§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §

   

    

HM Barlow
First
Plaintiff
Sworn February 1994
1984 S. No. 1675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

B E T W E E N :

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY ADVANCED ORGANIZATION

SAINT HILL EUROPE AND AFRICA             Plaintiff

-and-

(1) ROBIN SCOTT
(2) RON LAWLEY
(3) MORAG BELLMAINE
(4) STEVEN BISBEY           Defendants


AFFIDAVIT OF
HELEN MARGARET BARLOW


I, HELEN MARGARET BARLOW, Solicitor's clerk with the firm of

Allen, Ticehurst & Bird of 59-63 Railway Approach, East

Grinstead, West Sussex RH19 1BT MAKE OATH and say as follows:

 

1. I am a solicitor's clerk employed by the firm of Allen,

Ticehurst & Bird which firm has, since 26th November 1993,

had the conduct of these proceedings on behalf of the

Plaintiff in place of its former solicitors.

 

2. I am authorized to make this Affidavit on behalf of the

Plaintiff in reply to:-

 

2

a. the Affidavit of Ron Lawley sworn on behalf of the

First, Second and third Defendants on the 12th July

1993; and

 

b. the Seventh Affidavit of Ron Lawley sworn on 4th

January 1994 on his own behalf as Second Defendant;

and

 

c. the Affidavit of Robin Edwin Bates won on 13th

January 1994 on behalf of the Third and Fourth Defendants;

 

each of these Affidavits being in support of two

applications, one by the First and Second Defendant, and

the other by the Third and Fourth Defendants, for Orders

that the Plaintiff do make and file an Affidavit pursuant

to Order 24 rule 7 RSC and, in the case of the Second

Defendant's Seventh Affidavit, in support of an application

by the First and Second Defendants for leave to amend their

Defence.

 

3. All facts and matters deposed to by me herein are within my

own knowledge save where otherwise appears. Where I depose

to information obtained otherwise than from my own

knowledge, I believe that information to be true. In

making this Affidavit I have made enquiries of the

Plaintiff and as appears below also of the United States

attorneys of the Church of Scientology International in

 

3

relation to some of the allegations raised in the

Defendant's affidavit evidence.

 

4. At the outset I should inform this Honorable Court that

while the Summons for the above mentioned Order was issued

by the Second Defendant's Solicitors on 12th November 1993,

it was not until 11th January 1994 that their Summons (with

a return date of 21st January 1994), and the Supplementary

Affidavit of the Second Defendant in support thereof, were

served ont his firm on behalf of the Plaintiff (by the

Second Defendant through the post). Furthermore, the First

and Third Defendants' Solicitors issued their Summons on

14th January 1994 (again with a return date of 21st January

1994) but again it and the Affidavit of Robin Edwin Bates

in support thereof were not served on the Plaintiff until

18th January 1994 although it was open to them to serve

the same by facsimile on 14th January. While this is within

the time required by Order 32 rule 3, it is well

established that applicants who obtain fixed dates for

hearings should notify the other parties forthwith and

serve the Summons and supporting affidavits without delay.

On 20th January 1994 I was telephoned by Mr. Harbinson of

Elborne Mitchell (Solicitors for the Second Defendant) who

agreed that the hearing of the summonses fixed for the next

day be adjourned to be heard before the Judge in charge of

the lists on a date to be fixed.

 

4

I would also point out to this Honourable Court that the

Second Defendant in his two Affidavits has included a

number of irrelevant, bald and offensive allegations of a

serious nature which are not accepted by the Plaintiff.

While these statements are irrelevant and I would

ordinarily not even respond to them, they will receive

brief address herein lest this Honourable Court grant them

any credence in its consideration of these matters.

 

6. Turning now to the Affidavit of the Second Defendant sworn

on 12th July 1993, I comment thereon as follows (references

to paragraph numbers are to the numbered paragraphs of the

said Affidavit):

 

7. I first make the general comment that the Second

Defendant is clearly trying to fog the issues and avoid the

true background to this action. The Defendants were

involved in the theft and/or unlawful acquisition of

advanced materials and procedures written by L Ron Hubbard,

founder of the Scientology religion, and licensed for use

by the Plaintiff, namely OT 5 or "NOTs" (hereinafter

referred to as "the NOTs materials"). I should explain at

this point that in the Scientology religion progression

towards full spiritual awareness is achieved through

completing various stages of counselling or "auditing". (A

full description of auditing can be found at p. 156 of the

book "What is Scientology?" a copy of which is now produced

and shown to me marked "HMB 1".) Those various stages are

 

5

often referred to by Scientologists as "the Bridge", that

is, a bridge to total freedom. Detailed information about

"the Bridge" is found at p. 171 of Exhibit HMB 1, to which

I would refer this Honourable Court. L Ron Hubbard's

written and spoken materials relating to the lower stages

of the Bridge are freely published and available to all.

