The new doc: First Amended Answer & Cross-complaint is the one to read and consider.
Round one was a draw and checkmate.
The next move is Mr. Moxon’s and anything he does now is fraught with professional danger and potential criminal consequences. He cannot even attend his deposition without invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He cannot respond to the verified cross-complaint with a denial under oath, and he certainly cannot admit very much of it. Several ex federal prosecutors have opined that if Mr. Moxon, was really smart and well-advised he would do absolutely nothing more in the Moxon v. Berry case. He would allow me to enter default judgments and allow me to have the case dismissed, perhaps after agreeing to waive any appeal rights that may remain in exchange for a waiver of the $355.00 in court costs I have so far paid. Although Moxon would lose his case he would probably keep his law license. If he goes ahead with his usual “attack and never defend” strategy there is a strong chance he would put his law license and liberty in major jeopardy, and perhaps the liberty of David Miscavige, Mike Rinder, Elliot Abelson, Eugene Ingram and Ava Paquette too. However, it is more likely they will demonstrate the same arrogance as they have in the past and forge ahead, for the sake of a chance at getting $60,000 from a judgment proof defendant. Ah, the noble clash of justice against corruption, evil and greed. Fair play against fair game!
Incidentally, OSA seems to be lawyering up in readiness for something. This is a church leadership historically counseled by criminal defense attorneys such as Gerald Feffer of Williams & Connelly of Washington, DC, Gerald Chaleff of Los Angeles (and now on the LAPD Command Team as the LAPD attorney), Michael Hertzberg of New York and more recently former senior assistant U.S. Attorney and now white collar defense attorney David Schindler of Latham & Watkins.
Hot new information: OSA has written to the German State of Hamburg government accusing Mark and Claire Headley, Bruce Hines and me of not only being liars but worse, being “members of Anonymous, “a known Internet hate group,” and in my case being one of its attorneys. This new letter to Germany came from Anthony M. Glassman of the Beverly Hills law firm of Glassman, Browning, Saltsman & Jacobs, Inc. This is a firm that was founded by former assistant U.S. attorneys from the Central District of California. They also handle first amendment matters.
Why does “most ethical group on the planet” need to have so many consiglieres?
> The new doc: First Amended Answer & Cross-complaint is the one to read > and consider.
> Round one was a draw and checkmate.
Niice. Keep up the good work.
Best regards
Jens
- -- Key ID 0x09723C12, jenst...@tingleff.org Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mandriva Linux / odds and ends http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 510 708 "The weather: It's April, what do you expect?" Jeremy Paxman, Newsnight -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> The new doc: First Amended Answer & Cross-complaint is the one to read > and consider.
> Round one was a draw and checkmate.
> The next move is Mr. Moxon’s and anything he does now is fraught with > professional danger and potential criminal consequences. He cannot > even attend his deposition without invoking the Fifth Amendment > privilege against self-incrimination. He cannot respond to the > verified cross-complaint with a denial under oath, and he certainly > cannot admit very much of it. Several ex federal prosecutors have > opined that if Mr. Moxon, was really smart and well-advised he would > do absolutely nothing more in the Moxon v. Berry case. He would allow > me to enter default judgments and allow me to have the case dismissed, > perhaps after agreeing to waive any appeal rights that may remain in > exchange for a waiver of the $355.00 in court costs I have so far > paid. Although Moxon would lose his case he would probably keep his > law license. If he goes ahead with his usual “attack and never defend” > strategy there is a strong chance he would put his law license and > liberty in major jeopardy, and perhaps the liberty of David Miscavige, > Mike Rinder, Elliot Abelson, Eugene Ingram and Ava Paquette too. > However, it is more likely they will demonstrate the same arrogance as > they have in the past and forge ahead, for the sake of a chance at > getting $60,000 from a judgment proof defendant. Ah, the noble clash > of justice against corruption, evil and greed. Fair play against fair > game!
> Incidentally, OSA seems to be lawyering up in readiness for something. > This is a church leadership historically counseled by criminal defense > attorneys such as Gerald Feffer of Williams & Connelly of Washington, > DC, Gerald Chaleff of Los Angeles (and now on the LAPD Command Team as > the LAPD attorney), Michael Hertzberg of New York and more recently > former senior assistant U.S. Attorney and now white collar defense > attorney David Schindler of Latham & Watkins.
> Hot new information: OSA has written to the German State of Hamburg > government accusing Mark and Claire Headley, Bruce Hines and me of not > only being liars but worse, being “members of Anonymous, “a known > Internet hate group,” and in my case being one of its attorneys. This > new letter to Germany came from Anthony M. Glassman of the Beverly > Hills law firm of Glassman, Browning, Saltsman & Jacobs, Inc. This is > a firm that was founded by former assistant U.S. attorneys from the > Central District of California. They also handle first amendment > matters.
> Why does “most ethical group on the planet” need to have so many > consiglieres?
Huggs and kudos to you, Graham Berry! Making Moxon clam up and shake in his loafers is a major feat. Keep up the good work.
> > The new doc: First Amended Answer & Cross-complaint is the one to read > > and consider.
> > Round one was a draw and checkmate.
> > The next move is Mr. Moxon’s and anything he does now is fraught with > > professional danger and potential criminal consequences. He cannot > > even attend his deposition without invoking the Fifth Amendment > > privilege against self-incrimination. He cannot respond to the > > verified cross-complaint with a denial under oath, and he certainly > > cannot admit very much of it. Several ex federal prosecutors have > > opined that if Mr. Moxon, was really smart and well-advised he would > > do absolutely nothing more in the Moxon v. Berry case. He would allow > > me to enter default judgments and allow me to have the case dismissed, > > perhaps after agreeing to waive any appeal rights that may remain in > > exchange for a waiver of the $355.00 in court costs I have so far > > paid. Although Moxon would lose his case he would probably keep his > > law license. If he goes ahead with his usual “attack and never defend” > > strategy there is a strong chance he would put his law license and > > liberty in major jeopardy, and perhaps the liberty of David Miscavige, > > Mike Rinder, Elliot Abelson, Eugene Ingram and Ava Paquette too. > > However, it is more likely they will demonstrate the same arrogance as > > they have in the past and forge ahead, for the sake of a chance at > > getting $60,000 from a judgment proof defendant. Ah, the noble clash > > of justice against corruption, evil and greed. Fair play against fair > > game!
