Henson on Berry communications.
29 Jul 2001
email@example.com (Keith Henson)
This one is really the index letter to the rest of them. It failed to post on the first try. Keith Henson
GRAHAM E. BERRY
3384 McLaughlin Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone: (310) 745-3771
Fax: (310) 745-3772
July 27, 2001
Terrie Goldade, Esq.
Augustin Hernandez, Esq.
Deputy Trial Counsel
The State Bar of California
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel Enforcement
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299
Re: Case No. 99-0-12791, Complainants: Michael Gerner, Esq., and Donald Wager, Esq.
[Real Parties In Interest: Church of Scientology International Office of Special Affairs; Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq.; Helena Kobrin, Esq.; Ava Paquette, Esq.; Elliot Abelson, Esq.; Samuel D. Rosen, Esq.; Donald Wager, Esq.; Thomas Byrnes, Esq.; Eugene Ingram]
Dear Ms. Goldade and Mr. Hernandez:
Reference is made to your letter dated July 24, 2001. In that regard, I apologize that it has taken me two days to reply. In accordance with Judge Brott's suggestion, I am "getting on with discovery" during the very short interval I have been granted in which to pursue that. I also have to deal, as the victim, with the truly culpable lawyers herein while they press on with the cult's uncompleted agenda against me. In that regard, I enclose a copy of a letter delivered earlier today to the law firm of Moxon & Kobrin.
I do thank you for expressing your concerns as to the magnitude of documents that support my objective and subjective basis for filing the lawsuits enumerated in the Tenth Cause of Action. You have told the State Bar Court, and me, that count ten is "the strongest count" you have filed against me. It was my understanding of Rule 182's requirements that I must indicate the universe of documents that will form the basis of my defense and I have done so. It is disingenuous of you to now complain there are too many documents that relate to my "good faith" in filing the relevant lawsuits. However, I also do not believe your review of any of them will provide you with evidence that contradicts and incriminates me. On the contrary, I believe that it all corroborates and exculpates me. It is your decision as to whether you plough through it or not. It is my problem as to how I will cull a digestible and representative selection to offer in summary judgment, or at trial commencing December 11, 2001. Awaiting a summary judgment motion is likely your best discovery approach.
Clearly, due process requires that this matter be abated until after your pregnancy leave, and that I am offered a meaningful discovery opportunity herein. It is, of course, your choice when you have children. However, my due process rights should not be secondary to your maternity schedule. Your insistence in that regard is curious after writing, on May 2, 2001, "Please have your response to me by 5 p.m. on May 10, 2001, because I start a new assignment in trials on May 14, 2001, and need to have my current matters resolved before then or they will be transferred to another attorney." Your failure to rotate the matter to another attorney is very curious indeed, in light of the number of State Bar prosecutors who have handled this matter and who did not file charges against me until after it was moved to your desk. It was then that the Cult realized it was Moxon & Kobrin, Abelson, Wager and Gerner who had been caught dropping their (proverbial) professional pants with regard to Mr. Hurtado. Perhaps, we will have to explore the impact of these procedural and other due process issues before the California Supreme Court and, if necessary, beyond.
Meanwhile, with the exception of the later delivered Wager deposition, the most relevant pleadings were "provided to the investigator." They were, in fact, voluminous. As you said to Judge Marcus, ". . . too voluminous to review!" Consequently, the State Bar, in concert with Wager and Gerner's hysterical insistence, have filed disciplinary charges that had not been properly and fully investigated. You may now insist that all of this material be delivered to the State Bar, (and yes, given your track record with the cult, I would most certainly have security concerns). If Moxon and the cult can conduct the largest ever known theft of documents from over twelve U.S.Federal Government departments (including the Department of Justice), and be caught by a stupid Saturday night mistake with an access card, how easy would it be to steal documents from the State Bar? Indeed, there is already evidence that they stole the draft Cipriano complaint from my office and a stack of documents from Ford Green's law office as well.
I do not have a photocopier for you to use or proper facilities in which you could review the boxes which I am now working with. I do not have a list of what is in the boxes now.
However, I was making good progress on the "roadmap" of what I believe are relevant to the pending allegations cross-referenced to the binder-organized sets of relevant documents. This is vital before I will agree to any settlement of the pending matters (if ever) and before discovery can be completed and trial take place. Due process requires nothing less. In that regard, I delivered you the first 84 pages of cross-referenced chronology last Friday. It is about 25% complete as to the criminal, civil, unethical conduct and other time-lined and cross-referenced evidence. I needed about another four weeks of intensive undiverted attention to properly complete the task.
However, you have insisted that discovery must now be conducted and the trial completed in 4 ˝ months because you have so much personal investment in completing the prosecution of this case. It also has to be tried in accordance with your presumed labor and delivery schedule. Unfortunately, experience teaches us that only God can know when you may actually be delivered of your child and God is unlikely to share this knowledge with us. If we were to wait until after the birth of your child and your six months of maternity leave, you will not be able to pick up the case until next July (2002!).
As a result, among other things, of the Wager and Gerner's now dismissed Hurtado State Bar Complaint, I have voluntarily agreed to transfer to "inactive status." So what is the actual problem with according me due process, stipulating to a continuance of the trial date and going off to have your child without the stress of preparing to try a "barn burner" during your third trimester? After all, as Judge Brott commented last week, you do have other counsel on the case!
Accordingly, because of your maternity requirements, I have had to cease work on the "roadmap" and propound discovery. That roadmap, and the exhibits, is also essential for my approach to vacate the underlying court orders so demonstrably procured by fraud against a once successful litigator now on public relief. The Cipriano matter has to be extensively documented and briefed to the Presiding Judge before I can even present it to Judge Williams. I may even have to post security. See generally, C.C.P.§ 391-391.7.
The same roadmap is required for the Rule 11 motions to federal court in the Hurtado v. Berry and the Barton v. Berry cases. It is also required for the Jeavons and Pattinson courts. Additionally, it is also required by law enforcement. However, as the cult's interests would require, I must postpone all that to avail myself of this very short discovery opportunity. Otherwise, you would successfully oppose any motion I make under State Bar Rule 181 (d) or to continue trial. Being only one person, without any assistance, your maternity schedule has imposed a conundrum and Catch 22 upon me. This is the sort of litigation tactic that the cult elevates to a very fine, abusive and subversive art.
Most of the voluminous evidence in this matter is already within one of the many previously dismissed cult complaints against me. I have suggested you access those instead of my having to try and arrange the funds for the formidable cost of recopying them all. Your outrageous response is as follows:
"If we understand correctly, you stated during the status conference that you believe that the State Bar has [almost] all of the documents it needs from you, but they are not a part of this file. Rather you want the State Bar to incur costs of pulling all of its files in relation to all of the [false] complaints ever filed [unsuccessfully] against [me] from storage, cull out privileged and confidential materials…You have an obligation to co-operate in this case. If you believe that you have documents relevant to this case, you must provide them. They are your claimed defenses and mitigation; you need to provide the relevant documents."
As to your page two, paragraphs 2, 3 and 5, I am only one person working 10-14 hours per day, six to seven days a week (against medical advice that is in your own file) to satisfy your maternity schedule (and the cult's agenda). What would you like me to provide first, bearing in mind the short discovery schedule imposed by your advancing pregnancy?
In the meantime, I refer you to page 2 of my December 15, 2001, letter to Ms. Brenda Barnes and Box 3 - Petition for Mandate, volume four, exhibit 21(Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings, Friday, August 20, 1999).
It is your right to, " request that the court set up a discovery conference to help us." However, as to "a settlement conference to continue our discussions with Judge Marcus in an attempt to resolve this matter in its entirety", I see no point to this at this time. Perhaps once discovery is completed we can again explore any settlement options. However, the cult's litigation needs dictate a State Bar decision that is terrorizing; which they can use against others and me. I will not willingly stipulate to that at this time. My previous offer is withdrawn. In all of the circumstances, I believe all of your Counts are defensible. However, I cannot stop you from a unilateral dismissal anymore than I could stop complainants Wager and Gerner's client-cult's dismissal of the two Hurtado v. Berry cases and the Church of Scientology v. Fishman & Geertz case.
Finally, regarding your reference to the criminal aspects of what is before the State Bar, my July 20, 2001, letter and enclosures went to certain local law enforcement officials. I am not submitting further materials to the FBI and Attorney General's office until the Crime Timeline is substantially complete. Why is this of concern to you anyway, in all of the unusual circumstances of the State Bar's handling of this unique and exceptional matter?
I am ready to discuss these matters further with you. I wish you a pleasant weekend. I shall spend mine engaged in preparing discovery to propound herein.
On a personal note, I do wish you the very best with your pregnancy and family. I truly hope that your child never suffers what so many other children have suffered at the hands of this destructive cult. Similarly, I hope that you are never a grieving parent who has lost her child and family to this or any other cults' insidious tentacles. If you are, please do not call the Cult Awareness Network. Moxon, Kobrin and the Church of Scientology used "the Bowles & Moxon Plan 100" and Jason Scott to bankrupt and takeover that cult information resource. It now operates as a "false front " for the Church of Scientology. Call CAN for help with your cult-involved child and instead you will receive "fair game" harassment from the Church of Scientology, its attorneys and private investigators such Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Ableson and Ingram. There are countless parents who never thought it would ever happen to either them or their children. I pray that this never happens to you!
Very truly yours,
Enclosure: Letter Berry to Parquette, July 27,2001.
Cc: Augustin Hernadez, Esq.
Michael Nisperos, Esq.
Chief Trial Counsel
State Bar of California
Any text written by other authors which may be quoted in part or in full within this exposure of the Scientology cult is provided according to U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates which may be reviewed at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html If you're an author of an article and do not wish to allow it to be mirrored or otherwise provided on The Skeptic Tank web site, let us know and it will be removed fairly promptly.E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank