GRAHAM E. BERRY (SBN 128503)

3384 McLaughlin Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 745-3771
Facsimile: (310) 745-3772

Email: grahameb@aol.com

Respondent Pro Per

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

In the Matter of GRAHAm EDWARD BERRYNo.128503A Member of the State Bar Case No.: 99-0-12791RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (Nos. 1-44)PART ONE, Nos. 1- 36.CONFIDENTIALITY WAIVED status Conference: Oct. 23, 2001 10:00 am.Trial Date: December 11, 2001 9:00 am.

PROPOUNDING PARTY... STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL

SET NO.ONE... ... ... ... ... ... . (NUMBERS 1-44)

RESPONDING PARTY... ... RESPONDENT, GRAHAM BERRY.

RESPONDENT GRAHAM E. BERRY HEREBY SUBMITS HIS RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTION (S), TO INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (Nos. 1- 36)

In accordance with the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030 (f) and § 2030(f) (2), and where specified herein, Respondent exercises his statutory "option to produce writings" and " to specify writings from which the answer can be derived or ascertained ".

Discovery is on going herein and Respondent reserves the right, and acknowledges the continuing obligation, to amend and/or update the Responses herein as may be appropriate.

To the extent the Interrogatories under response herein are both fact and contention interrogatories, Respondent also waives objection to both form and content.

Respondent hereby expressly incorporates his responses to Interrogatories 36 to 44 herein and will expressly incorporate these Responses in his Responses to Interrogatories 37 to 44.

As used herein, the term Real Parties In Interest includes but is not limited to: Church of Scientology International Office of Special Affairs; Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq.; Helena Kobrin, Esq.; Ava Paquette, Esq.; Elliot Abelson, Esq.; William T. Drescher, Esq.; Samuel D. Rosen, Esq.; Donald Wager, Esq.; Thomas Byrnes, Esq.; and Eugene Ingram.

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

At a Status Conference herein on September 7, 2001, Los Angeles County Criminal Bar Association President Donald Wager, Esq.'s office neighbour and [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. That complaint herein was commenced in connection with the now dismissed Hurtado v. Berry State and Federal cases. They were voluntarily dismissed after Joint Complainant Wager testified, on January 19,2001, that he and Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq., had unethically solicited the representation of Respondent's then client Michael Hurtado (as Moxon had previously done with Cipriano and earlier with Jason Scott) and that he (Wager) had engaged in illegal witness tampering. See Chronology and Hurtado Privilege Brief. The State Bar repeatedly ignores the conduct of the perpetrators (including Wager) of that seven-year R.I.C.O. pattern of felony crime and other wrongful tortious and unethical conduct, intentionally directed at Respondent herein and now proceeds against him - the victim of that felony crime, civil and ethical misconduct. Indeed, there are duplicative proceedings pending before the Federal Bankruptcy Court. These concern Counts One to Three herein. They are also the gravaman of what remains the pending Barton v. Berry Adversary action in federal Bankruptcy Court.

Note: All statutory and rule references herein, unless otherwise indicated, are to the Cal. Business & Professions Code and the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

Moreover, Respondent submits that the evidence shows, inter alia, the most blatant and serious imaginable criminal, tortious and ethical violations, by the Real Parties in Interest (including complainant Wager herein) listed above. They are documented by uncontroverted and corroborated 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, Kobrin, Paquette and Wager 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.

During the pendency of the Count Ten lawsuits alone (including Pattinson v. Miscavige), Moxon's corroborated felony criminal conduct, and that of others including complainant Wager, directed exclusively at Respondent, 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 felony and fraudulent acts, and those of other lawyers, included: (1) The May 5, 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 uncontroverted evidence of intimidation and coercion; (3) The deposition preparation of Cipriano by Moxon on June 29, 1998 during which Moxon (and later Samuel D. Rosen, Esq.) instructed Cipriano to lie about the ages of Berry's perjuriously alleged 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 30, 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 and funded charity, Day of the Child (incorporated in Nevada as part of Moxon's criminal conduct herein) ; (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 the balance of those monies in the amount of $1,500; (13) Moxon's provision of free legal services to incorporate Cipriano's "Day of the Child" Charity in Nevada (to serve as vehicle for the commission of some of the applicable criminal, civil and unethical conduct herein); (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 ("Count Ten"). In that case, among other things alleged of other people, Pattinson alleged that Moxon had engaged in criminal conduct on behalf of Scientology.

Despite this amazing mountain of felony crime and unethical misconduct, by a serving L.A. County Criminal Bar Association President and Church of Scientology counsel, this year the State Bar has written to two complainants (former clients Michael Pattinson and Keith Henson) and also to Respondent, 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 including Moxon (letter to State Bar December 6,2000) (and through joint complainants Gerner and Wager). Currently, Moxon is engaged in similar conduct in the State of Florida where a Motion for Severe Sanctions has just been filed against him. See Ken Dandar, Esq.'s Motion for Severe Sanctions (Count Ten).

In consequence, the State Bar seeks to severely and further punish Scientology's victim, the Respondent herein. In so doing it ignores and whitewashes overwhelming evidence of serious felonies by a serving Los Angeles County Criminal Bar Association President, and a number of other attorneys, engaging in corruption and a cover-up hitherto unheard of since the United States Department of Justice Operation Grey-Lord in Chicago, Illinois.

There has been a substantial expression of public protest and numerous demands to the State Bar Board of Governors that it appoint an Independent Panel of three retired judges to investigate what is really occurring here. The State Bar has totally, arbitrarily and capriciously 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 to 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 Abelson, Moxon, the other Real Parties In

Interest and Joint Complainant Wager, President of the Los Angeles County Criminal Bar Association.

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. It has since refused to stipulate to continue the trial, at a settlement judge's urging because of inflexible orders from ' high in the State Bar hierarchy'. It also refuses to acknowledge that the relevant Rule 11 Order in Count Ten was expressly limited to one defendant (Moxon) among a number of defendants and one allegation among many Causes of Action. 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, lawyers who represent them and those with whom the church takes offense. See generally, Support Letters.

The underlying matters arise from ten years of litigation against the Church of Scientology in over 15 different cases. Respondent 's client prevailed in many of those cases. The underlying matters are complicated, intertwined and involve, as against Respondent, the Real Parties In Interest (e.g. Moxon, Wager, Abelson, Kobrin, Paquette, etc) 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[s] 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.

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.

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 perjured "highly defamatory" Cipriano pedophilia falsehoods ["The First Cipriano Declaration"], criminally procured by certain of The Real Parties In Interest [including the Church of Scientology, Bowles, Moxon, Ingram and perhaps Abelson], continues to be published continuously, worldwide. As you will also learn, these matters involve a continuing and unbroken seven-year criminal, civil and unethical 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) was expressly accepted in Church of Scientology v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1060, 1067. See generally: United States v. Kattar (1st Cir.1988) 840 F2d 118,125;Church of Scientology v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1984) 83 U.S. Tax Ct.Rpt., 381, 429 - 442; Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology (U.S.D.C. Mass. 1982) 535 F.Supp.1125, 1131,n.4; Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th. 628, 648-649, 49 Cal.Rptr. 2d 620; Hart v. Cult Awareness Network (19___) 13 Cal App. 4th 777, 16 Cal Rptr 705;Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App. 872, 888-891,260 Cal Rptr 331; Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439,443n.1, 129 Cal Rptr. 797; Christofferson v. Church of Scientology (1983). 57 Ore.App. 203.

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. It was a multi-million dollar defamation case arising out of Time magazine's award winning cover story "Scientology: Thriving cult of greed and power." That was when Timothy 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 (the successor to Bowles & Moxon), Ingram, Abelson, Drescher and CSI, ignored the federal judge's admonition to, "Stop it." [investigating Respondent herein]. As Detective Petz can testify regarding Abelson, and as the various Hurtado family members have already testified, in early 1999, Moxon and his investigator Ingram both stated that they had been after me for a very "long time". Indeed, Moxon, Kobrin's, Paquette's, Wager and Byrne's client Michael Hurtado amazingly 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 [not anything I had done to him as alleged in the verified complaint]. The State Bar expressly sees nothing wrong in filing such a lawsuit in such circumstances. 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 thereto. 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 perjured but verified Hurtado lawsuit one month before trial. There were no mitigating factors favoring the unilateral and voluntary dismissal after current L. A. County Criminal Bar Association President testified to his felony witness tampering and unlawful client solicitation [of Hurtado who was then represented by Respondent herein].

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 January 19,2001 deposition testimony (e.g., that he, Moxon & Kobrin, and the church solicited my then client Hurtado 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 and August 6,2000 Cipriano Declaration.

As previously stated herein, when Scientology wants someone "haunted" they "investigate." Note however, Rule 3-200, Section 6068 (c), (g). Scientology,attorney Bowles, attorney Moxon and investigator Ingram have all sworn declarations that after I prevailed against them in the Church of Scientology v. Fishman & Geertz case they proceeded to, "investigate ["haunt"]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.

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[commencing late 1993 when Judge Hupp ordered them to "stop it."]. The damning testimony also includes the testimony of one of Hurtado's own lawyers in the now dismissed Hurtado state court case. There, Donald Wager, Esq., current President of the Los Angeles County Criminal Bar Association, has testified [on January 19, 2001] 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 by scientology). See Privilege Brief, Wager Transcript and Chronology. 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 herein as being irrelevant and the State Bar Court herein has admonished Respondent and ordered the transcript stricken from the Court's files. All other exhibits incriminating current L. A. County Criminal Bar Association President Wager and the Real Parties in Interest have been ordered stricken from the record by the trial judge herein, Hon. Eugene E. Brott, who sits in San Francisco where surprisingly this case is venued. As stated above, remarkably and interestingly, Wager is the current President of the Los Angeles County Criminal Bar Association! Curiously, the State Bar's decision to prosecute me (immediately after dismissing the Hurtado v. Berry portion of this complaint) coincided with the appointment and arrival of a new Chief Trial Counsel at the State Bar. He has ignored all communications in regard to what is occurring on his watch.

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, in the First Cipriano Declaration, still being published, mirror scientology dogma for handling their perceived enemies such as me, who has successfully represented a number of those they have sued. 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. See generally, Cipriano Declaration executed August 6,2000 and transcripts of two day August 2000 Cipriano deposition testimony (where Cipriano was cross-examined by his former counsel Moxon and Paquette).

Elliot Abelson, Esq., has said to current Southern California Association of Defense Counsel Edith Matthai, Esq., that it was a fatal mistake for Ingram, Moxon & Kobrin, Jerry Bregman, Donald Wager (current L.A.County Bar Criminal Bar Association President), 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.

["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 analogous and 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 highly 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? 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 corruption and abuse of the legal and judicial 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 judgment debtor's examination (yet again) in Jeavons v. Church of Scientology (Count seven herein). Rule 3-200.

