Graham's adventures and related
Keith Henson
First the clams got Graham's car by assuring a bankruptcy judge that
his 14 year old jeep, bald tires, marginal brakes, electrical
problems, and water leaks would sell for $6700. Since in bankruptcy
you can't have a car worth more than $1900, they will sell it at
auction to some public scn and give Graham $1900. If any of you out
in ars land have an extra working car you would like to donate to the
cause, let me know and I will work out the details, including getting
it to LA.
Second, there is an amazing deposition of Donald Wager being passed
around. In it he admits to a string of criminal actions in the
Hurtado v. Berry case and related. Graham doesn't want the deposition
posted because he wants to put it on a web site devoted to Scn legal
paper. He really doesn't have the time to put up a proper web site
(neither do I) so folks who want to work on this with Graham should
let him know with a cc to me (grah...@aol.com).
Third, the devastating effectiveness of the Wager deposition depended
to a large extent on the referee, retired Judge Lachs. There are
smoking guns all over the landscape. On pages 54-55 Judge Lachs
agrees with crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege
claimed by Graham's lawyer and forces Wager to answer over Abelson's
strong objections. (They would have stonewalled forever without Judge
Lachs being there.) Wager then admits paying a street person in jail
for false testimony and being paid back by Moxon (page 57). He also
talks about taking the street person's false testimony to the Sheriff
in an attempt to get Graham arrested.
(The charges they invented and had the street person claim against
Graham were absurd! The law does not go after people for the kind of
SM story invented by a person who later stated--under oath--that he
had accepted money in for this performance and that he wouldn't know
Graham if he met him. Clams are just nuts on homosexual subjects.)
I would love to meet Judge Lachs, you can tell from the transcript he
had Wager's and Abelson's number. You can practically see Abelson
dripping sweat.
But why was the Honorable Steven M. Lachs refereeing this deposition
in the first place?
That is where *I* come in, and a cast of thousands including Kendrick
Moxon, Helena Kobrin, Graham's lawyers, and the Riverside District
Attorney's office.
It is a religious precept in scientology that critics are criminals,
no matter how hard OSA has to work to make them criminals.
The clams and the knowing or unknowing help of the Riverside DA's
office were running this op to get me arrested at a video tape
deposition in Hurtado. I fought the deposition, seeking a protective
order, and because of an ambiguous statement in one of my filings,
Helena and company panicked thinking I knew about the arraignment and
in error gave me notice of it at a hearing on my bankruptcy case two
days before the hearing/arraignment date of Sept. 15. This saga I
have discussed before, it is posted on ars in the recent declaration
supporting the motion to disqualify the entire DA's office.
But while trying to set up the date, Moxon went balistic over the
phone when I mentioned that I would be picketing Gold that afternoon
over his daughter being ordered into the transformer vault (where she
was electrocuted and burned beyond recognition). Graham's lawyer was
on a three way call listening in. She wrote a declaration about the
conversation saying that a referee was required or fist fights would
break out in the deposition room and filed it in support of my motion
to quash or for a protective order.
So Judge Hart (see my first posting from Sept. 14, 2000 for details
about the hearing) did not let me out of deposition in Hurtado, but
because of this bad business with Moxon, he ordered that a referee
(Judge Lachs) be appointed for *all* further depositions in Hurtado.
(Ultimately, I was never deposed in the now dismissed Hurtado v.
Berry.)
So Judge Lachs being there to force Wager to answer when he really
didn't want to was a side effect of a plan (which Helena accidentally
sabotaged) to get me arrested on video tape for failure to appear.
The scheme reminded me of the Ms Blood scheme to get Tom Klemesrud,
too complicated to stand much of a chance of working.
The clams hate us both, but I think Graham ranks higher on their list,
maybe even higher than Bob, and they took horrible risks to get him.
I suspect that Graham being gay (and very open about it) may motivate
them. Gay people who are 1.1 on the "tone scale" can't be smart in
their view and Graham whipped their ass in the Scientology v. Fishman
and Geertz case. Or it could be like J. Edgar, the worst prosecutors
of gays are the closet ones. The word catamite come to mind, but I
won't connect it.
In any case, I am amazed at the way their attempt to get me arrested
turned around and bit them in Hurtado. If there are law enforcement
people reading this, I know who you should talk to about making a
deal.
Keith Henson
PS, after reading this, I realized you need a book of background to
make sense of it. Here is a little.
In Berry v. Cipriano, the clam lawyers (Moxon I think) asked Graham in
fine detail about his sex partners back to high school. Graham
mentioned Hurtado, a bi dude who was one of them. They also asked him
if he had done any pro bono work. Graham had also done a little pro
bono work for Hurtado well after they were involved.. Ingram hunted
down Hurtado and convinced him (his parents first) that he could make
a bunch of money if he took this free legal help from Moxon and sued
Graham for improper pro bono legal help and being sexually involved
with a client. They were hoping Graham's insurance company would pay
to keep cost down. I don't remember exactly how they got from Hurtado
to the street person. If you want to know more, ask in a follow-up.
JimDBB
>From: Keith Henson hkhe...@pacbell.net
>Date: 3/28/01 4:18 PM Central
>News from Graham and related.
Please read my comments at the end of this requoted post.
