From news-central.tiac.net!news-in.tiac.net!news-in3.tiac.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!207.126.101.65!usenet65.supernews.com!news Sat Jan 4 08:13:21 1997 Path: news-central.tiac.net!news-in.tiac.net!news-in3.tiac.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!207.126.101.65!usenet65.supernews.com!news From: grady@tidepool.com (Grady Ward) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Hogan: Zenon and Grady conspire to file faked NOTs packs. Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 08:18:40 GMT Organization: +1 707 826 7712 Lines: 865 Message-ID: <32ce1097.936386@207.126.101.80> Reply-To: grady@tidepool.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.54.58.138 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 1 Thomas R. Hogan, SBN 042048 LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN 2 60 South Market Street, Suite 1125 San Jose, California 95113-2332 3 (408) 292-7600 4 Helena K. Kobrin, SBN 152546 7629 Fulton Avenue 5 North Hollywood, California 91605 (213) 960-1933 6 Roger M. Milgrim 7 William M. Hart The latest scandalous filing from Thomas R. Hogan. In this motion to strike he accuses Grady Ward and Zenon Parnoussis of conspiring to fake the NOTs packs filed with the District Court. This is an OCR in serious need of correction; I will post the .tiffs to alt.scientology.binaries after converting them to .pdf PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER 8 399 Park Avenue Thirty-first floor New York, New York 10022-4697 9 (212) 318-6000 10 Eric M. Lieber~nan RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, 11 STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, P.C. 740 Broadway - Fifth Floor 12 New York, New York 10003 13 (212) 254-1111 Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) CASE NO. C 96-20207 RMW California non-profit corporation, ) 18 ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Plaintiff, ) TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND 19 ) EXHIBITS FILED BY GRADY WARD v. ) ON OCTOBER 25, 1996; 20 ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 21 GRADY WARD, an individual, ) AUTHORITIES Defendant. ) DATE: February21, 1997 22 ) TIME: 10:00 a.m. ) CTRM: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte 23 26 28 MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS CASE NO. C 96-20207 RMW 1 TAT3T,F OF CO INTENTS 2 lll1RE P]46 3 I. INTRODUCTION . 4 II. WARD'S FILING IS NOT WHAT HE CLAIMS IT IS _ 5 III. THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY WARD WERE FILED FOR AN IMPROPER PURPOSE AND TO CAUSE NEEDLESS INCREASE IN THE COST OF 6 LITIGATION 10 7 IV. CONCLUSION 12 20 22 23 28 MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS CASE NO. C 96-20207 RMW 1 I ~ TAF,T.P OF Al TH ORITTF,S 2 | CASF. PAGF 3 | Calaprico v. Sun Microsystems Tnc., 4 1 758 F.Supp 1335 (N.D. Cal. 1991) 11 | Chambers v. NASCO, Tnc., 5 1 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123 (1991) 11 6 | T.ink v. Wabash R. Co., 1 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 7 1 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) 11 8 | Religious Technology Center | v. Netcom On-line Comnmajea~ Services, Tnc, 9 1 923 F.Supp. 1231 (N.D.Cal. 1995) 5, 8 10 | United States v. T-Tudson, 11 1 7 Cranch 32, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812) 11 12 | OTT-TFR 13 | Civil Local Rule 3-9 10 14 | Civil Local Rule 7-1 10 15 | Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (b) 10 16 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7(c) 10 17 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 (b) 10 18 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure l l(c) 10 19 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f) 11 20 1 Local Rule 7-7(e) 9 22 23 28 1 MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS ASK NO. C 96-20207 ROW 11 1 TO GRADY WARD, DEFENDANT PRO SE: 2 I PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 21, 1997, commencing at 10:00 a.m., or as soon 3 | thereafter as the matter may be heard before the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte,located at 280 South 4 | First Street, San Jose, California, plaintiffReligious Technology Center ("RTC") will move this 5 | Court for an order striking the declaration and exhibits filed by defendant Grady Ward ("Ward") on 6 1 October 25, 1996. 