> > Incidentally, OSA seems to be lawyering up in readiness for something. > > This is a church leadership historically counseled by criminal defense > > attorneys such as Gerald Feffer of Williams & Connelly of Washington, > > DC, Gerald Chaleff of Los Angeles (and now on the LAPD Command Team as > > the LAPD attorney), Michael Hertzberg of New York and more recently > > former senior assistant U.S. Attorney and now white collar defense > > attorney David Schindler of Latham & Watkins.
> > Hot new information: OSA has written to the German State of Hamburg > > government accusing Mark and Claire Headley, Bruce Hines and me of not > > only being liars but worse, being “members of Anonymous, “a known > > Internet hate group,” and in my case being one of its attorneys. This > > new letter to Germany came from Anthony M. Glassman of the Beverly > > Hills law firm of Glassman, Browning, Saltsman & Jacobs, Inc. This is > > a firm that was founded by former assistant U.S. attorneys from the > > Central District of California. They also handle first amendment > > matters.
> > Why does “most ethical group on the planet” need to have so many > > consiglieres?
> Huggs and kudos to you, Graham Berry! Making Moxon clam up and shake > in his loafers is a major feat. Keep up the good work.
> Mary McConnell- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, it is. But will Moxon be smart and clam up? If it were only Mike Rinder whose head was on the block, he wouldn't.
BTW, is Monique Yingling still working for the cult?
> The new doc: First Amended Answer & Cross-complaint is the one to read > and consider.
> Round one was a draw and checkmate.
> The next move is Mr. Moxon’s and anything he does now is fraught with > professional danger and potential criminal consequences. He cannot > even attend his deposition without invoking the Fifth Amendment > privilege against self-incrimination. He cannot respond to the > verified cross-complaint with a denial under oath, and he certainly > cannot admit very much of it. Several ex federal prosecutors have > opined that if Mr. Moxon, was really smart and well-advised he would > do absolutely nothing more in the Moxon v. Berry case. He would allow > me to enter default judgments and allow me to have the case dismissed, > perhaps after agreeing to waive any appeal rights that may remain in > exchange for a waiver of the $355.00 in court costs I have so far > paid. Although Moxon would lose his case he would probably keep his > law license. If he goes ahead with his usual “attack and never defend” > strategy there is a strong chance he would put his law license and > liberty in major jeopardy, and perhaps the liberty of David Miscavige, > Mike Rinder, Elliot Abelson, Eugene Ingram and Ava Paquette too. > However, it is more likely they will demonstrate the same arrogance as > they have in the past and forge ahead, for the sake of a chance at > getting $60,000 from a judgment proof defendant. Ah, the noble clash > of justice against corruption, evil and greed. Fair play against fair > game!
> Incidentally, OSA seems to be lawyering up in readiness for something. > This is a church leadership historically counseled by criminal defense > attorneys such as Gerald Feffer of Williams & Connelly of Washington, > DC, Gerald Chaleff of Los Angeles (and now on the LAPD Command Team as > the LAPD attorney), Michael Hertzberg of New York and more recently > former senior assistant U.S. Attorney and now white collar defense > attorney David Schindler of Latham & Watkins.
> Hot new information: OSA has written to the German State of Hamburg > government accusing Mark and Claire Headley, Bruce Hines and me of not > only being liars but worse, being “members of Anonymous, “a known > Internet hate group,” and in my case being one of its attorneys. This > new letter to Germany came from Anthony M. Glassman of the Beverly > Hills law firm of Glassman, Browning, Saltsman & Jacobs, Inc. This is > a firm that was founded by former assistant U.S. attorneys from the > Central District of California. They also handle first amendment > matters.
> Why does “most ethical group on the planet” need to have so many > consiglieres?
The muttafucka who "leads" the crime cult because he's the one with the right to sign checks and decide which head to cut or hand on a pike is madder and madder.
He'll end up in either an institution in extreme eastern siberia, unless he's condemened to help iran nuclearization through his experience as a builder of caves to hide criinal secrets and crazy scriptures !
> > > The new doc: First Amended Answer & Cross-complaint is the one to read > > > and consider.
> > > Round one was a draw and checkmate.
> > > The next move is Mr. Moxon’s and anything he does now is fraught with > > > professional danger and potential criminal consequences. He cannot > > > even attend his deposition without invoking the Fifth Amendment > > > privilege against self-incrimination. He cannot respond to the > > > verified cross-complaint with a denial under oath, and he certainly > > > cannot admit very much of it. Several ex federal prosecutors have > > > opined that if Mr. Moxon, was really smart and well-advised he would > > > do absolutely nothing more in the Moxon v. Berry case. He would allow > > > me to enter default judgments and allow me to have the case dismissed, > > > perhaps after agreeing to waive any appeal rights that may remain in > > > exchange for a waiver of the $355.00 in court costs I have so far > > > paid. Although Moxon would lose his case he would probably keep his > > > law license. If he goes ahead with his usual “attack and never defend” > > > strategy there is a strong chance he would put his law license and > > > liberty in major jeopardy, and perhaps the liberty of David Miscavige, > > > Mike Rinder, Elliot Abelson, Eugene Ingram and Ava Paquette too. > > > However, it is more likely they will demonstrate the same arrogance as > > > they have in the past and forge ahead, for the sake of a chance at > > > getting $60,000 from a judgment proof defendant. Ah, the noble clash > > > of justice against corruption, evil and greed. Fair play against fair > > > game!
> > > Incidentally, OSA seems to be lawyering up in readiness for something. > > > This is a church leadership historically counseled by criminal defense > > > attorneys such as Gerald Feffer of Williams & Connelly of Washington, > > > DC, Gerald Chaleff of Los Angeles (and now on the LAPD Command Team as > > > the LAPD attorney), Michael Hertzberg of New York and more recently > > > former senior assistant U.S. Attorney and now white collar defense > > > attorney David Schindler of Latham & Watkins.
> > > Hot new information: OSA has written to the German State of Hamburg > > > government accusing Mark and Claire Headley, Bruce Hines and me of not > > > only being liars but worse, being “members of Anonymous, “a known > > > Internet hate group,” and in my case being one of its attorneys. This > > > new letter to Germany came from Anthony M. Glassman of the Beverly > > > Hills law firm of Glassman, Browning, Saltsman & Jacobs, Inc. This is > > > a firm that was founded by former assistant U.S. attorneys from the > > > Central District of California. They also handle first amendment > > > matters.
> > > Why does “most ethical group on the planet” need to have so many > > > consiglieres?
> > Huggs and kudos to you, Graham Berry! Making Moxon clam up and shake > > in his loafers is a major feat. Keep up the good work.
> > Mary McConnell- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Yes, it is. But will Moxon be smart and clam up? If it were only > Mike Rinder whose head was on the block, he wouldn't.
> BTW, is Monique Yingling still working for the cult?
> Tigger- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I last hear rumor that she was being 'handled' at Flag. I pity anyone going through that even the worst of our shared enemies.
Graham Berry <grahamberry...@gmail.com> wrote: > The next move is Mr. Moxon's and anything he does now is fraught > with professional danger and potential criminal consequences.
Is there any way that human rights advocates can egg the insane fucker on, motivate the organized crime loon in to doing something that will *finally* get the insane fuck dragged off to prison?
Usually organized crime bosses are easy to manipulate, all we need to do is know what will drive the insane criminal in to committing an act that can be caught on camera or viewed by a cop.
So far there have been many thousands of copies downloaded by some very interesting internet locations. Attention is finally turning to the roles of DM, Rinder, Moxon and Ingram in the mid 90s-mid 2000s, and onto the present.
Some of the investigative media is also sniffing around the story, as it now presents itself, and the respective roles of Ingram, Moxon, OSA, Rinder and DM.
And all the usual OSA Black Propaganda is now back firing on Moxon and his prospects.
There is a just received new filing by Mr. Moxon over at AngryGayPope.com
Now Mr. Moxon is being blatantly frivolous, seeking contempt under provisions that only apply to the pro se and not the represented. Section 391.7 only applies to litigants without lawyers and Barry Van Sickle, Esq. signed this cross-complaint as my lawyer. There was no first amended cross-complaint filed! It was a first amended answer and a new cross-complaint.
Mr. Moxon is desperately avoiding having to file anything under oath. He cannot. He does not even know which of the documents he withheld from discovery in Berry v. Cipriano, that he had in his files, and that are now in my files. I have the requests, his responses, and the documents he should have provided in discovery but concealed from me and the judge!
> So far there have been many thousands of copies downloaded by some > very interesting internet locations. Attention is finally turning to > the roles of DM, Rinder, Moxon and Ingram in the mid 90s-mid 2000s, > and onto the present.
> Some of the investigative media is also sniffing around the story, as > it now presents itself, and the respective roles of Ingram, Moxon, > OSA, Rinder and DM.
> And all the usual OSA Black Propaganda is now back firing on Moxon and > his prospects.
1. My opposition to Moxon’s request to declare me in contempt of court for filing a cross-complaint, through another attorney, without the court’s permission.
2. My motion papers to compel Moxon’s deposition and to bar him from asserting the attorney-client privilege on the ground of the crime- fraud exception (which is also the ultimate legal issue of the cross- complaint). There is a motion in three parts, a proposed order and a request for judicial notice with 19 exhibits. The exhibits are identical to those in the Appendix. No. 1 Exhibit A and the motion is similar.
3. Shortly after these papers were filed, Moxon left the following messages:
On Thursday March 18, 2010, defendant and cross-complainant Graham Berry (“Berry”) filed and hand served his opposition to plaintiff and cross-defendant Kendrick Moxon’s (“Moxon”) request for contempt and his motion to compel the deposition of Moxon and to bar the assertion of the attorney-client privilege on the ground of the crime-fraud exception in Evidence §956. Very shortly thereafter defendant pro se Berry (but not his counsel Barry Van Sickle, Esq.) received ex parte notices as follows:
A. By voicemail message: “This is Kendrick Moxon. I’m giving you notice that I am going to appear at an ex parte hearing to make sure the case is stayed and I don’t have to respond further until the court rules whether or not you were permitted to file the cross-complaint. I’ll see you Monday morning, 8-30 A.M. Department 58.”
B. By email message: (11.55AM) “Mr. Berry, I called and left a message on your answering machine. This is further notice that I will appear in Dept 58 on Monday at 8-30 am to present an ex parte application to dismiss your cross-complaint and/or implement the stay required by CCP 391.7. Kendrick Moxon.”
4. Most lawyers do not do what the evidence to the motion indicates Moxon has done to me. Among those few who might, most would not dare set foot in a court room, even with counsel, where evidence is on file such as in my motion to compel and request for judicial notice. Most would say, I don’t care how much I think Berry owes me, the evidence before the court is too bad for me to answer to! They would default, let the chips fall where they may, hold their breath and hope that nothing worse then happened to them. Then again most lawyers live in a different reality to Mr. Moxon.
5. I watched our new Judge Treu in action today. From what I saw I liked him. He was a litigator and trial lawyer for about 20 years, and has been a judge for about 16 years. However, there is a strange coincidence. The courtroom deputy for Judge Treu was formerly the court room deputy to Judge Treu. Today he said to me, “Weren’t you declared a vexatious litigant? Isn’t there a contempt request against you?” His pointed questions rubbed salt in a very sore wound. Robert is the clerk who Moxon says he called to get his stay of the case issued by ex parte telephone request to the clerk. As a result of the timing of Moxon's ex parte application, it looks as though he is not going to disqualify Judge Treu.
5. If you want to read a good legal thriller, better than John Grisham cooks up, read what the friendly folks at OSA can create out of hole cloth: (a) the motion to compel Moxon’s deposition; and (b) the partial chronology of events which is Appendix No. III, Exhibit F.
6. Yes, I was going to get on with my website thanks to the offer of assistance from a kind Anon. However, I now have to turn to writing my speech for Hamburg: ‘How Scientology uses PR to impact the courts and legislatures.’ Anyone got any great ideas and examples? I may not know of one that you have at your finger tips. Australia is one current example of public relations being used to obfuscate reality, and avoid being accountable for their conduct. I do not have the details though of what and how they did it-yet!
>1. My opposition to Moxon’s request to declare me in contempt of court >for filing a cross-complaint, through another attorney, without the >court’s permission.
>2. My motion papers to compel Moxon’s deposition and to bar him from >asserting the attorney-client privilege on the ground of the crime- >fraud exception (which is also the ultimate legal issue of the cross- >complaint). There is a motion in three parts, a proposed order and a >request for judicial notice with 19 exhibits. The exhibits are >identical to those in the Appendix. No. 1 Exhibit A and the motion is >similar.
>3. Shortly after these papers were filed, Moxon left the following >messages:
>On Thursday March 18, 2010, defendant and cross-complainant Graham >Berry (“Berry”) filed and hand served his opposition to plaintiff and >cross-defendant Kendrick Moxon’s (“Moxon”) request for contempt and >his motion to compel the deposition of Moxon and to bar the assertion >of the attorney-client privilege on the ground of the crime-fraud >exception in Evidence §956. Very shortly thereafter defendant pro se >Berry (but not his counsel Barry Van Sickle, Esq.) received ex parte >notices as follows:
>A. By voicemail message: “This is Kendrick Moxon. I’m giving you >notice that I am going to appear at an ex parte hearing to make sure >the case is stayed and I don’t have to respond further until the court >rules whether or not you were permitted to file the cross-complaint. >I’ll see you Monday morning, 8-30 A.M. Department 58.”
>B. By email message: (11.55AM) “Mr. Berry, I called and left a message >on your answering machine. This is further notice that I will appear >in Dept 58 on Monday at 8-30 am to present an ex parte application to >dismiss your cross-complaint and/or implement the stay required by CCP >391.7. Kendrick Moxon.”
>4. Most lawyers do not do what the evidence to the motion indicates >Moxon has done to me. Among those few who might, most would not dare >set foot in a court room, even with counsel, where evidence is on file >such as in my motion to compel and request for judicial notice. Most >would say, I don’t care how much I think Berry owes me, the evidence >before the court is too bad for me to answer to! They would default, >let the chips fall where they may, hold their breath and hope that >nothing worse then happened to them. Then again most lawyers live in a >different reality to Mr. Moxon.
>5. I watched our new Judge Treu in action today. From what I saw I >liked him. He was a litigator and trial lawyer for about 20 years, and >has been a judge for about 16 years. However, there is a strange >coincidence. The courtroom deputy for Judge Treu was formerly the >court room deputy to Judge Treu.
>Today he said to me, “Weren’t you >declared a vexatious litigant? Isn’t there a contempt request against >you?” His pointed questions rubbed salt in a very sore wound. Robert >is the clerk who Moxon says he called to get his stay of the case >issued by ex parte telephone request to the clerk. As a result of the >timing of Moxon's ex parte application, it looks as though he is not >going to disqualify Judge Treu.
>5. If you want to read a good legal thriller, better than John Grisham >cooks up, read what the friendly folks at OSA can create out of hole >cloth: (a) the motion to compel Moxon’s deposition; and (b) the >partial chronology of events which is Appendix No. III, Exhibit F.
>6. Yes, I was going to get on with my website thanks to the offer of >assistance from a kind Anon. However, I now have to turn to writing my >speech for Hamburg: ‘How Scientology uses PR to impact the courts and >legislatures.’
Be sure to identify PR as one of multiple channels the cult uses to obstruct justice and obtain injustice.
Obstructing justice and obtaining injustice are two targets in the cult's global campaign to victimize every man, woman and child in any way the cult leader believes he can get away with.
>Anyone got any great ideas and examples? I may not know >of one that you have at your finger tips. Australia is one current >example of public relations being used to obfuscate reality, and avoid >being accountable for their conduct. I do not have the details though >of what and how they did it-yet!
Russia, Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, UK, US, Canada, and the rest of the world.
Another way of looking at: Is there anywhere on earth, any corner, any spot in space, where Scientology and Scientologists don't use public relations and all sorts of unconscionable skullduggery to obfuscate reality, or or anywhere they don't avoid being accountable for their conduct? No. It's universal.
> >1. My opposition to Moxon’s request to declare me in contempt of court > >for filing a cross-complaint, through another attorney, without the > >court’s permission.
> >2. My motion papers to compel Moxon’s deposition and to bar him from > >asserting the attorney-client privilege on the ground of the crime- > >fraud exception (which is also the ultimate legal issue of the cross- > >complaint). There is a motion in three parts, a proposed order and a > >request for judicial notice with 19 exhibits. The exhibits are > >identical to those in the Appendix. No. 1 Exhibit A and the motion is > >similar.
> >3. Shortly after these papers were filed, Moxon left the following > >messages:
> >On Thursday March 18, 2010, defendant and cross-complainant Graham > >Berry (“Berry”) filed and hand served his opposition to plaintiff and > >cross-defendant Kendrick Moxon’s (“Moxon”) request for contempt and > >his motion to compel the deposition of Moxon and to bar the assertion > >of the attorney-client privilege on the ground of the crime-fraud > >exception in Evidence §956. Very shortly thereafter defendant pro se > >Berry (but not his counsel Barry Van Sickle, Esq.) received ex parte > >notices as follows:
> >A. By voicemail message: “This is Kendrick Moxon. I’m giving you > >notice that I am going to appear at an ex parte hearing to make sure > >the case is stayed and I don’t have to respond further until the court > >rules whether or not you were permitted to file the cross-complaint. > >I’ll see you Monday morning, 8-30 A.M. Department 58.”
