In Berry vs Moxon motion/memorandum of points of authority:

"The violations reached their zenith during the pendancy of this lawsuit when attorney Moxon was saying one thing on the courts record and doing the exact opposite outside of the courtroom. At a minimum, the totality of the numerous violations directed, by Moxon, at Berry, since 1993, include impersonating a police officer, intimidation, coercion, extortion, solicitation, bribery, witness tampering, perjury, subornation of perjury, blackmail, collusion, obstruction of justice, mail fraud, wire fraud, malicious prosecution, vexatious litigation, stalking, wiretapping, invasion of privacy, libel, slander, bankruptcy fraud, insurance fraud, and fraud upon the courts (given the fact that Moxon has actually filed perjurious documents in various courts) and conspiracy to commit all of the foregoing."

Great resume of what scientology wants its attorney to do to defend its own:

"include impersonating a police officer, intimidation, coercion, extortion, solicitation, bribery, witness tampering, perjury, subornation of perjury, blackmail, collusion, obstruction of justice, mail fraud, wire fraud, malicious prosecution, vexatious litigation, stalking, wiretapping, invasion of privacy, libel, slander, bankruptcy fraud, insurance fraud, and fraud upon the courts and conspiracy to commit all of the foregoing"

-- roger gonnet
Le Secticide
<http://home.worldnet.fr/gonnet>
et
<http://www.home.ch/~spaw1736/sciento-vs-internet>

From: Keith Henson <hkhenson@netcom8.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Scientology attorneys: Berry vs Moxon
Date: 19 Apr 2000 17:21:33 GMT
Message-ID: <8dkput$agd$2@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>

Grady noticed this:

What kind of attorney is Moxon's co-counsel Samuel D. Rosen of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker? Judge for yourself.

Samuel D. Rosen of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker counsels Judge Ronald M. Whyte to *lie* in an official proceeding before the district court. The issue was apparently leafletters handing out material about the trial in front of the federal courthouse in San Jose.

(excerpted from RTC v. Henson, C-96-20271 RMW Northern District of California May 6, 1998, volume 3)

p249

17 So I do ask, your Honor -- I'm not asking you to tar

18 Mr. Henson with it, I'm just asking you to instruct the jury

19 that it was not us.

20 And in fact, I'll go a step further. If your Honor

21 wants to tell the jury, I know it's not truthful, but if your

22 honor wants to tell the jury, I will consent to an instruction

23 that is what you mentioned yesterday, the jury should not

24 believe it was handed out by either party to this case. At

25 least that's a neutral instruction.

p250

1 The Court: I can't say that because that's not

2 true.

3 Mr. Rosen: That's the problem. I was trying to

4 figure out some pragmatic way of taking the stigma off my

5 client. And I appreciate it's not true, but I don't know how

6 else to deal with it, Judge.