SUMMARY OF FACTUAL EVENTS AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES

Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Abelson, Rosen and Ingram have consistently alleged that their above 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 expressly 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 named 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).

Notwithstanding the Allard decision concerning Moxon's stipulated criminal conduct, in Count Ten herein, the State Bar seeks a twelve month actual suspension of Respondent for "unjustly" alleging that Moxon had been engaged in criminal conduct on behalf of the Church of Scientology! The Hurtado v. Berry federal court complaint was filed by 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 Los Angeles County Criminal Bar Association President Wager who recruited his office neighbour Gerner (the other joint non-party complainant herein) to badger the California 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), signed by both Gerner and Wager, 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. However, the State Bar has refused to release any of its year 2001 correspondence to me. Curiously, it has stated to the trial judge herein that there may not be any year 2001 correspondence herein. Deputy Trial Counsel Terri Goldade assumed the initiation of the prosecution in these matters in early 2001. She has informed the trial judge that she thinks all of her year 2001 communications with Gerner, Wager, Moxon, etc. have been by telephone conversation and that her notes of those communications are protected by the attorney work-product privilege and, in essence, the prosecutorial immunity. However, the actual decision-making in this particular State Bar matter is out of the two Trial Deputies hands and high up in the Office of Chief Trial Counsel! The underlying attorney communications are arguably subject to the "crime-fraud" exception ruling by Judge Lachs in the Hurtado v. Berry State Court case.

The testimony 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 generally: Chronology; Cipriano August 6,2000 Declaration; Wager Deposition Transcript; Hurtado deposition transcript; Apodaca deposition transcript; Hurtado family deposition transcripts, etc.

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 $1.3M 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 a current and on-going Spanish Government criminal trial and request for a sixty year prison sentence for criminal fraud.

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, Juliet 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 can 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 & Kobrin 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,has 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 their defense of the Berry and Pattinson cases Moxon and Wager's 1999, and the related 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. Three months ago (on July 10,2001) they did so in Federal Court pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.Rule 41 (a), which expressly provides that, such was a termination in my favor, particularly because of the prior State Court dismissal. I am now seeking counsel to file a 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 apparently a pretext for trying to turn Mr. 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 one of the Church of Scientology's ulterior motives herein - the punishment and suppression of first amendment permitted picketing and debate!

The Gerner/Wager State Bar complaint herein (expressly joined by Moxon & Kobrin correspondence) relates, 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 and my responses to interrogatories no.37-40).See generally, 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. That correspondence evidences that their complaint (s) and unrelenting pressure upon the State Bar [to summarily suspend and then disbar me] was built upon the sands of misrepresentation and distortion, until finally they managed to move the Gerner/Wager complaint file to a State Bar official Goldade, 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 (to illegal client solicitation and witness tampering), his co-complainant 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 by stipulation as a named unindicted co-conspirator in the largest ever known criminal infiltration of the United States government. The California State Bar continues to exonerate and cover-up their conduct including that of current Los Angeles County Criminal Bar Association President Donald Wager, Esq.

COUNT ONE-FAILURE TO DEPOSIT CLIENT FUNDS IN TRUST ACCOUNT Interrogatory No. 1:

State each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count One in the Notice of Disciplinary Charges ("NDC"). Response To Interrogatory No. 1:

(a) Respondent has not "willfully violated the provisions of Business and Professions Code, section 6103 [or any other statutory or disciplinary provision]," and has not "willfully [disobeyed or violated] an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent's profession which he ought in good faith to do or to forbear" as alleged by the State Bar.

(b) Respondent never ever stated, under penalty of perjury or otherwise, "that the bank account levied against should be exempt because it was an attorney client trust account." (Count One, page 2:21-22).

(c) The Barton levy was not a valid levy. The costs judgment it represented was obtained through crime, fraud, obstruction of justice and abuse of process.

(d) Barton should not be permitted to "take advantage of his own wrongful conduct" committed concurrently with his costs award in the Berry v. Barton case. Cal. Civ. Code Section 3517.

(e) The Barton levy was done in bad faith as part of a continuing pattern of criminal, tortious and unethical conduct intended to disrupt and prevent Respondent honoring and performing his duties to his clients in accordance with the Church of Scientology's Fair Game Policies and Practices. This malicious, vexatious, criminal, tortious and unethical conduct commenced no later than November 1993 and was perpetrated by, among others, the Church of Scientology, Timothy Bowles, Esq., Kendrick Moxon, Esq., Helena Kobrin, Esq., Ava Paquette, Esq., Elliot Abelson, Esq., William T. Drescher, Esq., John J.Quinn, Esq., Michael Rinder, Michael Sutter, Eugene Ingram and other church retained private investigators.

(f) The Church of Scientology, Barton and their attorneys, commencing no later than November 1993,had engaged in a continuous series of criminal, tortious and unethical actions intended to destroy Respondents willingness, availability and ability to represent those involved in litigation brought against them by the Church of Scientology and it's shills. This conduct was part of the Church of Scientology's Fair Game Policies and Practices and, among other things, was intended to (and did) drive Respondent into overwhelm, disabling depression, and suicidal ideation. It was also intended to create so much stress for him, as a regular and successful opposing counsel, that he would make mistakes.

(g) The deposit of advance fees and costs payments into the firm account and not the trust account was a simple mistake at a time when the Church of Scientology was (and still is) intending to prevent Respondent from serving clients and defaulting in his duties to clients.

(h) No clients lost their monies as a result of Respondents stress-ridden mistaken deposit. Respondent's actions were not taken with wrongful intent but in "good faith" (see Response to Interrogatory No. 41 (ii).

(i) Respondent's conduct was not "willful" and was not done with any "wrongful intent." Respondents conduct was an accidental mistake and oversight caused by the emotional distress, exhaustion and stress of seven years of "psycho terrorism" being directed at Respondent by the Church of Scientology and it's attorneys including complainant Donald Wager, Esq. The conduct the Church of Scientology, it's attorneys and private investigators directed against him included serious felony crimes, torts and breaches of almost the entire California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct.

(j) See 1 (c) above and Response to Interrogatories Number 37 to 40 hereunder. Respondent is the victim of a massive criminal tortious and unethical plan to "utterly destroy" him because he was willing to represent litigants who would otherwise be unable to find counsel willing to represent them against the Church of Scientology. The perpetrators include attorneys within the jurisdiction of the State Bar of California. Certain of them have filed this complaint and in bad faith [Rule 3-200]. They were and are opposing parties and counsel in on-going litigation involving those matters. The complainants and perpetrators of this abuse of process, obstruction of justice and "psycho terrorism" are the one s who should be punished-not their victim the Respondent herein who at all times was acting in the best interests of his clients-as he perceived them to be at the time.

(k) Respondent should not be culpable for conduct accidentally and mistakenly done while he was the intended object, among other things, of intentional "psycho terrorism" activities, felony crimes and frauds upon the courts conducted by, among others, members of the California and other State's Bars, retained by the Church of Scientology in furtherance of its Fair Game Policies and Practices.

(l) The Interrogatory Responses herein, along with the Claim of Exemption itself, clearly and convincingly rebut the allegations of the Church of Scientology (parroted herein by the California State Bar) that Respondent falsely stated 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), 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].

(m) 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 at issue, only $ 853 was for expenses and costs. $5,000 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.

(n) Accordingly, the aggregate amount mistakenly paid into the wrong account was $853, 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 misappropriation, 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 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].

(o) This case is more analogous to Matter of Respondent E (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 716. That 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. (p) The Affirmative Defenses of: (1) Absence of any prior record of discipline over many years;(2) Good faith of member; (3) Lack of harm; (4) extreme emotional difficulties;(5) Co-operation;(6) Good character of Respondent;(7) Remorse and Atonement;(8) Passage of time/rehabilitation;(9) Fraud and Conspiracy;(10) Constructive Fraud;(11) Abuse of Process;(12) Unclean hands;(13) Equitable estoppel;(14) Illegality; (16) Void /voidable orders;(17) Denials of due process, violations of constitutional, civil and human rights;(18) Bias; Appearance of Bias; Selective Enforcement: Failure to properly investigate; prosecutorial misconduct and pre-determination; (19) Improper Venue, Denial of Due Process. (m) Justification and self-defense.

Interrogatory No. 2:

State each fact which supports each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count One in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 2:

(a) The July 12,1999 joint letter by Michael Gerner, Esq. and Donald Wager, Esq. to Mr. Brian Rowsey of the State Bar materially misrepresents the facts [B&P Code § 6106]. Shill complainants Wager and Gerner's Exhibit I does not state what they misrepresent, to the State Bar, in the course of their pressure upon the State Bar to file the Notice of Charges herein against their opposing counsel, in then pending litigation. Their misrepresentations to the State Bar were repeated in their [pressure] letters of September 14,1999 and November 10,1999.Their allegations specifically referenced the Hurtado matter which initiated the complaint, investigation and proceeding herein. However, the testimony now is that the Hurtado case was solicited, initiated, and had to be dismissed, because of serious felonies and ethical breaches by, among others, Donald Wager, Esq., Kendrick Moxon, Esq., and Elliot Abelson, Esq. See Response to Interrogatories 37 to 40 [Count Ten below].

(b) On page one of their joint letter, Donald Wager, Esq. and Michael Gerner, Esq. misrepresent the contents of Exhibit I: "Pursuant to this levy, Mr. Berry filed a Claim of Exemption attaching his declaration under penalty of perjury in support thereof. Mr. Berry declared that the bank account levied was a trust account and contained monies that belonged to specifically identified clients."

(c) The Bank Account levied against by the Church of Scientology [Barton] was at all times an ordinary business or deposit account. It was never ever held out as being otherwise. With the exception of the instant accidental matters, it was not used as otherwise. At the time of the levy, April 30,1999, it contained approx. $6,200.00. On May 7,1999,Respondent filed a Claim for Exemption.

On page of the Claim it is stated:

" 4. The property [not Bank Account] I claim to be exempt is Attorney-Client Trust/Escrow Funds (Cal.Fin.C.Section 17410 (a) in the aggregate amount of $5,853.00.

Respondents supporting declaration stated that he had been the subject of many years of Fair Game harassment from the Church of Scientology, Barton, Moxon and Ingram and that Ingram had been contacting his creditors (such as Imperial Bank) and encouraging them to sue or otherwise disrupt the economic relationships. [Rule 3-200.] Supporting Berry Decl.paras.8 - 13. Paras. 2 & 3 stated that $5,200.00 (advance fees and costs) had been paid into the account two days before the levy. Certain other monies ($653.00) were also advance costs belonging to two other clients.Para.12 described how Moxon had come to know to levy the account when he did-when it contained over $5,000 more than it's typical balance in the preceding months. The balance was Respondent's own funds in accordance with its status as an ordinary business account.

(c) No where in Respondents supporting May 12,1999 Declaration does Respondent use the words Trust Account, contrary to the express and repeated [mis] representations of Church of Scientology retained complainants Michael Gerner, Esq. and Donald Wager, Esq.