7 | As grounds for this motion, RTC states that its investigation of the declaration and exhibits, 8 | which do not identify any relief sought, reveals that the documents Ward lodged are forgeries in the 9 | sense that they are not the authenticated documents that they claim to be, and that the filing is made 10 | in collusion with a Swedish defendant whose actions are, among other things, in violation of a 11 | number of Swedish court orders, including an injunction. Ward's filing is improper under Local 12 | Rules 3-9, 11-3, and 11-6, and the manipulation of evidence is an even more serious matter, 13 | warranting that his filing be stricken and that he be admonished that he may not make such filings 14 | before this Court. It warrants imposition of sanctions, which, however, RTC does not burden this 15 | motion wish. 16 | MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 17 | 1. INTRODUCTION 18 | On the assumption that there is any purpose to Ward's October 25, 1996 filing, it appears to be 19 | part of an effort to establish that the NOTs materials he was enjoined from copying or disclosing by 20 | this Court on April 4, 1996 are now publicly available through the actions of a Swedish defendant, 21 | Zenon Panoussis. Ward claims that he received unsolicited copies of the NOTS works that were 22 | readily available from certain Swedish court or administrative agency files. Ward's filing establishes 23 | no such thing and, in fact, it evidences collusion and improper purpose. When Ward filed the 24 | declaration with the Court, he did not serve on RTC the sealed exhibits which he filed. That 25 | imposed on RTC's counsel, the Court's Clerk and the Clerk's Of lice the burden of a request to obtain 26 | a copy of the sealed documents. When RTC's representatives and Swedish counsel read the 28 | MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS ASK NO C 96-20207 RMW I I ~ d larationthat Ward had filed, they were professionally confident that it, and the missing exhibits, 2 | were evidence of collusion between Ward and an individual whom RTC is suing in Sweden, Zenon 3 | Panoussis. They were also confident that when they examined the exhibits, they could establish that 4 | certain of the documents filed could not possibly be what Ward claimed they were, namely 5 | authenticated documents bearing "the official seal and security threads of the Chancellor of Justice 6 | ("Justitiekanslern") or of the Department of Justice."' (Declaration of Grady Ward Re NOTs Series 7 | 1-54 (TXu 257 326) Publicly Available in Sweden ["Ward Dec.", at 2:1-3.) 8 | Having now obtained and reviewed the exhibits and further investigated the matter, RTC's 9 | suspicions are confirmed. All of the statements made by Ward in his declaration are evidentiarily 10 | objectionable as not based on personal knowledge. Ward attempts to cover up this deficiency by 11 | referring repeatedly to his "knowledge and belie£"2 At best, Ward's statements are inadmissible 12 | hearsay. 13 | Ward's filing is not what it claims to be. Ward's representation that Exhibit A to his 14 | declaration contains two documents obtained from and officially sealed and security threaded by the 15 | Chancellor of Justice and Department of Justice in Sweden does not match the actual facts. Ward's 16 | Exhibit B proves nothing about the documents, as it consists of two unauthenticated pages, 17 obviously taken from a longer document, with the source or attribution at the beginning and/or end 18 obviously removed. Ward could have typed the document himself.3 19 Equally disturbing is Ward's apparent complicity in the activities now taking place in Sweden. 21 ~ RTC notes that these documents have not been properly authenticated as required by Fed.R.Evid. 902(3). 22 2 Clearly, Ward has not traveled to Sweden, and the statements made in the Declaration therefore cannot be 23 based on knowledge. As for "belief," it is generally improper in a declaration, and particularly where the person 24 stating the belief provides no foundation upon which to judge if it is an appropriately formed belief. 3 Ward is attempting to poison the well with alleged facts, while carefully withholding or even destroying the 25 ~ Evidence" regarding those facts. Exhibit B. which purports to explain the documents and other information regarding availability of the documents in Sweden has the beginning and ending of the document omitted. If 26 someone did send Ward the documents he filed, those portions of the Exhibit B document would likely show who it was. If Ward has destroyed evidence of who sent him these documents, he is in contempt of the preliminary 27 injunction. 28 MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS CASE NO. C 96-20207 RMW 2 I | is instructive to view Ward's latest apparent attempt to undennine the validity of RTC's trade 2 secrets in this case, not only in light of Ward's current collusion with Swedish defendant Panoussis, 3 but also in light of Ward's past reliance on the allegedly "unsolicited" acts of "others," such as 4 "SCAMIZDAT" and "Vorlon". In all events, even if Ward had provided cognizable evidence that 5 RTC's materials are readily available in Sweden in the manner he suggests--which he has not done- 6 because there is every indication that Ward has participated in these actions, he should not derive 7 any benefit from his own wrongdoing. In addition, if these documents have been made available to 8 anyone in Sweden, the individuals involved are either Panoussis himself, or others who are acting in 9 concert with, and/or on notice of, the preliminary injunction and seizure order against Panoussis. 10 The Ward Declaration and exhibits should be stricken. RTC of course reserves the right to 11 seek redress for Ward's conduct underlying the filings that are the subject of this motion. 12 2. WARD'S FIT T1~(~. IS NOT WHAT HE CLAl1\IS IT IS 13 Ward claims that he received an "unsolicited package via United Parcel Service, purportedly 14 from a Mr. Lars Ek" from Sweden. (Ward Dec., 10/21/96.) Ward also states in his declaration, filed 15 under penalty of perjury, that he has filed as Exhibit A two documents, each of which bears an 16 of ficial seal and security thread of either the Justice Chancellory or Department of Justice. He 17 claims that each is the entire NOTs Series. 18 Ward's claims are not credible. 19 First, examination of Ward's Exhibit A revealed that the copy given to the Court is not the 20 same as that filed with the Clerk's of lice. Each of the two is a separate document purporting to be 21 from a Swedish government of lice, one the Chancellor of Justice (Justitie Kanslern), and the other, 22 the Department of Justice (Justitie Departementet). RTC's Swedish counsel made inquiry with the 23 of lice of the Chancellor of Justice regarding Ward's representations that the documents came from 24 there. They were provided a statement which shows that the Chancellor's office had made a copy of 25 three pages of this work, and not the 203 pages that Ward filed here. (Declaration of Per ~ 26 Magnusson, ~ 4-5, and Exs. I and J. Statement of Justice Chancellory Of ficial and translation.) 27 28 MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS CASE NO. C 96-20207 RMW 3 I I nquiry of the Department of Justice likewise revealed that a copy of the entirety of this 2 | document had not been made by that Department, but only a few copies of the first page, which were 3 | made for the individual who delivered the document to the Department. (Declaration of Marcus 4 | Nyman, ~ 3-4.) Furthermore, the receipt that Ward filed is not from either the Justice Chancellory 5 | or the Department of Justice, nor does it document of ficial copying by either of those departments. 6 | (Nyman Dec., ~ 4.) 7 | The altered documents -- forgeries, as Mr. Hogan perceived theme, were stated by Ward to 81 emanate from the Swedish Justice Chancellory or Justice Department files when, in fact, the 9 | documents filed in those administrative offices were obtained from an "unidentified" Swedish male 10 | who filed a set of documents and had multiple copies of the first page or a copy of three pages only 11 | stamped as conforming copies. Other pages were then apparently added, which--as will be explained 12 below--the defendants are prohibited by injunction both here and in Sweden from having or 13 distributing, to make it appear that the filing by Ward was obtained from one of these two 14 government offices. 15 Second, the true identity of Ward's "correspondent" is likely not "Lars Ek" at all, nor does 16 RTC believe that the Swedish male making these filings is truly anonymous. Rather, RTC believes 17 they are both one Zenon Panoussis, who has been sued by RTC in Sweden and has been enjoined by 18 the Swedish court from his infringing activities.5 (Ex. A to Magnusson Dec., Injunction; Ex. B to 19 Magnusson Dec., Translation of Injunction.) Panoussis plainly views the injunction, and every 20 action by RTC to enforce its rights, as an invitation to engage in further infringement and other 22 4 It is this manipulation of the documents to appear that they are something which they are not to which counsel 23 Thomas R. Hogan alluded in an October 25, 1996 letter asking the Court for access to Ward's filing, in which he contemplated that the documents filed were a "forgery," which is the "crime of falsely and with fraudulent intent 24 making or altering a writing or other instrument that if genuine might apparently be of legal effect on the rights of another." Webster's Third New Int'l (Unabridged) Dictionary 891 (1966). 25 5 Like Ward, Panoussis rebuffed any attempt to obtain agreement that he would cease his infringing actions, and 26 stated "I find myself morally entitled to break the law and violate whatever copyright there may be " (Ex. A to, Kobrin Dec., Panoussis posting of Aug 24, 1996.) He also added, "I regret to say, all my attempts until now to 27 attract a lawsuit from the CoS [Church of Scientology] have failed." Id. 28 MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS SE NO C 9G-2G207 RMW 4 1 I unl fulconduct. 