---

Scientology Crime Syndicate

The evil that the Scientology crime syndicate stands for can't be exposed often enough to dispell the utter amazement one feels when learning of new attempts by the syndicate to silence those who expose them.

In this specific case, Grady Ward solicited documented information on the criminal cult's criminal felonies. The crime syndicate once again attempted to abuse the United States court system by accusing Grady Ward of soliciting so-called "secret information," claiming that Grady Ward was employing "opposite meaning."

This level of criminality is what the Scientology crime syndicate stands for. Any exposure of the crime syndicate's criminal reason for existance is met with exactly what the crime syndicate did in this case. The Scientologist's dead god L. Ron Hubbard demanded this very behavior from his followers and, as any cultist will tell you, one must always follow the dictates of one's dead gods, no matter how fatal.


From grady@gradyward.com Mon Oct 05 18:53:09 1998
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 01:53:09 GMT

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 
CALIFORNIA

RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a Scientology Corporation,

                        Plaintiff,

          v.

GRADY WARD, an individual,

                        Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. C-96-20207-RMW (EAI)

DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR OSC RE: CONTEMPT; DEFENDANT'S 
COUNTERMOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND DISMISSAL


Date: October 9, 1998 Time: 9:00 a.m. Ctrm: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte



	Once more the well-funded plaintiff attempts to legally 
batter a pro per in forma pauperis defendant with an utterly 
frivolous motion for contempt based upon the absurd reasoning that 
the defendant's words mean exactly the opposite of their plain 
meaning. The plaintiff presents no evidence within or without the 
record showing that the defendant customarily or in fact ever 
engages in the topsy-turvy reasoning alleged. The motion should be 
denied and the plaintiff ought to be warned to stop its frivolous 
and unseemly motions designed to intimidate the defendant from 
lawfully inquiry into the frank and admitted criminality of 
scientology.

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION

The plaintiff has insisted multiple times in letters to this court 
and the court of Judge Jeremy Fogel that the instant lawsuit is 
settled. While the defendant disputes this conclusion based upon 
the May 12, 1998 settlement negotiations transcript, even if the 
plaintiff were correct then a motion for a finding of civil 
contempt is no longer within the jurisdiction of this court. A 
civil contempt proceeding becomes moot upon termination of the 
underlying controversy that gave rise to the litigation from which 
it stemmed.1 Further, if the underlying litigation is settled, the 
preliminary injunction as modified May 7, 1997 must have been 
dissolved along with the termination of the litigation. However 
from the facts alleged by the plaintiff, it is clear that the 
motion is one for criminal contempt, or one of a mixed character of 
civil and criminal contempt. The plaintiff alleges that the 
defendant violated the preliminary injunction as modified on May 7, 
1997 and that the defendant ought therefore to be punished for that 
alleged violation.2 Of course as in the case of any criminal or 
mixed contempt hearing, this defendant will insist upon the 
appointment of counsel, the right to cross-examine witnesses, to 
produce evidence, and that the prosecution establish every element 
of the alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.3 Since 
significant questions of prior restraint and free speech exist4, 
the defendant has no doubt that this criminal proceeding will be 
closely followed to see how easily a rich, corrupt organization can 
silence the lawful speech of a critic under color of law.5 Whether 
mixed or purely criminal, any hearing regarding an alleged contempt 
will treated as criminal for the purposes of review.6

PLAINTIFF HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

	Accompanying the plaintiff's motion for an order to show 
cause is the declaration of plaintiff's counsel, Helena K. Kobrin. 
Besides being counsel for the plaintiff and thus ethically 
disqualified from testifying in her client's case, she nowhere 
states how she has "personal knowledge" of the alleged facts within
her declaration, and in fact contradicts her own testimony with 
paragraph four of her declaration of August 27, 1998 that "these
postings w[ere] downloaded by a staff member of the Church of 
Scientology International in the regular course of Internet 
monitoring and [then] routed to me." This is an admission of
hearsay and further inadmissible because it ultimately comes from a 
witness, Rhea Smith, herself previously disqualified in this action 
under F.R.C.P. 37(c)(1).  The defendant objects to and moves to 
strike this testimony as unauthenticated, hearsay, and hearsay 
within hearsay of alleged e-mail or postings.