(d) There is no claim anywhere that the account was an attorney client trust account. On the contrary, the account is not identified as being other than an ordinary business bank account containing approx. $6,200.00 of which $5,853.00 was property belonging to clients in the nature of advance fees and reimbursing costs accidentally paid into the account. Of this amount, $5,000.00 was advance fees and therefore permissibly in the business bank account and approximately $500.00 was Respondent's own monies and also permissibly in the business bank account. Accordingly, Respondent believed it was his professional responsibility to file the Claim of Exemption and seek the release of the client monies mistakenly in the account. The client monies would have been paid to Scientology/Barton as Moxon's actions indicted. As a consequence of Respondent's prompt remedial action, no client lost his or her funds to the Barton costs judgment efforts of Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Barton and scientology.

(e) The Barton levy was void/voidable. It was the fruit of serious felony crime and fraud including: solicitation, subornation of perjury, witness tampering, paying for testimony, non- waivable and undisclosed conflicts of interest, obstruction of justice, abuse of process, etc. See Cipriano Declaration August 6,2001, Response to Interrogatories Number 1 (a) above and Numbers 37 to 40 hereunder.

(e) See I (a) (iv) above and Response to Interrogatories Number 37 to 44 hereunder.

(g) See Response to Interrogatories Number 37 to 44 hereunder below. Respondent was under medical care for "severe depression" at the time of the levy. The "severe depression" had been caused by the intentional misconduct directed at him by of Barton, Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Wager, Abelson, Ingram, and the Church of Scientology, etc. [Rule 3-200]

(h) Because of Respondent's litigation experience, expertise and knowledge in connection with the Church of Scientology's abuse of process and obstruction of justice, he knew that the Church of Scientology lawyers were trying to levy any moneys of Respondents whereever, and of any character (trust and escrow monies included). Indeed, if they could deprive Respondent of access to client monies Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Abelson, etc. would render it impossible for Respondent to render legal services to his clients, impossible to continue in practice and liable to those clients in connection with their monies. Even if the Scientology attorneys had seized monies in a Trust Account, Respondent would still have to go through the time consuming process of seeking their release. Thus, their Fair Game "cycle of action" would still be a success. "The purpose of the lawsuit [or State Bar Complaint] is not to win but harass." L.Ron Hubbard, Manuel of Justice.

(i) No client lost any monies as a result of Respondent's mistake. Indeed, no client of Respondents has ever filed a disciplinary complaint against him.

(i) See Interrogatory Responses No.37 to 40hereunder.

Interrogatory No. 3:

Identify by name, the current or last known business and residential addresses and telephone numbers each person who has any knowledge of any fact which supports each defense, which you contend, exists in relation to Count One in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 3:

· Jane Scott, 3384 McLaughlin Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90066 (310) 745 3770 · Duane E. McWaine, MD, 1314 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 101D, Los Angeles, CA 90024, (310) 474-5055 · Respondent, Graham E. Berry, 3384 McLaughlin Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90066, (310) 745-3771. · Rose Isada, Esq. as counsel for Imperial Bank (receiving telephone calls from Moxon's agent Ingram). · Persons identified in Response To Interrogatory No.37 herein. · Interrogatory No. 4:

Identify by author, recipient, date, and subject matter each document that supports or otherwise relates to any fact or which supports or otherwise relates to each defense you contend exists in relation to Count One in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 4:

· Claim for Exemption, May 7,1999 and Declaration of Graham E. Berry sworn May 12,1999 and Exhibits thereto. · Letter, Michael Gerner, Esq. and Donald Wager, Esq. to the State Bar, July 12,1999, re Barton v. Berry, Claim for Exemption. · Letter, Michael Gerner, Esq. and Donald Wager, Esq. to the State Bar, September 14,1999, re Barton v. Berry, Claim for Exemption. · Letter, Michael Gerner, Esq. and Donald Wager, Esq. to the State Bar, October 25,1999, re Barton v. Berry, Claim for Exemption. · Letter, Michael Gerner, Esq. and Donald Wager, Esq. to the State Bar, November 10,1999, re Barton v. Berry, Claim for Exemption. · Letter, Michael Gerner, Esq. and Donald Wager, Esq. to the State Bar, November 16,1999, re Barton v. Berry, Claim for Exemption. · Letters Duane McWaine, MD To Whom It Concerns dated November 19,1999 and August 13,2001. · Declaration of Robert J.Cipriano executed August 6,2000. · Documents identified in Response To Interrogatories No. 8,12 and 37. · COUNT TWO - MORAL TURPITUDE

Interrogatory No. 5:

State each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count Two in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 5:

(a) Respondent has not "willfully violated the provisions of Business and Professions Code, section 6103 [or any other statutory or disciplinary provision]," and has not "willfully [disobeyed or violated] an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent's profession which he ought in good faith to do or to forbear" as alleged by the State Bar.

(b) See Response to Interrogatory No.1 above.

(c) The Affirmative Defenses of: (1) Absence of any prior record of discipline over many years;(2) Good faith of member; (3) Lack of harm; (4) extreme emotional difficulties; (5) Co-operation; (6) Good character of Respondent; (7) Remorse and Atonement; (8) Passage of time/rehabilitation; (9) Fraud and Conspiracy; (10) Constructive Fraud; (11) Abuse of Process; (12) Unclean hands; (13) Equitable estoppel; (14) Illegality; (16) Void /voidable orders; (17) Denials of due process, violations of constitutional, civil and human rights; (18) Bias; Appearance of Bias; Selective Enforcement: Failure to properly investigate; prosecutorial misconduct and pre-determination;

(19) Improper Venue, Denial of Due Process.

(d) Justification and self-defense.

(e) Lesser of two evils.

(f) 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 and relevant documents. (see Response to Interrogatory No.2 above). 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 and/or willfully committed any misconduct. Indeed, Respondent has sworn to the contrary and there is no evidence to the contrary.

(g) In any event, Counts Two and Three charge that Respondent has engaged in "moral turpitude". The Church of Scientology desperately seeks such a finding (through the California State Bar) with which to further blacken Respondent's name as they set out to do in May 5,1994 with the perjured and "highly defamatory" First Cipriano Declaration. Indeed, already they misrepresent the nature of these proceedings on the Internet and claim that these counts involve the misappropriation of client monies! However, the State Bar and the Church of Scientology offer no evidence to support such a finding. There are 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 even more irrefutably in Respondent's favor. At best, for scientology-State Bar, it is equivocal or ambiguous. See Response to Interrogatory No.2.

" 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], 155.

(h) 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 those 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 herein. See generally: Chronology; Cipriano August 6,2000 Declaration (and other testimony); and Privilege motion.

(i) 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 its agents including the Real Parties In Interest and Complainants 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. A similar situation is evident herein.

Interrogatory No. 6:

State each fact which supports each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count Two in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No.6:

(a) See Response to Interrogatory No. Two above.

(b) See Interrogatory Responses No.37 to 40 below.

Interrogatory No. 7:

Identify by name, the current or last known business and residential addresses and telephone numbers each person who has any knowledge of any fact which supports each defense, which you contend, exists in relation to Count Two in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No.7:

See Response to Interrogatory No.3 above.

Interrogatory No. 8:

Identify by author, recipient, date, and subject matter each document that supports or otherwise relates to any fact or which supports or otherwise relates to each defense you contend exists in relation to Count Two in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No.8:

See Response to Interrogatory No.4 above and No. 40 below.

COUNT THREE - MORAL TURPITUDE

Interrogatory No. 9:

State each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count Three in the NDC

Response To Interrogatory No. 9:

(a) Respondent's alleged conduct in connection with "the Jane Scott account" was not contrary to the express applicable law. See generally, 9 (c) below.

(b) Respondent has not "willfully violated the provisions of Business and Professions Code, section 6103 [or any other statutory or disciplinary provision]," and has not willfully [disobeyed or violated] an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent's profession which he ought in good faith to do or to forbear" as alleged by the State Bar.

(c) THERE WAS NO INTENT TO AVOID PAYMENT TO VALID CREDITORS

See also the argument and analysis in Counts One and Two above and Count Ten below. 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 then current trade creditor payments from San Rafael (where she lived at the time). Respondent was clearly disabled by severe depression and it's effects at that time. The crux of Church of Scientology/Barton's complaint in the pending Barton v. Berry case, Scientology's complaint herein and in the State Bars' NIC 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. Approximately 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. Judge Marcus had suggested I move to vacate the underlying orders. However, the frantic Scientology summary judgment motion, as was its intent, pre-occupied and prevented me from being able to research, prepare and file the motions to vacate. 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 bankruptcy 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. Emphasis added. That is exactly what happened in relation to the Jane Scott account at issue herein.

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 and in favor of Defendant/Debtor [Respondent].

Indeed, and consistent with the above holding in Commerce Bank, the uncontroverted 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 parents' 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 then staff and current creditors.

As stated above, 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).

Despite that, 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).

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 express reason was the numerous and blatant [mis]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. [See generally, B&P Code Section 6068 (d)].

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 "psycho-terrorism", fraud and crime. Senior L.A. Sheriff's Officers have cautioned Respondent as to his physical security and safety in connection with the Church of Scientology and its representatives. There have also been concerns for Respondent's physical security and life posted to the Internet.

The scientology Fair Game documents, and the produced Moxon, Soter, Ingram attorney-work product "investigations file", evidence that the church's lawyers were intending to, and did, try to obstruct Respondent's ability to practice law and represent clients, irrespective of his obligations to any other clients. Subsequent testimony confirms that Abelson, Wager, 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." [clearly 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 the United States, as they also did with Werner Erhard (founder of EST) and Keith Henson (and as attorney Abelson has expressly stated that the Real Parties in Interest wish to do to Respondent herein). 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 their 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 surreptiously 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 with 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 [fiduciary] situation facing Respondent and his "third person" clients was the same as the Court of Appeals was considering in Armstrong One. Additionally, 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 cases before the State Bar. There was no attempt to conceal monies for private purposes unrelated to Respondent's then besieged law practice. 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 also stated these were earned fees. That factual position is therefore uncontroverted. The State Bar's allegation is that these earned fees 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 [as here] 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 implicit position herein, the applicable 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. Moreover, 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.

(d) The Affirmative Defenses of: (1) Absence of any prior record of discipline over many years; (2) Good faith of member; (3) Lack of harm; (4) extreme emotional difficulties; (5) Co-operation; (6) Good character of Respondent; (7) Remorse and Atonement; (8) Passage of time/rehabilitation; (9) Fraud and Conspiracy; (10) Constructive Fraud; (11) Abuse of Process; (12) Unclean hands; (13) Equitable estoppel; (14) Illegality; (16) Void /voidable orders; (17) Denials of due process, violations of constitutional, civil and human rights; (18) Bias; Appearance of Bias; Selective Enforcement: Failure to properly investigate; prosecutorial misconduct and pre-determination; (19) Improper Venue, Denial of Due Process.

(e) Justification and self-defense.

(f) Lesser of Two Evils.

Interrogatory No. 10

State each fact which supports each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count Three in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 10:

(a) See Interrogatory Response No.2 above and No.12 (c) below. In particular, Respondent's Defendant's opposition memorandum, declarations, exhibits, separate statements, etc.

(b) See Interrogatory Responses No.37 to 44.

Interrogatory No. 11:

Identify by name, the current or last known business and residential addresses and telephone numbers each person who has any knowledge of any fact which supports each defense, which you contend, exists in relation to Count Three in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 11:

See Response to Interrogatory No.3 above.

Interrogatory No. 12:

Identify by author, recipient, date, and subject matter each document that supports or otherwise relates to any fact or which supports or otherwise relates to each defense you contend exists in relation to Count Three in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 12:

(a) See Response to Interrogatory No. 4 above. (b) Moxon v. Berry. Moving, Opposition, Reply papers, and Order in connection with the Kendrick Moxon, Esq. unsuccessful motion for summary judgment.

(c) Barton v. Berry - Glenn Barton's unsuccessful motion for summary judgment decided August 14,2001: Plaintiff's Notice of Motion, etc; Plaintiffs Separate Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law; Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, etc; Amended Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Undisputed Facts and Conclusions of Law, etc; Amended Defendant's Separate Statement of Genuine Issues, etc; Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition; Rebuttal Declaration of Graham E.Berry; Plaintiff's Sur-Rebutter; Memorandum of Decision.

(d) The Rule 2001 examination testimony of Respondent in his Bankruptcy Proceeding and all testimony given in the related Adversary Proceedings and judgment debtor examinations, the Court files and all the documents relating to those Bankruptcy and Adversary Proceedings (filed by Moxon, Scientology and Barton). ( COUNT FOUR - FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

Interrogatory No. 13:

State each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count Four in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 13:

(a) Respondent has not "willfully violated the provisions of Business and Professions Code, section 6103 [or any other statutory or disciplinary provision]," and has not "willfully [disobeyed or violated] an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent's profession which he ought in good faith to do or to forbear" as alleged by the State Bar.

(b) 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 its written Fair Game Policies and Practices. The sanctions holders [Scientology/Moxon/Barton] intentionally engaged in "psycho-terrorism" and litigation terrorism against Respondent, intending to drive him into Bankruptcy and permanent unemployment, even to suicide (as Michael P.Pattinson and experts will testify). The unpaid sanctions are the direct product and "fruits" 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 (e.g. Moxon, Kobrin, Abelson and Paquette). 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 doing so under oath, 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, Privilege Brief and Cipriano Declaration executed August 6,2000 and August 2000 deposition testimony.) 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."] The Wager testimony has been available only relatively recently. Respondent has been medically impaired from moving to vacate until recently-despite Ms.Goldade's opinions and argument to the contrary.

(c) Respondent has just been discharged in a bankruptcy caused by the illegal conduct of Scientology, Moxon, Abelson, Wager and the other Real Parties in Interest. 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 Four, as set forth in these 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 conduct 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.

(c) 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/willfully not to pay the sanctions. The uncontroverted and irrefutable evidence is that Respondent has been financially unable to do so and actually prevented from doing so by the intentional obstruction of the sanction holders themselves and principals of the complainants herein. Primarily because of the intentional actions of the sanctions holders themselves in refusing to release the Barton lien from his property and thereby causing the loss of $50,000-470,000 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, 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. The unpaid sanctions permit continuing intelligence ("Intel ops") under the guise of Debtor's Examinations. Respondent could not sue to recover the $28,000 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 scientology sanction holders.

(e) 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.

(f) Respondent admits that he has violated Section 6103. He contends that he has not acted willfully or 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 partially and temporary disabled, 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) Respondent's 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 Respondent's intention to later seek their recovery in subsequent proceedings for malicious prosecution [Hurtado] and abuse of process [Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige (Abelson, Moxon) and Hurtado].

(g) In early spring, when apprised of Respondent's 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 [who presides over this case by telephone from San Francisco] engaged in an excess of jurisdiction, and granted them. Judge Brott also struck all of Respondent's 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 me which, along with the settlement conference, is now fully engaging me together 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 prosecutor's 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, discipline 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.

(h) 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.

(i) Notice of Charges paragraph 18 is the product of Misrepresentation and fraud upon this Court by Complainants. The District Court did not "dismiss the Pattinson matter on September 28,1998". On that date the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint and granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff Pattinson voluntarily dismissed the Federal Pattinson v. Miscavige on March 19, 1999. Thus, the Pattinson case preceded for another six months, and through Second, Third and Fourth Amended Complaints before being voluntarily dismissed. The State Bar's allegation that a Federal District Court would accept and adjudicate pleadings, motions and arguments for one day after a case had been dismissed (except for costs and sanctions motions, etc.) is itself incredulous. See generally, Response to Interrogatory No.37, 38 and 40.

(j) The April 15,1999 and July 15,1999 sanctions and costs orders were the product of fraud upon the court by Kendrick L.Moxon, Esq., Eric Lieberman, Esq., Samuel D.Rosen, Esq., Barbara Reeves, Esq. and Michael Turrill, Esq.

(k) Moxon should not be permitted to "take advantage of his own wrongful conduct" committed concurrently with his sanction award in the Pattinson case. Cal. Civ. Code Section 3517.

(l) The Affirmative Defenses of: (1) Absence of any prior record of discipline over many years; (2) Good faith of member; (3) Lack of harm; (4) Extreme emotional difficulties; (5) Co-operation; (6) Good character of Respondent; (7) Remorse and Atonement; (8) Passage of time/rehabilitation; (9) Fraud and Conspiracy; (10) Constructive Fraud; (11) Abuse of Process; (12) Unclean hands; (13) Equitable estoppel; (14) Illegality; (15) Inability; (16) Void /voidable orders; (17) Denials of due process, violations of constitutional, civil and human rights; (18) Bias; Appearance of Bias; Selective Enforcement; Failure to properly investigate; prosecutorial misconduct and pre-determination; (19) Improper Venue, Denial of Due Process. (m) Justification. Respondent is unable to pay these sanctions $28,484.72 (even if they were not the product of illegality and fraud upon the Court, and obstruction of payment as described above) because he is bankrupt and living on welfare and charity due to intentional and wrongful conduct directed at him by, among others, complainant Donald Wager, Esq. and State Bar members Kendrick Moxon, Helena Kobrin, Ava Paquette, Elliot Abelson, William Drescher, John J.Quinn, Barbara Reeves, Michael Terrill and Pro Hac Vice attorneys Samuel D.Rosen, Eric Lieberman, Gerald Feffer and Monique Yingling.

Interrogatory No. 14:

State each fact which supports each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count Four in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 14:

(a) Respondent did not willfully violate the said court order. It has been impossible financially for Respondent to pay said sanctions. Respondent's inability to pay said sanctions (irrespective of their void/voidable nature through crime and fraud) is evidenced by his recent discharge in bankruptcy and current receipt of food stamps and general welfare relief in order to survive.

(b) The Church of Scientology refused to lift its judgment lien over Respondent's real estate prior to its sale in foreclosure for $329,000.00 (the amount of first and second mortgages and foreclosure costs). A pre-foreclosure contract of sale was entered into for $367,500.00.At the time of foreclosure on August 9,2001,the there were estimates that the property could be sold for $400,000.00. The Church of Scientology (Barton represented by Moxon & Kobrin) refused to lift the judgment lien and thus deprived itself, Barton and Moxon and the IRS of a pool of $50,000.00-$ 70,000.00 in Respondent's real estate equity. Because Moxon, Barton and the Church of Scientology intentionally/maliciously prevented Respondent from being able to pay off all or a significant portion of the sanctions (claimed by them) they should be equitably estopped from complaining that Respondent has willfully violated the court's order.

(c) Upon information and belief, the Church of Scientology prefers to have the on-going availability of taking regular 'Debtor's Examinations' of Respondent (an "intelligence cycle" for the Church of Scientology") than that he pay the sanctions the Church of Scientology and it's agents procured through felony crimes and fraud. Had Respondent had the financial resources so to do, he would have paid whatever he could have paid of the sanctions and sought their refund after a successful motion to vacate the sanctions order or in the upcoming action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Respondent will file such a motion just as soon as the State Bar's litigation/maternity schedule herein permits him time to complete the Chronology of Events and prepare said motions.

(d) See Interrogatory Responses No.37 to 40.

Interrogatory No. 15:

Identify by name, the current or last known business and residential addresses and telephone numbers each person who has any knowledge of any fact which supports each defense, which you contend, exists in relation to Count Four in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 15:

Paul Strabala, CPA 6255 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1904 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Ph: (323) 934 2400 Fax:(323) 934 2935

Leon Bayer, Esq. Bayer, Wishman & Leotta, 201 North Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 (800) 477 3111 Fx: (213) 975 1443

Jane Scott 3384 McLaughlin Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 (310) 745 3770 Fx: (310) 745 3772

Respondent, Graham E. Berry 3384 McLaughlin Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 (310) 745-3771.

Michael P.Pattinson 65 Pine Avenue, No. 104 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 499 2334

See Response To Count Ten.

Interrogatory No. 16: Identify by author, recipient, date, and subject matter each document that supports or otherwise relates to any fact or which supports or otherwise relates to each defense you contend exists in relation to Count Four in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No.16:

(a) Letter Graham E.Berry to the State Bar [Teri Goldade, Esq.] dated March 8,2001 including the enclosures and the documents incorporated by reference on pages 1 and 2 therein and throughout.

(b) Correspondence (2001) of Respondent regarding the attempts at a pre-foreclosure sale of his property. [C.C.P.§ 2030(f)].

(c) See Count Ten, Interrogatory Response No.40.

(d) The correspondence, discovery, testimony and pleading files in the Berry Bankruptcy Adversary Proceedings (Moxon v. Berry, Church of Scientology v. Berry, Barton v. Berry) and in the Jeavons v. Scientology judgment collection proceedings.

(e) See Response to Interrogatories No.20, 28 and 32.

COUNT FIVE - FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

Interrogatory No. 17:

State each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count Five in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 17:

(a) Respondent has not "willfully violated the provisions of Business and Professions Code, section 6103 [or any other statutory or disciplinary provision]," and has not "willfully [disobeyed or violated] an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent's profession which he ought in good faith to do or to forbear" as alleged by the State Bar

(b) The State Bar has 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 its written Fair Game Policies and Practices.

(c) As explained above, the Scientology sanctions holders have intentionally and maliciously obstructed Respondent's ability to pay the Kaleel case sanctions of $8,000.00 by preventing him from either collecting the $28,000.00 owed him by Lumin-oZ, Inc. or from entering into a pre-foreclosure sale of his property which could have provided a pool of approx.$50,000.00-$70,000.00 to pay various lien holders and sanction holders. Their apparent strategy was to prevent him from being able to use this approx.$100,000.00 in equity and unpaid salary to pay the liens and sanctions .to lose those monies in foreclosure, etc.and thereby remain liable to the lien holders and sanction holders and their continuing judgment creditor examinations and other on-going harassment. Had they not done so, all or most of the sanctions orders would have been paid. Instead, the sanctions holders intentionally engaged in "psycho-terrorism" and litigation terrorism against Respondent, intending to drive him into Bankruptcy and permanent unemployment, even to suicide. Respondent has just been discharged in bankruptcy. He is now 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.

(d) 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.

(e) 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. In addition, and outrageously, he has actually been 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 $50,000-470,000 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 lien holders and sanction-holders could have received up to $90,000, which would have fully satisfied the sanctions' orders. However, for the past twelve months they have refused to release their own liens or take the steps to recover that $28,000. The unpaid sanctions permit continuing scientology intelligence ("Intel ops") under the guise of Debtor's Examinations.

(f) In addition, Respondent could not sue to recover the $28,000 in unpaid salary. The sanctions holders (Scientology, Moxon and Barton) 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 Scientology sanction holders.

(g) 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.

(h) Respondent admits that he has violated Section 6103. He contends that he has not acted willfully or 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 partially and temporary disabled, 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) Respondent's 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 Respondent's intention to later seek their recovery in subsequent proceedings for malicious prosecution [Hurtado] and abuse of process [Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige (Abelson, Moxon) and Hurtado].

(i) In early spring, when apprised of Respondent's 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 [who presides over this case by telephone from San Francisco] engaged in an excess of jurisdiction, and granted them. Judge Brott also struck all of Respondent's 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 me 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 the motions to vacate the underlying matters.

(j) 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 refuses. In essence, my due process rights, and discovery rights are being held hostage to, and prejudiced by, the prosecutor's 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.

(k) 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, discipline 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.

(l) 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.

(m) The Affirmative Defenses of: (1) Absence of any prior record of discipline over many years; (2) Good faith of member; (3) Lack of harm; (4) Extreme emotional difficulties; (5) Co-operation; (6) Good character of Respondent; (7) Remorse and Atonement; (8) Passage of time/rehabilitation; (9) Fraud and Conspiracy; (10) Constructive Fraud; (11) Abuse of Process; (12) Unclean hands; (13) Equitable estoppel; (14) Illegality; (15) Inability; (16) Void /voidable orders; (17) Denials of due process, violations of constitutional, civil and human rights; (18) Bias; Appearance of Bias; Selective Enforcement; Failure to properly investigate; prosecutorial misconduct and pre-determination; (19) Improper Venue, Denial of Due Process.

(n) Justification and self-defense. Respondent is unable to pay these sanctions which are the product of illegality and because he is bankrupt and living on welfare and charity due to intentional and wrongful conduct directed at him by, among others, complainant Donald Wager, Esq. and State Bar members Kendrick Moxon, Helena Kobrin, Ava Paquette, Elliot Abelson, William Drescher, John J.Quinn, Barbara Reeves, Michael Terrill and Pro Hac Vice attorneys Samuel D.Rosen, Eric Lieberman, Gerald Feffer and Monique Yingling.

Interrogatory No. 18:

State each fact which supports each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count Five in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 18:

(a) Respondent did not willfully violate the said court order. It has been impossible financially for Respondent to pay said sanctions. Respondent's inability to pay said sanctions (irrespective of their void/voidable nature through crime and fraud) is evidenced by his discharge in bankruptcy and receipt of food stamps and general welfare relief in order to survive. The Church of Scientology refused to lift its judgment lien over Respondent's real estate prior to its sale in foreclosure for $329,000.00 (the amount of first and second mortgages and foreclosure costs). A pre-foreclosure contract of sale was entered into for $367,500.00.At the time of foreclosure the there were estimates that the property could be sold for $400,000.00. The Church of Scientology (Barton represented by Moxon & Kobrin) refused to lift the judgment lien and thus deprived itself, Barton and Moxon and the IRS of a pool of $50,000.00-$ 70,000.00 in Respondent's real estate equity. Since Moxon, Barton and the Church of Scientology intentionally prevented Respondent from being able to pay off all or a significant portion of the sanctions they should be equitably estopped from complaining that Respondent has willfully violated the court's order in connection with the Kaleel sanctions. Had Respondent had the financial resources so to do, he would have paid whatever he could have paid of the sanctions and sought

their refund after a successful motion to vacate the sanctions order. Respondent will file such a motion just as soon as the State Bar's litigation/maternity schedule herein permits him time to complete the Chronology of Events and prepare said motions.

(b) See Interrogatory Responses No. 14 (c) and 17 (c) above.

Interrogatory No. 19:

Identify by name, the current or last known business and residential addresses and telephone numbers each person who has any knowledge of any fact which supports each defense, which you contend, exists in relation to Count Five in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 19:

Paul Strabala, CPA 6255 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1904 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Ph: (323) 934 2400 Fax:(323) 934 2935

Leon Bayer, Esq. Bayer, Wishman & Leotta, 201 North Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 (800) 477 3111 Fx: (213) 975 1443

Jane Scott 3384 McLaughlin Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 (310) 745 3770 Fx: (310) 745 3772

Respondent, Graham E. Berry 3384 McLaughlin Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 (310) 745-3771.

See Response to Interrogatory No.15 above.

Interrogatory No. 20:

Identify by author, recipient, date, and subject matter each document that supports or otherwise relates to any fact or which supports or otherwise relates to each defense you contend exists in relation to Count Five in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 20:

(a) Letter Graham E.Berry to the State Bar [Teri Goldade, Esq.] dated March 8,2001 including the enclosures and the documents incorporated by reference on pages 1 and 2 therein and throughout.

(b) See Response to Interrogatory No.16 above No. 28 and 32 below

. COUNT SIX - ACTUAL CONFLICT - REPRENTING MULTIPLE CLIENTS Interrogatory No. 21:

State each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count Six in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 21:

(a) The Kaleel Bankruptcy Trustee knew that Respondent represented both John Kaleel and the Kaleel family. The Trustee and his counsel suggested Respondent also represent the Bankruptcy Estate. No consideration was given to the issue of whether there was a potential third party conflict of interest with the opposing parties Rodney Kaleel and Hollywood at the El Rey, Inc. ("HER") which had been adverse to respondent's client John Kaleel in the underlying HER & Nardi v. John Kaleel case.

(b) The counsel for the Kaleel Bankruptcy Trustee prepared the application and declaration to retain Respondent as Special Counsel. Inexplicably, Respondent did not focus affectively on its contents before signing the Trustees papers.

(c) At the time, Respondent was suffering from "severe depression" and, in effect, a nervous breakdown. He did not pursue or respond to discovery in the Trustees case against HER and Nardi.He did not oppose any of the motions to disqualify him or sanction him. A small army of scientology-retained lawyers overwhelmed him at a time when he was immobilized by clinical depression. Thus, he filed the Trustees complaint but did not continue to represent the Trustee in any significant manner (other than several status conferences and a settlement meeting).

(d) Subsequently, the sanctions and other orders entered against Respondent were unopposed and obtained by default. Respondent had been so over-whelmed and immobilized by the small army of Church of Scientology lawyers, in other concurrent matters, that he was physically and emotionally unable to respond. He is still suffering and recovering from this diagnosis and illness.

(e) With regard to the Kaleel family litigation against HER and Nardi to recover their $36,000 loan, the only significant action by Respondent was to file the complaint and attend several status conferences and a settlement meeting. Respondent had provided the Kaleel family (all but one of whom lived in Australia) with a retainer agreement and written waiver of conflicts of interest. They failed to sign it. Therefore, Respondent did not provide further significant services.

(f) Like Hurtado and other matters included in the Gerner and Wager complaint regarding Cipriano and these matters, the instant complaint was not made by a client but, in effect, the Church of Scientology which is Respondent's regular litigation adversary. He is their nemesis. The Church and its representatives are bound by the church's Fair Game policies and practices to "utterly destroy Respondent by any means possible." The facts and some of mitigating circumstances are set fully forth in those Interrogatory Responses. On those facts, Respondent contends that he did not "willfully" 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.

(g) Only in rare circumstances does an attorney owe a third party a 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.

(g) 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, they prepared the motion and they finalized Respondent's supporting declaration. 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 a 'concurrent adverse representation' issue involving Nardi. Certainly, there was no "past representation" conflict.

(h) On the other hand, I did see 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 I) 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.

(i) The State Bar must 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 debatable." 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.

(j) 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 I met to explore settlement potential. Conflicts of interest must be raised at the first possible opportunity. 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. 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. After my success upon similar facts in the Church of Scientology International v. Fishman-Geertz case, Scientology and its 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 to which the scientology litigation juggernaut was subjecting him. 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.

(k) The Affirmative Defenses of: (1) Absence of any prior record of discipline over many years; (2) Good faith of member; (3) Lack of harm; (4) extreme emotional difficulties; (5) Co-operation; (6) Good character of Respondent; (7) Remorse and Atonement; (8) Passage of time/rehabilitation; (9) Fraud and Conspiracy; (10) Constructive Fraud; (11) Abuse of Process; (12) Unclean hands; (13) Equitable estoppel; (14) Illegality; (15) Inability; (16) Void /voidable orders; (17) Denials of due process, violations of constitutional, civil and human rights; (18) Bias; Appearance of Bias; Selective Enforcement: Failure to properly investigate; prosecutorial misconduct and pre-determination; (19) Improper Venue, Denial of Due Process.

Interrogatory No. 22:

State each fact which supports each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count Six in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 22:

(a) In mid April 1997 Respondent filed an Ex Parte application in the Estate of L.Ron Hubbard. Respondent was accompanied by someone who he trusted as a volunteer assistant and security escort. His name is Danny Fumagali. Mr. Fumagali claimed to be a 'former' scientologist. He is a Swiss citizen. However, in reality he was a Church of Scientology covert agent planted in Respondents office by the Church of Scientology - his litigation adversary. Another such Moxon/Scientology plant in Respondent's office and home was Jolie Steckart.She was also planted in the CAN offices and amidst other lawyers Moxon was adverse to. The filing of this Ex Parte Application in the L.Ron Hubbard probate case triggered settlement negotiations in Religious Technology Center [Scientology] v. FactNet, et al. Respondent was one of the lead defense counsel in that case but was not a participant in the settlement negotiations.

(b) Consequently, Respondent had some unexpected available time. John Kaleel approached him. Respondent and Kaleel had not previously communicated. Respondent agreed to represent Kaleel in the defense and cross-complaint of Hollywood at the El Rey, Inc. and Rodney Nardi v. John Kaleel, L.A.S.C. Case No.BC 140806 ("HER v. Kaleel"). Kaleel's prior attorney had resigned. The trial was in six days. It was scheduled to take two weeks. Musick, Peeler & Garret accepted an upfront payment of $25,000.00 to take the HER v. Kaleel case. The El Rey Theater was a nightclub. Respondent had had experience in nightclub related litigation when he practiced in New York in the early to mid 1980s.There he had a number of nightclub business clients including the legendary Studio 54.

(c) The HER v. Kaleel case actually took six weeks to try. It resulted in an illogical self-contradictory plaintiff's verdict. Pursuant to C.C.P. 2030 (f) (2), the HER v. Kaleel case is described in the complaint for injunctive relief and damages in the Matter of John Kaleel, David L. Ray v. Rodney Nardi, LA 97 441835-LF. The HER v. Kaleel case in no way involved the Church of Scientology or its attorneys. However, Church of Scientology representatives attended the trial every day. On certain days scientology attorney Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq. attended the trial, sat behind Respondent and tried to provoke confrontations wherever possible. Although the scientology representatives were initially apart from opposing counsel Bradley N. Brook, Esq. and opposing party Rodney Nardi, they soon began arriving and leaving together. Eventually, my client and myself became so concerned at potential scientology jury tampering that the Court was requested to, and did, question the jury as to possible communications with jury members. However, after the jury was dismissed, a little older lady juror from Pasadena said to Respondent "you're a liar". That remark was not suspicious at the time. It has become suspicious over time. More recently, as scientologists have taken to repeatedly referring to Respondent as a liar, that jurors remark has taken on a more sinister potential significance. John Kaleel's comments, Doc.24 (nn). Kaleel was outraged at the result and laid the blame at the judge's door for refusing to grant a continuance to enable his new counsel (Respondent) to properly prepare for a six-week trial. He also blamed the Church of Scientology for tampering with the proceedings and creating a climate of intimidation in the courtroom-as part of their "fair game" terrorism of Respondent. Kaleel was also outraged at the illogical jury decision that granted no relief for Kaleel's family loan even though that was not part of the pleadings. After Respondent resigned from his Musick, Peeler & Garrett partnership, he agreed to represent Kaleel's family to recover their $36,000.00 loans made to both John Kaleel and Rodney Nardi.

(d) Recently, Respondent learned that opposing counsel Bradley Brook, Esq. had profited mightily from his meeting with Church of Scientology counsel Kendrick L.Moxon, Esq. during the HER & Nardi v. Kaleel case. Bradley Brook, Esq. is second chair in the defense of scientologist Reed Slatkin. Slatkin is accused of running the largest known 'ponzi' scheme in U.S. history. It involves 650 million dollars. 500 million dollars appears to have disappeared. In addition, Bradley Brook occupied/occupies the same office suite as Michael Gerner and Donald Wager who are the complainants herein (also retained by the Church of Scientology)!

(e) On April 8,1998, Respondent advised the John Kaleel Bankruptcy Trustee, in writing, that he had been "authorized and requested by the Kaleel family lenders to commence proceedings against Mr. Nardi for repayment, by April 15,1998. See generally, pursuant to CCP § 2030 (f) (2), Doc. 24 (B). Thereafter he conversed with the Kaleel family representative Yvette Kaleel who lived in L.A.County. The other Kaleels lived in Australia. The statute of limitations was about to expire on certain causes of action. It was agreed Respondent would file the complaints, advance the filing fees, and then submit a Retainer Agreement for signature. After those conversations with Yvette Kaleel, on April 23,1998, Respondent submitted a letter and retainer agreement for signature. Section 7.1 of the Retainer Agreement was a waiver of conflicts of interest provision in connection with John Kaleel and his separate proceedings against Nardi and HER. See generally, pursuant to CCP § 2030 (f) (2), Doc. 24 (c) (1).

(f) The Kaleel's never signed and returned the retainer agreement. They never remitted the money required under the retainer agreement and to reimburse Respondent for the filing costs he had advanced. John Kaleel had trouble serving their complaint but eventually succeeded. However, he was constantly moving from one friend's sofa bed to another and would disappear for several months at a time and be unreachable.

(g) Because the Kaleels did not sign the retainer agreement containing the waiver of conflicts of interest, Respondent took no further action on their behalf other than participate in a few status conferences, settlement conferences and ultimately moved to withdraw. See generally, pursuant to CCP § 2030 (f) (2), Doc. 24 (D), 24 (E), 24 (N), 24(O), 24 (Q).

(h) Furthermore, because of the lack of a retainer agreement and waiver of conflict he did not answer Nardi's cross-complaint but, at the insistence of John Kaleel, moved to vacate the dismissal, and filed an answer in an effort to preserve their position until the Kaleel family took the appropriate steps. They did not and Respondent took no further action on their behalf. See generally, pursuant to CCP § 2030 (f) (2), Doc.24 (h), 24 (K), 24(L).

(i) In approx. August 1998 Respondent and his then client John Kaleel met with the Kaleel bankruptcy trustee and his counsel. It was clear that the Bankruptcy Trustee and his counsel knew that Respondent was representing John Kaleel in the bankruptcy matter and the Kaleel family in their Superior Court action against Nardi and HER. Indeed, they had received his earlier correspondence advising them of that fact. See generally, pursuant to CCP § 2030 (f) (2), Doc. 24 (B), Doc. 24(P), 24(Q). The Bankruptcy Trustee agreed with Kaleel to pursue an adversary action against Nardi and HER for Kaleel's 50% stock interest in HER. The Trustee and his counsel suggested the retention of Respondent who had the desired familiarity with the relevant facts as a result of his representation of Kaleel in the underlying case. Respondent agreed to represent the Trustee as Special Counsel. The Trustee's counsel prepared the necessary motion and declaration, Respondent signed where requested, and the motion was granted on or about August 24,1998. See generally, pursuant to CCP § 2030 (f) (2), Doc. 24 (A) (2).

(j) Inexplicably, Respondent was unaware of any inaccurate statements in the Trustee's attorney's motion and declaration prepared for Respondents signature. See generally, pursuant to CCP § 2030 (f) (2), Doc. 24 (R). The Kaleel Bankruptcy Trustee, his counsel and Respondent did not discuss any potential third party duty of care being owed to opposing party Rodney Nardi and HER or any resulting potential or actual conflict of interest. Only in very limited circumstances are third party duties owed to opposing parties.

(k) Respondent prepared the necessary complaint but was unable to achieve effective service. Eventually, Respondent filed a First Amended Complaint, which was served. See generally, pursuant to CCP § 2030 (f) (2), Doc. 24 (A) (1) (2), 24 (C) (2), 24 (D), 24 (E), 24 (F), 24 (N), 24 (O).

(l) By May 1999, although he had not yet realized and accepted the fact, Respondent was suffering, in essence, a nervous breakdown due to events in the Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige (Moxon, Abelson, Ingram) cases, the Pattinson and Revelliere cases, and the Jeavons case. See generally, pursuant to CCP § 2030 (f) (2), Doc. 24 (NN) Exh. B and the declarations of Jane Scott and John Kaleel. Consequently, he had not pursued discovery as Special Counsel to the Kaleel bankruptcy trustee. Moreover, because of the Kaleel family failure to sign the retainer agreement he had not pursued their action. John Kaleel would be unavailable and unable to locate for long periods of time (due to his own economic circumstances and loss of his home and business to Nardi). As the small army of Church of Scientology attorneys continued their assault upon Respondent during the summer of 1999,obtaining orders that the facts did not warrant, Respondent became progressively clinically depressed and disabled from effective lawyering. For this reason, on December 2,1999, and in connection with these proceedings, Respondent agreed with the State Bar to temporarily disband his law practice and engage in limited legal representation as an in-house counsel for a start-up high tech business.

(m) Accordingly, by May 1999, Respondent had been "fair gamed" by the Church of Scientology into a state of shock and clinical depression. He was preparing his own bankruptcy proceedings. He made no opposition to motions filed by Nardi's counsel for disqualification, default judgment, for sanctions against Respondent, etc. See generally, pursuant to CCP § 2030 (f) (2), Doc. 24 (R) - (HH), 24 (JJ) - (MM), 24 (00) - (yy). Respondent did request the court not to prejudice his clients because of his own illness and defaults. See generally, pursuant to CCP § 2030 (f) (2), Doc. 24 (II) and (NN).

(n) Respondent did not willfully violate the said court order. It has been impossible financially for Respondent to pay said sanctions. Respondent's inability to pay said sanctions (irrespective of their void/voidable nature through crime and fraud) is evidenced by his discharge in bankruptcy (entered August 16,2001 and effective as of September 13,19990 and receipt of food stamps and general welfare relief in order to survive. As explained in Responses to Interrogatories 13,14,17 and 18 above, the Church of Scientology refused to lift its judgment lien over Respondent's real estate prior to its sale in foreclosure for $329,000.00 (the amount of first and second mortgages and foreclosure costs). A pre-foreclosure contract of sale was entered into for $367,500.00.At the time of foreclosure the there were estimates that the property could be sold for $400,000.00. The Church of Scientology (Barton represented by Moxon & Kobrin) refused to lift the judgment lien and thus deprived itself, Barton and Moxon and the IRS of a pool of $50,000.00-$ 70,000.00 in Respondent's real estate equity. Since Moxon, Barton and the Church of Scientology intentionally prevented Respondent from being able to pay off all or a significant portion of the sanctions they should be equitably estopped from complaining that Respondent has willfully violated the court's order. Had Respondent had the financial resources so to do, he would have paid whatever he could have paid of the sanctions and sought their refund after a successful motion to vacate the sanctions order. Respondent will file such a motion just as soon as the State Bar's litigation/maternity schedule herein permits him time to complete the Chronology of Events and prepare said motions.

(o) See Interrogatory Responses No.37 to 40.

Interrogatory No. 23:

Identify by name, the current or last known business and residential addresses and telephone numbers each person who has any knowledge of any fact which supports each defense, which you contend, exists in relation to Count Six in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 23:

Yamira Rodriguez Clerk to Hon. Lisa Fleming United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of California Edward R.Roybal Federal Building 255 E.Temple Street, Ninth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012-3300

David L. Ray, Esq. Chapter 7 Trustee Saltzburg, Ray & Bergman 10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Tenth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 (310) 444-4600

Steven N. Ruby, Esq. Trustee's Counsel Saltzburg, Ray & Bergman 10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Tenth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 (310) 444-4600

John Kaleel 6315 Willoughby Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90038

John M. Kaleel Post Office Box 461227 Los Angeles, CA 90046

Yvette Kaleel 330 Central Avenue Apartment 46 Brea, CA 92821

Montaha Kaleel Yvette Kaleel Edmond Kaleel Robert Kaleel P.O.Box. 1443 Chatswood, NSW Australia 2067

Montaha Kaleel Yvette Kaleel Edmond Kaleel Robert Kaleel 39 Mons Avenue Maroubra, NSW Australia 2035

Rodney Nardi 930 Westbourne Drive, Apt. 211 West Hollywood, CA 90069 (213) 936-6400

or: 5515-17 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90036 (323) 936-6400

Bradley E.Brook, Esq. Law Offices of Bradley E. Brook 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, #1100 (310) 277-6910

Mark Estes, Esq. 1925 Chalcedony Street San Diego, CA 92109 (619) 581-2151

Duane E. McWaine, MD 1314 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 101D Los Angeles, CA 90024 (310) 474-5055

Respondent, Graham E. Berry 3384 McLaughlin Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 (310) 745-3771.

Interrogatory No. 24:

Identify by author, recipient, date, and subject matter each document that supports or otherwise relates to any fact or which supports or otherwise relates to each defense you contend exists in relation to Count Six in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 24:

(a) Pursuant to CCP § 2030 (f) and (f) (2), Respondent refers the propounding party to the documents organized as Documents 24 (A) to (YY).

(b) Letter Graham E.Berry to the State Bar [Teri Goldade, Esq.] dated March 8,2001 including the enclosures and the documents incorporated by reference on pages 1 and 2 therein and throughout.

COUNT SEVEN - FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

Interrogatory No. 25:

State each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count Seven in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 25:

(a) Respondent has not "willfully violated the provisions of Business and Professions Code, section 6103 [or any other statutory or disciplinary provision]," and has not "willfully [disobeyed or violated] an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent's profession which he ought in good faith to do or to forbear" as alleged by the State Bar.

(b) 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 its written Fair Game Policies and Practices. The sanctions holders intentionally engaged in "psycho-terrorism" and litigation terrorism against Respondent, intending to drive him into Bankruptcy and permanent unemployment, even to 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. 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."]

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

(e) 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.

(f) Respondent admits that he has violated Section 6103. He contends that he has not acted willfully or 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 partially and temporary disabled, 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) Respondent's 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. Ava Paquette's regular response to requests to release the lien was "it provided the church with better security." The idea of realizing my equity for the benefit of lien-holders and creditors was of no apparent interest to Ava Paquette,Esq. who has written the bar in connection with this Wager/Gerner/Scientology instigated State Bar proceeding. It was Respondent's intention to later seek the recovery of those equity payments to lien/sanction holders in subsequent proceedings for malicious prosecution [Hurtado] and abuse of process [Cipriano/Barton/ Miscavige (Abelson, Moxon) and Hurtado] - for which counsel is now being sought.

(g) In early spring, when apprised of Respondent's 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 [who presides over this case by telephone from San Francisco] engaged in an excess of jurisdiction, and granted them. Judge Brott also struck all of Respondent's 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 me 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.

(h) 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 prosecutor's 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.

(i) For the foregoing reasons, Respondent should receive either no or only minor discipline in connection with these counts.

(j) "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, discipline 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.

(k) 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.

(l) The Moxon request for sanctions in Jeavons relied heavily upon the vexatious litigant order he had obtained through felony crime and fraud in Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige and the Rule 11 Order he had obtained by fraud in the Pattinson case. Thus, he went from court to court building fraud upon fraud. The April 15,1999 and July 15,1999 Rule 11 sanctions and costs orders were the product of fraud upon the court by Kendrick L.Moxon, Esq., Eric Lieberman, Esq., Samuel D.Rosen, Esq., Barbara Reeves, Esq. and Michael Turrill, Esq. Moxon should not be permitted to "take advantage of his own wrongful conduct" committed concurrently with his sanction award in the Pattinson case and his vexatious litigant ruling in the Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige case. Cal. Civ. Code Section 3517.

(m) The Affirmative Defenses of: (1) Absence of any prior record of discipline over many years; (2) Good faith of member; (3) Lack of harm; (4) Extreme emotional difficulties; (5) Co-operation; (6) Good character of Respondent; (7) Remorse and Atonement; (8) Passage of time/rehabilitation; (9) Fraud and Conspiracy; (10) Constructive Fraud; (11) Abuse of Process; (12) Unclean hands; (13) Equitable estoppel; (14) Illegality; (15) Inability; (16) Void /voidable orders; (17) Denials of due process, violations of constitutional, civil and human rights; (18) Bias; Appearance of Bias; Selective Enforcement; Failure to properly investigate; prosecutorial misconduct and pre-determination; (19) Improper Venue, Denial of Due Process.

(n) Justification. Respondent is unable to pay these sanctions (even if they were not the product of illegality and fraud upon the Court) because he is bankrupt and living on welfare and charity due to intentional and wrongful conduct directed at him by, among others, complainant Donald Wager, Esq. and State Bar members Kendrick Moxon, Helena Kobrin, Ava Paquette, Elliot Abelson, William Drescher, John J.Quinn, Barbara Reeves, Michael Terrill and Pro Hac Vice attorneys Samuel D.Rosen, Eric Lieberman, Gerald Feffer and Monique Yingling.

Interrogatory No. 26:

State each fact which supports each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count Seven in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 26:

(a) Respondent did not willfully violate the said court order. It has been impossible financially for Respondent to pay said sanctions. Respondent's inability to pay said sanctions (irrespective of their void/voidable nature through crime and fraud) is evidenced by his discharge in bankruptcy and receipt of food stamps and general welfare relief in order to survive. Moreover, the lein/sanctionholders Church of Scientology/Moxon/Barton (all represented by Moxon & Kobrin) have prevented either partial or total payments of theses sanctions by refusing to release the Barton lien that was on his real estate which would have then enabled a pre-foreclosure sale of his real estate with approx. $50-70,000.00 in equity which could have then been available to the two lien holders - the I.R.S. and the Church of Scientology. Respondent received information that the IRS may settle its lien for as little as $10,000.00. Scientology [Jeavons]]/Barton/Moxon could then have pooled the remaining $40,000 to satisfy part of their sanctions claims. However, Moxon & Kobrin (through Ava Paquette, Esq.) refused stating that the Barton lien on Respondents real estate provided them with better security than to participate in a pre-foreclosure sale and pooling of equity proceeds!!! Thus, they should be equitably estopped from complaining and proceeding further. 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 $50,000-470,000 in real estate equity; much of would have been available to them. The same recipients (Scientology [Jeavons], Barton, Moxon -all represented by Moxon & Kobrin-Rule 3-300, 3-310) were also 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 Lumin-oZ 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, 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. The unpaid sanctions permit continuing intelligence ("Intel ops") under the guise of Debtor's Examinations. Respondent could not sue to recover the $28,000 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. They keep the Respondent engaged in litigation day after day and then enable the State Bar to argue that Respondent should have instead spent his time moving to vacate the underlying orders-all while trying to recover from immobilizing diagnosed depression! It is not Respondent who has acted in bad faith, it is the sanction holders. Interestingly, they have received $950 improperly in connection with Count Seven where Moxon/Kobrin/Paquette have already taken three abusive examinations under oath since February 2001. Most recently on September 26, 2001, in the Jeavons v. Church of Scientology collection matter they seized my only vehicle (a 1988 Jeep Cherokee) on approximately 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 statutory exemption. Attorney Paquette's supporting declaration stated the blue book value to be approximately $8,300.Section 6068(d). My declaration recited the blue book value of approximately $1,800. Commissioner Gross denied my motion stating that the vehicle is not exempt-only the first $1,900 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 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 - 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. I have raised the question "how?" with Ms. Paquette twice. She has not explained.

(b) See Interrogatory Responses No.37 to 40.

Interrogatory No. 27:

Identify by name, the current or last known business and residential addresses and telephone numbers each person who has any knowledge of any fact which supports each defense, which you contend, exists in relation to Count Seven in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 27:

Paul Strabala, CPA 6255 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1904 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Ph: (323) 934 2400 Fax:(323) 934 2935

Leon Bayer, Esq. Bayer, Wishman & Leotta, 201 North Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 (800) 477 3111 Fx: (213) 975 1443

Jane Scott 3384 McLaughlin Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 (310) 745 3770 Fx: (310) 745 3772

Respondent, Graham E. Berry 3384 McLaughlin Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 (310) 745-3771.

Interrogatory No. 28:

Identify by author, recipient, date, and subject matter each document that supports or otherwise relates to any fact or which supports or otherwise relates to each defense you contend exists in relation to Count Seven in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 28:

Letter Graham E.Berry to the State Bar [Teri Goldade, Esq.] dated March 8,2001 including the enclosures and the documents incorporated by reference on pages 1 and 2 therein and throughout.

See Responses to Interrogatories No. 16, 20 and 32.

COUNT EIGHT - FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

Interrogatory No. 29:

State each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count Eight in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 29:

(a) Respondent has not "willfully violated the provisions of Business and Professions Code, section 6103 [or any other statutory or disciplinary provision]," and has not "willfully [disobeyed or violated] an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent's profession which he ought in good faith to do or to forbear" as alleged by the State Bar.

(b) 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 its written Fair Game Policies and Practices. The sanctions holders intentionally engaged in "psycho-terrorism" and litigation terrorism against Respondent, intending to drive him into Bankruptcy and permanent unemployment, even to 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 Four [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 Four 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."] Moxon then took the void/voidable Count Four Rule 11 Order, and along with Washington counsel Monique Yingling, Esq. relied heavily upon it to persuade the Court that it should do the same as to C.S.T.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

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 willfully or 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 partially and temporary disabled, 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) Respondent's 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 Respondent's 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 Respondent's 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 [who presides over this case by telephone from San Francisco] engaged in an excess of jurisdiction, and granted them. Judge Brott also struck all of Respondent's 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 me 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 prosecutor's 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, discipline 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.

(o) 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.

(p) As explained in regard to Notice of Charges paragraph 18 is the product of Misrepresentation and fraud upon this Court by Complainants. The District Court did not "dismiss the first Pattinson matter on September 28,1998". On that date the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint and granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff Pattinson voluntarily dismissed the Federal Pattinson v. Miscavige on or March 19, 1999. Thus, the Pattinson case preceded for another six months, and through Second, Third and Fourth Amended Complaints before being voluntarily dismissed. The State Bar's allegation that a Federal District Court would accept and adjudicate pleadings, motions and arguments for one day after a case had been dismissed (except for costs and sanctions motions, etc.) is itself incredulous.

(q) The April 15,1999 and July 15,1999 sanctions and costs orders were the product of fraud upon the court by Kendrick L.Moxon, Esq., Eric Lieberman, Esq., Samuel D.Rosen, Esq., Barbara Reeves, Esq. and Michael Turrill, Esq.

(r) Moxon should not be permitted to "take advantage of his own wrongful conduct" committed concurrently with his sanction award in the Pattinson case. Cal. Civ. Code Section 3517.