However, the materials relating to the upper levels of the

Bridge are kept confidential by the Church. The reason for

this is that understanding of and ability to apply these

materials are dependent upon having fully attained the

earlier states of awareness and abilities attainable from

auditing on the lower levels of the Bridge. Accordingly

these materials are only released to those who have

honestly attained all earlier states. The first three

Defendants have admitted that they obtained the NOTs

materials by subterfuge, travelling to the Plaintiff's

premises in Denmark disguised as senior executives in

uniforms of the Sea Organisation (a religious order), which

had been provided to the thieves by another conspirator.

There is now produced and shown to me marked "HMB 2"

excerpts of a statement by one Nancy Carter relating to

these matters. The First Defendant was subsequently

arrested, tried and convicted for the theft in Copenhagen,

Denmark. There is now produced and shown to me marked "HMB

3" a true copy of a certified trnnslntion of that

conviction.

 

6

In paragraph 2 the Second Defendant asserts that (1) L Ron

Hubbard completely controlled all of the Scientology

organisations throughout the world; and (2) that it follows

that the 200 or more Churches or companion are really just

one large organisation. No real evidence is adduced by the

Second Defendant in support of these statements. The

number of Churches and companies is incorrect. In 1992 the

Churches, Missions, and related social reform organisations

which follow the doctrines of Scientology numbered over

1,000. I refer this Honorable Court to p. 456 of Exhibit

HMB 1, a copy demographic chart showing the number of

Churches, Missions and so on at various points in time.

Furthermore, these organisations are not "one large

organisation". It is true to say that Churches of

Scientology are arranged in a hierarchial ecclesiastical

struicture, but the various Churches within that

ecclesiastical hierarchy consist of separate non-profit

religious corporations that are governed by their own

independent boards of directors and officers, each

corporation being fully responsible for its own activities.

There is now produced and shown to me marked "HMB 4" a copy

of a booklet "Description of the Scientology Religion",

which is distributed by the United States Internal Revenue

Service (the "IRS") in response to questions asked about

the Church; information on the various Churches and other

corporations can be found on pages 4-7 of this booklet, to

which I would refer this Honorable Court. I verily

believe that this booklet was prepared in connection with

 

7

an exhaustive review of the United States Churches of

Scientology conducted by the IRS. This review was done in

the process of recognising the tax-exempt status of those

Churches. The result of this review was that on 1st

October 1993 letters of recognition were issued by the IRS

resulting in the tax exemption of 153 Scientology Churches

and related social reform entities. These exemptions are

not prospective; they contain no beginning date and

therefore are retroactive to the earliest incorporation of

each entity. There is now produced and shown to me marked

"HMB 5" copies of the individual exemption letter and group

exemption letter issued to Church of Scientology

International, the mother Church of the Scientology

religion. In granting these exemptions, the IRS did an

exhaustive review over a two year period of over 12 linear

feet of records covering many years. The IRS required

extensive responses to numerous detailed questions, ranging

from questions regarding Church activities and financial

affairs to civil litigation and various accusations by

Church detractors. All of the detailed questions asked by

the IRS were answered. Their extensive queries into the

financial structures of the Churches of Scientology

hierarchy, the services they deliver, the organisation of

each Church, the receipt and disbursement of donations, and

myriad other detailed inquiries were fully satisfied in the

process. The IRS did not conduct a milk-and-water enquiry

- its questions were searching, it sought explanations of

the most inflammatory accusations and "information" which

 

8

it could find regarding Scientology and its Churches.

After receiving the responses, the IRS were satisfied that

the Churches were organised and operated exclusively for

charitable and religious purposes and therefore granted

them tax exemption. There is now produced and shown to me

marked "HMB 6" a true copy of a declaration of Thomas L

Spring, filed in consolidated cases of Religious Technology

Center et al v. Scott et al No. CV 85-711 AWT (Bx) and

Religious Technology Center et al v. Wollersheim et al No.