Thank you Keith and Graham for keeping us informed. I think that it is
important that all information regarding the cult be posted on this public
forum so that all concerned can keep informed.
Graham Berry was one of those harmed by the CAN spy Jolie /Laura who
infiltrated his office after CAN closed. Kendrick Moxon was, we believe, the
one who directed the CAN spy operation and it seems obvious that his despicable
and criminal actions against Grahm Berry were fueled by information stolen from
CAN by Jolie Steckart aka, Laura.
As Graham Berry was your attorney it seems that Kendrick Moxon's desparate
actions against you have also benefitted from stolen information provided by
the CAN spy.
I think, Keith that both you and Graham should bring this matter into your
cases and before the courts. We have more information now on how Jolie
Steckart was set up with a stolen identity, how and who was involved with her
infiltration into CAN and who was involved with receiving stolen CAN
information from Jolie.
A full report is being prepared for the DOJ and you will get a copy. But I
would act now, if possible, and get the CAN spy matter into your case... which
would make it a Federal case.
Question. Has Moxon been deposed? could you get him deposed using the CAN spy
information?
JimDBB
roger gonnet
Keith Henson <hkhe...@pacbell.net> a écrit dans le message :
4tn4ctsferf1sqneo...@4ax.com...
> News from Graham and related.
>
>
> Graham were absurd! The law does not go after people for the kind of
> SM story invented by a person who later stated--under oath--that he
> had accepted money in for this performance and that he wouldn't know
> Graham if he met him. Clams are just nuts on homosexual subjects.)
>
[i would'nt care myself, what's the problem?]
Then, they either use this supposed or known homosexuality as a tool against
their own stars, or become very silent, specially when DrivelMisscabbage
comes into the target's center.
roger
Tom Klemesrud
network ESPN?
Keith Henson
<tom...@WCTAtel.net> wrote:
>Does this Don Wager still work as a TV Commentator for the Disney sports
>network ESPN?
I have no idea. A little digging around with Google didn't enlighten
me much, though I would not be surprised. I noted that Wager was
getting some kind of award for being a criminal lawyer at about the
same time he was being one for Moxon.
Keith Henson
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>News from Graham and related.
>auction to some public scn and give Graham $1900. If any of you out
>in ars land have an extra working car you would like to donate to the
>cause, let me know and I will work out the details, including getting
>it to LA.
Fuck, I just scrapped my 20-year-old Toyota. If I had known I would
have given it to Graham. See? We need better communication in some
areas.
> He really doesn't have the time to put up a proper web site
>(neither do I) so folks who want to work on this with Graham should
>let him know with a cc to me (grah...@aol.com).
I would like to volunteer. I'll send him an e-mail immediately with
a copy to you.
---
Send information concerning incidents of racketeering and
terrorism by the Scientology cult to the Domestic Terrorism
Task Force at nor...@fbi.gov http://www.skeptictank.org/
For psychological assistance check: http://www.shrinktank.com/
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>>Subject: Graham's adventures and related
>>with a client. They were hoping Graham's insurance company would pay
>>to keep cost down. I don't remember exactly how they got from Hurtado
>>to the street person. If you want to know more, ask in a follow-up.
>Thank you Keith and Graham for keeping us informed. I think that it is
>important that all information regarding the cult be posted on this public
>forum so that all concerned can keep informed.
A good understanding of the willingness of the syndicate's lawyers to
place themselves at risk of prison to try to frame a rights activist
certainly can't do any harm. Hopefully there's enough evidence to be
found in the proceedings to put Moxon away this time -- rather than have
him named as an unindicted co-conspirator again. If he is the bag man
paying off for paid solicited pergury, getting the serial numbers off of
bills the next time around should put that one away, I would like to hope.
>Graham Berry was one of those harmed by the CAN spy Jolie /Laura who
>infiltrated his office after CAN closed. Kendrick Moxon was, we
>believe, the one who directed the CAN spy operation and it seems
>obvious that his despicable and criminal actions against Grahm Berry
>were fueled by information stolen from CAN by Jolie Steckart aka, Laura.
Did the real CAN ever hire an investigative office to tail Moxon to get
photographs of who he pays?
>As Graham Berry was your attorney it seems that Kendrick Moxon's desparate
>actions against you have also benefitted from stolen information provided by
>the CAN spy.
And the crooks also have all of CAN's records.
>I think, Keith that both you and Graham should bring this matter into your
>cases and before the courts. We have more information now on how Jolie
>Steckart was set up with a stolen identity, how and who was involved with her
>infiltration into CAN and who was involved with receiving stolen CAN
>information from Jolie.
Yes, Stacy posted considerable information after there was an investigative
office hired, I believe, to track down tjhe identity. You'll recall that
the _real_ individual was found.
>A full report is being prepared for the DOJ and you will get a copy. But I
>would act now, if possible, and get the CAN spy matter into your case... which
>would make it a Federal case.
If you haven't done so, also flag Stacy for her archives.
>Question. Has Moxon been deposed? could you get him deposed using the CAN spy
>information?
>JimDBB
---
ptsc
>Does this Don Wager still work as a TV Commentator for the Disney sports
>network ESPN?
I don't know. I wonder if he still works for "Linda Woolard."