(s) The Affirmative Defenses of: (1) Absence of any prior record of discipline over many years; (2) Good faith of member; (3) Lack of harm; (4) Extreme emotional difficulties; (5) Co-operation; (6) Good character of Respondent; (7) Remorse and Atonement; (8) Passage of time/rehabilitation; (9) Fraud and Conspiracy; (10) Constructive Fraud; (11) Abuse of Process; (12) Unclean hands; (13) Equitable estoppel; (14) Illegality; (15) Inability; (16) Void /voidable orders; (17) Denials of due process, violations of constitutional, civil and human rights; (18) Bias; Appearance of Bias; Selective Enforcement; Failure to properly investigate; prosecutorial misconduct and pre-determination; (19) Improper Venue, Denial of Due Process.

(t) Justification. Respondent is unable to pay these sanctions $28,484.72 (even if they were not the product of illegality and fraud upon the Court) because he is bankrupt and living on welfare and charity due to intentional and wrongful conduct directed at him by, among others, complainant Donald Wager, Esq. and State Bar members Kendrick Moxon, Helena Kobrin, Ava Paquette, Elliot Abelson, William Drescher, John J.Quinn, Barbara Reeves, Michael Terrill and Pro Hac Vice attorneys Samuel D.Rosen, Eric Lieberman, Gerald Feffer and Monique Yingling.

(o) Moxon should not be permitted to "take advantage of his own wrongful conduct" committed concurrently with his sanction award in the Pattinson case. Cal. Civ. Code Section 3517.

Interrogatory No. 30:

State each fact which supports each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count Eight in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 30:

(a) 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 $50,000-470,000 in real estate equity; much of would have been available to them. Also see Interrogatory Responses No. 14,18 and 26 above. 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, 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. The unpaid sanctions permit continuing intelligence ("Intel ops") under the guise of Debtor's Examinations.

(b) Respondent could not sue to recover the $28,000 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.

(c) Respondent did not willfully violate the said court order. As explained above, it has been impossible financially for Respondent to pay said sanctions. Respondent's inability to pay said sanctions (irrespective of their void/voidable nature through crime and fraud) is evidenced by his discharge in bankruptcy and receipt of food stamps and general welfare relief in order to survive. The Church of Scientology refused to lift its judgment lien over Respondent's real estate prior to its sale in foreclosure for $329,000.00 (the amount of first and second mortgages and foreclosure costs). A pre-foreclosure contract of sale was entered into for $367,500.00 .At the time of foreclosure the there were estimates that the property could be sold for $400,000.00. The Church of Scientology (Barton represented by Moxon & Kobrin) refused to lift the judgment lien and thus deprived itself, Barton and Moxon and the IRS of a pool of $50,000.00-$ 70,000.00 in Respondent's real estate equity. Since Moxon, Barton and the Church of Scientology intentionally prevented Respondent from being able to pay off all or a significant portion of the sanctions they should be equitably estopped from complaining that Respondent has willfully violated the court's order. Had Respondent had the financial resources so to do, he would have paid whatever he could have paid of the sanctions and sought their refund after a successful motion to vacate the sanctions order. Respondent will file such a motion just as soon as the State Bar's litigation/maternity schedule herein permits him time to complete the Chronology of Events and prepare said motions.

(d) See Interrogatory Responses No.37 to 40.

Interrogatory No. 31:

Identify by name, the current or last known business and residential addresses and telephone numbers each person who has any knowledge of any fact which supports each defense, which you contend, exists in relation to Count Eight in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 31:

Paul Strabala, CPA 6255 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1904 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Ph: (323) 934 2400 Fax:(323) 934 2935

Leon Bayer, Esq. Bayer, Wishman & Leotta, 201 North Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 (800) 477 3111 Fx: (213) 975 1443

Jane Scott 3384 McLaughlin Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 (310) 745 3770 Fx: (310) 745 3772

Respondent, Graham E. Berry 3384 McLaughlin Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 (310) 745-3771.

Interrogatory No. 32:

Identify by author, recipient, date, and subject matter each document that supports or otherwise relates to any fact or which supports or otherwise relates to each defense you contend exists in relation to Count Eight in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 32:

Letter Graham E.Berry to the State Bar [Teri Goldade, Esq.] dated March 8,2001 including the enclosures and the documents incorporated by reference on pages 1 and 2 therein and throughout.

COUNT NINE - FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

Interrogatory No. 33:

State each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count Nine in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 33:

(a) Respondent has not "willfully violated the provisions of Business and Professions Code, section 6103 [or any other statutory or disciplinary provision]," and has not "willfully [disobeyed or violated] an order of the court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent's profession which he ought in good faith to do or to forbear" as alleged by the State Bar.

(b) Count Nine lacks factual and legal merit. It represents a failure too independently investigate and evaluate the allegations of Respondents litigation adversary, the Church of Scientology, acting through lawyer complainants Gerner and Wager. Thus, it is asserted in bad faith. Respondent is informed and believes that the said sanctions order was timely complied with in or about December 1999.The relevant complaint herein was not made by a client but by Respondent's regular litigation adversary the Church of Scientology.

(c) The Church of Scientology asserted the baseless allegations supporting Count Nine in the joint letters of Michael Gerner, Esq. and Donald Wager, Esq. dated November 24,1999 and December 20,1999.

(d) The Affirmative Defenses of: (1) Absence of any prior record of discipline over many years; (2) Good faith of member; (3) Lack of harm; (4) extreme emotional difficulties; (5) Co-operation; (6) Good character of Respondent; (7) Remorse and Atonement; (8) Passage of time/rehabilitation; (9) Fraud and Conspiracy; (10) Constructive Fraud;(11) Abuse of Process; (12) Unclean hands; (13) Equitable estoppel; (14) Illegality; (15) Inability; (16) Void /voidable orders; (17) Denials of due process, violations of constitutional, civil and human rights; (18) Bias; Appearance of Bias; Selective Enforcement: Failure to properly investigate; prosecutorial misconduct and pre-determination; (19) Improper Venue, Denial of Due Process.

(e) Justification and self-defense.

(f) Lesser of two evils

Interrogatory No. 34:

State each fact which supports each defense which you contend exists in relation to Count Nine in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 34:

The sanctions were granted in connection with the Discovery Responses of Respondents client Dr.Anders. Contrary to Respondent's strong advise, Dr.Anders insisted on including information and materials with his discovery responses that became the subject of objection and sanction. This occurred at the same time as Respondent was suffering from "severe depression" and "overwhelm" as a result of the Church of Scientology's small army of lawyers engaged against him. Shortly thereafter the State Bar suggested to Respondent that he dismantle his law practice, cease public legal practice [and work as an in-house counsel], while he recovered sufficient to return to litigation and trial lawyering. See Respondents December 2,1999 letter to the State Bar in connection with the Hurtado and these matters. Neither the Church of Scientology nor Kendrick L.Moxon, Esq. had anything whatever to do with the Northwestern v. Anders case. Notwithstanding, a declaration by Kendrick L.Moxon, Esq. was filed. Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq. is one of the Church of Scientology's primary attorneys. His declaration detailed the various sanctions orders and vexatious litigant ruling that the Church had recently obtained against Respondent and suggested that the Court should similarly punish Respondent. Respondent had arranged to transfer the handling of the Northwestern Mutual Life v. Stephen Anders case to Jayesh Patel, Esq. of Parker, Mills & Patel. It was agreed that Anders would pay the sanctions as part of the transfer arrangements. Recently, Jayesh Patel advised Respondent that the sanctions were indeed paid in approx. December 1999. Like Hurtado and other matters included in the Gerner and Wager complaint regarding Hurtado and these matters, the instant complaint was not made by a client but, in effect, the Church of Scientology which is Respondent's regular litigation adversary bound by the Church's Fair Game policies and practices to "utterly destroy Respondent by any means possible."

See Interrogatory Responses No.37 to 40.

Interrogatory No. 35:

Identify by name, the current or last known business and residential addresses and telephone numbers each person who has any knowledge of any fact which supports each defense, which you contend, exists in relation to Count Nine in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 35:

Duane E. McWaine, MD 1314 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 101D Los Angeles, CA 90024 (310) 474-5055

Jayesh Patel, Esq. Parker, Mills & Patel 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 622-4441

Robert McKennon, Esq. Barger & Wolen 19800 McArthur Boulevard, 8 th Fl. Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 757 2800 (Fax) (949) 752 6313

Paul Strabala, CPA 6255 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1904 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Ph: (323) 934 2400 Fax:(323) 934 2935

Leon Bayer, Esq. Bayer, Wishman & Leotta, 201 North Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 (800) 477 3111 Fx: (213) 975 1443

Jane Scott 3384 McLaughlin Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 (310) 745 3770 Fx: (310) 745 3772

Respondent, Graham E. Berry 3384 McLaughlin Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 (310) 745-3771.

Interrogatory No. 36:

Identify by author, recipient, date, and subject matter each document that supports or otherwise relates to any fact or which supports or otherwise relates to each defense you contend exists in relation to Count Nine in the NDC.

Response To Interrogatory No. 36:

(a) Letter, Graham E.Berry to Robert McKennon, September 19,2001, settlement re sanctions in early 2000.cc Terri Goldade, Esq. and Jayesh Patel, Esq.

(b) Fax letter and enclosures, Jayesh Patel, Esq, to Terri Goldade, Esq., September 21,2001,re April 5,2000 Settlement Agreement between Northwestern and Anders.

(c) Fax letter and enclosures, Jayesh Patel, Esq. to Terri Goldade, Esq., dated September 21,2001,re March 9,2000 and Match 20,2000 re Settlement Agreement between Anders and Northwestern which also included the payment of the sanctions.

(d) Declaration of Kendrick L.Moxon, Esq. dated November_, 1999 and filed in support of sanctions request by Northwestern Mutual Life.

(e) Letter Graham E.Berry to the State Bar [Teri Goldade, Esq.] dated March 8,2001 including the enclosures and the documents incorporated by reference on pages 1 and 2 therein and throughout.

Dated: October 11, 2001 ___/Signed/_____________________ Graham E.Berry, Respondent Pro Per

VERIFICATION

I declare under penalty of perjury according to the laws of the State of California that I have prepared and read the foregoing responses to the State Bar's Interrogatories No.1 to 36 and that the foregoing Interrogatory Responses No. 1 to 36 to the State Bar's Interrogatories No. 1-36 are, to the best of my knowledge, and/or information and belief, true and correct. Executed this 11th day of October, 2001, at Los Angeles, CA. /Signed/ __________________________ Graham E. Berry, Declarant

PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE

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

I am over the age of 18 years, I am an officer of this court [but upon voluntary inactive status] and I am the respondent herein. My business and personal address is 3384 McLaughlin Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90066.

On October 11, 2001, I personally served the following documents described as:

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (Nos. 1-44) PART ONE, Nos. 1- 36.

On the interested parties in this proceeding, addressed as follows, by delivery to the receptionist at the State Bar offices:

The State Bar of California
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
Terrie L.Goldade, Esq.
Agustin Hernandez, Esq.
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299

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

Executed on this 11th day of October, 2001, at Los Angeles, California.

/Signed/
__________________________
Graham E. Berry