> >B. By email message: (11.55AM) “Mr. Berry, I called and left a message > >on your answering machine. This is further notice that I will appear > >in Dept 58 on Monday at 8-30 am to present an ex parte application to > >dismiss your cross-complaint and/or implement the stay required by CCP > >391.7. Kendrick Moxon.”
> >4. Most lawyers do not do what the evidence to the motion indicates > >Moxon has done to me. Among those few who might, most would not dare > >set foot in a court room, even with counsel, where evidence is on file > >such as in my motion to compel and request for judicial notice. Most > >would say, I don’t care how much I think Berry owes me, the evidence > >before the court is too bad for me to answer to! They would default, > >let the chips fall where they may, hold their breath and hope that > >nothing worse then happened to them. Then again most lawyers live in a > >different reality to Mr. Moxon.
> >5. I watched our new Judge Treu in action today. From what I saw I > >liked him. He was a litigator and trial lawyer for about 20 years, and > >has been a judge for about 16 years. However, there is a strange > >coincidence. The courtroom deputy for Judge Treu was formerly the > >court room deputy to Judge Treu.
> Other judge?
> >Today he said to me, “Weren’t you > >declared a vexatious litigant? Isn’t there a contempt request against > >you?” His pointed questions rubbed salt in a very sore wound. Robert > >is the clerk who Moxon says he called to get his stay of the case > >issued by ex parte telephone request to the clerk. As a result of the > >timing of Moxon's ex parte application, it looks as though he is not > >going to disqualify Judge Treu.
> >5. If you want to read a good legal thriller, better than John Grisham > >cooks up, read what the friendly folks at OSA can create out of hole > >cloth: (a) the motion to compel Moxon’s deposition; and (b) the > >partial chronology of events which is Appendix No. III, Exhibit F.
> >6. Yes, I was going to get on with my website thanks to the offer of > >assistance from a kind Anon. However, I now have to turn to writing my > >speech for Hamburg: ‘How Scientology uses PR to impact the courts and > >legislatures.’
> Be sure to identify PR as one of multiple channels the cult uses to > obstruct justice and obtain injustice.
> Obstructing justice and obtaining injustice are two targets in the > cult's global campaign to victimize every man, woman and child in any > way the cult leader believes he can get away with.
> >Anyone got any great ideas and examples? I may not know > >of one that you have at your finger tips. Australia is one current > >example of public relations being used to obfuscate reality, and avoid > >being accountable for their conduct. I do not have the details though > >of what and how they did it-yet!
> Russia, Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, UK, US, Canada, and the > rest of the world.
> Another way of looking at: Is there anywhere on earth, any corner, any > spot in space, where Scientology and Scientologists don't use public > relations and all sorts of unconscionable skullduggery to obfuscate > reality, or or anywhere they don't avoid being accountable for their > conduct? No. It's universal.
> 5. I watched our new Judge Treu in action today. From what I saw I > liked him. He was a litigator and trial lawyer for about 20 years, and > has been a judge for about 16 years. However, there is a strange > coincidence. The courtroom deputy for Judge Treu was formerly the > court room deputy to Judge Alexander H. Williams, III. Today he said to me, “Weren’t you > declared a vexatious litigant? Isn’t there a contempt request against > you?” His pointed questions rubbed salt in a very sore wound. Robert > is the clerk who Moxon says he called to get his stay of the case > issued by ex parte telephone request to the clerk. As a result of the > timing of Moxon's ex parte application, it looks as though he is not > going to disqualify Judge Treu.
> 5. If you want to read a good legal thriller, better than John Grisham > cooks up, read what the friendly folks at OSA can create out of hole > cloth: (a) the motion to compel Moxon’s deposition; and (b) the > partial chronology of events which is Appendix No. III, Exhibit F.
> 6. Yes, I was going to get on with my website thanks to the offer of > assistance from a kind Anon. However, I now have to turn to writing my > speech for Hamburg: ‘How Scientology uses PR to impact the courts and > legislatures.’ Anyone got any great ideas and examples? I may not know > of one that you have at your finger tips. Australia is one current > example of public relations being used to obfuscate reality, and avoid > being accountable for their conduct. I do not have the details though > of what and how they did it-yet!
> The new doc: First Amended Answer & Cross-complaint is the one to read > and consider.
> Round one was a draw and checkmate.
> The next move is Mr. Moxon’s and anything he does now is fraught with > professional danger and potential criminal consequences. He cannot > even attend his deposition without invoking the Fifth Amendment > privilege against self-incrimination. He cannot respond to the > verified cross-complaint with a denial under oath, and he certainly > cannot admit very much of it. Several ex federal prosecutors have > opined that if Mr. Moxon, was really smart and well-advised he would > do absolutely nothing more in the Moxon v. Berry case. He would allow > me to enter default judgments and allow me to have the case dismissed, > perhaps after agreeing to waive any appeal rights that may remain in > exchange for a waiver of the $355.00 in court costs I have so far > paid. Although Moxon would lose his case he would probably keep his > law license. If he goes ahead with his usual “attack and never defend” > strategy there is a strong chance he would put his law license and > liberty in major jeopardy, and perhaps the liberty of David Miscavige, > Mike Rinder, Elliot Abelson, Eugene Ingram and Ava Paquette too. > However, it is more likely they will demonstrate the same arrogance as > they have in the past and forge ahead, for the sake of a chance at > getting $60,000 from a judgment proof defendant. Ah, the noble clash > of justice against corruption, evil and greed. Fair play against fair > game!
> Incidentally, OSA seems to be lawyering up in readiness for something. > This is a church leadership historically counseled by criminal defense > attorneys such as Gerald Feffer of Williams & Connelly of Washington, > DC, Gerald Chaleff of Los Angeles (and now on the LAPD Command Team as > the LAPD attorney), Michael Hertzberg of New York and more recently > former senior assistant U.S. Attorney and now white collar defense > attorney David Schindler of Latham & Watkins.
> Hot new information: OSA has written to the German State of Hamburg > government accusing Mark and Claire Headley, Bruce Hines and me of not > only being liars but worse, being “members of Anonymous, “a known > Internet hate group,” and in my case being one of its attorneys. This > new letter to Germany came from Anthony M. Glassman of the Beverly > Hills law firm of Glassman, Browning, Saltsman & Jacobs, Inc. This is > a firm that was founded by former assistant U.S. attorneys from the > Central District of California. They also handle first amendment > matters.
> Why does “most ethical group on the planet” need to have so many > consiglieres?
WASHINGTON -- After years of holding the U.S. government in contempt, the Church of Scientology is enlisting members of Congress, the U.S. State Department and even President Clinton to advance its agenda in foreign lands.
Prodded by the Scientologists' paid lobbyists and its cadre of sympathetic entertainers, several lawmakers and the Clinton administration have criticized the German government for allegedly discriminating against Scientology practitioners. They even got their argument against Germany to the floor of the House of Representatives last November.
On another front, the organization and members of Congress have complained to the U.S. Trade Representatives Office that the Swedish government failed to protect Scientology copyrights. The trade office, an arm of the administration, cited the copyright problem in deciding to include Sweden on its watch list of governments under review for possible trade agreement violations.
The lobbying push comes amid an ongoing criminal investigation into a suspicious death of one of its parishioners at Scientology's Clearwater headquarters -- the latest in a history of controversy involving the church. That history includes convictions of 11 Scientologists on charges stemming from break-ins of government offices in the 1970s.
Critics call Scientology a money-making cult, but the organization says it has reformed, and in the eyes of the IRS, it has. After a 40- year battle, the IRS dropped its tax dispute with Scientology and declared it a tax exempt religion in 1993.
Scientology has used lobbyists in Washington in the past, but in the years since the IRS ruling the organization has stepped up its lobbying effort. Records made public last week show that Religious Technology Center, a Scientology affiliate in Los Angeles, paid almost $725,000 to a Washington-based firm to lobby Congress in 1997 and 1996.
David H. Miller, the managing partner of Federal Legislative Associates, said members of Congress initially were skeptical about his client and its checkered past.
"What I've said to members is, "That's all bulls---. That's all extraneous. Let's talk about the facts,' " he recalled, though he concedes: "What they are trying to do is live down some of their past mistakes."
Miller, 50, is a former congressional aide who has been a lobbyist for 18 years. He and his firm represent clients such as the American Bankers Association and American Airlines. He is not, he said, a Scientologist.
"I think they have a very compelling story to tell. But they don't have the numbers, like Jews, Catholics and Mormons," Miller said, assessing the religious makeup of Congress.
While it's not uncommon for religious groups or other non-profit organizations to lobby Congress, the campaign by Scientology is another step in its effort to win legitimacy by currying favor with political leaders around the country.
For instance, assorted governors and mayors have issued proclamations favorable to Scientology. Actor John Travolta presented Scientology educational materials at a volunteerism summit attended by Clinton last year and said the president offered to help him in fighting discrimination in Germany.
In an interview with George magazine, Travolta, a Scientologist, recalled that the president told him: "I'd really love to help you with your issue over in Germany with Scientology."
That account led to speculation in Washington that Travolta went easy on the president by softening his portrayal of a Clinton-like southern governor in the recently released movie, Primary Colors. Travolta denies it. The German dispute
Clinton, though, knew what Travolta cared about. Scientology's dispute with the German government is the group's highest priority in Washington these days. Church members complain the German government has fostered discrimination that has gone as far as placing Scientologists under surveillance
Miller, the lobbyist, said he has gradually tried to build a foundation of support that gives Scientologists' claims of discrimination credence in Washington. The biggest victory in that regard has come from the U.S. State Department, which criticized the German government for its treatment of Scientologists in its annual human-rights report.
The group also won support from some members of Congress, according to letters made available by the Church of Scientology. Then-U.S. Rep. Carlos Moorhead, R-Calif., complained about Scientology's treatment in a letter to the German Embassy in 1996. So did Sen. Barbara Boxer, D- Calif., in a letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright last year. Three members of the U.S. House complained to National Security Adviser Samuel Berger that the German government was placing members of Scientology under observation.
"Placing individuals under government surveillance because of their religious beliefs is a clear human-rights violation," wrote Reps. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz.; Donald Payne, D-N.J.; and Robert Ney, R-Ohio.
Most of the lawmakers explain that they spoke up because they believe in freedom of religion.
Moorhead, who is now a lobbyist, said, "My own religion is quite contrary to theirs but that doesn't mean I don't support freedom of religion."
Ney, the Ohio Republican who co-sponsored a resolution addressing the issue, said religious freedom should exist despite Scientology's past problems. "I could take you religion by religion and name (you) controversy," Ney said. "I can tell you, (prominent Scientologists) Anne Archer, Chick Corea and John Travolta are not mad people."
Miller said his lobbying effort has been aided by Scientology's star power. Members such as actors Archer and Travolta and musicians Corea and Issac Hayes are willing to speak up for their beliefs. The entertainers came to Washington last year to lobby the administration and Congress on the German matter.
Travolta and two other Scientology advocates met Berger as part of the campaign. Miller acknowledges the national security adviser's interest was probably heightened with someone of Travolta's renown making the charges.
"I explained to them that we would continue to discuss with the German government our general view that human rights should not be violated," Berger told NBC's Meet the Press.
Meantime, Miller was working the halls of Congress to pass a non- binding resolution critical of the German government. He won support from leaders of House caucuses who advocate on behalf of arts, Hispanics and African Americans. His primary sponsor was Payne, a former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Initially, the resolution centered largely on Scientology's complaints. It was rewritten to attract broader support by adding complaints about discrimination toward members of other religions.
> speech for Hamburg: ‘How Scientology uses PR to impact the courts and > legislatures.’ Anyone got any great ideas and examples? I may not know > of one that you have at your finger tips. Australia is one current > example of public relations being used to obfuscate reality, and avoid > being accountable for their conduct. I do not have the details though > of what and how they did it-yet!
My suggested Hubbard OSA policy that is completely under researched, is OSA Network Order 15.
Scientology/Hubbard are non stop fabricating reality around them, and against others, to suit the Hubbard fantasy/reality. The bottom line, "body thetans" are souls hitchhiking on us, and the game of control of society's discourse on Scientology is to sidestep Scientology's/Hubbard's bottom line beliefs. "body thetans" are caused by Xenu's treachery and "body thetans" (with the 36 1/2 day long intense non stop implant given to ALL of those "body thetans") is what still causes all humans' mental troubles and the craziness in this world.
And OSA Network Order 15 keeps the world discussing Scientology's "enemies' " critically.
"OFFICE OF SPECIAL AFFAIRS NETWORK ORDER 15, 18 February 1988 Confidential BLACK PROPAGANDA (Originally written by LRH on 12 January 1972. Issued as OSA NW Order on 18 February 1988.) ... To cease to be the effect of classification and become in our turn the cause of it, the classifier, is to win the propaganda game. Our propaganda is dirty.... We do this trick by survey and attack.... we become re-classified as attackers and the enemy as bad hats as they're for the evil if they attack us... We just run propaganda campaigns....It reclassifies our attackers as evil people... we (1) Seek to avoid opportunities for the enemy to classify us. (2) Contest or expose any previous classifications as false (dead agentry, etc.) (3) Engage in a series of campaigns which confuse past classification. (4) Achieve for ourselves a dominance in classifying ourselves and others." "L. RON HUBBARD, Founder , Adopted as official Church policy by CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL “
This link will take you to the Frank Oliver leaked "Investigations Officer Hat Pack" where the actual photo images of OSA Network Order 15 are:
skip forward to about page 100 where the OSA network issues start.
The OSA Network Orders are completely under-researched and written about.
I'm urging scholars continually to either themselves or their students, start to research and connect what the OSA Network Orders state with what Scientology PR people do non stop.
> skip forward to about page 100 where the OSA network issues start.
> The OSA Network Orders are completely under-researched and written > about.
> I'm urging scholars continually to either themselves or their > students, start to research and connect what the OSA Network Orders > state with what Scientology PR people do non stop.
> Chuck Beatty
Skip to page 120, is where OSA Network Order 15 starts.
This just goes in one ear and out the other.
Scientology/Hubbard is nonstop deflecting off themselves and Hubbard's ideas, and OSA Network Order 15 is my pick as the key Hubbard church policy for why Scientology engages in "dirty propaganda" which Hubbard admits that they do do!
> > The new doc: First Amended Answer & Cross-complaint is the one to read > > and consider.
> > Round one was a draw and checkmate.
> > The next move is Mr. Moxon’s and anything he does now is fraught with > > professional danger and potential criminal consequences. He cannot > > even attend his deposition without invoking the Fifth Amendment > > privilege against self-incrimination. He cannot respond to the > > verified cross-complaint with a denial under oath, and he certainly > > cannot admit very much of it. Several ex federal prosecutors have > > opined that if Mr. Moxon, was really smart and well-advised he would > > do absolutely nothing more in the Moxon v. Berry case. He would allow > > me to enter default judgments and allow me to have the case dismissed, > > perhaps after agreeing to waive any appeal rights that may remain in > > exchange for a waiver of the $355.00 in court costs I have so far > > paid. Although Moxon would lose his case he would probably keep his > > law license. If he goes ahead with his usual “attack and never defend” > > strategy there is a strong chance he would put his law license and > > liberty in major jeopardy, and perhaps the liberty of David Miscavige, > > Mike Rinder, Elliot Abelson, Eugene Ingram and Ava Paquette too. > > However, it is more likely they will demonstrate the same arrogance as > > they have in the past and forge ahead, for the sake of a chance at > > getting $60,000 from a judgment proof defendant. Ah, the noble clash > > of justice against corruption, evil and greed. Fair play against fair > > game!
> > Incidentally, OSA seems to be lawyering up in readiness for something. > > This is a church leadership historically counseled by criminal defense > > attorneys such as Gerald Feffer of Williams & Connelly of Washington, > > DC, Gerald Chaleff of Los Angeles (and now on the LAPD Command Team as > > the LAPD attorney), Michael Hertzberg of New York and more recently > > former senior assistant U.S. Attorney and now white collar defense > > attorney David Schindler of Latham & Watkins.
> > Hot new information: OSA has written to the German State of Hamburg > > government accusing Mark and Claire Headley, Bruce Hines and me of not > > only being liars but worse, being “members of Anonymous, “a known > > Internet hate group,” and in my case being one of its attorneys. This > > new letter to Germany came from Anthony M. Glassman of the Beverly > > Hills law firm of Glassman, Browning, Saltsman & Jacobs, Inc. This is > > a firm that was founded by former assistant U.S. attorneys from the > > Central District of California. They also handle first amendment > > matters.
> > Why does “most ethical group on the planet” need to have so many > > consiglieres?
> WASHINGTON -- After years of holding the U.S. government in contempt, > the Church of Scientology is enlisting members of Congress, the U.S. > State Department and even President Clinton to advance its agenda in > foreign lands.
> Prodded by the Scientologists' paid lobbyists and its cadre of > sympathetic entertainers, several lawmakers and the Clinton > administration have criticized the German government for allegedly > discriminating against Scientology practitioners. They even got their > argument against Germany to the floor of the House of Representatives > last November.
> On another front, the organization and members of Congress have > complained to the U.S. Trade Representatives Office that the Swedish > government failed to protect Scientology copyrights. The trade office, > an arm of the administration, cited the copyright problem in deciding > to include Sweden on its watch list of governments under review for > possible trade agreement violations.
> The lobbying push comes amid an ongoing criminal investigation into a > suspicious death of one of its parishioners at Scientology's > Clearwater headquarters -- the latest in a history of controversy > involving the church. That history includes convictions of 11 > Scientologists on charges stemming from break-ins of government > offices in the 1970s.
> Critics call Scientology a money-making cult, but the organization > says it has reformed, and in the eyes of the IRS, it has. After a 40- > year battle, the IRS dropped its tax dispute with Scientology and > declared it a tax exempt religion in 1993.
> Scientology has used lobbyists in Washington in the past, but in the > years since the IRS ruling the organization has stepped up its > lobbying effort. Records made public last week show that Religious > Technology Center, a Scientology affiliate in Los Angeles, paid almost > $725,000 to a Washington-based firm to lobby Congress in 1997 and > 1996.
> David H. Miller, the managing partner of Federal Legislative > Associates, said members of Congress initially were skeptical about > his client and its checkered past.
> "What I've said to members is, "That's all bulls---. That's all > extraneous. Let's talk about the facts,' " he recalled, though he > concedes: "What they are trying to do is live down some of their past > mistakes."
> Miller, 50, is a former congressional aide who has been a lobbyist for > 18 years. He and his firm represent clients such as the American > Bankers Association and American Airlines. He is not, he said, a > Scientologist.
> "I think they have a very compelling story to tell. But they don't > have the numbers, like Jews, Catholics and Mormons," Miller said, > assessing the religious makeup of Congress.
> While it's not uncommon for religious groups or other non-profit > organizations to lobby Congress, the campaign by Scientology is > another step in its effort to win legitimacy by currying favor with > political leaders around the country.
> For instance, assorted governors and mayors have issued proclamations > favorable to Scientology. Actor John Travolta presented Scientology > educational materials at a volunteerism summit attended by Clinton > last year and said the president offered to help him in fighting > discrimination in Germany.
> In an interview with George magazine, Travolta, a Scientologist, > recalled that the president told him: "I'd really love to help you > with your issue over in Germany with Scientology."
> That account led to speculation in Washington that Travolta went easy > on the president by softening his portrayal of a Clinton-like southern > governor in the recently released movie, Primary Colors. Travolta > denies it. > The German dispute
> Clinton, though, knew what Travolta cared about. Scientology's dispute > with the German government is the group's highest priority in > Washington these days. Church members complain the German government > has fostered discrimination that has gone as far as placing > Scientologists under surveillance
> Miller, the lobbyist, said he has gradually tried to build a > foundation of support that gives Scientologists' claims of > discrimination credence in Washington. The biggest victory in that > regard has come from the U.S. State Department, which criticized the > German government for its treatment of Scientologists in its annual > human-rights report.
> The group also won support from some members of Congress, according to > letters made available by the Church of Scientology. Then-U.S. Rep. > Carlos Moorhead, R-Calif., complained about Scientology's treatment in > a letter to the German Embassy in 1996. So did Sen. Barbara Boxer, D- > Calif., in a letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright last > year. Three members of the U.S. House complained to National Security > Adviser Samuel Berger that the German government was placing members > of Scientology under observation.
> "Placing individuals under government surveillance because of their > religious beliefs is a clear human-rights violation," wrote Reps. Ed > Pastor, D-Ariz.; Donald Payne, D-N.J.; and Robert Ney, R-Ohio.
> Most of the lawmakers explain that they spoke up because they believe > in freedom of religion.
> Moorhead, who is now a lobbyist, said, "My own religion is quite > contrary to theirs but that doesn't mean I don't support freedom of > religion."
> Ney, the Ohio Republican who co-sponsored a resolution addressing the > issue, said religious freedom should exist despite Scientology's past > problems. "I could take you religion by religion and name (you) > controversy," Ney said. "I can tell you, (prominent Scientologists) > Anne Archer, Chick Corea and John Travolta are not mad people."
> Miller said his lobbying effort has been aided by Scientology's star > power. Members such as actors Archer and Travolta and musicians Corea > and Issac Hayes are willing to speak up for their beliefs. The > entertainers came to Washington last year to lobby the administration > and Congress on the German matter.
> Travolta and two other Scientology advocates met Berger as part of the > campaign. Miller acknowledges the national security adviser's interest > was probably heightened with someone of Travolta's renown making the > charges.
> "I explained to them that we would continue to discuss with the German > government our general view that human rights should not be violated," > Berger told NBC's Meet the Press.
> Meantime, Miller was working the halls of Congress to pass a non- > binding resolution critical of the German
The latest news from Moxon v. Berry/Berry v. Moxon
On Monday March 22, 2010, Mr. Moxon’s ex parte application was heard by Judge Treu in Department 58 of the Los Angeles Superior Court. An ex parte application is an emergency motion made on one or two days notice. Regular motions require 16 court day’s notice.
Mr. Moxon’s pending ex parte application is to either dismiss the Berry cross-complaint or to stay (delay) the case until the issue of whether the Berry cross-complaint can even be filed is decided by the court. Mr. Moxon’s papers, and my opposition papers, will be uploaded to www.angrygaypope.com tonight or tomorrow.
My counsel is Barry Van Sickle, Esq., another veteran Scientology litigator. He was to be in court this morning this morning but now needs major surgery and could not be there.
In summary, this is what happened:
(1) The judge took the bench and indicated that he was inclined to deny Moxon’s motion because I now had counsel which took the case outside of Code Civil Procedure section 391.7;
(2) Moxon disagreed citing to several cases which held against the express language of that section. The cases are cited on pages 5-6 of the Moxon ex parte;
(3) In the particular circumstances of the Moxon ex parte and argument, the judge did not wish to proceed without my counsel Barry Van Sickle, Esq. physically in the courtroom;
(4) The Judge stayed the case until Barry Van Sickle could be in the court room;
(5) I am to file an ex parte to restore Moxon’s ex parte to the calendar after I am back from Germany next Monday night and Barry Van Sickle has his doctor’s authority to travel;
(6) My motion to compel Moxon’s deposition, and to waive the attorney- client privilege (pursuant to the crime-fraud exception), calendared for May 6, 2010, will stay on calendar (over Moxon’s objection) unless my counsel does not restore the Moxon ex parte in sufficient time for Moxon to timely file his opposition. The motion can read at: http://www.angrygaypope.com/docs/graham_berry_vs_kendrick_moxon/52a_m... If want to read the supporting evidence it is also online at the same site.
In conclusion, I am satisfied with the status of the case as it now stands. The judge seems true (pun intended) to his oath of office and he is playing it straight down the middle, which is all one should ask of any judge.
|