CV 85-7197 AWT (bx) in the United States District Court for

the Central District of California, which discusses these

facts, arises out of the same theft of the NOTs materials,

and in which the Defendants herein are also named as

defendants. The inclusion of the description of the

corporate structure and functions of various Scientology

corporations in the booklet which the IRS is sending to all

those making enquiry thereon is an obvious endorsement of

the fact that the IRS's investigation of the underlying

facts proved nothing to the contrary. Furthermore, during

the course of its enquiries, the IRS became acquainted with

the source of, and the truth about, the considerable amount

of false information concerning Scientology which had been

disseminated in various parts of the world; in order to

correct matters the IRS has sent a copy of the booklet,

together with official covering letters, to all those

countries to which such false information had been passed.

More detailed information on the ecclesiastical hierarchy

 

9

of the Church of Scientology can be found in Chapter 21 of

Exhibit HMB 1 at pp. 349-359.

9. The Second Defendant referes to Church of Spiritual

Technology ("CST"). A short description of CST is found at

page 8 of the booklet at Exhibit HMB 4. The Plaintiff is

not aware of what documents CST may or may not have, and in

any event any such documents are not in the Plaintiff's

possession, custody or power. Furthermore, as can be seen

from Exhibit HMB 4 at page 8, CST, while a Church of

Scientology, is not part of the Scientology hierarchy.

Like other Churches of Scientology, it is a separate

corporate entity. Unlike the majority of those churches,

however, it is not involved in the delivery of religious

services to the public, but has the exclusive function of

acting as an archives for the preservation of the many

religious writings and taped lectures of L. Ron Hubbard.

10. The Second Defendant refers in paragraph 2 to an Affidavit

of one Gerald Armstrong, sworn over 11 years ago (not sworn

in these proceedings). I am informed by the Plaintiff and

verily believe that Gerald Armstrong ("Armstrong") is an

individual involved in litigation with Church of

Scientology International and Church of Scientology of

California. Armstrong is a long-time attacker of the

Scientology religion, who, since the time of execution of

the Affidavit referred to by the Second Defendant,

testified in another case (Julie Christofferson-Titchbourne

 

10

v. Church of Scientology Mission of Davis et al Circuit

Court of the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, No. A7704-

05184. His testimony in this case directly contradicts the

proposition on which the Second Defendant relies in support

of his assertion that L Ron Hubbard was a managing agent of

the Plaintiff. The following excerpt from a video tape

transcript, admitted into evidence in the above-referenced

case, shows that Armstrong had no knowledge of who was

running the Church or who its managing agent was. In the

transcript, "G" is Armstrong, "M" is Mike Rinder, a Church

executive in Los Angeles.

"G: It can be done during the chaos of whatever RTC, ASI's

got going. Who runs the organisation right now?

M: Which organisation?

G: All of it. Who runs it?

M: Well, it gets run through CMO Int.

G: And who are those people?

M: Well, you know, probably the same guys as when you

were around."

I am informed by the Church of Scientology International's

United States attorneys and verily believe that the

videotape from which this transcript was made is a

recording of a meeting set up by Armstrong after his sudden

departure from the staff of Church of Scientology of

California in late 1981. Armstrong had been in charge of

a large quantity of personal and private documents

belonging to L. Ron Hubbard. Part of Armstrong's duties

included research to support the work of an author who had

been retained to write a biography of Mr. Hubbard. After

 

11

Armstrong's departure, in the summer of 1982, the Church

received evidence that Armstrong had stolen thousands of

documents from those archives when he left the Church.

Armstrong refused the demands of the Church's Counsel that

he return the documents. Litigation against Armstrong was

thereafter filed to recover the documents, while Armstrong

pursued a plan to infiltrate and take over the Church. The

meeting recorded in the videotape excerpted above was part

of Armstrong's conspiracy. Armstrong had contacted Church

staff members who, while pretending to work with Armstrong,

actually remained loyal to the Church. They received

permission from the Los Angeles Police Department to tape

this meeting. The videotape further shows that Armstrong

intended to (1) recruit additional persons to create "as

much shit for the organisation as possible"; (2) foster

this plan by creating sham lawsuits against the Church; (3)

seed the Church's files with forged and " incriminating"

documents which would then be seized in a raid by the IRS

as part of its investigations. He claimed the ability to

create documents with relative ease because "he did it for

a living"; (4) take control of the Church after such a

raid; and (5) lie under oath to prevent discovery and to

protect his co-conspirators, as evidenced by his statements

that "we don't have to prove a goddam thing. We don't have

to prove shit; we just have to allege it" and that if he is

deposed "no-one will ever get any names, any

communications, any times, any dates or anything out of me,

that's just the way it is." There is now produced and

 

12

shown to me marked "HMB 7" a copy of the pertinent extracts

from that tape transcript. More recently Armstrong has

been quoted in the press, expressing his opposition to the

use of currency as the basis of the economy, as the self-

proclaimed founder of the "Organisation of United

Renunciants". There is now produced and shown to me marked

"HMB 8" a copy of a newspaper article containing

information on Mr Armstrong's latest activities, including

a nude photograph of Mr Armstrong.

 

11. I am informed by the Plaintiff and verily believe that L

Ron Hubbard ran the early Dianetics and Scientology

organisations until 1966, when he retired from running them

on a day to day basis and turned this function over to

Scientology Church executives; and that he continued to

take an interest in the Church's expansion and advised on

administrative matters when specifically asked for advice

but he mainly spent his time researching the upper levels

of Scientology and codifying the technology. I refer this

Honourable Court to pp. 633-645 of Exhibit HMB 1 which

givens information relating to that period of L. Ron

Hubbard's life. The Second Defendant's claims that Mr

Hubbard controlled the Church of Scientology and received

inurement of millions of dollars of funds from the Church

was exposed as false by the IRS. If such allegations had

not been proven false in the IRS's extensive and exhaustive

enquiry which went back a number of years before L Ron

Hubbard's death, the IRS would never have granted exemption

 

13

to those Churches. I would also refer this Honourable

Court to the declaration of Thomas L Spring which appears

at Exhibit HMB 6 hereto.

 

12. The Second Defendant also refers to Issue 15 of "Impact"

magazine, published by the International Association of

Scientologists in 1987, which he asserts states "who the

current real leaders of the church are" and that "these

people control ALL of Scientology worldwide" without

adducing any evidence in support of this statement. I have

already deposed as to the ecclesiastical hierarchy and

would simply reiterate that it is the boards of directors

or equivalent of the Church corporations which control

those corporations and their activities. There is now

produced and shown to me marked "HMB 9" a copy of a booklet

"The Corporations of Scientology" which gives further

information about the various corporations which make up

the Church of Scientology hierarchy. This booklet does not

discuss CST because it is not part of the hierarchy and has

no role in it.

 

13. Save as detailed below, much of the documentation sought by

the Defendants to be disclosed is not and has not been in the

possession, custody or power of the Plaintiff. This is

not to say necessarily that all such documents are not or

never have been in the custody, possession or power of

other Churches, Missions and related social reform

organisations. The Plaintiff has no right (whether legal

 

14

or moral) to call for documents or information from Church

of Scientology International or any other Church following

the doctrines of Scientology.

 

14. In paragraph 3 the Second Defendant asserts that the

documents referred to in paragraph 1 of his Affidavit

relate to the matters in question in these proceedings. I

will deal with these in turn:

 

15

a. All issue of the Rehabilitation Project Force

There is no reference in any of the Defendant's

pleadings to the Rehabilitation Project Force. In

any event, this broad request is not limited in time

and these documents are not relevant to the matters in

question in these proceedings.

 

b. The Sea Organisation billion year contract

Undue influence is not pleaded by the Defendants and

this document is not relevant to the matters in

question in these proceedings.

 

c. L Ron Hubbard correspondence

These documents are not and never have been in the

possession, custody or power of the Plaintiff, and to

the best of my knowledge and belief no genuine

documents as are described exist or have ever existed.

 

d. Plaintiff's current price list

Fraud has not been pleaded by the Defendants; this

document is not therefore relevant to the matters in

question in these proceedings. The Plaintiff has had

in its possession, custody or power the list of fixed

donations required for its services dated 1983 which

may be relevant on quantum.

 

16

e. Impact magazine Issue 15

This document is not relevant to the matters in

question in these proceedings but the Plaintiff does

not object to disclosing it. I would however draw the

attention of this Honourable Court to the fact that

this document is already in the possession of the

Second Defendant, excerpts being exhibited to this

Affidavit.

 

f. Tapes made by David Mayo and L Ron Hubbard

These documents are not and never have been in the

Plaintiff's possession, custody or power. Furthermore

the Second Defendant makes bald and contentious

allegations of fraud which are not contained in the

pleadings. The characterisation of these materials by

the Second Defendant as "pernicious nonsense" and

"mumbo- jumbo" is a complete volte-face on his part.

In their Defence, the Defendants admitted that the

copies of the NOTs documents forming the subject-

matter of the balance of these proceedings were taken

for their own purposes and that these purposes were

"the furtherance of dissident groups of

scientologistws [sic] not associated with but hostile

to the Plaintiffs and purporting to be able to teach

and counsel at all levels, including advanced levels

of Scientology". There is now produced and shown to me

marked "HMB 10" copies of two magasines distributed by

a group of which the Second and Third Defendant formed

17

part and which contain price lists for services being

provided by that group using these materials, thus

demonstrating that their present pejorative

characterisations of these materials are calculated

solely with a view to avoiding liability for their

actions. Further, the status of the materials as a

trade secret has been recognised. For example in

Bridge Publications Inc. v. Vien 827 E.Supp, 629, 632

(S.D.Cal. 1993) a copy of which is now produced and

shown to me marked "HMB 11" the Court found that "as

a matter of law, plaintiffs' 'Advanced Technology'

qualifies as a trade secret ..." which was defined by

the Court as "information which has independent

economic value from not being generally known, the

secrecy of which has been reasonably protected, or

reasonably attempted to be protected." The NOTs

materials are part of the 'Advanced Technology'. The

same view was expressed by the Court in Religious

Technology Center et al v. Wollersheim et al to which

I have referred in paragraph 8 above. The Court

stated regarding the NOTs materials that "the body of

material that is at issue here clearly meets the

definition of a trade secret and of a set of trade

secrets ... I am probably also convinced that these

are sacred scriptures viewed from the standpoint of

those persons who are Scientologists." There is now

produced and shown to me marked "HMB 12" a true copy

of the transcript of the hearing which contains this

 

18

statement at page 382:20-25 and additional supporting

statements at page 384:5-19. With regard to David

Mayo, claims that he was badly treated and that hi is

an authority who needs to examine these materials, I

am informed by the Church of Scientology

International's United States attorneys and verily

believe that David Mayo is an individual who was

living in the United States in 1983 who received

materials stolen from the Church and subsequently

altered them for his own financial gain, through the

delivery of Church of Scientology services by a group

of which he was part. There is now produced and shown

to me marked "HMB 13" a copy of that group's price

list. It is clear from that group's returns of income

in the United States that his group made nearly

$2,000,000 from their delivery of these services.

There is now produced and shown to me marked "HMB 14"

true copies of such returns for the years 1983-1985.

The Court in the United States found that Mayo's

claim, namely that he had written the materials and

did not need to have stolen materials to prepare an

altered version of them, was not credible. There is

now produced and shown to me marked "HMB 15" a true

copy of the published declaration, pages 517 and 518 of

which I would refer this Honourable Court.

 

19

g. Sunshine Rundown, OT 2 and OT 3

These documents are not the subject matter of these

proceedings and are not relevant to any of the matters

in questions in these proceedings.

h. Tapes of MCCS meetings

These documents are not and never have been in the

Plaintiff's possession, custody or power. I am

informed by the Church of Scientology International's

'United States attorneys and verily believe that these

tapes were recorded in connection with a project which

was never implemented. They have no bearing on the

current corporate structure. I have already referred

this Honourable Court to the booklet "Corporations of

Scientology", found at Exhibit HMB 9 hereto, which

does set out the current corporate structure for the

Church of Scientology hierarchy.

 

i. Mission Corporate Category Sort out plan

The Plaintiff does not now nor ever has had these

documents in its possession, custody or power.

 

j. Commodore's Messenger Logs

The Plaintiff does not now nor ever has had these

documents in its possession, custody or power.

 

20

k. Steven Bisby personnel files

The Plaintiff does not now nor never has had these

documents in its possession, custody and power.

 

l. NOTs bulletins

Although the Plaintiff has the original documents,

the copy documents the subject matter of the balance

of these proceedings are held by Messrs Alan Taylor &

Co. pursuant to the order of Mr Justice Boreham dated

29th March 1984. The Plaintiff would be most

concerned to ensure that these copy documents are not

put into the hands of the Defendants in view of the

history of the Defendants' role in taking and use of

such documents without authority as appears from the

Statement of Claim.

 

15. Turning now to the Second Defendant's Supplementary

Affidavit sworn on 4th January 1994, and I would stress

that this Affidavit was sworn on his own behalf and not on

behalf of any other Defendant herein, none of the documents

listed in paragraph 1 are the subject of an application by

the First or Second Defendant, or indeed any Defendant,

presently before this Honourable Court.

 

16. Furthermore, none of these documents are relevant to the

matters in question in these proceedings, specifically:

 

21

a. The Second Defendant claims (in the second sub-

paragraph under paragraph 4) that it is "our

contention" that interference with the Plaintiff is

trifling as they have no ownership of any property

that " we" are accused of interfering with. This is

not what the Defendants have pleaded. On the

contrary, by paragraph 1 of their Defence the

Defendants have admitted and averred that the

Plaintiff was the owner and/or entitled to the

immediate possession of the original documents the

subject-matter of these proceedings (ie the NOTs

materials). The First, Second and Third Defendants

herein have already admitted the wrongful conversion

of these materials and on 14th July 1984 judgment was

entered against them for damages to be assessed for

wrongful interference with an Order for costs. At the

same time, Mr Justice Kennedy ordered that the

Defendants do deliver up the original NOTs materials

stolen from the Plaintiff's premises in Copenhagen.

 

b. The Second Defendant also seems to assert, in the last

sub-paragraph of paragraph 2 of his Affidavit, that

the Plaintiff has no cause of action. No application

has been made to strike out these proceedings on that

ground. This assertion is in the circumstances of

these proceedings ridiculous. I would also refer this

Honourable Court to the Affidavit of Edith Maria

Loringett sworn on 16th March 1984 and in particular

 

22

Exhibit EL 4 thereto which is a licence in favour of

the Plaintiff in relation to inter alia the NOTs

materials.

 

c. I deal with the application by the third and Fourth

Defendants for an Order that the Plaintiff give

security for costs in a separate Affidavit and would

simply herein refer this Honourable Court to pp. xx -

xxi of Exhibit HMB 1 and in particular the photograph

marked " Copenhagen, Denmark" which shows one of the

large buildings owned by the Plaintiff.

 

d. There is no pleading on the part of any of the

Defendants that there was no consideration provided by

the Plaintiff in return for any undertakings the

Defendants may have made. Neither do the Defendants

plead fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the

Plaintiff.

 

e. In relation to document 1(f), this is already in

evidence as exhibit EM 4 to the Affidavit of Edith May

Loringett as stated in paragraph (b) above.

 

17. In relation to any failure to provide discovery, as I have

already deposed in paragraph 1 hereof, this firm was

instructed in place of the Plaintiff's former solicitors on

26th November last and I am unable to comment on matters

prior to that date. However, it appears that none of the

 

23

parties have complied with the directions herein and steps are

now being taken to remedy this so far as the Plaintiff

is concerned.

 

18. The Second Defendant makes a gratuitous reference to an

application on the Defendants' part to strike these

proceedings out for want of prosecution alleging

inexcusable delay. The Second Defendant is perfectly well

aware that the Defendants' application was dismissed and

costs were awarded against the Defendants and it is quite

improper for him to reiterate these allegations when the

matter has already been. the subject of interlocutory

proceedings.

 

19. Finally, the First and Second Defendants are seeking to

amend his pleading. This application was made by Summons

dated 3rd February 1994. The trial of this action is

fixed for 21st February 1994, just two weeks hence. The

Defence in this action was served on 3rd March 1992 and the

First and Second Defendants have had therefore considerable

opportunity to amend their pleading since that date. It is

manifestly an injustice that the Plaintiff should now be

required to deal with what is an entirely new issue at this

late stage in the proceedings and I would therefore humbly

request this Honourable Court not to grant the First and

Second Defendants leave to amend their Defence.

 

24

20. Turning now to the Affidavit of Robin Edwin Bates,

Solicitor for the Third and Fourth Defendants herein, I

would comment as follows:

 

21. In relation to paragraph 2 of Mr Bates' said Affidavit, I

have already adequately dealt with these matters above.

 

22. In regard to the personnel, ethics and auditing files of

the Third and Fourth Defendants, these are not now and have

never been in the possession of the Plaintiff. Neither

have the Defendants nor any of them ever been contractually

bound, punished or treated in any way by the Plaintiff.

Until the First, Second and Third Defendants by subterfuge

wrongfully converted the NOTs materials to their own use

they were not known to the Plaintiff and I refer this

Honourable Court to paragraph 6 of the Affidavit of Edith

Maria Loringett sworn on 16th March 1984 in this regard.

 

23. I therefore humbly request this Honourable Court not to

make the Orders sought by the Defendants herein.

 

SWORN at 1/2 Judges Terrace
East Grinstead West Sussex
This seventh day of February 1994

Before me,

[signed]

A Solicitor

[signed] Helen Barlow

 

 

 

This document in .pdf format

 

§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §