INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT TO INTERROGATORY RESPONSES

PART TWO

This California State Bar proceeding was initiated after Los Angeles County Criminal Bar Association President Donald R. Wager, Esq., Church of Scientology "Chief Investigator" Eugene Ingram and his principal Church of Scientology in-house counsel Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq., unlawfully solicited the replacement representation of Respondent Graham E. Berry, Esq.'s, then criminal client Michael Hurtado. Together they had Hurtado perjure himself solely on the basis of the perjured and recanted First Cipriano Declaration. Ingram and his principals, Moxon & Kobrin, and the Church of Scientology had also extorted the perjured and now recanted First Cipriano Declaration.

Wager then filed a pack of perjury upon the Los Angeles (Santa Monica) County Courthouse files. Amazingly, Wager had the guile and chutzpah to represent to Presiding Judge Haber that ". . . it is obvious from the declaration of Michael Hurtado and Donald R. Wager that the representation by Mr. Berry was unlawfully procured." Motion To Set Aside Defendant's Plea of No Contest And To Reinstate Plea of Not Guilty, etc., dated February 9, 1999, p.4: 1-3. People v. Hurtado, LAMC Case No. 8SM04976. Los Angeles County Criminal Bar Association President Donald Wager and legal ethics specialist Michael G. Gerner, Esq., then submitted a series of letters and enclosures to the State Bar urging it to prosecute and disbar Respondent upon the basis of what is now known to be a mountain of perjury and misrepresentation by them and others to both the State Bar and a number of different Federal and State Courts. See generally, Gerner & Wager correspondence to State Bar official Russell Weiner, Esq., dated June 3, 1999, through December 7, 2000, and Moxon & Kobrin letter to State Bar dated December 6, 2000. Respondent's Trial Exhibits, Appendix L, Exhibits 1-12. Moxon and Wager next found Anthony Apodaca, then a convict at the L.A.County Jail, and paid him $300 to also commit perjury against Respondent while "high on illegal drugs". Wager has confirmed this with his own testimony. Wager Deposition, pp. 46: 3-14, 53:10-25; 57: 16-24, 59: 20-22; 64: 23-25. See generally, Respondent's Trial Exhibits, Appendix A, pp.2-12.

Samuel D. Rosen, Esq., Barbara Reeves, Esq., and Michael Turrill, Esq., of the giant downtown Los Angeles law firm of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP. Then sought to take and introduce the testimony of Hurtado and Apodaca as part of their defense of the Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige (Abelson, Moxon) litigation. LASC Case. No. BC 184355, BC 186188, BC 196402. Respondent's Trial Exhibits, Appendix F, Exhibits 1-5. However, this Paul, Hasting's behemoth attempt at further fraud upon the courts was interrupted. The scientology litigation juggernaut's blitzkrieg had crushed Respondent in every sense of the word. Hon. Alexander Williams, III dismissed one of Moxon & Kobrin's many concurrent clients because Respondent, after 12 days of deposition, had not answered thousands of form interrogatories to Moxon's satisfaction and denied Berry an early trial date contrary to the express provisions of C.C.P. §460.5 (because " . . .defamation actions are disfavored by the court's!!!").

Undeterred, Moxon & Kobrin filed Hurtado v. Berry in State and Federal Courts (LASC Case No. BC208227 and U.S.B.C. Case No.LA 99-32264/AD99-02559.) Moxon himself personally served Respondent inside U.S. District Court Judge Snyder's courtroom as he took to his feet to argue against Moxon's Rule 11 and section 1927 sanctions motion in Pattinson v. Miscavige, Church of Scientology, et. al. U.S.D.C. Case No. 98-3985 Case. Moxon was appearing with Samuel D. Rosen, Esq., of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker's New York office and Eric M.Lieberman, Esq., of New York's Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, PC. Lieberman was one of the counsel in U.S. v. Hubbard (1979) 474 F.Supp. 64 and since then has regularly represented the Church of Scientology in California courts on a pro hac vice basis.

In his Rule 11 motion, Moxon claimed that Respondent was engaged in multiplying and delaying the Pattinson v. Church of Scientology proceedings with the allegation that Moxon was engaged in criminal conduct on behalf of the Church of Scientology. Of Moxon it must be noted, that the Church of Scientology had stipulated him to be an un-indicted co-conspirator in the largest ever-known criminal infiltration of the United States Government. See generally: U.S. v. Hubbard (1979) 474 F.Supp.64 (and stipulation of evidence therein); United States v. Kattar (1st Cir.1988) 840 F2d 118,125,126. Judge Snyder accepted the argument of Moxon, Eric Lieberman and Paul, Hasting, Janofsky & Walker and sanctioned Respondent. She ordered Respondent to pay the New York lawyer's (Lieberman), legal fees and traveling costs of $28,000.

After the filing of Hurtado v. Berry, Moxon was joined as counsel of record by L.A. County Criminal Bar Association President Donald R.Wager and later by Thomas S. Byrnes, Esq. They promptly, but unsuccessfully, made a one million dollar malpractice policy limits demand upon Respondent. This was followed by successively lower demands culminating in a $15,000 demand on November 28, 2000. By this time, Elliot J. Abelson, Esq., was involved in the litigation. After a mutual walk-away was rejected, Moxon & Kobrin voluntarily dismissed the Hurtado v. Berry State Court case on the eve of trial - February 6, 2001. This followed L.A. County Criminal Bar Association President Donald R.Wager's testimony that he had engaged in illegal client solicitation and witness tampering. Gerner and Wager's State Bar complaint that Respondent be disbarred because of the Hurtado v. Berry allegations was dismissed. Wager and Gerner pressured the State Bar to initiate the current prosecution based upon their repeated misrepresentations to the State Bar commencing with their correspondence dated July 12, 1999. Respondent's Trial Exhibits, Appendix F, Exhibits 2-11A.

The Hurtado State Bar complaint was not the only false complaint filed by L.A. County Criminal Bar Association President Donald R. Wager, Esq. After Moxon & Kobrin filed the Hurtado v. Berry State Court case, and Wager went to the West Hollywood Sheriffs with Elliot Abelson, Esq., and Moxon's "chief investigator," Ingram. They unsuccessfully pressured the Sheriffs (and a Deputy District Attorney) to criminally prosecute Respondent on the basis of the Hurtado perjury that they had suborned. Earlier, Moxon and Ingram had unsuccessfully complained to the Los Angeles Police Department on the basis of the perjured First Cipriano Declaration.

Eugene Ingram, Elliot Abelson, Esq., and the Moxon & Kobrin law firm had kept Hurtado under close supervision during the Hurtado v. Berry case. Hurtado's family even testified to an illegal tap being placed upon any telephone calls by Respondent. Two years earlier, Elliot J.Abelson, Esq., was also involved in an unlawful wire tapping of Respondent's telephone. However, Moxon and Ingram's supervision of Hurtado was inadequate. Hurtado was arrested and then arrested again and again. Hurtado is now serving five years in County jail for what might have been a murder. Hurtado (whose mother testified that he brought a transvestite home to dinner insisting that the transvestite was actually a woman) began dating a young lady with a transvestite roommate. She quickly dumped Hurtado. He retaliated. While the young lady was at work, Hurtado gained unlawful entry to her apartment. He took a large knife and bottle of liquor into her bedroom closet and awaited her return. Eventually the ex-girlfriend did return. She opened her closet door and there was Hurtado passed out with an empty bottle of booze and a butcher's knife. She called the L.A.P.D. who responded, dragged the drunken and stupefied Hurtado out of the closet and off to L.A.County jail where he claimed to be gay, but failed the County Jail "gay test." He entered the general prison population where he remains.

Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Abelson and Wager were undeterred. Moxon & Kobrin "chief investigator" Ingram was dispatched to the scene of the latest Hurtado crime. Ingram did some "research" on the victim. She had an old and resolved "stolen check" conviction. When she refused Ingram's request to withdraw her complaint against Hurtado, Ingram threatened her with disclosure of the stolen check conviction to her employer. Hurtado's victim refused to be extorted by Ingram. He made good on his threat. The victim was fired from her job. The prosecuting Deputy District Attorney and her investigator were enraged. Nevertheless, nothing was done about Ingram's witness tampering.

In 1981, L.A.P.D. Sergeant Eugene M. Ingram resigned from the police force because of an alleged medical disability. He claimed to have received a sniper's bullet wound to the back of his shoulder while driving his car to the Police Academy. Earlier the same day, he learned that he was being investigated, and would be prosecuted, on 11 charges of serious misconduct involving organized prostitution activities, supplying guns and selling confidential information to narcotics dealers (as to impending arrests and the like). The prosecution was dropped. Then Deputy District Attorney, Gil Garcetti, had headed the L.A.P.D. Special Investigations Division probe. He dismissed it for "insufficient evidence." Elliot Abelson, Esq., and Donald Wager, Esq., were also Deputy District attorneys at the time. Elliot Abelson, Esq., then became counsel to the Gambino mafia family before becoming in-house counsel to the Church of Scientology sharing the same offices as Moxon & Kobrin. Ingram became Kendrick Moxon's "chief investigator" for the Church of Scientology and its other lawyers.

Subsequently, in 1985, Ingram prepared a letter for an L.A.P.D. officer to sign. It invalidly authorized Ingram to engage in electronic eavesdropping of former scientologist Gerry Armstrong. On April 23, 1985, then L.A.P.D. Police Chief, Daryl F. Gates issued a press statement, "The Los Angeles Police Department has not co-operated with Eugene Ingram. It will be a cold day in hell when we do…Internal Affairs Division is now investigating the entire incident." Nothing further happened. Not surprisingly, the L.A.P.D. is now under a supervisory "consent decree" entered into with the Civil Rights Division of the United State Department of Justice.

In August 1999, Respondent submitted the August 9, 1999, Cipriano Declaration and its fifty damning exhibits to the personal office of then Los Angeles District Attorney, Gil Garcetti. An acquaintance of Respondent, one of the District Attorney's chief assistants, informed Respondent that the "District Attorney will not do anything for political reasons… One day I may be able to tell you why." Subsequently, Gil Garcetti, Esq., was defeated by current District Attorney Steve Cooley who pledged to end what he called corruption and cover-ups by Gil Garcetti.

Respondent has re-submitted the Cipriano, Apodaca and Wager materials to District Attorney Steve Cooley, Esq. The response, in pertinent part, is as follows: "After careful review by both the investigative and legal staff of all of the materials you provided, it was determined that your concerns fall more appropriately within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Since the information you provided alleges potential crimes which occurred in California and other states, in addition to wrong-doing by practicing attorneys, the aforementioned organization is best equipped to investigate these issues."

These "issues" have also been the subject of two complaints to the California State Bar by my former clients Michael Pattinson and Keith Henson. This year, the State Bar responded to each of them. For example, on August 3, 2001, State Bar Investigator Rose Sandoval wrote to Keith Henson and stating, "The State Bar of California has evaluated your allegations of professional misconduct against Kendrick L. Moxon. After careful review, we have decided to close this matter because there is insufficient evidence to establish that professional misconduct was committed." Prior to writing that letter, Ms. Sandoval contacted Respondent as to whether Robert Cipriano would be available to meet with her. Mr. Cipriano's response was that he would be happy to come to California and provide a deposition in this pending matter. The deposition could be used for trial herein and by Ms. Sandoval in connection with the Pattinson and Henson complaints. The State Bar refused to do this. Subsequently, Ms.Sandoval denied that she had initially told Mr. Henson that the Wager deposition transcript was "a smoking gun." Lawyers Gerner, Wager, Moxon, Abelson, Kobrin, Paquette, Byrnes, Drescher and Lenske then successfully moved the State Bar Court, acting in excess of its jurisdiction, to bar any discovery herein by Respondent unless, in connection with each item of discovery he wanted, he first filed a motion seeking judicial permission upon a showing of good cause.

On April 3, 2001, William W. Davis, Esq., Special Assistant to the Chief Trial Counsel (Michael Nisperos, Esq.) wrote to Respondent rejecting any suggestion of misconduct by California lawyers Donald Wager, Elliot Abelson, Kendrick L.Moxon and others. He stated, "Further, allegations of misconduct you have made in the past involving attorneys representing the Church of Scientology were fully investigated by the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and the files were thereafter closed. Your current assertion, that the Office is allegedly ignoring on-going criminal conduct by the church's attorneys, while at the same time pursuing you in a disciplinary proceeding, is equally lacking in merit."

Clearly, the Church of Scientology has hi-jacked the legal system and crashed it through the constitution. The scientology enterprise has hired powerful, greedy and amoral downtown lawyers to further its subversive psycho-terrorism against those who would impede its terrible agenda. Irrefutably, this State Bar proceeding was initiated and pressured by the most despicable and dirtiest of inequitable hands. Indeed, this State Bar proceeding disgraces every ethic that the State Bar of California has ever claimed to enforce. It defies law and justice. It condones and encourages crime and injustice.

No doubt coincidentally, the new President of the California State Bar, Karen Nobumoto, is a Deputy District Attorney who used to work for Gil Garcetti (the Los Angeles District Attorney who, for "political reasons", also refused to investigate and prosecute Eugene Ingram, Kendrick Moxon, Donald Wager, Elliot Abelson and the rest of the crooked band of out-lawyers, who are waging war upon the fundamental concept of equal justice before the law). William Shakespeare put it best, "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

On October 9, 2001, California State Bar Deputy Trial Counsels Goldade and Hernandez represented that this prosecution was being supervised high up in the State Bar hierarchy. It is not yet known exactly why and how the senior hierarchy of the California State Bar have become accomplices harboring crooked California lawyers engaging in such widespread serious felonies and other crimes. However, the reasons are immaterial. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those who give up another's "…essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety for themselves, deserve neither liberty nor safety themselves."