IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
Appeal from Superior Court of California
DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO APPELLANTS' OPPOSITION
opposition is but four pages. I am hoping that the complexity of this matter
excuses to some extent my literary burden upon the court.
Forming the bulk of this reply is my declaration of March 15, 1990,
which, although not prepared specifically to support this reply, provides
many of the facts underlying the issues appellants have raised in their
opposition and makes my position and why I am before this court in this
has come to be an obstruction of justice. I believe I have a right to not
obstruct justice. I do not agree that the sealing of the court file was essential
to the settlement.
my March 15 declaration. Appellants have used the agreement to obstruct
justice and to attempt to re-write history, including my own history. I
therefore have a strong interest in the outcome of this appeal.
my understanding that Mr. Flynn and all the lawyers in his law firm and all
the lawyers involved in the litigation against the various Scientology
organizations, hereinafter called "the organization," in the Congas & Bunch
firm, which also represented me in the underlying case, are barred by
agreement with the organization as part of the December 1986 settlement
from further representation of anyone involved in litigation against the
to me in some way an unwillingness to ever become involved again. Mr.
Flynn, the moving spirit in the pre-settlement litigation, has been emphatic
on this point. The organization and its lawyers' attacks on Mr. Flynn are
legendary; and each of the lawyers who represented me in the underlying
case experienced the organization's abusive use of law and threatening
both Flynn, Sheridan & Tabb and Contos & Bunch as circumstances
demanded. I consider all of these lawyers among my closest and most
trusted friends, and I consider them my lawyers. But for Scientology-related
matters they have not represented me since the settlement.
when I again became intensely involved with the organization as my
declaration shows. At that time both Mr. Flynn and I advised Larry Heller, a
supervising organization attorney, that Mr. Flynn was not representing me
and that I did not have a lawyer for organization matters (see paragraphs 4
and 5 of my declaration).
sent me the various post-settlement documents concerning me which they
had received in their offices. On January 18, 1990 I received appellants'
opening brief in their appeal No. B 025920 in Division Three. At that point I
began to research my rights and responsibilities in that appeal. On January
30 I received appellants' reply brief and response to cross-appeal in this
appeal before this court. I have also now received appellants' opening brief,
but have not received Bent Corydon's respondent's brief, although I expect to
receive it in the next few days.
was filed in the appeal in Division Three, and on March 1 my petition was
filed in this appeal. The Division 3 Court granted my petition on March 9
and gave me 60 days from that date to file a response.
immediate organization-related legal matters: the Division Three appeal, this
appeal, and an action to clarify the settlement terms. I have an attorney
who represents me in other matters, who is already educated in my history
and the facts and issues in the appeals and settlement, and who will help me
if I can come up with a $20,000 retainer. I cannot imagine a presently
uneducated lawyer doing the work for less so I have not wasted time looking
for cheaper legal help. I cannot in any event at the present time afford that
either. It is for this reason I am proceeding pro se. If I can raise an
adequate retainer I will have an attorney of record in this appeal.
Opposition Filed By Real Party in Interest, Bent Corydon," which was filed in
this appeal on December 28, 1988, I had thought that whatever Mr. Flynn
was going to file was going to be his statement of his position. He had asked
me if I would file something for the organization and I had said no (see my
declaration, paragraphs 40-42 ). I believe Mr. Flynn was acting to protect me
and William Franks, another client of Mr. Flynn and participant in the
settlement, since the organization had threatened to sue us at that time if we
did not file a document supporting their position.
lawyer-like product I have placed before this court, is not a simple nor quick
task for me. And I have a full-time life in addition to document preparation.
60 days from the date of granting of my petition for the filing of a
responsive document is a reasonable request.
settlement I have stated in my declaration: a. the organization has itself
acted to invalidate the settlement agreement; b. the organization has used
the agreement to obstruct justice and violate individuals' civil rights; and
c. the restrictions are themselves against public policy.
right to file a response in this appeal are: a. I was not aware of any such
right at the time of the settlement; b. I have an interest in the outcome of
this appeal; c. I have evidence which is relevant to this appeal; and d. I
would be assisting this court and serving justice by responding.
Defendant's petition should be granted.
Dated: March 2 3, 1990
PROOF OF SERVICE
over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action. My
business address is 6838 Charing Cross Road, Berkeley, CA 94705.
described as DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO APPELLANTS' OPPOSITION TO
PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE RESPONSE AND FOR TIME TO FILE on
interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a
sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail
at Oakland, California, addressed to the persons and addresses specified on
the service list attached.
ERIC M. LIEBERMAN, ESQ.
MICHAEL LEE HERTZBERG, ESQ.
BOWLES & MOXON
TOBY L. PLEVIN, ESQ,
PAUL MORANTZ, ESQ.
MICHAEL J. FLYNN, ESQ.
JULIA DRAGOJEVIC, ESQ.
CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT