Racketeering Filed Monday Page 1 ======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Path: earth.superlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland. erols.net!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch .news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!netcom.com!grady From: grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward) Subject: Racketeering Filed Monday Message-ID: X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 19:34:13 GMT Lines: 287 Sender: grady@netcom19.netcom.com -------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California non-profit corporation, Plaintiff, vs. GRADY WARD, an individual, Defendant ) ) ) No. C-96 20207 RMW (EAI) AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendant, Grady Ward, an individual, responds to the plaintiffs verified complaint as follows: 1. A general denial, with the exception of jurisdiction and venue described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the complaint; residency of Grady Ward described in paragraph 5 of the complaint; paragraph 17 of the complaint, except that Grady Ward avers that all such use was well within the "fair use" guidelines of the Copyright Act; paragraph 23 of the complaint, except that Grady Wards avers that plaintiffs objections were intended to intimidate lawful criticism and commentary protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution; with respect to paragraphs 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 of the complaint defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations contained, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein. FOR A FIRST SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL PURPORTED CLAIMS: 1. Plaintiffs complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. FOR A SECOND SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL PURPORTED CLAIMS: Racketeering Filed Monday Page 2 2. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. FOR A THIRD SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL PURPORTED CLAIMS: 3. Plaintiffs claims are barred on the equitable grounds of unclean hands. FOR A FOURTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL PURPORTED CLAIMS: 4. This answering defendant is informed and believes, and upon such basis alleges defendant has not infringed copyright pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 106. FOR A FIFTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL PURPORTED CLAIMS: 5. This answering defendant is informed and believes, and upon such basis alleges that plaintiffs claims are wholly barred by the doctrine of fair use. FOR A SIXTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL PURPORTED CLAIMS: 6. This answering defendant is informed and believes, and upon such basis alleges that plaintiffs is barred under the doctrine of copyright misuse. FOR A SEVENTH SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO ALL PURPORTED CLAIMS: 7. This answering defendant is informed and believes, and upon such basis alleges tat the documents claimed by plaintiffs to be trade secrets are not trade secrets because (a) plaintiffs have failed to undertake reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of the their alleged trade secrets and (b) the works are generally known. Wherefore, with respect to the plaintiffs claims, answering defendant prays as follows: 1. That plaintiff take nothing by reason of their complaint; that judgment be rendered in favor of defendant; 2. That defendant be awarded the costs of suit incurred in defense of this action; 3. For other such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. COUNTERCLAIMS 1. The defendant ask for compensation for injuries pursuant 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) et seq because the plaintiff willfully and maliciously violated the defendants rights in a systematic way through predicate acts specified by Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1)(b) et seq. With particularity: 2. Predicate act, wire fraud: the defendant is informed and on that basis believes that Helena K. Kobrin, attorney and agent for the plaintiff, did on or about January 11, 1996 did issue the computer command known as a RMGROUP in order to destroy the Internet discussion group alt.religion.scientology throughout the United States and the World and did thereby deprive the defendant of the intangible right to honest service of receiving and viewing postings and cross-postings from such a forum to the collateral Internet newsgroups that he subscribed to such as comp.org.eff.talk. This act constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 et seq. (Exhibit 1.) 3. Predicate act, wire fraud: a lawful writing of Grady Ward was fraudulently destroyed using a forged CANCEL computer command by a person or persons acting in concert and participation with the plaintiff, thereby depriving Grady Ward of the intangible right of honest service (cf. 18 U.S.C. 1346, such deprivation as a species of Racketeering Filed Monday Page 3 wire fraud which in turn is a predicate act under 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(b)) of the Internet and to cause him time and expense to rewrite and repost this writing. This CANCEL constitutes wire fraud as specified 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1)(b) and 18 U.S.C. 1343 et seq, ( Exhibit 2.) 4. Several hundred further predicate acts of wire fraud: persons unknown acting in concert and participation with the plaintiff did fraudulently forge hundreds of separate computer CANCEL commands and did submit them by wire to interstate commerce. In one case as documented in paragraph 9c. infra, the identity of the fraudulent canceler was authenticated by the plaintiff as an intelligence agent of the plaintiff, "Vera Wallace." These commands, forged in the name of the original writer, destroyed those writings made by individuals to the Internet discussion group alt.religion.scientology, thus depriving the defendant as well as other individuals the intangible right of honest service that constitutes wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1)(b), The dates, times, forger non-de-plume(s) and the victim message identification are shown with particularity in (Exhibit 3.) Note the similar reasons cited by the person or persons unknown and the RMGROUP issued by agent for the plaintiff, Helena K. Kobrin. As further evidence of agency note that in (Exhibit 4.)bit Helena K. Kobrin attempts the prevent the defendant from ascertaining the true identities of the fraudulent CANCELers by objecting "on behalf of" the unknown perpetrators to a subpoena issued by the defendant under Rule 45 of the FRCivP. These forgeries violate 18 U.S.C. 1343 et seq An essential element in the fraud was that these messages would be destroyed across state lines. 5. Predicate act, mail fraud: the defendant has been informed and on that basis believes that on May 10, 1995 a man later positively identified as Eugene Martin Ingram, a long time investigator and agent for the plaintiff, did commit mail fraud (18 U.S.C. Ch. 63) in a scheme to defraud my mother and myself of certain photographs of the defendants wife and children and to fraudulently persuade the defendants mother that the agent of the plaintiff was in fact a long-lost friend of defendant Grady Ward. After the defendants mother complained to the Tacoma police of the gross misdemeanor of theft by deception, the photographs stolen by agent Ingram were returned to her from Portland, Oregon via the U.S. Mails in order to fraudulently further the scheme or artifice defined by 18 U.S.C. 1341 by attempting to lend credence to the artifice that the perpetrator was in fact an individual named "Jack Hoff.," and that, inter alia, he was a long-lost friend of defendant Grady Ward. (Exhibit 5.) 6. Predicate act, bank fraud: the defendant is informed and on that basis believes that on or about September 11, 1996 a person using the modus operandi of the plaintiffs investigators did commit bank fraud contrary to 18 U.S.C. 1344 by obtaining account information from the bank of the defendants wife, Felicity Wasser by deceit. (Exhibit 7.) Note that immediately following this fraud, a subpoena by the plaintiff was attempted to be served on the defendants wife and, inter alia, her bank account information was demanded. (Exhibit 8.) This bank fraud was apparently committed by the plaintiff or by persons working in concert and participation with the plaintiff in order to corroborate, refute or otherwise prepare for her anticipated testimony at deposition. 7. Predicate act, wire fraud: In a similar vein, the defendants telephone company was defrauded and the defendants intangible right to honest service was abrogated by a fraud with an identical modus operandi when the details of the defendants telephone bills were obtained by deceit. (Exhibit 9.) Just as in the bank fraud, the defendant was then later asked to provide his phone records in his deposition. (Exhibit 10.) Once again, the wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1343 et seq apparently was to obtain information so that the plaintiff could corroborate, refute, or prepare for the defendants later testimony at deposition. 8. Predicate act, wire fraud: The defendant has been informed and on Racketeering Filed Monday Page 4 that basis believes that on May 8, 1995, his publisher, Maria Nakem of the Austin Code Works of Austin, Texas, received a telephone call from a man identifying himself as Eugene Martin Ingram ("Gene Ingram") who proceeded to fraudulently slander the defendant, asserting untruthfully that the defendant had been involuntarily terminated from Apple Computer, Inc. in order to interfere with the defendants business relationship and thereby cause injury to the defendant contrary to 18 U.S.C. 1343 et seq. During Volume 3 of the deposition of Grady Ward, Helena K. Kobrin did attempt to excuse the behavior of Eugene Martin Ingram by saying that Mr Ingram had made a "sincere error." This statement tends to further corroborate the agency relationship between Mr Ingram and the plaintiff. This relationship was also corroborated by Mr. Mike Sutter of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff who explained to the defendant that Eugene Martin Ingram could not be brought to book for his acts because he was shielded by the client-attorney privilege. 9. That the plaintiff is working in concert and participation its agents in furtherance of its fraudulent schemes is demonstrated as follows: a. On or about April 4, 1995, an agent of the plaintiff who nominally is employed by the Church of Scientology, Jeffrey George Quiros, did commit the crime of trespass at the defendants home in Arcata, California. Mr Quiros traveled to Arcata, California to communicate to the defendant at the behest of the plaintiff. (Exhibit 11.) b. The investigator and agent identified in the predicate act of wire fraud against the defendant and his mother is known by the plaintiff to be wanted for similar crimes in the state of Florida. (Exhibit 12.) c. "Vera Wallace", whose identifying "footer" (Exhibit 13a.) was submitted and authenticated as an Exhibit by the plaintiff and subsequently by the defendant (Exhibit 13) explicitly links herself as an intelligence agent to both the plaintiff, RTC, and the plaintiffs other agent perpetrator, Eugene Martin Ingram in an Internet post to alt.religion.scientology. (Exhibit 14.) Significantly, "Vera Wallace" while acting an as intelligence agent for the plaintiff above authored one of the fraudulent CANCEL messages in addition to the fraudulent CANCEL messages exhibited in paragraph 4 of this Answer. The purported justification for "Vera Wallace"s cancel was identical to the purported justification of the other person(s) issuing the fraudulent cancels. This is a "smoking gun" linking the plaintiff directly to the pattern of wire fraud and other racketeeting activity on the Internet and to the unlawful harassment and mail fraud and racketeering perpetrated by plaintiffs agent Eugene Martin Ingram. d. The defendant is informed and on that basis believes that Eugene Martin Ingram has indulged in criminal planning and execution multiple times during his employment with the plaintiff, with the plaintiffs explicit knowledge. (Exhibit 16.) e. The defendant is informed and on that basis believes that Eugene Martin Ingram has also been linked to harassment of other participants on the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology. (Exhibit 15.) f. The defendant is informed and on that basis believes that Eugene Martin Ingram has been a long time associate of the Church of Scientology, the plaintiff, and other related enterprises. (Exhibit 17, 18, 19.) g. The defendant is informed and on that basis believes that the chairman of the board of directors of the plaintiff, David Miscavige, is aware and directs many of the fraudulent covert operations (Exhibit 20.) David Miscavige is also identified in an e-mail threatening my children with harm (Exhibit 6.) While counsel Hogan did say that it was "ridiculous to suggest" that Mr. Miscavige originated this threat, neither he nor plaintiff categorically denied David Miscaviges authorship. 10. The plaintiff and related Scientology enterprises working in concert and participation have a long history, up to the current day, of fraudulent schemes involving a variety of crimes and venues. (Exhibit Racketeering Filed Monday Page 5 22, 23, 24.) The defendant has been informed that twenty-seven members of the Church of Scientology are currently on trial for several felony offenses in Lyon, France. In case after case, top ranking members such as Mary Sue Hubbard and Heber Jentzch of the Church of Scientology have been indicted or convicted of felonies. This creates the strong inference that the entire Church organization including the plaintiff and all other scientology corporate apparatus are merely fronts for a continuing criminal racketeering enterprise. 11. This fraudulent and harassing behavior is in fact an organic ingredient in the corruption of the entire Scientology organization as it has "scriptural" importance to the members of scientology. The racketeering behavior is not just the vagaries of disparate individuals within Scientology. (Exhibit 21.) CAUSE OF ACTION 12. Violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq ("RICO") as predicated and furthered by the acts of the plaintiff and its agents as described with particularity above in paragraphs 1 through 11 with accompanying exhibits, extending to hundreds of predicate acts causing injury to the defendant over more than a year. PRAYER FOR RELIEF FOR THE CAUSE OF ACTION: 1. A permanent injunction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1345 or other enabling statutes to forbid the plaintiff from unlawfully harassing the defendant or his family; 2. Damages according to proof at trial; 3. Exemplary and punitive damages; 4. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs; 5. Such other relief as is determined to be just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendant hereby demands a trial by jury for all claims and counterclaims in this action. VERIFIED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM The defendant Grady Ward declares under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements derived from his personal knowledge are true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Dated: October 7, 1996 __________________________________ Grady Ward, defendant pro se 8 AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL No. C 96-20207