Bit of news.

Graham filed his trial papers today when he got home he found a fax, an ex parte motion to dismiss the Barton v Berry case.

It seems the cult lawyers didn't file trial papers at all, but asked that it be dismissed under Rule 41(a)(2) Graham says he will oppose unless it is dismissed under 41(a)(1). I am not sure what this means except I think Graham wants the right to sue them for malicious prosecution. I think he has a good case, since that is three suits against him by the same law firms, Hurtado state, Hurtado federal and Barton federal all dismissed on the eve of trial in a year.

As ptsc said: "This continual habit of filing motions to dismiss after all the effort of preparing for trial is, itself, prima facie evidence of malicious prosecution. They've repeatedly filed lawsuits, and gone all the way until the defendant (graham) had to file trial papers, and then suddenly at the eve of trial dropped it. In fact, i think i've even read a california case where just that, alone, in *one* case, was considered a prima facie case of abuse of process."

Under Rule 105 the judge has the option of doing anything he wants to them.

Graham is going to send me the ex parte motion to dismiss. It should make interesting reading.

Incidentally, Izzy Chait is one involved somehow in the persecution of Graham (the cases get to complicated for me to follow). There is information that Izzy Chait is named as a Reed Slatkin player. More about this aspect in a while.

Keith Henson