victims of scientology's litigation terrorism. Injustices and the seeking of justice drove him. He was not motivated by personal gain. He agreed to try and stand up against the Church of Scientology's litigation juggernaut and blitzkriegs because he was gay and not in a permanent relationship. It was his position that married counsel with children could be terrorized and compromised more than he and that therefore they had even more to lose than he.

SETTLEMENT OFFER

For the foregoing reasons, and only for settlement purposes [without any intended admissions or inferences], Respondent will conditionally plead to Counts One and Six. Count One is a brief co-mingling of a relatively small amount of money in connection with which there is no evidence of wrongful intent regarding those monies. Count Six is an actual conflict of interest charge where the clients failed to sign the conflicts waiver, the motions were made by opposing counsel now employed in scientology-related matters, and Respondent failed to oppose them .See Interrogatories, Counts One and Six. Respondent accepts that there may be a mandatory three-month suspension in connection with Count One. However, "in light of the unique and novel circumstances surrounding" Respondents alleged misconduct violation of this a private reproval may be the appropriate level of discipline." Matter of Respondent X (Review Dept.1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 592.

The conditions on which Respondent is willing to so plead are as follows:

(1) That there only be a public reproval (with or without acceptable and reasonable conditions attached. Rule 956), or

(2) That no more than three months stayed suspension be imposed; and (3) That there be no period of actual suspension; and

(4) Respondent receive credit for the elapsed time since the dissolution of his practice in December, 1999, his voluntary transfer to inactive status in February, 2000 and the date of any settlement herein; and

(5) There be no monetary penalties or requirements; and

(6) There be a statement referencing the unique and extenuating circumstances and the strong mitigating factors in Respondent's favor.

(7) Any other conditions be limited to a requirement that Respondent file a medical opinion that his health is satisfactory for him to return to active status. Such a medical opinion to be submitted addressed to the Chief Trial Counsel, referencing the proceedings herein, and no less than 14 days before Respondent seeks to return to active status (whether or not actual practice).

Respondent has read all four volumes of the State Bar Reporter, and reads the disciplinary section of the California Bar Journal. He submits that, in all of the circumstances herein, his Settlement Offer is consistent with the thrust of those decisions.

CONCLUSION

In 1994 one of Respondents then partners wrote him stating that no attorney should have to endure what Respondent was enduring at the hands of Scientology, Ingram, Moxom, Kobrin, Drescher and Abelson. Respondent continues to endure the malicious and vexatious attacks. The California State Bar continues to ignore them.

However, the pattern and practice of R.I.C.O violations, malicious and vexatious litigation abuse (even in defense) continues to be perpetrated upon the public by many of the same attorneys named above including: Samuel D.Rosen, Esq. and the giant Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker law firm; Gerald Chaleff, Esq. and the giant law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; Gerald Feffer, Esq. and the large and influential Washington "white collar" criminal defense law firm of Williams & Connelly; Gary Soter,Esq. of the large Los Angeles Wasserman,Comden & Casselman law firm (which also has strong Church of Scientology and State Bar connections).Of course, there is the same band of Church of Scientology in-house attorneys such as Abelson, Drescher, Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette.It has occurred in cases filed against citizens such as Jesse Prince (Florida),Mark Bunker (Illinois), Keith Henson (California) and Bob Minton (Vermont and Florida).It has been perpetrated against foreign government officials such as Ursula Caberta of the German State of Hamburg's Scientology investigation task force. It daily occurs in cases such as Lisa McPherson v. Church of Scientology (Florida) and Lopez v. Church of Scientology (California). In these pending cases, the Church of Scientology has also "hi-jacked the legal system and flown it through the constitution."Indeed, at times, in the Lopez case, Scientology lawyers are filing a different motion every day! The continuing wrongful scientology attorney conduct can be evidenced by California attorneys Daniel Liepold, Esq and Ford Greene, Esq., and Florida attorneys Ken Dandar, Esq.and John Merrit, Esq.

"The principal purpose of State Bar proceedings is to protect the public, preserve confidence in the legal profession, and maintain the highest possible standards for attorneys; not to punish the culpable attorney." Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 103,111.However, as described above, the State Bar of California is engaged in the protection and cover-up of the felony crimes and litigation frauds of a gang of out-law attorneys. As a direct result, a significant number of citizens have lost faith in the integrity of the American legal and judicial system. Some either no longer fly the Stars and Stripes or fly it daily at half-mast - in mourning for what the Church of Scientology has been able to perpetrate in an Orwellian and Alice in Wonderland claim of truth and justice! See generally: Support Letters. It is now necessary to proceed to the Federal and International levels regarding the matters referred to herein, and that relate to the many other victims of the Real Parties In Interest (and the California State Bar's) clear attempts to whitewash and cover up what has been occurring in Los Angeles County for over fifteen years. That cover-up has so far protected other State Bar leaders at the expense of ordinary state bar member/lawyers, their clients and the public being terrorized by the "psycho-terror" and litigation abuse of the Church of Scientology. Such litigation abuse, and "psycho-terror", is only made possible by the highly paid and highly placed Church of Scientology attorney representatives, and the judicial and law enforcement officers that have been compromised and corrupted by the Cult's covert operatives. See generally: The American Lawyer, Scientology's War Against The Judges.

Incredibly, at the end of the vexatious litigant proceeding [lynching] on August 20,1999 Hon. Alexander Williams, III stated:

"Mr. Berry, I have generally enjoyed working with you, and I mean that sincerely. You are literate. You are at times poetic. You are capable of great courtliness and I have enjoyed trying to provide an arena where your passion and your concern would receive lawful hearing and access. It is the difficult cases that make a judge a judge, and I have tried to respond with the very best judicial fiber I can muster to this very challenging case. I repeat what I had suggested in my dialogue to your argument. I think the petition is more about not so much about what you have done in seeking redress for the claims you brought to this court than it is about how you have done it." T.73: 24-74:12. * * * * *

Should you have any questions, or require additional comments, documents and/or explanations, please do not hesitate to contact me as may be appropriate.

Very truly yours,

Graham E. Berry

cc: Terrie Goldade, Esq.
Agustin Hernandez, Esq.
Deputy Trial Counsel
State Bar of California.

Enclosures as per list on page 3 (and EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE, 26 AUGUST 1995,GREEEK RAID HANDLING PJT: 558 PGM).