2 | Panoussis has brazenly disobeyed an injunction and a court-ordered seizure of infringing 3 | materials, which was executed by the bailiffin Sweden: 4 | Foreseeing the raid I have also stored the printed OTs l elsewhere than in my apartment (one single copy was 5 l taken from my apartment, and one was missed and left l back). Their distribution continues as usual, or rather 6 I MORE INTENSELY. 7 | (Ex. C to Magnusson Dec., Panoussis posting of Sept 4, 1996.) 8 | He endeavored to make the Swedish court an accomplice to his actions by filing a set of the 9 | materials which he was enjoined from infringing, and which was supposed to have been seized from 10 | him.6 The Swedish Court of Appeal and the Stockholm District Court ordered that RTC's trade secret 11 | rights in those works be respected and that the documents be sealed.7 (Magnusson Dec., ~ 3.) Thus 12 | thwarted again, Panoussis decided to file the same materials in the Parliament and the Justice 13 | Chancellory and Justice Department, thereby cloaking them, under seeming quirks in the Swedish 14 | legal system, in the mantle of "free information", albeit not legitimately available for copying by the 15 | clerk or third parties. Em, Magnusson Dec. ~ 3, 5. Panoussis has thus attempted to use those 16 | government bodies as the instrumentality of committing the very acts from which he himself is 17 enjoined and seeks to thus circumvent a series of court orders by improper filings in Sweden which 18 are now the subject of vigorous litigation in that country. (Magnusson Dec., ~ 6-8.) RTC has met, 19 and continues to meet, every action by Panoussis with a countervailing action in an effort to contain 20 his improper filings.8 Ultimately, the only extant court orders addressing Panoussis' actions are a 22 6 Panoussis posted to the Internet that he had secreted his infringing copies with other people to avoid their seizure. (Ex. C to Magnusson Dec., Panoussis posting of Sept 4, 1996.) 23 7 This Court has ruled that the filing of certain of the Advanced Technology works in a court file in the Central 24 District of California, which subsequently sealed the file and has the matter pending, did not destroy the trade secret status of those works. Religious Technology Center v. Netcorn On-line Commurucation Seryices,lnc., 923 F.Supp. 25 1231, 1254-55 (N.D.Cal. 1995). . 26 ~ This motion addresses the documents filed by Ward, and not the general situation with Panoussis' filings. . RTC is engaged in vigorous actions to contain Panoussis' filings and to protect its rights, which are noted briefly 27 here. This is not the place to brief these actions in detail, but RTC is prepared to do so at the appropriate time. 28 MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS SE NO C 96-20207 RMW 5 I ~ broa preliminary injunction (affirmed by the Swedish Comt of Appeal) and orders from both the 2 | District Court and Court of Appeals in Sweden which sealed the documents as confidential. 3 |(Magnusson Dec., ~ 3.) 4 | That Ward and Panoussis are acting in concert is evident. Referring to a telefax which he 5 | received from Ward, Panoussis states: "I received a fax from Grady. Shortly thereafter, I filed the 6 | following brief by fax." (Declaration of Helena K. Kobrin and Ex. B.) Panoussis' brief reveals the 7 | degree of collusion between himself and Ward. He discusses this case and his interpretation of its 8 | trade secret issues, including as an issue "whether the NOTs have been made public or not." He then 9 | admits his attempts to aid Ward's case and destroy the trade secrets by his own "reproduction and/or 10 | distribution" of the NOTs materials, id., for which he has been enjoined by the Swedish court. (Ex. 11 | A to Magnusson Decl.)9 12| RTC has long concluded that Ward and Panoussis (and others, such as H. Keith Henson, 13| another defendant sued by RTC in this Court) have been acting in concert with one another, 14| something which they have denied. An e-mail received by RTC's attorney, Helena K. Kobrin, from 15 | Grady Ward which relates directly to this matter underscores his attitude that this is all a big joke, in 16 | addition to the fact that he has likely destroyed evidence regarding his receipt of the documents he 17| filed from Sweden. After Ward filed those documents, Ms. Kobrin served a document demand on 18| him for any documents relating to the package he allegedly received from Sweden. On November 19 10,1996, Ward made an obscene and disgusting posting to alt.religion.scientology, which he also e 20 mailed to Ms. Kobrin, in which he refers to the document demand as "a hilarious turn of events" and 21 states, inter alla: 22 23 24 9 Panoussis also repeats the claim made by Ward that: "[t]he copy that Grady Ward handed in to the court is bound with security string and is attested by the registrar of the administrative section of the primary court of 25 - Stockholm." (Ex. B to Kobrin Dec.) How would Panoussis know the description of the filed papers if he had not sent them to Ward, rather than the "Lars Ek" whom Ward claims was the sender or if Ward and he are not in 26 communication? While someone named Lars Ek could have sent the package, as Ward claims, the name "Lars Ek" in Swedish is similar to John Doe or John Smith in English (Nyman Dec. 115), and has obviously been chosen to 27 mask the identity of the true sender. 28 MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS SE NO C 96-Z0207 RM W 6 I Note the phrase "alleged receipt" in Me demand; maybe the 'hole I thinks that I am involved in an elaborate ruse to convince the Judge 2 I that the NOTs are available to anyone who coughs up the crowns. | Maybe she thinks that Keith and I, for example, are making up these 3 l NOTs packs sending them everywhere with assurances they are l legally obtained from Sweden when actually they are just a new 4 I gambol at the bend over and spread those cheeks cults." Would I do 5 | that???? That would be wrong, wouldn't it? 6 | (Ex. C to Kobrin Decl., at 2.) Ward's irony may be adolescent but is unmistakable. 7 | And Ward's continuing message in the same arch-irony vein indicates that he likely destroyed 8 | evidence regarding the receipt of these documents, and that anything he says about those documents 9 | should be considered incredible: 10 | Maybe Mr. Ek's address wasn't transcribed exactly correctly. Oh well. I hope all that stuff l didn't get shredded. I'll look. Hmm..am I sure that it was United Parcel Service? And was 11 1 it "Ek" and "Bromma" Sweden? It's so hard to keep track of all these things at times. 12 | Id. (emphasis supplied). That Ward is acting in concert with Panoussis is beyond dispute (by anyone 13 | other than Ward). Nothing is clearer than the proposition that a trade secret wrongdoer cannot 14 | defend on the basis of his own wrongful publications. See, e.g this Court's ruling in Religious 15 | Technology Center v Netcom On-T ine Comnn~nica~ Tnc., 923 F.Supp. 1231, 1256 16 (N.D.Cal. 1995). 17 This posting and Exhibit B are not the only evidence of Ward's reckless attitude towards these 18 serious matters, nor is it the only documerit which creates the inference that he is both falsifying and 19 destroying evidence in violation of the injunction. When RTC asked Ward in a document request for 20 all correspondence with various individuals, including Zenon Panoussis, he responded that he had 22 'a This term, usually in conjunction with "babble-on," is used by Ward to refer to Ms. Kobrin. "'ho" is 23 unmistakably intended to convey "whore," which is as unseemly as it is childish. It is also in violation of Local 24 Rule 7-3. " RTC does not repeat here the even more vile and obscene language and comments by Ward in his posting, 25 which can be seen in Exhibit C to Kobrin Dec. RTC notes, however, that Ward's language and statements regarding counsel and plaintiff violate Local Rule 11-3, which requires that: "The practice of law before this court must be 26 free from prejudice and bias. Treatment free of bias must be accorded all other attorneys, litigants, judicial of ricers, jurors or support personnel." Local Rule 3-9 requires parties appearing pro se to abide by the Local Rules and 27 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on penalty of sanction for failing to do so. MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS 28 SE NO C 96-20207 ROW 7 1 c rresponded with certain of the people, but did not admit that P~moussis was one of them. He also 2 | stated that anything he "did save as responsive to document productions [sic] requests were lost 3 | when my laptop system software became corrupt during the first week in October, 1996." (See Ex. 4 | D to Kobrin Decl., Response to Demand No. 3.)'2 Panoussis, however, has not been as reticent and 5 | freely admits to communicating, and participating with Ward in an effort to undermine RTC's trade 6 | secret rights. Me Ex. B to Kobrin Dec. 7 | This response is merely the latest in Ward's obstruction and evasion of RTC's attempts at 8 | obtaining meaningful discovery and to cover his tracks. For example, Ward made many postings 9 | prior to this suit being filed, telling people to use shredders and other methods to hide evidence of 10 | their actions and claiming that he or "SCAMIZDAT" were doing so. (Ex. E to Kobrin Dec.) When 11 | asked about such postings in his deposition, Ward refused to admit he had done any such things and 12 | claimed it was all a big joke, intended to make RTC take some action. (Ex. F to Kobrin Dec., Ward 13 | Depo., at 183-184.) When RTC filed a motion to compel following its initial deposition of Ward, 14 | Magistrate Judge Infante found that Ward gave "evasive and contradictory answers" and engaged in 15 | "dilatory tactics" and even admitted to " game' playing." (Ex. G to Kobrin Dec., Order, 6/3/96, at 16 1 2:15-3:4.) 17 | Ward also denied he was SCAMIZDAT, even when confronted with an e-mail header from 18 | Arnaldo Lerma, Eastern District of Virginia defendant, addressed to Grady Ward, erroneously left in 19 the middle of the SCAMIZDAT 10 posting. (Compare, Ex. H to Kobrin Dec., Header, with, Ex. F to 20 Kobrin Dec., Ward Depo., at 252-255.) His explanation in response to Lerma's testimony that 21 Lerma had e-mailed the document to Ward was that Lerma must have a "mental defect." (Ex. F to 23 '2 Ward and Panoussis, as well as Henson, also communicate with each other via the alt.religion.scientology 24 newsgroup. For example, they have made postings in response to or related to one another which discuss how much they are costing RTC, seeking to solicit other unpublished works owned by RTC, praising each other for attacking 25 RTC's trade secrets. (Ex. I to Kobrin Dec., Sample Postings.) And Henson also filed a copy of NOTs Series 34, which he claimed to have anonymously received from Sweden, although when asked by the Court at the Case 26 Management Conference, he stated he assumed that it probably was sent to him by "Zenon," whom he referred to as the person RTC had sued in Sweden. It is not rash to assume that these three are also in communication with one 27 another via e-mail. 28 MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS CASE NO. C 96-20207 RMW 8 l j bun Dec., Ward Depo., at 242.) 2 | Ward's latest actions, and those of his admitted confederate, Panoussis,'3 are also consistent 3 | with Ward's continuing attempts to destroy RTC's intellectual property rights, including its trade 4 | secrets, and to undermine any relief which it obtains against those who are engaged in such efforts. 5 | As the Court is aware, RTC's March 6, 1996 complaint alleged that Ward was "SCAMIZDAT," an 6 | anonymous individual who had been making wholesale postings of RTC's unpublished, copyrighted 7 | works for many months preceding the complaint being filed. 8 | The Court will also recall that the filing of this suit was premised in part on the fact that Ward 9 | was soliciting people to send to him copies of the 55 unpublished, copyrighted "NOTs" works, most 10 | of which had never been posted previously, and also posted a message, wondering whether 11 | "Scamizdat . . . will publish the NOTs pack and remove the trade secret status from all of those 12 | documents." (Ex. C to McShane Dec. filed with Opposition to Motion to Dissolve Injunction.) 13 | When the Court enjoined Ward--and SCAMIZDAT, as someone ostensibly acting in concert 14 | with Ward--on April 6, 1996 from continuing such actions, the SCAMIZDAT postings ceased. 15 | Within a few weeks of Ward's and SCAMIZDAT's being enjoined from posting the NOTs 16 | works, a new anonymous poster, Vorlon, appeared and, unerringly carrying out Ward's prediction, 17 | posted the NOTs Series to the Internet on May 6, 1996 through an anonymous remailer that 18 | SCAMIZDAT had previously used. On May 11, 1996, just five days after the posting of the entirety 19 | of NOTs first flitted across cyberspace, Ward moved to dissolve the Preliminary Injunction. Now, 20 | Ward's filing of the documents allegedly received "unsolicited" from Sweden is yet the latest step in 21 | his effort to violate RTC's rights and, at the same time, to hide his own collusive actions in defiance 22 | of this Court's order. 23 llll 26 '3 In one of Ward's latest filings, he submitted purported translations of Swedish documents which were made by 27 Panoussis. See Withdrawal of Defendant's Motion to Amend Answer and Counterclaims under L.R.7-7(e). 28 MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS ASK NO. C 96-20207 RMW 9 1 I 111. TlIF AFFIDAVITS Fll FI) RY WARI) WFRF Fll.FI) FOR A~kU!RQ~ l PUT~POSF. ANI) TO CAUSE NFFI)T.F~ INCREASE T1S TT-TF~ COST OF 2 1 Lo. 3 | Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1 l(b)(l) and 1 l(c), documents may not be filed 4 | with the Court for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay or needless 5 | increase in litigation costs. This Rule applies equally to unrepresented parties who sign a paper on 6 | their own behalf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (b). 7 | Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, after providing for the various pleadings 8 | which may be filed in a case, states that: 9 | (b) An application to the court for an order shall be by motion l which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be in writing, shall 10 | state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the 11 | relief requested. 12 | Accord, Civil L.R. 7-1. Rule 7(c), Fed.R.Civ.P., requires that "[a]ll motions shall be signed in 13 accordance with Rule 11." Civil Local Rule 3-9(a) provides that pro se parties are required to abide 14 by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Northem District, and that apro 15 se party may be sanctioned for failure to abide by those rules. 16 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (c), sanctions may be imposed on 17 unrepresented parties for filing documents in violation of Rule 1 l(b). In addition to penalties paid into Court and monetary sanctions to the opposing party, such sanctions "may consist of, or include, 18 19 directives of a nonmonetary nature." [d. 20 Ward's filing, falsified as it is, made in collusion with Swedish defendant Panoussis, with 21 whom he falsely denies having any communication, and not submitted in conjunction with any relief 22 sought, is improper and made to harass RTC and increase its litigation costs. Nevertheless, RTC 23 does not, at this time, seek monetary sanctions. Instead, it seeks an order that Ward's disingenuous 24 filing be stricken and that the Court inform Ward that it will not tolerate such filings under penalty of 25 perjury for the improper purpose of harassing RTC, influencing the Court to rule against RTC, and 26 costing RTC exorbitant amounts of money to deal with his dishonest actions. 27 The Court has the inherent power to manage its own affairs. T ink v. Wabash R. Co, 370 U.S. 28 MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS SE NO C 96-20207 ROW I 0 1 ~ 626, 30-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-89, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). Such implied powers "cannot tee 2 | dispensed with in a court, because they are necessary to the exercise of all others." Chambers v 3 FIASCO, Tnc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 2132 (1991), citing IJnited States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 4 32, 34, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812). 5 The defendant in this case, along with another defendant from a different case in a foreign 6 | country, is engaging in calculated extrajudicial actions and manipulation of evidence in the 7 | deliberate attempt to undermine both RTC's rights and the orders of this Court and a Swedish court. 8 | Ward's filing of manipulated "evidence" for an improper purpose would clearly result in sanctions 9 | and disciplinary measures against any member of the Bar. Ward, as is usual with pro per counsel, 10 | has been given extreme leeway. However, he has gone too far, and he should be prevented from 11 | flouting the rules of this Court which any attorney would be required to obey, and which the Rules 12 require him, as a pro se, to follow. For the Court to strike his filing is a mild order when compared 13 | with the behavior it addresses, and is all that RTC now seeks on this motion.'4 20 22 23 '4 In addition to its inherent powers, a court has the power to order matters stricken for a variety of reasons. See, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f); Calaprico v. stun 1Uicrosystetus, Tnc, 758 F.Supp 1335 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Ward's declaration 24 and accompanying Exhibits have been filed in an effort to taint RTC's reputation and credibility and to further harass RTC, much as his actions which preceded this litigation. So too is Ward's November 12, 1996 letter and 25 ~ attachments addressed to the Court's Deputy Clerk, in which he implies, Inter alla, that attorney Tom Hogan has engaged in illegal acts. The only purpose his filings can serve is to cause prejudice to 26 RTC, and force it to spend money to disprove "facts" so that the Court will not rely on falsehoods in making 27 important decisions in this matter. Such filings are appropriately stricken. 28 MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS CASE NO. C 96-20207 RMW 11 lo lv~c~ 2 For all the foregoing reasons, the declaration and Exhibits filed by Ward on October 25, 1996 3 should be stricken in their entirety and he should be admonished not to falsify his filings to the Court 4 and not to make improper filings. 6 Dated: December 3!, 1996 Respectfully submitted, 7 LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN 8 Thomas R. Hogan 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff 11 Religious Technology Center 18 20 22 27 28 MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS SE NO. C 96-20207 ROW 12