For newbies, I repeat a series of Tom Klemesrud posts on the subject
of Linda Woolard and her crimes for the cult of Scientology, in which she was
assisted by crime cult lawyer Don Wager and felonious fuckup Eugene Martin
Ingram.
From tom.kl...@support.com Tue Jan 23 19:15:18 1996
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: tom.kl...@support.com
Subject: Woolard investigates me
Message-ID: <960123091...@support.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 96 09:15:18 -0800
Lines: 32
Don Wager, Esq., Linda Woolard's attorney has somehow
ascertained the name of my insurance company, and has
contacted my insurance company, paying for my defense,
in an apparent attempt to undermine my insurance
coverage, and defense, in the Federal action
RTC & Bridge Publications V. Erlich, Klemesrud & Netcom.
Woolard's attorney has mis-represented the Superior
Court's order of 12/6/95 to my insurance company.
Since the Superior Court case was settled, and Woolard
cannot use a lawyer for small claims, why is Attorney
Don Wager working for Woolard? How is she able to pay
him? How did he find out who my insurance company was?
How is he paying for investigation to find this out facts
about me--such as who my insurance company is?
It will be interesting to see if--as in a case against the
Cult Awareness Network--a letter writing campaign from
individual Scientologists to my insurance company, follows
the Woolard contact of my insurnace company.
Tom Klemesrud SP5
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Tom Klemesrud, Sysop _/ _/ L.A. Valley College BBS _/
_/ tom.kl...@support.com _/ _/ FidoNet 1:102/837 KoX _/
_/ ro...@support.com _/ _/ North Hollywood, CA USA _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
---
From tom.kl...@support.com Sat Jan 27 11:57:19 1996
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: tom.kl...@support.com
Subject: Woolard investigates me
Message-ID: <960127015...@support.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 96 01:57:19 -0800
Lines: 73
> From: H Keith Henson <hkhe...@shell.portal.com>
>
> Tom, I try, but it is really hard to keep up with everything. I
> was not up on any superior court case that you were involved with.
> Could I prevail on you for a pointer or a short note as to what
> that was about? Keith
Woolard filed a harassment suit to stop me from posting about the
blood attack on the internet, stop using an investigator for
discovery in the federal case, and the usual don't go within
100 yards, block movement ... etc.
She managed to get a judge to issue the gag order--a first amendment
violation of speech. I ex parte appealed based on that, and the
speech gag order was dropped. At the hearing, she was restrained--as
well as me from the usual--"do get within 100 yards," etc.
Within two hours of Woolard being served the ex parte application
that removed the gag order, her 2nd declaration was posted to the
Internet anonymously.
In the 2nd declaration she said she saw me stalking her at a bar
May 27th in Burbank, and it caused her to hemorrhage again--this
time to go to the hospital via ambulance. She chose the wrong day--
I was at my father's funeral in Thompson, Iowa on that day, and of
course, can prove it. This was a sworn declaration Woolard gave,
and it was false. She also said she saw me outside her apartment
November 16th in the evening. I was at work then, and can prove it.
What she wanted was to stop an investigation, primarily, and get
me to stop telling about the blood attack. It didn't work. There
was a hearing on this December 6th in Superior Court. Woody Sherwood
was there, and reported to ARS: He said he saw me running out of
the courtroom in fear--when in fact I was not even there--I was
home taking a nap.
Woolard came to court with a lawyer: Don Wager. Wager told
my attorney, Dan Leipold, that RTC attorney Eliot Abelson, (involved
in the federal action, and Gene Ingram's attorney), had asked him
to 1) represent Woolard; 2) go to the Los Angeles District Attorney
in May, use his contacts there, and try to get me prosecuted. He
was turned away by the District Attorney. He went to the DA, and
was told to take a hike, according to Wager.
Wager apparently is still representing Woolard.
Now Woolard seems to have provided her Attorney Don Wager with
the name of my insurance company providing a defense in the
federal case. Wager wrote my insurance company in an
attempt to try to undermine my defense in the federal action.
He did this acting as Woolard's counsel.
Both Woolard and I were restrained from surveillance on each
other; however, the court made it very clear that my attorney
could use an investigator.
The Superior Court did not make clear that Woolard could investigate
me--find out who my insurance carrier is providing my defense, and
try to undermine that defense.
Woolard has also filed a small claims court suit against me. She
did this before the December 6th hearing in which she learned her
May 27th bar incident would expose her declaration as being fictitious.
Tom Klemesrud SP5
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Tom Klemesrud, Sysop _/ _/ L.A. Valley College BBS _/
_/ tom.kl...@support.com _/ _/ FidoNet 1:102/837 KoX _/
_/ ro...@support.com _/ _/ North Hollywood, CA USA _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
---
From tom.kl...@support.com Sat Feb 10 13:14:44 1996
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: tom.kl...@support.com
Subject: Re: KLEMESRUD GETS HIS DAY IN COURT
Message-ID: <960210031...@support.com>
References: <4ffdl6$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 03:14:44 -0800
Lines: 238
WOOLARD V. KLEMESRUD
BS036693
Superior Court of California
111 N. Hill Street
(Same courthouse as Small Claims)
Los Angeles, CA 90012
TRANSCRIPT OF 12/6/95 HEARING in which Woolard is in
attendance with her Attorney, (and ESPN O.J. Simpson
Case commentator) Don Wager.
COURT: Alright, this is Woolard and Klemesrud, is that
correct?
WAGER: That is correct Honor.
LEIPOLD: Yes, your Honor.
WAGER: Don Wager. W-A-G-E-R apearing.
LEIPOLD: Daniel A. Leipold of Hagenbaugh & Murphy
appearing for respondent.
WAGER: Your Honor, might I briefly address the Court?
COURT: Alright.
WAGER: The Court has recently granted an extensive
order and then an application of the respondent's
counsel amended the order as I understand it,
subsequently found, and we are only seeking to have
permanent for the next year those matters which the
Court ordered in its amended order.
LEIPOLD: Well, we would still object to the remainder
of the stuff in the amended order. But that will
narrow the issues and I appreciate that from counsel.
COURT: So, what's the issue then?
LEIPOLD: Well, the issue is there is a ... there is a
stay away order and there are certain restraining
orders on my client that we would like to address that
were not addressed in the amendment. Specifically,
there is a order that Mr. Klemesrud, well there's and
order against Mr. Klemesrud and we see no basis for
that order. Mr. Klemesrud has done no activity to
warrant any such order.
COURT: I've just been told that you reached an
agreement regarding ...
LEIPOLD: No, sir.
WAGER: I did not mean to indicate that Your Honor.
Originally, the petitioner asked for quite an extensive
order which the Court granted. Upon application of
respondent the Court limited the order into it present
form entitled an amended order to show cause filed
November 29. At least I have received copies of it and
believe that's what the Court did. I may be incorrect.
LEIPOLD: That's correct.
COURT: So I have a amended order that say that the
defendant shall not threaten, strike or contact the
plaintiff, keep the plaintiff under surveillance,
follow or telephone or block movements in a public
place and to stay 100 yards away from her residence.
LEIPOLD: Yes, Your Honor.
WAGER: That's the amended order.
LEIPOLD: That's the amended order and all that's at
issue.
COURT: Is there a problem with any of these?
LEIPOLD: Yes.
COURT: All of them?
LEIPOLD: Yes. There's simply no grounds for them.
COURT: Okay. Looking through this ... There was an
incident back in January, right?
LEIPOLD: Yes there was. In my client's apartment.
WAGER: Correct.
COURT: And there's been nothing since then?
LEIPOLD: No, sir.
WAGER: The petitioner claims there has been. An I
think it is set forth in her papers. There was a
subsequent incident in May of 1995 in a bar and then
there was an incident in which she saw him outside her
home, both of which incidents he denies. And then she
has be receiving a number of -- not on a daily basis --
but a number of hang up calls or other kind of
disturbing call, none of which did she ever receive
before this incident. So it is her position which she
had taken here under oath, that there has been a
continuing but sporadic problem but it continues to
exist sufficient for this Court to have jurisdiction.
LEIPOLD: Your Honor, I don't dispute this Court has
jurisdiction If you look at what Mr. Klemesrud's
response to this on the ex parte application to amend
the restraining order, you will find out quite clearly,
unequivocally because there is a notice of the burial
of his father attached as Exhibit "3" and "4" -- Mr.
Klemesrud on the date that says she saw him at or near
closing time at a bar in Burbank, which so upset her
that she began bleeding, was in Thompson, Iowa
attending the funeral of his father. I happen to know
that's a fact because I was his attorney back then too
and I talked to him several times in Thompson, Iowa.
He was quite clearly there. Second of all, Mr.
Klemesrud works a job from 3:00 in the afternoon 'til
approximately 2 in the morning. She says she saw him
outside of her house on November 16. Mr. Klemesrud was
at work that day and could not have been outside of her
house and denies ever being outside of her house.
COURT: Did Mr. Klemesrud post some stuff on the
Internet?
LEIPOLD: Quite clearly. This is an ongoing
controversy concerning a federal case that is filed in
Denver. Another case that's filed in the Eastern
District of Virginia. Another case that's filed in
Holland. This is a huge international controversy of
which this is a tiny, tiny part. This involves the
rights of access providers to the Internet, Etc. I
don't want to get into that -- I'm not alleging
necessarily that ...
COURT: Wait a minute. If he's posting stuff on the
Internet after this incident in January, it looks to me
like it's harassment.
LEIPOLD: Well, Your Honor. If what you're asking for
-- first of all, that's not at issue anymore because
that was taken out in the amended order.
COURT: No. But I mean ...
LEIPOLD: But that's not harassment Your Honor. That
is a prior restraint of First Amendment rights. He's
simply putting out his version of events. He has not
put out her name, he has not put out her address. He
has simply put out his version of events and I can
incidentally state that the plaintiff gave a
declaration ...
COURT: I'll tell you what I'll do ...
LEIPOLD: The plaintiff gave a declaration to the LA
Times of this very same incident.
COURT: Alright. I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll
tell you each of them that they should not alarm,
annoy, or harass on another.
LEIPOLD: Each is restrained?
COURT: Each is restrained. I'll tell each of them to
not threaten, strike or contact the other one. I'll
tell each of them not to put one another under
surveillance ...
LEIPOLD: Well, Your Honor, there is legitimate reason
why I have a right to appropriately do, conduct
discovery in my federal case. And I don't want to be
impinged on by a court order here.
COURT: Well, this is telling Klemesrud to not keep her
under surveillance.
LEIPOLD: As long as it restricts Klemesrud and it does
not restrict his attorneys.
COURT: Well, it just tells him not to keep her under
surveillance.
LEIPOLD: That's fine. As long as it tells him, not
me.
COURT: Okay.
LEIPOLD: I just want to make that clear.
COURT: I'll tell each of them not to follow one
another, not telephone on another, not to block each
other's movements in a public place and stay 100 yards
away from each other's house.
LEIPOLD: Okay.
WAGER: To do that, we should have in the order his
address.
COURT: Yeah, we'll put his address in here too.
WAGER: That's very acceptable to us and thank Your
Honor.
COURT: Good luck to you folks.
WAGER: Thank you.
LEIPOLD: Okay, may we pick up this order today?
COURT: Sure.
LEIPOLD: Could we specifically have a notation in
there though that his attorneys are not restrained from
conducting appropriate discovery?
COURT: Well, I'll put in there applies to litigants
only.
LEIPOLD: Okay, thank you.
[END of Superior Court Hearing]
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Tom Klemesrud, Sysop _/ _/ L.A. Valley College BBS _/
_/ tom.kl...@support.com _/ _/ FidoNet 1:102/837 KoX _/
_/ ro...@support.com _/ _/ North Hollywood, CA USA _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
---
From tom...@netcom.com Sun Feb 11 01:38:23 1996
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: tom...@netcom.com (Tom Klemesrud)
Subject: Re: KLEMESRUD GETS HIS DAY IN COURT
Message-ID: <tomklemD...@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <4ffdl6$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <960210031...@support.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 23:38:23 GMT
Lines: 50
Sender: tom...@netcom13.netcom.com
tom.kl...@support.com wrote:
: WOOLARD V. KLEMESRUD
: BS036693
: Superior Court of California
: 111 N. Hill Street
: (Same courthouse as Small Claims)
: Los Angeles, CA 90012
:
: TRANSCRIPT OF 12/6/95 HEARING in which Woolard is in
: attendance with her Attorney, (and ESPN O.J. Simpson
: Case commentator) Don Wager.
: COURT: Alright, this is Woolard and Klemesrud, is that
: correct?
[snip]
: WAGER: The Court has recently granted an extensive
: order and then an application of the respondent's
: counsel amended the order as I understand it,
: subsequently found, and we are only seeking to have
: permanent for the next year those matters which the
: Court ordered in its amended order.
This "extensive order" was a gag order restraining my
free speech rights; specifically that I could not post
anything about the January 14th blood-smearing on the
Internet. I made an ex parte application to the court
and the gag order was recinded. A hour after plaintiff
was served the amended order with the recinded gag order
Plaintiff's second declaration to the Superior Court was
posted from an anonymous source on the internet, used to
attack my character.
After court, Plaintiff attorney Wager told my attorney that he was asked
to represent Plaintiff by RTC attorney, (and Gene Ingram's attorney),
Eliot Abelson. Abelson is a Plaintiff attorney in RTC v. Netcom.
Wager said that he was also asked by Abelson to use his contacts at the Los
Angeles County District Attorney's Office in May, to try to get me
prosecuted. Wager said he did this, but the District Attorney's Office
told him to take a hike.
Wager later found out who my insurance carrier was, and wrote a letter to
them, in an apparent attempt to undermine my defense in the federal action.
It is unclear how Wager or his client found out who my insurance carrier was.
Tom Klemesrud SP5
KoX
---
From tom.kl...@support.com Thu Feb 15 09:09:13 1996
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: tom.kl...@support.com
Subject: Re: KLEMESRUD GETS HIS DAY IN COURT
Message-ID: <960214230...@support.com>
References: <4fs3q2$s...@spectator.cris.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 23:09:13 -0800
Lines: 62
> From: Whippersnapper <Whip...@cris.com>
> Golly, Tom. Care to explain all this?
>
> I kept on saying to all and sundry that you were lying. Now it
> would appear a court of law has concluded pretty much the same thing.
If I didn't know better, I would think, Reverend, that you are
trying to goad me into talking about this little pimple small
claims case. Let me oblige:
How does this appear true. It seems you're trying to hint you
know how the judge ruled, but you don't say how. I understand
the decision will arrive in the mail. I think I won. Plaintiff
asked for monetary damages based on medical bills presented from
May 28th. This was immediately after Plaintiff swore that I was
in a Burbank bar the evening of May 27th, when in fact I was in
Thompson, Iowa for my father's funeral. You may be right about
the decision Snapper, because the judge did not look at my evidence,
and cut off the proceeding before I had a chance to point this out.
This however was factually presented in the 12/6/95 Superior Court
case which the small claims judge has access to right there in the
courthouse.
The judge, I hope doesn't make the mistake of connecting the January
14th blood to the May 28th medical bills, but this may have been
the case. If it is, I'll consider the money lost--if any--as an
investment for the bigger prize.
I testified that a peace officer was impersonated that night, and
a demand was made to disconnect Dennis Erlich from the Internet.
I did not assault anyone that night, and no charges were brought
by the District Attorney's office.
In court was Gene Ingram--a Private Investigator who works for
Scientology. He is wanted for felony [drum roll] impersonation of a
peace officer in Florida. He left early. The judge wanted to
talk to him.
You know twice the District Attorney was asked to look at this
case, and twice they declined. I won in Superior Court 12/6/95.
I believe in May, Don Wager, Plaintiff's attorney in Superior
Court, said he tried to get me prosecuted again in May. He
was turned away. Perhaps, they knew for a fact I was in Iowa.
I was called by an IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special
Agent while I was in Iowa in May. Perhaps, he relayed my
whereabouts to the DA's office?
Snapper, are you now saying I have been convicted in small
claims court? How mean spirited and vile does your "church"
get?
Tom Klemesrud SP5
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Tom Klemesrud, Sysop _/ _/ L.A. Valley College BBS _/
_/ tom.kl...@support.com _/ _/ FidoNet 1:102/837 KoX _/
_/ ro...@support.com _/ _/ North Hollywood, CA USA _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
---
From tom...@netcom.com Sat Apr 20 21:27:25 1996
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: tom...@netcom.com (Tom Klemesrud)
Subject: Re: SCIENO, GRETA VAN SUSTEREN = AMBULANCE CHASER
Message-ID: <tomklemD...@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <4l98fv$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
<4l9haq$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 19:27:25 GMT
Lines: 77
Sender: tom...@netcom14.netcom.com
FauxReal4 (faux...@aol.com) wrote:
: <<CHARLESTON, W.Va. (Reuter) - CNN legal commentator Greta Van Susteren
: and her law partner husband will fight a disciplinary panel's
: recommendation that they be temporarily barred from practicing in West
: Virginia for illegally contacting families of residents who were injured
: or killed in accidents.
: ``We're going to file an appeal in West Virginia, probably in a couple
: of weeks,'' John P. Coale, Van Susteren's husband, told Reuters Friday by
: phone from his Washington, D.C., law office.
[...]
: The complaint said the three lawyers illegally contacted families of
: residents who were injured or killed in accidents between 1990 and 1993.
: It said the lawyers contacted the families in person or by telephone,
: which is against West Virginia ethics rules.
: Van Susteren is co-anchor of the CNN legal program ``Burden of Proof''
: and was an analyst for the news channel during the O.J. Simpson murder
: trial.
I wonder if the Scientologist TV attorney Van Susteren, and her
Scientologist attorney husband John P. Coale; know Scientology associate
TV attorney Don Wager of Los Angeles? Wager was the ESPN O.J. Simpson
murder trial analyst, and was the first of the crowd--according to the
San Francisco Examiner--to predict O.J. would be found guilty of two
counts of murder.
12/06/95, Don Wager represented the woman who imprersonated an IRS
Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent in order to gain access to
the Support.COM internet site. Later Wager's client said, "I am a
representative from the Church of Scientology, and I think you should do
what attorney Thomas Small has instructed you to do--disconnect Dennis
Erlich from the Internet," after smearing over a pint of blood on my
floors, walls, shower, and furniture. Later Attorney Wager somehow found
out who the specific person handling my insurance for my federal defense
in RTC v. Klemesrud, and wrote a letter to the specific insurance
representative in an apparent attempt to undermine my insurance coverage
in the federal action.
Wager stated that Scientology attorney Elliot Abelson asked him to
represent the woman, and requested that Wager use his O.J. Simpson
contacts at the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office to try to
get me prosecuted, in May--the month that Wager's client swore in a
declaration and in open court, that I was in a Burbank bar, when in fact
I was at my father's funeral in Iowa.
Don Wager has shared office space with the registered agent for the
"World Association of Hubbard Enterprises," Attorney Michael Stoller.
Attorney Michael Stoller has shared office space with the "Thomas Small"
that Wager's client was referring to, after she smeared the blood all
over my apartment.
The O. J. Simpson lead prosecutor Marcia Clark was married to a
Scientologist, in a Scientology conducted wedding. She filed for divorce
from her Scientologist husband three days before she was assigned to the
O.J. Simpson case.
One of the fugitive-from-a-Florida-felony-warrant, and private
investigator for Scientology, Eugene Martin Ingram's friends; Attorney
Darryl Mounger represented LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman, suspected
of planting evidence in the O.J. Simpson case. Later, Mark Fuhrman was
to taken the 5th Amaendment, with Darryl Mounger at his side, in the O.J.
Simpson case. In 1980, Eugene Ingram and Darryl & Shari Mounger jointly
sued then Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates filed 6/18/80 Case # C326725.
This was just before Ingram was indicted for Pimping, and warning a local
drug dealer of am impending drug raid. Ingram was later dismissed from
the LAPD.
Gee ... I've always wondered why there were so many Scientologists
surrounding the O.J. Simpson case--and for that matter, the Michael
Jackson debacle.
It's like turning over a rock.
Tom Klemesrud SP5
KoX
---
From RTB...@prodigy.com Sun Jun 30 22:41:43 1996
From: RTB...@prodigy.com (Tom Klemesrud)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Vera Wallace Archievage
Date: 30 Jun 1996 20:41:43 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY
Lines: 55
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4r6oq7$59...@usenetz1.news.prodigy.com>
References: <4r53cb$53...@usenetz1.news.prodigy.com> <4r67po$q...@netaxs.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.168.253.74
rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
>
>Tom Klemesrud (RTB...@prodigy.com) wrote:
>: From: ro...@ccs.neu.edu (R Agent)
>: >>My guess is she's Linda Sarkovich, an OSA INT staffer who works in
the
>: >>same building as the law firms.
>: >"Linda" Sarkovich? You mean as in "Linda" Lee W****d, Rogue?
>: >You wouldn't happen to have any information on this Linda
>: >Sarkovich, would you?
>: I believe she's mentioned in one of the Scarff affadavits/depositions,
>: as
>: "Linda Saclovitch" or something similar. From descriptions of and
other
>: information I've seen about Woolard, I don't believe they are the
same
>: person. But I wouldn't swear to it.
>
>I've seen postings with the news that Vera was outed by the cult, but I
>haven't seen the name they outed yet. Was it Linda Sarkovich/Saclovitch?
http://www.xs4all.nl/~txtbreed/scarff.htm
helds the name Linda Sarkovich this way:
[citation]
Scarff Deposition:
Q. And by the Legal Office you mean?
A. There is--they weren't individuals that I know to have been with
Bowles & Moxon, but down on the floor where the OSA exists, there is an
office adjouning the War Room which they refer to as the Legal Office is
Linda Sarkovich and a woman by the name of Teri whose last name I don't
recall, but was always in a Sea Org. dress blues uniform when I spoke
with her....
[end citation]
I wonder if "Teri" might be the "Teri Bermudez" talked about in the
complaint against me by the plaintiff represented by Don Wager, Esq. He
was the ESPN O.J. Simpson commentator, who asked the Los Angeles District
Attorney to prosecute me in May, when his client represented that I was
in a bar in Burbank, when in fact I was at my dad's funeral in Thompson,
Iowa the day of May 27th, 1995.
We do know that our "Vera Wallace" (VeraW...@aol.com) was in close
immediate contact with plaintiff after receiving the small claims
verdict).
Tom
Klemesrud SP5
KoX
---
From tom...@netcom.com Fri Feb 28 12:22:00 1997
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.fan.marcia-clark,la.general
Path:
nosy.bART.nl!btnet-feed2!unlisys!fu-berlin.de!news.nacamar.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!news.nacamar.de!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!tomklem
From: tom...@netcom.com (Tom Klemesrud)
Subject: Gaby Horowitz, 1st Husband of Marcia Clark
Message-ID: <tomklemE...@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <333905d1....@news.snafu.de>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:22:00 GMT
Sender: tom...@netcom11.netcom.com
Lines: 82
Xref: nosy.bART.nl alt.religion.scientology:165770 alt.fan.marcia-clark:3876
la.general:6932
Tilman Hausherr (til...@xenu.com) wrote:
: If anyone knew Gaby Horovitz (Mr.), a professional gambler and possibly
: a scientologist, look up alt.fan.marcia-clark and/or contact
: Syne...@inter.net.il (his therapist).
: Tilman
It was said that Marcia worked her way through college, using the
backgammon hustler to finance her Southwestern University Law Schooling.
Marcia dump him in 1980 a year after graduating from law school, and
after Horowitz was banned from many Los Angeles backgammon clubs, for
cheating. She married Gordon Clark October 7, 1980--four months before
her California divorce from Horowitz became final on February 3, 1981.
Los Angeles DA's Office spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said Marcia got a
divorce in Tijuana Mexico prior to marrying Clark, the Enquirer reported
in its August 2, 1994 edition.
Horowitz--her first husband--gambled with John Birch Society member John
Wayne, and Lucille Ball. He played at a private club named "Pips" where
celebrities and others "like Dean Martin, Hugh Hefner, Jim Brown--and
O.J. Simpson--would play at the top private Los Angeles Backgammon club.
Horowitz hustled in backgammon. He was Marcia Clark's first husband,
and met with a tragic accident--a mistaken bullet to the head made him
an invalid--an accident remarkably resembling the cult religious ritual
"Auditing technique R2-45."
*"Horowitz's shady career came to a violent end when he was shot in the
head by his best friend, and wound up in a coma.
*"Marcia's second husband was a high-ranking member of the controversial
Scientology cult and tied the knot with him in a Scientology ceremony..."
Clark was married to her second husband, Scientologist Gordon Clark by
the Scientology Minister, Bruce Roman.
"'Gaby [Horowitz] and his good friend [Bruce] Roman--both gun collectors
were examining a Colt .45 at Roman's house and the gun went off while still
in the holster,' [April 14, 1989] said [Danny] Kleinman."
Kleinman authored 12 books on backgammon and knew Marcia Clark and
Horowitz.
"'The bullet entered Gaby's forehead where it fragmented and several
fragments remain lodged in his brain. I learned this from Gaby's mother,
who told me Roman had shot her son.'
"Horowitz was in a coma for a time after the shooting.
"Roman was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder but the shooting was
later ruled an accident... Horowitz is whellchair-bound and now being cared
for by his mother Clara.
"Neighbors of the two in Palm Springs, Calif., say they recently moved
back to Israel...."
OJ Simpson TV spin doctors and the cult:
1) Marcia Clark, cult associate, 2) legal analyst Greta Susteren, a
Scientologist, on CNN, 3) the attorney who represented the BBS
blood-smearing woman, demanding Dennis Erlich's disconnection from the
Internet, in Superior court--at the request of Scientology Attorney
Elliot Abelson--the ESPN Simpson legal analyst Don Wager, (the first
to declare that OJ would be convicted of two counts of murder); 4)
tracing a $100.00 donation check written to the Scientology-sued
support.com BBS received from the Scientology front "Concerned
Businessman's Association of America", led from a closed down Marina Del
Rey business address to an apartment in Glendale, California frequented
by a "Manuel Medrano." I don't know if this is the same KNBC-TV OJ
Simpson legal commentator, "Manny Medrano".
It was KNBC-TV that received the inside leaked story of evidence of blood
on a sock--that a KNBC-TV reporter broke, then invoked the California
reporters's shield law to conceal the source of the high level leak.
Interesting.
Tom Klemesrud SP6
KoX
---
From tom...@ix.netcom.com Tue Mar 04 02:46:03 1997
Path:
nosy.bART.nl!btnet-feed2!unlisys!fu-berlin.de!news.nacamar.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeeds.sol.net!ix.netcom.com!news
From: Tom Klemesrud <tom...@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.scientology,fl.general,fl.news,la.general,alt.clearing,alt.clearing.scam.scam.scam,alt.clearing.technology,alt.religion.scientology.squick.squick.squick
Subject: Re: ***SPTimes: $cieno jumps into harbor***
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 16:46:03 -0800
Organization: (Support.com BBS)
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <331B70...@ix.netcom.com>
References: <331a9c89...@news.eskimo.com>
<33219ec5....@news.castlsys.co.uk> <hudE6H...@netcom.com>
Reply-To: tom...@ix.netcom.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: lax-ca22-16.ix.netcom.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Mar 03 6:46:49 PM CST 1997
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; U)
Xref: nosy.bART.nl alt.religion.scientology:166486 fl.general:2823 fl.news:206
la.general:7043 alt.clearing.scam.scam.scam:64 alt.clearing.technology:22568
alt.religion.scientology.squick.squick.squick:1036
Hud Nordin wrote:
>
> In article <33219ec5....@news.castlsys.co.uk> ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) writes:
> >On Sun, 2 Mar 1997 15:31:17 GMT, mdal...@kcii.com (Mark Dallara) wrote:
> >> From the Sunday, 3/2/97 St. Petersburg Times (page 3B, Tampa & State
> >> section, right column, above and below the fold), and available at:
> >> http://www.times.st-pete.fl.us/News2/30297/METRO&STATE/Scientologist_hospita.html
> >>
> >> Scientologist hospitalized after jump into harbor
> >>
> >> By THOMAS C. TOBIN
> >> ©St. Petersburg Times, published March 2, 1997
> [Snip.]
> >> The incident comes as Clearwater police and state law
> >> enforcement officials investigate the case of another
> >> 36-year-old Scientologist, Lisa McPherson, who died in
> >> 1995 after a 17-day stay at the Fort Harrison.
> >
> >I especially like the way this paper uses the opportunity to draw
> >parallels with the McPherson case, as well as reiterating the whole
> >story for the benefit of anyone who's been asleep for the last two
> >months!!
>
> Were I part of a criminal organization trying to downplay the McPherson
> case, I would attempt to discredit the journalists. I might consider
> having reliable scientologists stage a newsworthy event that reminded
> people of Lisa McPherson. After the event was thoroughly covered,
> analyzed, and compared, I would have the "victim" -- whose every word
> is now golden -- say the press got it all wrong, and she supported the
> church, and was grateful for the help they rendered, and was happy as a
> clam, and she knew Lisa and the press was all wrong about her too.
>
On the very day of my father's funeral in Thompson, Iowa May 27th 1995
the woman that visited my internet site January 14th, 1995, had a
similar bleeding ordeal in a Burbank bar ladies room, and was rushed
to the hospital; then later swore in a Superior Court Declaration
that I was in the Burbank bar May 27th, when in fact I was 1,500 miles
away at the funeral.
Imagine the suprise that Elliot Abelson's friend and fellow attorney
Don Wager (O.J. Simpson commentator on ESPN), when he saw the
proof against his client's swore declaration, in Superior Court
December 6th 1995...?
It's funny how Wager found out who my insurance carrier was,
on behalf of his client--who swore no affiliation with the
criminal cult, and wrote a letter of complaint, that I had
legal representation paid for by insurance.
Tom Klemesrud SP6
KoX
---
ptsc
ROTFL!
The difference between Wager and Moxon is that Wager is a criminal lawyer while
Moxon is a CRIMINAL lawyer.
ptsc
Dobe R Mann
net> wrote:
>
>ROTFL!
>
>The difference between Wager and Moxon is that Wager is a criminal lawyer while
>Moxon is a CRIMINAL lawyer.
ROTFL to your ROTFL!
KM: ("....... Hey!!! .... Fuck Xenu..... I was an un-indited
conspirator!!)
>ptsc
DM
Dobe R Mann
SP4 Tone 1.95
Read www.xenu.net
See www.xenutv.com
_____________________________________________
INCIDENT 4
LOUD SNAP (Bones breaking)
CHEVROLETS COME OUT
BURN RUBBER
FISHTAIL RIGHT
DO U-TURN
STALL
FLAT TIRE (No motion)
BLOWS HORN
BLOWS MISCAVIGE
CRASH