DEFENDANT DID NOT SOLICIT ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY

	Even if the alleged evidence were admissible and accurate, 
it proves that the defendant followed the preliminary injunction of 
May 7, 1997 while carrying on vigorous debate and inquiry within 
his constitutional rights into the admitted criminal behavior of 
the Church of Scientology that is a "...corrupt and dangerous
organization that practices in medical quackery and coercive mind 
control, in the process bilking vulnerable individuals for 
thousands of dollars and endangering their health" (Wall Street
Journal, July 21, 1998 p. A14) Within the alleged solicitation, the 
following exclusions were specifically written: 'Excluding the 
so-called "Advanced Technology...' (Page 1, Decl. Helena Kobrin,
Ex. A.) 'You must supply enough information so I can independently 
determine what its copyright or other legal status is...' (Page 3, 
Decl. Helena Kobrin, Ex. A.) 'As always, nothing in this 
solicitation should be interpreted as a request or suggestion to 
violate any law. Nor should it be interpreted as a solicitation of 
the specific material listed below, which are know[n] as the 
"Advanced Technology," including the "NOTs."' (Page 3, Decl. Helena
Kobrin, Ex. A.) 'This is the official list of materials that I 
cannot directly nor indirectly solicit nor "encourage" you to
upload or send me: [list of 39 Advanced Technology works of 
plaintiff]' (Page 3-4, Decl. Helena Kobrin, Ex. A.) Then, in case 
of any legal doubt, there is a pointer to the full text of the 
modified preliminary injunction of May 7, 1997: 
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/2868/GradyWard/ 
LEGAL/Mod-Pre-Inj.pdf (Page 4, Decl. Helena Kobrin, Ex. A.) 
followed by yet another statement: 'in all cases you should 
interpret this solicitation as conforming to this temporary 
injunction and to other applicable law.' (Page 4, Decl. Helena 
Kobrin, Ex. A.)

	And in fact current participants in the 
alt.religion.scientology forum on the Internet who are not 
motivated by hatred and greed understand the defendant's posts to 
mean exactly what they say and not as some kind of convoluted code 
to violate the law (Decl. Grady Ward, Exhibit A.) How does the 
plaintiff overcome the simple and direct interpretation of these 
plain words? The plaintiff does not present any evidence at all 
that the defendant is in the rhetorical habit of meaning the 
opposite of what he says. So the plaintiff resorts to even more 
vague and speculative reasoning to support its unsupportable case. 
The plaintiff alleges that certain word choices and ancillary 
instructions represent a kind of code that the defendant is 
allegedly communicating to readers of alt.religion.scientology. 
This is reaching into the clouds of the absurd and, indeed, 
frivolous.

The text says that mail covers will be shredded because of the 
well-known unlawful harassment that has occurred within this 
litigation by agents of the convicted criminal cult of scientology. 
The scientologists will go to extreme measures of unlawful wiretap, 
burglary, theft, misrepresentation, fraud, and physical assault to 
ascertain the identities of their perceived enemies so that further 
criminal acts such as trespass, assault and obstruction of justice 
can be meted out to them for purely lawful acts of protest and 
dissent.7 The criminal behavior toward "enemies" of scientology is
an organic part of scientology's belief system as evidenced by 
scientology's "fair game" law (Id., Ex. B.) This defendant in
particular is being treated to scientology's "fair game" practice.
His elementary school children are being threatened (Id., Ex. C, 
D), criminal acts have been committed against the defendant's wife 
and mother by scientology (Id., Ex. F.). These last acts have been 
admitted by the plaintiff (Id., Ex. G). This unlawful harassment by 
scientology extends to others (Id., Ex. D et seq.) and is 
international in scope (Id., Ex. E., H, I).8 Former officers and 
the highest level executives of the plaintiff RTC have corroborated 
these findings and the intrinsic criminal behavior of the Church of 
Scientology (Id., Ex. H, I). It is obviously prudent for reasonable 
persons to protect themselves from such criminal activity while 
pursuing their First Amendment rights.

	The plaintiff then alleges that the explicit listing of the 
titles of the Advanced Technology is somehow another code meaning 
the opposite of what is plainly written. Directly quoting a 
preliminary injunction cannot be a crime.9 And in case of any 
misunderstanding, the text points to an Internet URL that when 
clicked upon presents verbatim the entire Preliminary Injunction as 
written by this court. The plaintiff simply fails to present any 
evidence to support their notion that these words - even if 
admissible - mean the opposite of what they plainly say. The 
plaintiff's motion should be denied and the plaintiff ought to be 
sanctioned for making a frivolous motion reminiscent of their 
earlier absurd motion for contempt made by Helena K. Kobrin (denied 
by this court) for the defendant simply quoting the titles of the 
NOTs.

	Finally, the defendant countermoves this court to finally 
grant the defendant's prior motion currently under submission 
requesting that this action be dismissed because of plaintiff's 
well-documented discovery fraud under F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1). This pro 
per defendant and this and other courts have been suffering the 
litigious abuses of the plaintiff for almost three years. Enough is 
enough.


					Respectfully submitted,

DATED: September 17, 1998			
______________________________________ GRADY WARD, in pro per, in 
forma pauperis

1 Gompers v. Buck's Stove and Range Co., 1911, 31 S.Ct. 492, 221 
U.S. 418, 452, 55 L.Ed. 797

2 If the purpose is to vindicate the authority of the court by 
punishing the wrongdoer, the proceeding is one for criminal 
contempt. (U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 1947, 67 S.Ct. 
677, 700-701, 330 U.S. 258, 302, 91 L.Ed. 884); See also Perry v. 
O'Donnell, 759 F.2d 702 (9th Cir., 1985)

3 See In re Oliver, 1948, 68 S.Ct. 499, 508, 333 U.S. 257, 275, 92 
L.Ed. 682 or Hicks on Behalf of Feiock v. Feiock, 1988, 108 S.Ct. 
1423, 485 U.S. 624, 99 L.Ed.2d 721; more generally Wright and 
Miller,  711 for Rule 42.

4 First Amendment limitations to contempt power: Craig v. Harney, 
1947, 67 S.Ct. 1249, 331 U.S. 367, 91 L.Ed. 1546; more generally 
Wright and Miller,  702 for Rule 42. 

5 Court of appeals may consider material outside of record when 
constitutional issues are at stake. (Hoffman v. U.S., 1951, 71 
S.Ct. 814, 819, 341 U.S. 479, 489, 95 L.Ed. 1118).

6 Penfield Co. of California v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 
1947, 67 S.Ct. 918, 330 U.S. 585, 91 L.Ed. 1117.

7 The cult of scientology's criminal history is pervasive. See, for 
example, U.S. v. Heldt, et al. (688 F.2d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 1980), 
cert. denied, 456 U.S. 926 (1982)); Wollersheim v. Scientology, 
Civ. No. B023193, (LASC No. C332827), and at the U.S. Supreme 
Court, U.S. 89-1361, U.S. 89-1367; United States v. Hubbard, et 
al., Crim No. 78-401, D.C.D.C. (1979); Vannier v. Superior Court of 
Los Angeles, 32 Ca.3d 163 (1982), Church of Scientology of Cal. V. 
Cazares, 638 F.2d 1272 (4th Cir. 1981), Founding Church of 
Scientology v. Webster, 802 F.2d 1948 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Florida Bar 
v. Vannier, 498 So.2d 896 (1986); Allard v. Church of Scientology 
of California, 58 Cal.App. 3d (1976).

8  For example in 1982 the full Supreme Court of Victoria Australia 
ruled that Scientology was not a religion or religious institution 
but a sham. The court ruled that Scientology was a body formed for 
an object that was illegal under criminal laws. Church of the New 
Faith v. Commissioner of Payroll Tax (May 5, 1982); In 1990 Spain 
arrested 71 of the top international leaders of scientology on 
charges ranging from fraud, forgery of public documents, tax 
evasion, and illicit association; In France in 1990, six 
scientology leaders were arrested for fraud. "This is a criminal
association day in and day out. It makes Jim and Tammy [Baker], 
look like kindergarten." (Vicki Aznaran, former president of RTC,
in Time Magazine, May 6, 1991)

9 Plaintiff's example of "Do not strike the Lehigh mine at 8 am
tomorrow morning" (Plaintiff's Motion for OSC, p 3 at 20) is not
analogous because the language of the sentence would not have 
occurred to anyone but for John L. Lewis' statement. In the instant 
case the language contained in the text is just that contained in 
the preliminary injunction.


2 DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR OSC RE: CONTEMPT; 
DEFENDANT'S COUNTERMOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND DISMISSAL No. 
C-96-20207-RMW (EAI)



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Business Security 5.5.2
Comment: grady@gradyward.com  +1 707 826 7712

iQEVAwUBNhl31hVVRh+jarp1AQG1LQf/SU1GhWRk9Fa3VgJzvKBPq+1bXeKMvS1z
orwB9HlYl60H88aVkyVCG0EiAslR3q96+j45FX+eifnUem8526XFyu+9GZnmGxNA
oZzdhKaTU4/WxonPiO0+3dH+hHqrIa99qBTpV7uA/zH+e7h0vD/ohqpTCPpOMBHn
9ujfR2zIxVfsk4XxOIYW7eEDMl6VokHuLb0NBmLdhVvNmd22Ce6nCsfTZbcsFKL6
bDS8vdKEiL+rpKHLwcSkkqhPJae/xbdR9pWoJGC881TPImegNGQphqXBnZjr4uCd
Dh5fjiRgvRE0W7TbsqTHr6NNBplQ/INisyTB9EiCGRJBX052ZRITKg==
=d+kC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Grady Ward  grady@gradyward.com  2F07 AD38 11D4 8493  7143 5E1C E699 2FF2
(707) 826-7712 voice      (707) 826-0360 fax    http://www.gradyward.com/


Click here for some additional truth about the Scientology crime syndicate: XENU.NET

---

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page.




This web page (and The Skeptic Tank) is in no way connected with nor part of the Scientology crime syndicate. To review the crime syndicate's absurdly idiotic web pages, check out www.scientology.org or any one of the many secret front groups the cult attempts to hide behind.

Further facts about this criminal empire may be found at Operation Clambake and FACTNet.
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank