Path: wn3!worldnet.att.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.nacamar.de!supernews.com!news From: grady@nospam.tidepool.com (Grady Ward) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.legal,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: March 3, 1997: Judge orders Swedish NOTs not to be considered for any purpose Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 04:35:56 GMT Organization: +1 707 826 7712 Lines: 59 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <331f967d.876415@207.126.101.80> Reply-To: grady@nospam.tidepool.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.54.58.120 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Xref: wn3 alt.religion.scientology:200434 misc.legal:60763 comp.org.eff.talk:26223 FILED MARCH 3, 1997 Case No. C 96 - 20207 Northern District of California RTC v. Ward The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION AND EXHIBITS AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS "Plaintiff Religious Technology Center's motion to strike declaration and exhibits regarding 'NOTS Series 1-54 (TXu 257 326) PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN SWEDEN' filed by the defendant Grady Ward on October 25, 1996 was submitted on February 21, 1997. Plaintiff's motion is granted on the grounds that the declaration and exhibits were not filed in support of any motion. The declaration and exhibits will remain filed but will not be considered for any purpose. Defendant's [sic] motion for sanctions is denied on the grounds that imposing sanctions is not warranted under the circumstances." Dated: (stamped) MAR 3 1997 (signed) Ronald M. Whyte UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Note the subtlety of the third sentence: the exhibit will remain filed, although it cannot be used. In other words, the court will not let me have it back in order to file in support of another motion. This means these special exhibits having security threads have effectively been destroyed as evidence in this case, even if they had been conclusive if they had been filed along with a motion. If the reader remembers, the exhibit was the official Swedish copies of the NOTs that was sealed and secured with security thread that Hogan "predicted" (incorrectly) was "forged" sent to me at apparently some expense by a Lars Ek of Bromma, Sweden. While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7(a) define exactly what *pleadings* are permitted to be filed, and defines what is a proper motion under 7(b), rule 7 specifically says "other papers" *are* recognized and does *not* forbid Declarations and exhibits filed even when not in support of a particular motion. Nor does the Local Rules forbid such a filing, merely listing the caption requirements for "papers" filed with the court. As far as I can see this is not an Interlocutory order that I can immediately appeal, unlike the orders concerning preliminary injunctions. This sure is educational. Grady Ward 3449 Martha Ct. Arcata, CA 95521