H. Keith Henson
P.O. Box 60012
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 325-7533
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MICHAEL HURTADO ) Case No. BC208227 ) Plaintiff, ) REPLY TO OPPOSITION, ) MOTION FOR LIMITED v. ) PROTECTIVE ORDER ) GRAHAM E. BERRY ) Defendant. ) TIME 9:00 a.m. ____________________________________ DATE: Sept. 14, 2000 DEPT: 10 If the court wishes to dispose of witness's request for a protective order most expeditiously, it could reject the plaintiffs pleadings on the basis of the reply going over the page limit--without even a motion for excess pages. Also, the motion was not properly served on the witness. I permitted the motion to be emailed to me and exhibits to be faxed on the representation of Ava Paquette that the exhibits were no more than 40 pages--my fax paper capacity is about 50 pages. The cover sheet says 124 pages. I had to reload paper twice and exhibits R and S were missing. [13 remaining pages received September 11, 2000.] But if the court wishes to go to the meat . . . the reply states "This case is not about Mr. Berry's dispute with the Church of Scientology, . . . " and then proceeds in the text and exhibits to show exactly the opposite. A simple count of the words "Hurtado" and "Scientology" is instructive, because the "S" word is used in the body twice as often as the "H" word, and most of the text and exhibits are about Scientology cases. Mr. Moxon is not a random attorney hired by some young man "done wrong" by his lover. Kendrick Moxon is scientology's leading in-house attorney and a Scientologist of many years standing. Virtually all his work is for or related to Scientology. Mr. Moxon was actively involved at least back to 1977 and was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the largest ever known criminal infiltration of the US government. "In or about October, 1979, the Honorable Charles Richey accepted a stipulation of evidence in United States vs Mary Sue Hubbard, et al., Criminal No. 78-401 (D.C.D.C.) The signers of that stipulation included Michael Hertzberg, Esq., who is presently Mr. Moxon's co-counsel in the McPherson case, and United States Attorney Carl Rauh. At pages 212 - 214 of that stipulation, Mr. Moxon, then as now affiliated with Scientology, is identified as having knowingly produced some nine pages of forged handwriting exemplars in response to a grand jury subpoena, and having sworn in an accompanying affidavit to the authenticity of the exemplars." [From papers filed in a case in Florida.] More recently, Mr. Moxon is known to have solicited at least three individuals for use in actions against those Scientology perceived as enemies. Scott, in the case where Scientology destroyed and took over the Cult Awareness Network, Cipriano, after suborning perjury from him against Berry backfired, and Hurtado, who was solicited by Mr. Moxon and Mr. Ingram to use against Mr. Berry. (The court may not be aware, but Mr. Hurtado is spending a year in jail and ten years probation for unrelated drunken criminal acts. The Scientology law firm is not the slightest concerned about the potential consequences--ten years revoked probation plus new charges--of suborning perjury at trial from Mr. Hurtado to use against Mr. Berry. If the court has the slightest concern for the well-being of the plaintiff, the court might want to question Mr. Hurtado in camera and consider if the firm of Moxon and Kobrin has the plaintiff's best (or any) interest in mind.) Mr. Berry is not only my lawyer, he is one of a small but increasing number of people who seek to reform Scientology or break its (now shrinking) power to defraud and hurt people and to corrupt the administrative, judicial and legislative institutions of the state. Like it or not, this court is one of the places where a battle to preserve democracy from the depraved cult is taking place. (The battle is much further along in European countries where the corruptive power of Scientology is being curbed in France, Germany, England, Belgium, and Spain, or as has happened in Greece, broken.) Scientology attorney Paquette included as exhibit D a declaration I wrote July 10, 1998 where the first paragraph stated that "Graham Berry is no longer representing me in this matter" (the copyright case) and attempts to parlay this into a waver of attorney-client privilege. Mr. Berry has been my counsel in this and a number of other matters since then, and is currently my counsel for surrender notice from the District Attorney in Riverside County on pending criminal charges involving purported threats of the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction. (I was "detained" on a defective citizens arrest by Scientology because I corrected a net posting about the accuracy of terminal guided ballistic missiles and posted a paragraph from a science fiction story). However, I am pleased that the scientology lawyers included this exhibit because very next paragraph relates directly to the need for a protective order. It reads "This is the same Helena Kobrin who (with Alan Cartwright) assaulted the defendant in Mr. Hogan's office in front of Mr. Rosen and court reporter Howard Schroeder (CSR 1123) per the declaration dated June 19, 1998 and filed with he court June 22, 1998)." While this might not be enough to rise to the level of Judicial estoppel, the statement about assault on the witness by members of the Moxon and Kobrin firm was provided to this court (without comment to the contrary) by the firm itself. It presumably carries equal weight to the first paragraph, amounting to an admission by the Kobrin and Moxon firm that the witness has previously been assaulted in a deposition by members of this firm. (Witness *did* file charges with the San Jose Police Department as mentioned in Exhibit A.) Plaintiff makes a point that Mr. Rosen, Plaintiff's co-counsel and a paragon of virtue, has been deposing the witness recently. Mr. Rosen's attitude toward the judicial system has previously been recognized. See, e.g., Cury vs Philip Morris USA, 93 Civ. 2395, 1995 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14798 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1995); (Deposition taken in Korea suppressed due to the behavior of Samuel D. Rosen during the deposition,and the witness' resultant departure from the deposition.); Schering Corporation vs Vitarine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 124 F.R.D. 580 (D.C.D.N.J. 1989) (Samuel D. Rosen, his co-counsel, and his client assessed at least $50,000.00 in Rule 11 sanctions because of Mr. Rosen's false oral and written representations to the court (money assessment only reversed on appeal.); Unique Concepts, Inc. vs Brown, 115 F.R.D. 292 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1987) (Samuel D. Rosen sanctioned for conduct "undertaken in bad faith, intended to harass and delay, and reflect[ing] a willful disregard for the orderly process of justice."). Ms Paquette notes Mr. Berry being sanctioned, but neglects to mention her own firms history. In May, 1994, Helena K. Kobrin and her firm (then known as "Bowles & Moxon") were ordered to pay $17,775.00 in sanctions for the presentation and prosecution of a frivolous civil RICO claim on behalf of RTC [a Scientology shell]. Religious Technology Center vs Gerbode, No. CV 93-2226 AWT, 1994 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6432 (D.C.C.D.Ca.). With respect to Exhibit J, it should be noted that Judge Williams did not disclose the employer relation his SO (now wife?) had with a branch of Scientology at the time he made the vexatious litigant ruling. If a number of Scientology related rulings look strange or out of character to this court, I suggest reading http://www.lermanet.com/reference/JesseinWoller.htm where Mr. Prince provides first hand information on influencing judges. Paragraph 34 reads (in part): "34. Another unit was also organized within CSI. This unit was called MFTC for Mission Find The Crimes. The MFTC's unit was literally what the title implies. MFTC members worked full time investigating any judge sitting on the Wollersheim case, the judges' family and friends; . . ." The reputation of Scientology is well known in the Los Angeles Court system, so witness's expectations are unlikely to come as a surprise to this court. If this court has any embarrassing incidents which can be located clear back to grade school, there is an excellent chance one of Scientology's investigators (such as Mr. Ingram) has found or will find it. Fortunately times have changed and with a few exceptions such as murder, public reaction is "so what?." On the other hand, a publicly reported attempt by Scientology to subvert a judge would result in world wide fame and admiration for the judge involved no matter what Scientology investigators found (due to the reach of the Internet). I suspect a number of judges and other officials will be found compromised as the trickle of Scientology defectors turns into a flood or Scientology's department of dirty tricks (OSA) is raided again by law enforcement agents. (See The American Lawyer, December 1980, SCIENTOLOGY'S WAR AGAINST JUDGES, by James B. Stewart, Jr. http://alfa.ist.utl.pt/~dif/ic/courts/judges.htm --find by putting Richey American Lawyer Scientology in www.google.com) Also from the Jesse Prince declaration, 39 (e) reads: "e. If Scientology did not like what was going on in a particular court, we would just order the lawyer to file a lawsuit in another court to tie up the plaintiff and his lawyers on trumped up charges. This policy carried out L. Ron Hubbard's admonition: "NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES. DO, yourself, much MORE CHARGING and you will WIN." Further, these new lawsuits could be used as intelligence gathering operations to conduct discovery that the court that we did not like, would never let us conduct." This is the exact origin of the deposition subpoena. The bankruptcy court has been restrictive in the non-financial questions it will permit being asked of me. This deposition also coincided with a hearing in my bankruptcy case in San Jose, which Scientology is attempting to convert to a Chapter 7 and take my house. It requires me to go directly from a hearing there on Sept. 13 to this hearing on the 14th. (The initial deposition date was long known to be the date I was scheduled to take my daughter Amber to college.) From a transcript of Aug. 14, 2000 outside the cult's razor wire guarded compound near Hemet, California: [Frank] Are you going to give me your permission to speak with Amber when she comes to school? [Keith] You realize that that is considered a threat? [Frank] Is she starting school Aug. 28? Just asking permission . . . The transcript has been posted on the net and the tape and transcript are in hands of law enforcement agents because of veiled kidnapping threats to "interview" (i.e. interrogate) my daughter within their desert compound. Frank is Frank Petty, a thug who (I believe) works for Moxon and Kobrin and dogs my steps when I picket Scientology's desert compound over the recent deaths of two young women, including the daughter of Kendrick Moxon. See www.parishioner.org/osha for the government report which claims a 20 year old woman removed a 230 pound manhole cover from a transformer vault, placed a ladder two feet shorter than the vault was deep inside, entered, and was electrocuted. To see why so many former Scientologists are suspicious about this death, put "chain locker" (including quotes) in www.google.com and read of numerous previous times Scientology has confined people in similarly dangerous spaces. Responding to the conclusion points: "(1) his publicly made statements . . . ." These speak for themselves, no need to repeat in deposition. I do not have the training to make useful comments about the abilities of a lawyer which would require me to be one, or a psychologist or both.. "(2) any information (deleted)." I know no names, nor would I be able to recognize the faces of anyone of any age or sex who has had an intimate relations with Mr. Berry. "(3) the circumstances surrounding . . . ." I received an account about the Cipriano deposition from Mr. Berry in email. It was of great news interest to the 100,000 or more people who follow this soap opera daily on the news group alt.religion.scientology since Mr. Berry is on of the heroes whose adventures are avidly followed. (A list of heroes is maintained by Scientology itself at www.parishioners.org). The email was directed to a number of people, and the basic information, that Cipriano had recanted the 1994 declaration had been made public so I assumed it was OK to make Mr. Berry's account public. I still don't think a news story about a deposition could be sealed by any court without getting into issues of prior restraint, but at Mr. Berry's request, I canceled the article. Here on this page the witness has provided answers under penalty of perjury (see declaration) to the three points "plaintiff" (actually Scientology) purportedly wishes to ask me about in deposition. Thus there is no need for a deposition and the court could save everyone a lot of trouble by simply quashing the subpoena. Alternately, since the "plaintiff's" lawyers themselves have brought to the court an account of a previous assault on the witness in deposition, the court is requested to provide protective orders for the witness if the deposition proceeds. As this court may have concluded by itself, Scientology has a relation to the judicial process much like that Human Immune Virus has to the human immune system, namely Scientology subverts the judicial system. Its reputation for doing this is so well known that few of those involved think Scientology can be brought under control by any branch of the government. It is a matter which may be decided in the streets rather than the courts. Respectfully submitted, H. Keith Henson