Response motion in by Barbara Schwarz in case vs. Salt Lake Tribune http://www.scientology-kills.org

From: BarbaraSchwarz@excite.com (Barbara Schwarz) Subject: Response motion in by Barbara Schwarz in case vs. Salt Lake Tribune Date: 9 Aug 2003 08:25:55 -0700 Message-ID: <8385d874.0308090725.49eeab30@posting.google.com>

Below is what kept me busy this week. I filed that motion yesterday to the court. Attorney Graham Barry, I don't need a lawyer to work out legal pleadings for me. With L. Ron Hubbard's study tech it is a breeze to understand whatever is on the shelves of a law library. Tom Cruise certainly is right to promote the Scientology study tech, it really works. Now I hope that the computers work just as well and that there is no technical problem posting this long document.

Barbara Schwarz Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT ISTRICT OF SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

BABARA SCHWARZ, PLAINTIFF,

v.

SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, MEDIA NEWS RESPONSE MOTION BY GROUP, PUBLISHER WILLIAM DEAN PLAINTIFF BARBARA SINGLETON, CHIEF EDITOR NANCY SCHWARZ TO CONWAY, INTERIM EDITOR BILL LONG, DEFENDANTS' MOTION EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR VERN AND MEMORANDUM TO ANDERSON, MANAGING EDITOR TIM DISMISS AND/OR FOR FITZPATRICK, REPORTER CHRISTOPHER SUMMARY JUDGMENT SMITH, PHOTO EDITOR LORI POST, PHOTOGAPHER CHRIS EGAN, DEFENDANTS. CIVIL CASE NUMBER:

030912398 MI

JUDGE GLENN K. IWASAKI

I ask the court to deny the motion to dismiss or alternatively the motion for summary judgment, because defendants Salt Lake Tribune ("Tribune") and their counsel ignore the merits of the case and mainly "spam", overload, and overwork the court with case law citations and arguments that have little or nothing to do with this case. I will explain that in this response motion and with my affidavit and exhibits filed together with this motion. IN RESPONSE TO THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND ARGUMENTS THAT DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL PROVIDED.

Counsel of defendants, Michael Patrick O'Brien, ("O'Brien") attached as list of my legal cases, which are mainly FOIA cases, as his number one exhibit. He wrote his "overview", a sort of summary to some of the cases in this list, and I ask the court to disregard this "overview", because contains outrageous falsehoods. O'Brien tries to mislead the court on my cases and what exactly other judges ruled. If the court wants to know what the cases are about, I strongly suggest that the judge studies my original cases and the rulings of the others courts, or to ask me directly. ? If the court wants me to go into the details of the false summaries as made up by O'Brien, I certainly will, but I want to remind, that this case is not about my other legal cases, but about that the Salt Lake Tribune deceived me, that reporter Christopher Smith ("Smith") lied to me that he would not write about my private life but about how the unusual ruling by the federal government on my cases may have broad implications for the public and the free press. (See my affidavit and the exhibits A, C and F.) This case is about how Smith deceived me, broke an agreement, a contract, how he tricked me in an interview and in a photo session. It is about that the Tribune published a malicious and defamatory article that is wrong in sting and gist, that they defamed, libeled, harassed me and violated my privacy outrageously, that they never printed any correction, not even a letter to the editor and stole approximately 100 photos from me, which they don't return, despite so often requested.

(I have to assume that the reason why they don't want to return the photos and negatives to me is, because they plan further malicious and defamatory articles about me and want to use those photos against my wishes, or they plan to sell and rent it to others.

I want to remind this court, that the Tribune is no credible paper.

Tribune reporters Michael Vigh and Kevin Cantera admitted having sold fabricated information about the Elizabeth Smart family to the National Enquirer for $ 20.000 and editor Jay Shelledy did not fire them and had to resign over the scandal. The Tribune also published later a bogus letter in the July 15, 2003 Sunday edition. They claimed Dave Jones, Frank Pignanelli's campaign chairman switched his support to Rocky Anderson in the Salt Lake City mayoral race. No one of the Tribune called to verify the letters' authentity.)

In his memorandum in support of his motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment ("memo"), O'Brien wrongfully claimed that I abused the civil court system. He claimed that my "abuse" has produced more than 100 reported decisions against a wide range of defendants, governmental and private, domestic and foreign. He misinformed the court. My cases were mainly FOIA/PA lawsuits. I just sued a very few private individuals, a landlord and very rude and provoking neighbors, non-religious infiltrators of the Church of Scientology, and a dentist. Counsel is lying by claiming that I sued a wide range of private people and foreign people. I never sued any foreign party. I also did not lose all my cases. The case against the landlord, once before judge Thorne, was settled in the Third District Court, Salt Lake County.

The judges that ruled on my federal cases were biased towards me. My cases were not frivolous. It also doesn't mean that if several judges dismiss cases, that the cases were indeed frivolous and that the courts did the right thing. All judges in Nazi Germany denied rights to the Jews, and they dismissed all their cases. They all agreed that Jews have no rights, despite that the Jews were right demanding constitutional rights and decent treatment. It's nothing new on this earth that many people conspire together to deny an innocent person her rights, that happened in my cases, and defendants and their counsel contribute to this despicable, unlawful and unconstitutional activity.

Abuses by courts are known to the nonprofit organization "A Matter of Justice" ("AMOJ") and they try to hold judges accountable for their corrupt actions. AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogroups.com posted following recently on the Internet: "Hofstra Law Professor Monroe Freedman said this recently to a conference of federal judges: ?Frankly, I have had more than enough of judicial opinions that bear no relationship whatsoever to the cases that have been filed and argued before the judges. I am talking about judicial opinions that falsify the facts of the cases that have been argued, judicial opinions that falsify the facts of cases that have been argued, judicial opinions that make disingenuous use of omission of material authorities, judicial opinion that cover up things with no publication and no citation-rules.' Afterwards, when Professor Freedman sat down, a judge sitting next to him turning to him and said: ?You don't know half of it.' (Suggesting even more serious implication than the alleged statement by Professor Freedman.)

(See also my affidavit hereto.)

I told Smith during the interview about "A Matter of Justice", which consists of lawyers but also otherwise of interested citizens in the law and the justice system. They want to reform the justice system and want to hold corrupt judges accountable. They want independent investigations of the activities of the judiciary and impeaching the worst of the lot. They believe that Congress is concerned about the growing public awareness of and outrage over the corrupt operation of the legal system and understand that the judiciary is not only at the heart of this corruption, but is likely huge future liability for the government as a whole. I informed Smith that AMOJ apparently studied some of my cases, saw the injustice and judicial corruption and provided me ever since with information, but Smith, who never intended to write an objective and impartial article, but rather covered for those at fault, never contacted that organization for their knowledge and opinion.

In July 2003, House Majority Leader Tom Delay, along with Rep. Steve Chabot and Rep. Lamar Alexander announced a new working group to "once and for all reassert responsibility and authority of Congress, to remind the judiciary of who they are, as outlined in the Constitution," Mr. Deland said. The GOP group plans to turn up scrutiny on federal judges. The task force was announced to scour the output of federal judges for evidence of what they call "judicial abuse". Mr. Delay was quoted in the Dallas Morning News of July 27, 2003: "We in the House are putting America's judges on alert: We are watching you."

This is why my legal cases were dismissed: Judicial abuse. Most of the time any hearing was denied to me and so was my constitutional right for a jury trail.

(See also my affidavit hereto.)

The U.S. Supreme Court decision to deny access to the court for me (unless I pay the court fee, despite they did not doubt my impecuniosity, but they knew I was unable to pay court fees) was unconstitutional, and not all of the justices agreed with the decision. If I would have the money, they would not deny access to their court to me. I did not abuse the system. My cases were based upon clear violations by agencies and parties against my rights, and I had the documents to show that. I became the target of governmental and judicial abuse.

The Tribune, reporter Smith claimed he has studied my cases.

He must have come across several orders/judgments, one by U.S.

District Court of Columbia chief judge Thomas Hogan and the other one by judge John Bates, which twist the facts of my legal cases, just in the matter as described by Professor Freedman above, in which wrong case law was used and the correct case law and statutes were completely ignored. The orders are so unprofessional that they cite the U.S. Departments with "U.S. Depots", a "U.S. Depot of Energy", a "U.S. Depot of Treasury", a "U.S. Depot of Transportation", a "U.S.

Depot of Agriculture", as in my case vs. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., case number 01-1464 and my case vs. FBI, et al., case number 00-2758.- I heard that the clerks or secretaries often work out the judgments and the judges are just signing them, which also explains the unconstitutionality, the lawlessness and the unprofessionalism of the orders, as issued in my cases. (See my affidavit.)

As far as the U.S. District Court and the Tenth Circuit case in Denver are concerned, they ruled on my case for access to information by the CIA. They never investigated any of my claims. They never ordered the CIA to conduct the smallest search. If they would have, the CIA could have confirmed that my memories to my past, my abduction and who I am really are, are either correct, or they could have made the case that I operate on false memories. If the courts would have done their duty to make the CIA search for records under FOIA/PA, I would have not had to file my requests for records to other agencies on this subject.

FOIA insider and reporter M. (full name deleted because he mentioned to me he doesn't want to be cited in Usenet) wrote to me that he doesn't like to sue, because judges are not knowledgeable about FOIA practices and procedures. (See my affidavit, and his e-mail, exhibit Y1.)

Defendants and their counsel tried all they could in their memo to get the court into buying judicial opinions that bear no relationship whatsoever with this case. They ignore the merits of the case completely, but overloaded the court with judicial opinions and case law, that distract from the merits of the case.

My lawsuit against the Salt Lake Tribune ("Tribune") is not frivolous, my claims are well documented and supported. The newspaper, the defendants and its counsel should better face up to this, instead committing more crimes against me and trying to get the court to participate in lawlessness.

Defendants and their counsel claim that I would have exhausted my welcome in federal court and would now avoid the effect of restrictive filing orders imposed on me. Fact is, the U.S. District Court of Utah never filed any decision that I can't file any lawsuit to them. Under District of Columbia law, choice of law determinations are governed by the governmental interest, and, in defamation action, the law to be applied is that of the place where the plaintiff suffered injury by reason of his loss of reputation. Restatement Ssecond) of Conflict of law, paragraph 150 comment. ?Weyrich v. New Republic, Inc., 235 F.3d 617.Under District of Columbia choice of law rules, law of the District was applicable in defamation and invasion of privacy action brought by conservative political leader against magazine, given nature of leader's livelihood, fact that leader worked in Washington D.C. when article was published, and parties' reliance on District of Columbia law. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws paragraph 150 comment. ?Id. The Tribune article and their on-line edition made its way around the world. Theoretically, according that that rule, I would be able to sue in any court, but as the Tribune is based in Salt Lake City, which is also my residence, I chose the Third District Court in Salt Lake County, because this court has jurisdiction over the defendants and is also the proper venue.

Nothing about my complaint, the supplemental information to the complaint (requested by defendants) is disjointed. The article of the Tribune is disjointed. I wrote my complaint by going through the article. The reporter at random throw twisted information in the article and reported out of context and sequence, violated the U.S.

Constitution, the Utah Constitution and numerous statutory provisions.

Counsel of defendants should rather blame reporter Smith than me.

Tribune and its counsel don't want to understand the claims, because they know that they violated the laws and my rights outrageously and try to cover up crimes committed by others. Their strategy is it to play stupid and to distract the court by trying to get the attention of the judge to matters that don't have anything to do with this case.

My case versus the Tribune is not frivolous, my claims are very well documented with exhibits attached to my affidavit, and defendants and their counsel should better face up to this. I stated claims upon which relief can be granted by the court.

The unqualified counsel O'Brien attacked my "Motion to protest administrative corruption on docket sheet" and my "Motion to protest docket sheet entry that my motion to protest was ex parte communication" as reason why the court should not file my motions or should control what is being filed. ? I was right filing both motions, because I was not treated equally with other plaintiffs. The clerk of judge Iwasaki, Janet MB, acknowledged to me that deputy clerk Larie H.

should had docketed my complaint as filed when she received it. After I complained, Janet MB corrected what Larie did wrong, and docketed my complaint as filed. Janet agreed with me that all complaints filed by other plaintiffs were immediately filed as docketed, and the evidence hereto was on any docket sheet I looked at. - The other matter was also a reason to complain. Deputy clerk Luann filed a letter from another Rick Egan, a party of divorce case, on my docket sheet, and this is not the same defendant Egan as in my complaint. That letter had no mailing certificate, wasn't even a legal valid document and was ex parte communication, while I on the other hand committed no ex parte communication, telling the court administration to correct that mistake.

O'Brien is completely out of line and out of law telling the court to deny my motions to be filed. None of those filings were frivolous, those motions were necessary. I don't want to pour salt and pepper in the still open wounds of Third District judges, but they should be thankful if such "mistakes" are being found in time, can be corrected, and that the judges don't have to deal again with something as embarrassing as the Third District Court clerk, who is now probed by the FBI for her criminal activities. ? In the same May 11, 2003 issue, in which the Tribune trashed me on the front page, the paper reported in the "B" section on page B1 and B7, that the FBI probes a 3rd District Court clerk on improperly dismissing a number of felony and misdemeanor cases. They did not violate her privacy and withheld her name, but my name was published despite I did nothing criminal. In my opinion, the report about the criminal clerk should have been on the front page, not any report about my private life. ? Counsel of defendants suggests unnecessary and unconstitutional "pre-screenings" and "pre-examinations" of my court papers. That means keeping the court, the judge extraordinarily busy, meaning it would disrupt the due course of the case, distracting the court and the judge from other cases and even the merits of this case. It would not preserve litigant and judicial resources, but would cost more.

I ask the court to deny defendants unlawful and unconstitutional motion to ask the court to control my filings. If a motion by any party is unlawful, the court has always the freedom and authority to deny it.

The order that magistrate Ronald Boyce of Utah District Court, on case 2:97-0086 rendered, is absolutely unconstitutional. He had no grounds whatsoever to order special laws to be applied in my case. The only matter that should count in a lawsuit is who is right and who is wrong. Free communication to the court should be not undermined by defendants that are afraid that I, as plaintiff, might tell the court too much about law violations. My communication, in other words, my filings to the court, motions and pleadings, should be filed like those of anybody else, and for those that are interested to read those documents in the files. - Counsel O'Brien is a despicable hypocrite.

In his long and rambling memorandum he stressed how important free speech is to a newspaper and reporters (to which I don't object, but I object to deception, theft, malicious defamation, libel and violation of privacy by the Tribune) but on the other side, he goes out of his way, trying to get the court to make unconstitutional rulings against my free speech and my free access to the court. People with such poor understanding of justice and the constitution should have never been admitted to the bar. It is very apparent that the Tribune tries to control my court filings because they violated my rights and numerous laws so outrageously with the article. The Tribune is afraid of the facts and my arguments and works with unconstitutional methods to silence me.

THE ESSENCE OF MY COMPLAINT

The essence of my complaint, which defendants and their counsel certainly understood, but don't want admit having understood, is of course not properly restated by them in their memo. The essence of my complaint is following:

a) Deception and fraud by the Tribune. The reporter promised to write about a completely different subject and not about my private life.

b) That agreement was broken, which is breach of agreement and contract.

c) I was tricked in an interview, to provide information and my photos taken, which is deception and also fraud.

d) Tribune published malicious defamatory article that is wrong in sting and gist.

e) Even the headline is maliciously defamatory and wrong in sting and gist and is very misleading.

f) Abuse of my identity on the front page, the Sunday edition of the paper, and also in their on-line edition. My name, photo, personality, activities and twisted and false data pertaining to my private life, also unauthorized information of my private life were used to attract more readers.

g) Tribune printed libel and insults, e.g. citing me as "FOIA terrorist", which is no opinion anymore.

h) Tribune article is also otherwise cites me incoherently, out of context to ridicule me, harass me, shame me and make people hate and avoid me.

i) Tribune is guilty of emotional abuse.

j) Outrageous violation of my privacy, referring the 150.000 household that read the Tribune on Sunday and even more on line to an abusive internet newsgroup, that has my home address against my will in their headlines, and despite that reporter Smith mentioned that my life is in danger.

k) Important data to my FOIA requests and legal cases were completely withheld by the Tribune to mislead the readers.

l) The facts of the dispute, the true controversy with the government and their fraud and conspiracy were concealed, despite Tribune reporter knew what was going on.

m) Unauthorized use of my photo in that particular article.

n) Use of doctored photo or use of worst shot for the article to make me look bad.

o) Theft of approximately hundred photos and negatives that the Tribune doesn't return to me, despite several times requested.

p) Not having printed any correction, not even a letter to the editor.

q) Having provoked this litigation, and more.

THE TRIBUNE, SMITH AND I HAD AN AGREEMENT, A CONTRACT SO TO SPEAK, THAT HE WOULD WRITE ABOUT HOW THE DENIAL TO PROCESS MY REQUESTS BASED ON FRAUDULENT FEES AFFECTS OTHER REQUESTERS AND THE MEMBERS OF THE FREE PRESS.

Smith and I had a socalled contract, an agreement, that he would report about how the denial to process my FOIA requests based on the fraudulent fees that the government made up, would affect other people and the media. He broke that agreement by suddenly turning on me and writing about my private life. That is breach of contract.

Actions for Breach of Contract are: 1) Existence of agreement, which are his letters and his e-mails to me, 2) adequate performance of contract my plaintiff, which is that I met him, provided information and allowed the photographer to take my picture.

A person may be liable for breach of contract if the complaining party can prove the existence of an agreement, breach of agreement?Ultracuts ltd. V. Wal-Mart Store, Inc, 33 S.W3rd, 343 ARK 224 (NY 2000). I certainly can claim that. (See my affidavit and the exhibits, the letter and the e-mails that Smith mailed to me, promising to write a completely different article and leaving my private life out of it.)

The Tribune should have never used a photo of mine in the article they wrote about me, because had no authority by me to use it in that particular article. The defendants should have returned the photos and negatives, as requested by me from publisher Dean Singleton, the photographer Egan, photo editor Lori Post and 42 other Tribune executives and employees on May 12, 2003. (See my affidavit, exhibit X.)

Unauthorized reproduction of professional photographs will generally violate the Corpyright Act. 17 U.S.C.A, paragraph 107. The photos were obtained under deception, by the Tribune, the photographer cheating himself in my apartment. Theft by deception is a violation of Utah Code Ann. Paragraph 76-6-1102 (2) (Supp 2000). The theft by deception statute provides: A person commits theft if he obtains or exercises control over property of another by deception and with a purpose to deprive him thereof. "Purpose to deprive" means to have the conscious object: a) to withhold property permanently or so for extended a period or to use under such circumstances that a substantial portion of its economic value, or of the use and benefit thereof would be lost, or c) to dispose of the property under circumstances, that make it unlikely that the owner will recover it. Utah Code Ann. paragraph 76-6-401 (3). Fact is that the Tribune made approximately 100 photos of me under deception, I want the photos and the negatives back, and Tribune doesn't return them. Counsel ignored the entire issue in his memoranda and answer to complaint. That is fraud; that is theft by deception.

THE ARTICLE AND THE HEADLINE IS WRONG IN STING AND GIST.

The headline of the article "SL woman's quest strains public records system" is wrong in sting and gist, because I never strained the public records system, and Tribune reporter Smith knew that. He told and wrote to me that the officials are lazy and don't want to work.

They did not process many of my requests, they just illegally delayed them or filed them otherwise away. I did not strain the system, and most agencies never complained that they have many requests as a backlog. From the logs that I received, and that superficial reporter Smith (who claimed to be investigative reporter) never ordered, it is very apparent that most agencies don't receive more FOIA requests than they can't handle, and that they are not overloaded at all.

Reporter M. (rest of name deleted, because he mentioned that he doesn't want to be mentioned in Usenet), who holds a Bachelor degree from Cornell University and a law decree from William Mitchell College of Law, a FOIA insider, apparently has informed Smith that not I are the most prolific FOIA requester, but he and some other reporters.

(See my affidavit) M. also provided following information: That he was employed at American Lawyer Media that he requested records because he wanted to see what techniques are being used against the requesters and how and why agencies were declining to do what they are supposed to do. He informed that at one point he wants to write an article about FOIA offices use improper tactics to avoid processing requests, and how agencies undertake illegal methods of denying records. (He wrote that he believes that the agencies did this in my case.) He continued that he can see where an agency has lied to a requester, or worded a request in such a way that they are literally telling the truth, but not the whole truth, and through their misleading wordings, the person is likely to drop the matter, even though the agencies probably has responsive records. He wrote that in some cases, agencies charged excessive fees and shouldn't have, but the person dropped the request. In a few cases, he has dropped the person a note and let them know that they were screwed over and how. (See my affidavit, exhibits Y and Y1.)

I had provided Smith with information about FOIA expert M., but Smith didn't contact him, he rather wrote a false and very one sided article that helped the agencies to feel good about their FOIA violations.

Smith wrote to me in a handwritten letter, and later in e-mails, that he wants to do a story on how the federal agencies use the denial to process my FOIA requests (making up alleged fees) to deny also the rights of other members of the public and the members of the free press. This was the only reason I agreed to see him and talk to him.

The denial of rights of others to get their FOIA requests processed is no imaginary conspiracy. It really happens. M., the reporter e-mailed me on May 27 and 29, 2003, that the DOD, DOJ and TSA cancelled all his pending requests, and that the agencies now get more work, because he will post it and instead of one request, the agencies will get ten.

(See my affidavit, the exhibits.)

The Tribune committed treason against their own profession by publishing the malicious article about me, because reporters are now the next target of governmental arbitrariness and conspiracy. Reporter M. assumed that Smith never filed any FOIA request, and it appears that the copy of the e-mail that I received was directed originally to Smith. M. wrote that agencies in general engage in disingenuous cat and mouse game with requesters, lying, cheating and just plain being grossly uncooperative with people who ask for records. He also informed Smith that he thinks he is the one who filed most FOIA requests to agencies, second ranked may be William Burr at the National Security Archive, and that Bill Bastone and Daniel Green at the Smoking Gun website have filed a lot, so has William P. Barrett, a reporter with Forbes magazine, who has a basement full with FBI files of well known people. (See my affidavit.) How does M. know that he is the most prolific requester for records? I think he ordered the FOIA logs over the years and saw the names on them. I saw many FOIA logs too, and I noticed that Mr. M's name was on them many more often than mine. The Tribune failed to order the logs or to screen the logs in the agencies and misinformed the readers that it would be me, who filed thousands of requests, when in fact I just filed a few hundreds.

M. filed thousands, and I told that to Smith during the interview and referred Smith to his website. The statements by the Tribune, that I am the most prolific FOIA requester and filed thousands of requests are also absolutely false.

The Tribune failed to report that it is criminal by the agencies to fabricate fees behind the back of a requester without that person's consent. In my case, not only that was done, but the agencies knew that I am indigent and esp. because they had this information, the used my impecuniosity to deny FOIA processing to me. They knew that I could not pay the fees, and that is why they fabricated them in the first place. They work with Mafia methods. If any private company would do something like that, it would be criminally prosecuted, but corrupt federal workers apparently come away with it. Smith failed to contact the FBI and the VA to ask them how the fees came about and if they ever had any consent from me (which they never had). The VA-fees are about $303,30, not exactly pocket change, and they are not copy or processing fees. Those are the fees made up by a paralegal student for his work or study of my FOIA folder. No FOIA requester has to pay for that under the FOIA statutes. Smith also failed to report that the fee campaign against me started with $ 16,80 (which I paid despite that I was not asked for consent and despite that the FBI mailed me records that they had mailed to me already before but withheld other records that I had requested) and that the campaign by the DOJ, Office of Information and Privacy, to contact each agency and make them agree on denying my rights for records did cost the government a lot more time and money than just $ 16,80. The Tribune article is false in sting and gist reporting about the fee issue.

The headline of the Tribune article is a malicious lie, because A) I never strained the system, because others requested filed so many more requests, and many of the agencies did not have any backlog in processing FOIA requests, and B) even if it would have been true, Smith knew that it wouldn't be true anymore in May 2003, because the agencies started the criminal fee campaign (me allegedly having debts to the agencies, starting with the amount of $ 16,80 and as soon I had paid them, starting another one for the criminally fabricated VA fees of $ 303,30) in September 2001. Since September 2001, my FOIA/PA requests are not longer processed. The Tribune was two years late with reporting about my FOIA requests. The headline misled the readers thinking that I am still filing FOIA requests to the federal agencies.

The headline is maliciously false and misleading and wrongfully makes alleged past actions to appear being continued in present time. The Tribune wants me to be hated by the public, which is why that paper is misleading the public about me. I still have to suffer abuse in present time over that Tribune article in the Internet newsgroups.

Many idiots repeat the lies of the Tribune again and again all over the net. Many other papers picked the malicious false reports of the Tribune up. There is reporter Chuck Sheppard and his column "News of the Weird". Numerous papers printed his summary of the Tribune article, the lies of Smith in their papers and in on-line news editions, calling me wrongfully "out of control", and the magazine "Potpourri" called me, based on the Tribune article "a nut, that uses the law idiotically." Just as in the Tribune article, my name was not redacted in those malicious and defamatory reports. (See my affidavit, exhibits B3 and B4.)

I told and wrote Smith that I don't post in newsgroups because I like it, but that people spread so horrendous lies about me, that I had to step in and correct them. However, my posts about my private life can't be compared to what the Tribune did: taking information from my postings and listing those as incoherent, twisted and completely false extractions in their Sunday edition. Even when I am known in a newsgroup, my postings are probably not read by more than 30 people, which is smaller than the average Mormon family. It was an outrageous violation of my privacy to use private information and spread them in the major newspaper of my state, and to put those on their online edition. From there it made its way all over the nation and the world.

Smith referred the Tribune readers to the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology, which is not a Scientology newsgroup, as counsel misinformed, it is an anti-Scientology newsgroup. This newsgroup (to be accessed over Google) has my private home address in their headline, posted by some law violators against my wish, and they don't remove it to cause me grief. They apparently want criminals coming to my door. There were also postings in this newsgroup of people that want me dead. By referring to this newsgroup, the Tribune violated my privacy so outrageously, as if they would have printed my address right in the article. Smith indicated during the interview that he hopes that I am not being murdered. He certainly helped to show the killers their way to my apartment. I can't move, because I don't have the money for a move. It was an outrageous violation of my privacy by the Tribune to refer the readers to a hostile newsgroup that had published my private address against my wish. (See my affidavit and the exhibits B 5, Z and Z1)

Defendants counsel attached printouts of those postings to overload, "spam" and overwork the court. However, after all what's reported about my hard life in those, after all what the reporter knew about me personally, it is unbelievable that the Tribune added even more abuse to it and had not the decency to publish an accurate article about me.

It appears as if the Tribune defendants and also the counsel are people without any human compassion and qualifications.

Defendants' counsel repeated in his memo that I gave my consent to the use of a photograph. He is wrong. I did not give my consent to the use of my photo of me in that article. I gave consent to use my photo in a completely different article. Smith lied to me; he deceived me to obtain interview and photo. He wrote and told me that he will write about how the unusual handling of my requests affects other requesters and member of the free press. (See my affidavit, the exhibits) That is not the article he wrote. The Tribune got interview and photo under total deception and with many lies, and I did not consent to that. The photo was used without my consent in that article. Given the circumstances and the facts, defendants and their counsel are lying that I consented that my photo was used in that article. Smith should have e-mailed me a copy of the draft, instead of outrageously violating my privacy and other civil rights with that article. The Tribune also should have given me the choice to decide which one of the hundred photos they would use, instead using the worst shot or even doctor the photo to make it fit their malicious article about me.

In my e-mail of May 12, 2003 to Salt Lake Tribune Publisher William Dean Singleton, Nancy Conway, Bill Long, Vern Anderson, Tim Fitzpatrick, Chris Smith, Lori Post, Rick Egan and numerous other Salt Lake Tribune employees and reporters, I demanded a correction of the malicious article and the false reports. I also prohibited any further use of my photos by the Tribune, or them selling or renting my photos to others. I demanded the approximately 100 photos, which Egan shot in my apartment, back from them, including the negatives. I did not only e-mail this request to all the above mentioned, but I delivered a copy on May 12, 2003, personally to the Tribune, to employee Lea, who told me that she would hand that letter right away to editor Bill Long. As of today, the Tribune did not print any correction, not even a letter to the editor and they kept all the many photos and negatives. This is theft, theft and theft of my image. (See my affidavit, the exhibit X)

The Smith affidavit is worthless, because all it says is that some exhibits are attached, but he doesn't give any details as to how he deceived me, what he promised to me to get me to agree to an interview and the photos taken, and neither why no correction was printed and why the many photos and negatives are not returned. In one of his e-mails to me, Smith joked about the government as to why they did not find a solution outside of appeals and courts with me. Fact is however, that the Tribune is making same mistake. They provoke litigation instead of just correcting their false reports and giving me my photos back.

TRIBUNE HAS DIRTY HANDS, ARE ABOVE THE LAW, AND INSTEAD OF COMING CLEAN ARE ATTACKING ME AND ARE TRYING TO GET THE CASE DISMISSED.

Defendants' counsel is lying by claiming that I have a history of harassing and vexatious litigation, but the Tribune harassed me with the malicious article that is wrong in sting and gist and with their unqualified court papers filed to this court. The Tribune, the defendants and their counsel have much dirt on their hands and they act above the law. That is why they do not only want my case dismissed, but my filings to the court unconstitutionally controlled and restricted and also try to deny in forma pauperis processing to me. Reporter Smith and photographer Egan, who noticed my "austere"

apartment, know that I am indigent and it is despicable by their counsel trying to revoke the waiver of filing fees to me. It violates my constitutional right of access to the courts and it should help the Tribune to come away with their crimes. None of my claims versus the Tribune is "fanciful", "fantastic", or "delusional". My claims are based on facts. I documented the wrongdoing of the Tribune in my affidavit and supported it with compelling evidence, the exhibits. If all the shysters and their rich clients can just demand that a court should deny poor people their access to the court based on their inability to pay court fees, we can bury the U.S. Constitution for all the impecunious people. It would be the ultimate injustice for the poor man and we would get 3rd world conditions in which justice can be bought. There is no statute in Utah that would allow the abuse of the law that the Tribune and their counsel are suggesting. If it would happen to me, I certainly would not only appeal the unconstitutionality to the appeal court, but also would document it to the GOP task force that investigates abuse by the judiciary.

Defendants' counsel lied claiming that I have claimed prescient ability to stop the September 11th attacks. However, it is a fact that I filed in October 2000 FOIA requests to all agencies of the U.S.

intelligence community to pull the files on Osama Bin Laden, because I studied the news and found him to be underrated as terrorist. I thought he is much more dangerous than reported and I felt that he was up to atrocities. If the agencies, the federal FOIA employees would have done what they are being paid for, that is conducting lawful and adequate searches for records, they could have connected the dots in the files and coordinated increased intelligence around that man and the security for the United States. My requests were a darn good chance to prevent September 11 terror attacks, because Congress published a report that the agencies had the 9/11 clues since 1998 in their files. U.S. Today had an article on July 25-27, 2003 on their front page about that, titled "Report says U.S. missed 9/11 clues".

While I studied the news and made the proper evaluations that Bin Laden was planning atrocities and tried to get U.S. government's attention on the beast, the Tribune, defendants and their counsel did nothing of that kind. They rather defame me, who was right on target.

It is sad that those in the news business didn't see what was brewing on the horizon and on top of that, blame the one who did. Unfair as the Tribune is, Smith did not mention my activities to get Bin Laden records already in October 2000, despite that he must have come across that request in any agency in which he looked through my FOIA files.

Absolutely outrageous is that governmental employees failed to search for the Bin Laden files, and contributed in a way to the September 11 terror attacks with inactivity, laziness and corruption against me, and one of them has the guts to call me a "FOIA Terrorist" and that the Tribune printed that outrageous libel and malicious defamation and misled the readers that not only one, but more or many federal workers called me that.

My memories, my recall as to who I am, and to whom I am related, is my private matter, it never should have been printed by the Tribune and made available to 150.000 and more households and never should have been in their on-line edition, because its an outrageous invasion of my privacy. I never gave Smith any authority to smear my private life in his article. It doesn't matter in this case who I am and to whom I am related, because this article is about how the Tribune deceived me, how Smith lied to me he would write about an entirely different subject, about how the denial of processing of my FOIA requests affects other people and the media.

I made no "wild claims" and this fact is supported in my affidavit and the exhibits. The Tribune article shows me in a completely false light. The information published, the headline and the entire article are wrong in sting and gist. Furthermore, being called a terrorist on their front page and an abuser of the courts and FOIA system is outrageously malicious defamation. Defendants admit in their pleading to this court, that me having "abused" the court or FOIA system would be just "a possibility", but Tribune did not print about any possibilities, they declared that "abuse" deliberately wrongfully and maliciously even in their headline as facts.- Under D.C. law, certain anecdotes about behavior of conservative political leader, including statements that, in response to perceived betrayal by third party, leader "snapped," erupted in a "volcano of screaming," "frothed at the mouth," and "sent derogatory letter?" were reasonably capable of defamatory meaning, and thus supported leader's claim of defamation, because statement arguably made leader appear highly volative, irrational, unsound, and otherwise odious, infamous or ridiculous. Weyrich v. New Republic Inc., 235 F.3d , 617. That politican wasn't called a "terrorist" nor was he accused of having overloaded the entire government, but I was.

THE TRIBUNE ARTICLE IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED.

Defendants claim that their "editorial choices" are "constitutionally"

protected. It really hurts to read how the Tribune and their counsel claim the constitution for themselves, but want to deny my constitutional rights, my right to free speech, my rights to access to the courts, and so much more. I do not want to take "editorial choices" away from any newspaper, but "editorial choices" are not to publish a malicious, defamatory, privacy violating, abusive article that also is false in sting and gist on their front page about a private citizen. Defendants' claim that the public has a legitimate interest in the information published is completely ridiculous because the information about me published by the Tribune was either completely false or otherwise extremely misleading. The public has a legitimate right to be properly and truthfully informed, but not fed with despicable malicious lies and twisted facts in a one sided article that covers up the facts. If the readers have a legitimate right to be informed about that somebody overloaded the FOIA system, they also should know who it really was, that it was not me, and that likely nobody overloaded the system in the first place.

My privacy claim is solid. The public has no legitimate interest in my private life, not even in my FOIA activities or my civil cases, because I am not the most prolific filer of FOIA requests and lawsuits. The person that filed likely most requests is reporter M.

and some other reporters, and the person that filed most litigation is Lovis Green and others. I am no record holder on both subjects, why would the public want to know about me and not rather about the others? The Tribune calculated that they catch new yellow journalism oriented readers and beef up their subscriptions by wrongfully declaring me as negative, to be hated and ridiculed record holder in their neighborhood. That is not newsworthy, that is not in the legitimate interest of the public, it is mean business by the Tribune.

Utah cases analyzing the invasion of privacy tort have adopted the restatement (Second) of Torts, also called "Restatement", paragraph 652D says:

One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, b) is not of legitimate concern to the public. The highly offensive and misleading article, completely false in its headline, gist and details, did not educate or enlighten anybody.

Mainly people with criminal backgrounds, that trash others on the Internet in newsgroups, hailed the Tribune article, while others were rather appalled by it. (See my affidavit, the exhibits about what kind of people hailed the Tribune article and about their criminal and extremist backgrounds, exhibits B 5, Z and Z1.) The constitutional and civil rights of a citizen should be valued higher than the amusement of criminals and the action by the Tribune to attract such readers to subscribe and to sell.

There can't be any doubt that the Salt Lake Tribune article is an outrageous violation of my rights. Section 652A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts says 1) One who invades the right of privacy of another is subject to liability for the resulting harm to the interest of the other.

2) The right of privacy is invaded by a) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another as stated in paragraph 652B; or b) appropriation of the other's name or likeness, as stated in paragraph 652C; or c) unreasonable publicity given to the other's private life, as stated in paragraphs 652D; or d) publicity that unreasonably places the other in a false light before the public, as states in paragraph 652E.

See also Prosser, Privacy, 48 Calif. L.Rev. 383, 389 (1960). Right of privacy is beautifully defined as "to be let alone."

The Tribune had no business packing my private life and a direct link to my home address, even the apartment number, in their article. Data from my private life was unreasonable publicity, an unreasonable intrusion, and they also described my private life in a false light. I have a legitimate interest in protecting my privacy from exploitation by others. I was and I still am exposed to public hatred, ridicule and contempt. Defendants are guilty (as hell) having violated my privacy in outrageous fashion.

It is true that tax dollars fund the FOIA systems and the courts. It also pays lazy and corrupt employees and judges. Smith himself wrote not just once to me how lazy federal employees are and how they avoid to work. (See my affidavit, items, exhibits F and K.) He also wrote to me that Congress piddles around for months and then pass a ton of bills in one or two marathon sessions and that it takes a week to understand what they really approved, but then it would be too late to explaining it to the public. That is it, what the public wants to know about, not an article on the front page in which they are misinformed about a private woman who is maliciously defamed by the paper.

My invasion of privacy claim, my claim of violation of privacy doesn't fail as a matter of law, because the Tribune published false and twisted private information about me, and they even provided the readers with a direct link to my home address and the apartment number! (See my affidavit and the exhibits.) As I am not the most prolific FOIA requester and not the most prolific filer of lawsuits, the public should have no special interest in me, should have no legitimate interest in me, should be not legitimate concerned about me, and me being no record holder, should be not newsworthy to them.

The public has a significant interest in the truth, and that is not what the Tribune reported about.

My defamation and invasion of privacy (false light) claims don't fail because there is a genuine dispute about the substantial truth of the statements in the article. In analyzing false light privacy claims, Utah follows the Restatement section 625E, which states as follows:

One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed. Russell v. Thompson Newspaper,Inc. 842 P.2d 896, 907 (Utah 1992) There can't be any doubt that the Tribune is guilty on both counts.

The article is extremely offensive and even calls me a "terrorist" and otherwise wrongfully portrays me as abuser of the system and as kook, and reporter Smith acted reckless, because he knew so much better.

"A false light claim is ?closely allied' with an action for defamation, and the same consideration apply to each. Stien, 944 P.2d at 380. Truth is not a defense that Tribune can claim, because the article is wrongful in sting and gist and even in the headline.

Claiming that I am the most prolific requester of FOIA requests and not others, claiming that I overloaded the system, while I didn't, are not insignificant inaccuracies. Those are outrageous falsehoods. Smith failed to review the FOIA logs of the agencies to see for himself, that I am a) not the most prolific FOIA requester, but that this is reporter M. and others and b) that most of the agencies had no FOIA backlog at all, which means they were never overloaded. As already established, the agencies denied to me FOIA processing by fabricating fees without my knowledge and consent in year 2001. The Tribune article suggested that I am "overloading the system" with FOIA requests in year 2003. Reporter Smith knew that all better. He recklessly disregarded the truth and reported the whole matter in a false light. Smith also knew that neither the FOIA offices nor the courts felt "burdened" by my requests or litigation, but that they rather plotted together to deny rights and justice to me. They conspired together to hit me where I am vulnerable, being truly indigent, and unable to pay any fees. The Tribune and their counsel also participate in this conspiracy, asking the court to deny access to the court by denying to me to proceeding informa pauperis, despite that they know that I am truly indigent.

The fault element of a defamation claim may be based either on negligence or actual malice. ? Samuels v. Tschechtelin, 763 A.2d, 209,135, Md App. 483. "Actual malice is established when plaintiffs shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that defendant published the allegedly defamatory statement either with reckless disregard for its truth or with actual knowledge of its falsity. ? Id.

Statement is "defamatory" under Colorado law if it tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons form associating and dealing with him. Restatement (Second) of Torts, paragraph 559. ? Brown v.

O'Bannon, 84 F. Supp.2d 116 (Colo 2000); see also Brammer-Hoelter v.

Twin Peaks Charter Academy, 81 F.Supp.2n 1090; Miles v. Nat'l Enquirer, Inc., 38F. Supp.2d 1226, (Colo 1999) and Miles v. Ramsey, 31 F.Supp.2nd 869, (Colo 1998).

Actual malice may be proven by evidence of ill-will of personal hostility on the part of the declarant; it may also be proven by a showing that the declarant published the defamatory statement with knowledge that it was false; with reckless disregard for the truth or with a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity. Dobson v.

Harris, 521 S.E.2d 710 (N.C. App.1999). See also Talley v. Whio TV-7, 722 N.E.2nd 103, 131 Ohio App.3d 164, and Delta Air Lines, Inc., v.

Norris, 949, S.W. 2d 422;

Private individual may recover damages from publisher of defamation, falsehood as compensation for actual injury upon showing that publisher knew or should have known that defamatory statement was false. See also Wal-Mart Store v. Lane, 31 S.W.3d 282 (TX 2000) and Dolcefino v. Turner, 987 S.W.2d 100 (TX 1998).

I most certainly can. The evidence is my correspondence with Smith and my correspondence with reporter M., attached to my affidavit.

A statement is defamatory if it impeaches an individual's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation and thereby exposes the individual to public hatred, contempt or ridicule. U.C.A. 1953, 45-2-2-(1), Mast v.

Overson, 971 P2d 928. (Utah 1998) Statement is defamatory if it tends to injure plaintiff in his trade, profession, or community standing or lower his estimation of community. Claude v. Thomason,942, F.Supp. 635. See also Anthony distributors, Inc., v. Miller Brewing Co., 942 F. Supp 1567 (Fla.

1996) and Colodny v. Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch, 936 F.Supp. 917 (FLA 1996).

Under Nevada law, statement is "defamatory" when under any reasonable definition, such charges would tend to lower the subject in the estimation of the community and to excite derogatory opinions against him?Flowers v. Carville, 112 F. Supp.2d 1202 (Nev. 2000). See also Klagsbrun v. Valad Harabonim of Greater Monsey, 53 F.Supp. 2d 732 (NJ 1999) and Schuler v. McGrath-Hill Companies, Inc., 989 F.Supp 1377 (NM 1997).

There can't be any doubt that this kind of defamation happened to me through the Tribune article. (See my affidavit and exhibits B3, B4, B5 and Z, as to how I had to suffer by the reaction of others after the article was published.) And there can't be any doubt that my privacy was violated, providing so much twisted and also outrageous false information about me in that article and giving the readers a direct link to my home address even the apartment number.

The tort of invasion of privacy includes four separate causes of action: intrusion on the plaintiff's seclusion of private affairs, public disclosure of embarrassing private facts, publicly placing plaintiff in a false light, and appropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness for defendant's advantage. ? Nemani v. St. Louis University, 33 S.W. 3d 184.

That is what the Tribune did to me, and their advantage is selling their paper with that article and my photo on the front page.

DEFENDANTS CAN'T CLAIM PRIVILEGE IN A DELIBERATELY ACTUAL MALICIOUS DEFAMATORY ARTICLE.

Defendants can't claim privilege as the Tribune did not report fair and true about any judicial or governmental proceedings. The Tribune can only claim privilege if the report was fairly about any legislative or judicial proceeding. Most of what the Tribune reported about me was not about judicial proceeding, but about me, the private citizen. They did not report anything about the legislature in that article. In order to claim privilege, a report must be fair and true, without malice, but the article about me was not fair and true or without malice. The article does not reflect fair and true report of the judicial or governmental proceedings. Smith knew that the government had fabricated fees without my knowledge and consent using my indigency denying FOIA proceedings and records to me. He knew that the courts were covering for the criminal federal defendants and played with Mafia methods a cat and mouse game avoiding filing my complaints. He knew that others had requested so many more FOIA requests as I had, and again others had filed so many more lawsuits as I did, but he misled the readers in making me to the scapegoat. He wrote to me that federal employees are lazy and don't want to work. He also knew that I did not overload the FOIA system, and very likely, nobody did. The article does not reflect as to what is going on in FOIA offices, but the e-mails of reporter M. explains it. (See my affidavit and the exhibits Y, Y1, Y2, Y3 and Y4.) Thus, the Tribune article is not privileged in whole or part.

The defendants are also not protected by the Fair Comment and Opinion Privileges. In Utah, the fair comment privilege exists for a statement if it involves a matter of public concern, is based on true and privileged facts, and represents the actual opinion of the speaker, but is not made for sole purpose of causing harm. Defendants counsel is playing the fool not being able to understand what statements in the article cause me grief. All of the article cause me grief, the violation of my privacy, the false reports, the omissions, the use of the worst photo or the use of a doctored photo, the headline, the sting and the gist, because so outrageously malicious and false. The Tribune was not at freedom to write about me that I am a FOIA terrorist, nor printing such an outrageous insult, nor was it at freedom to use unqualified statements of others, about my state of mind, that never met me or corresponded with me, as Professor Robert Goldberg. (See my affidavit.) The article is malicious, and that is why the "qualified privilege" on part of the Tribune must be defeated under the law.

Claiming "federal workers have dubbed Schwarz an ?FOIA terrorist'" is no opinion and fair comment; it is outrageous malicious libel and defamation. The Tribune never should have printed such a malicious wrongful remark, apparently uttered by a completely lawless, unqualified federal employee. It is also a falsehood, since Smith told me and wrote to me that only one federal employee said this. In his article Smith lied and implied that several or even many federal workers made that remark. ? As only one federal employee said I would be a "FOIA terrorist", why had the Tribune to use that libelous, defamatory and malicious falsehood and remark about me in the first place?

Same applies to "federal workers have ?coin' a verb ? have you been ?schwarzed' today?" I told Smith that this statement was made by only one EPA employee. He knew that it was a false report implying that several or many federal employees used that verb. Smith tried to make his article on my costs "juicy" for readers that appreciate yellow journalism.

Same applies to "Federal judge John Bates labels plaintiff's FOIA as search as based on ?an imaginary conspiracy.'" Smith knew that I requested records that the government had. He even told and wrote to me, that if I would meet him, talk to him, provide him with information, that his article could pry lose what the government is withholding so long from me. (See my affidavit, exhibit C, the Smith e-mail.) The government conspirers against FOIA requesters, esp.

against me, and their fabricated fee campaigns are some of that evidence. The conspiracy is not imaginary, it is a fact. Judge Bates, who signs also otherwise unprofessional judgments, citing U.S.

Departments as "Depots", contributed to the conspiracy, and his unconstitutional and lawless order would be of high interest for the GOP task force that investigates the judicial abuses.

Same applies to "Federal office calls Schwarz requests ?entirely fanciful in nature'". Smith knew that I requested for example the internal processing records of the agencies, which they definitely had. There was nothing fanciful about that request, neither me asking the government in October 2000 for records on Osama Bin Laden. Smith knew that the government has to be face value neutral, and by claiming that my requests would be "entirely fanciful", government did not only violate FOIA law, but was extremely dishonest, in other words dished out an huge lie of which Smith knew, it was a huge lie.

The statements that counsel used as "classic examples of fair comment and opinion" are falsehoods, they are defamatory and malicious. No privilege should cover those.

The article is furthermore not neutral, reportage privileged, because the article was not neutral and there is no ongoing public controversy between various governmental officials and me. Smith knew that the controversy did end in September 2001, when the agencies used the fabricated fees to deny FOIA processing to me and when the courts co-conspired to deny to me access to the courts upon my inability to pay the court fees. Everything was over for me in year 2001. The article misled the public to think that was not all in the past since a couple of years.

The purpose of the privilege is the public interest, in being fully informed about controversies, that often rage around sensitive issues, demand that the press be afforded the freedom to report such charges without assuming responsibility for them. However, this privilege can't be used to misinform readers about the "controversy" and to maliciously defame a private citizen, because it would sell. That is what the Tribune did, they tried to get their readership up after it went down with the Cantera/Vigh/Shelledy scandal. I never prohibited for the Tribune to report about my matters concerning the government.

I just complain that they did not report the facts but rather defamed me in malicious article.

In determining whether defamatory statement is privileged under First Amendment, trail statement is one of opinion relating to matters of public concern which does not court must determine whether contain a provable false factual connotation, or which cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual. U.S.C.A.

Const. Amendment. In determining whether alleged defamatory statement is privileged under First Amendment, relevant considerations include phrasing of statement context in which it appears, medium through which it is disseminated, circumstances surrounding its publication and a determination of whether statement implies existence of undisclosed facts, which support it. U.S.C.A. Constit. Amendment 1-Id.

See also Johnson v. Schmitz, 199 F.Supp. 2d 90 (Conn 2000).

Many publishers that claimed "absolute privilege" in defamation, libel, slander, privacy cases did not come away with it. Rockwood Bank v. Gaia, 17 F.3d 833 (Mo 1999). See also L.C. v. Major League Baseball Ass'n, 148 L.Ed2d 120 (OK 2000); Arenal v. City of Punta Gorda, 932 F.Supp. (FLA 1996); Bogosian v. Board of Educ of Community School District, 73F. Supp.2d 949 (ILL 1999); Dawson v. NY Life Ins.

Co., 932 F.Supp.1509 (ILL 1999); Stokes v. CBS Inc., 25 F.Supp2d 992;

Goodman Herron v. Advanced Nav & Positioning Corp, 940 F Supp2nd 281 (OR 1996) and Burke v. Green, 963 F2d. 1119 (CO 1998).

There is no absolute privilege from liabilty under speech clause of First Amendment for defamatory statements?U.S.C.A. Const. Amendment. 1 ? Richmond v. Thompson, 922 P2d 1345, 130, Wash.2d 368 (Wash 1996).

As a general rule, alleged defamatory communications that are otherwise privileged lose their privilege if the statement is published to more persons than the scope of privilege required to effectuate its purpose. DeBry v. Godbe, 992 P.2d 979 (UT. 1999). The Tribune had no reason to make twisted incoherent and false private information about me available to 150.000 and more readers. They did not need to know about my private life at all and neither where I live.

Under Minnesota law, qualified privilege against defamation claim may be lost if abused. Ewald v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 139 F.3d 619 (MINN 1998). The Tribune is abusing the qualified privilege and the other privileges. They are using the privileges to come away with acting above the laws and my constitutional rights.

Under New York law, if a defamatory communication is conditionally privileged, the plaintiff may nonetheless prevail by establishing that it was published excessively, that is, it was made to persons with an insufficient interest in it for it to warrant protection, or that it was made with "malice". Restatement (Second) of Torts, paragraph 604.

? Konikoff v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 234 F 3d 92 (NY 2000).

That applies to my case. The article was maliciously false and it was published on the front page of the Sunday, Mothersday edition, because on Sunday and holidays, the Tribune has more readers. It was also on their on-line edition. The article was published excessively. The false data, the twisted and private information was made unconstitutionally and lawlessly available to just about anybody especially in my home state but also on-line, who didn't need to know.

"Privilege" protects those who make otherwise defamatory statements from legal libality.- Price v. Armour, 945 P.2d 1251 (Utah). - This means that "privilege" is abused by those that like to defame others claiming non-responsibility. That is exactly what the defendants are doing.

Under Pennsylvania law, any alleged defamatory statements by a psychologist were not privileged; psychologist provided neither authority for nor scope of alleged privilege. Gardiner v. Mercyhurst College, 942 F.Supp 1050 (PA 1995).

To be privileged, alleged defamatory statement must be made upon a proper occasion, for a proper motive , and based upon resonable or probable cause. ? French v. Eagle Nursing Home Inc., 973 F.Supp .870.

See also Mike v. Ron Saxon Ford, Inc. 960 F.Supp 1395 (MINN 1997). The Tribune can't claim a proper occasion, a proper motive, reasonable or probable cause for their maliciously defamatory article.

For defense of privilege, to apply action for slander and libel, good faith, an interest to be upheld, a statement properly limited in its scope, a proper occasion, and publication to proper persons must be all established, and absence of any or one of these constitutent elements will, as general rule prevent defendant form relying on privilege. ? Dominy v. Shumpert, 510 S.E. 2d 81, 25 GA App. 500 (GA 1998). See also Uema v. Nippon Ex. Hawaii, Inc., 26F.Supp2d 1241 (HAWAII 1998); Harding v. Rosewell, 22 F.Supp.2d 806, (ILL 1998);

Dawson v. NY Life Ins., 932 F. Supp 1509 (NY 1996); Ransom v.

Baltimore County, 111 F.Supp 2d704 (MD 2000); Stokes v. CBS, 25 F.Supp2d 992 (MINN 1998); Cooke v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 723 A.2d 723.

As a sum: Privilege can't be claimed in case of actual malice and it can't be abused; and the Tribune is guilty on all counts.

In deciding whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude that a statement expressed or implied a verifiably false fact about a plaintiff alleging defamation, the court must consider the statement in context. Weyrich v. New Republic, Inc. 235 F.3d 617 In deciding whether a statement is capable of sustaining a defamatory meaning the guilding principle is the statement's tendency to injure in the eyes of its audience when viewed in context in which it was made. ? Mast vs. Overson, 971 P2d 928 (Ut.App.1998) In deciding whether a statement is defamatory, the relevant audience is neither an individual with peculiar views, nor a majority of society at large, but rather a substantial and respectable minority. - Id. A "respectable minority" enjoyed that Tribune article in the Google newsgroups. Those abusive people hailed the article, and some of their scornful, harassing, insulting, abusive and malicious postings are attached. (See my affidavit, exhibit B5.)

To state a defamation claim based on implied statements plaintiff must show that a reasonable juror could conclude that the alleged defamatory implications constituted probably false assertions of facts. ? Doods v. American Broadcasting Co., 145 F3d 1053 (Cal 1998).

I trust that no juror wants to be called a "FOIA-terrorist" or wants to be falsely labeled as overloading kook of the government and publicly abused, as I was and still are, by others over the defamatory malicious Tribune article.

For the detailed listing of what was wrong in and with the Tribune article, read my affidavit, paragraph 74 through 131, and the exhibits attached.

I AM NO PUBLIC PERSON OR FIGURE, I AM NO LIMITED PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURE; I AM NO VORTEX PUBLIC FIGURE, BUT A PRIVATE PERSON.

I am no "prominent" or "public" or "famous" person. As to my knowledge, I am not known to the general public, and the neutral reportage privilege should be limited to reporting of statements made by only such prominent people. Defendants are wrong claiming I would be at the very least "a limited purpose public figure" or a "vortex public figure" and that I have started to inject myself in the center of the controversy with FOIA and court filings. The Tribune made me to that person by publishing the article, but I wasn't that before the Tribune put me on their front page. Requesting FOIA requests and filing lawsuits (less than other people) doesn't make me to a public figure. Posting on an Internet newsgroup doesn't make me to a public figure either. It was the Tribune that transformed me from a private person in the public light, by doing it with false information and malicious defamation. ? As the article did not neutrally report about both side of the issues between the agencies, courts and me, the article is not neutral reportage privileged.

Reporter Smith e-mailed to me that the first thing what he was asked by the government was "How did you find out about Ms. Schwarz?" (See my affidavit, exhibit S, e-mail of Smith to me.) If I would be a public figure or prominent, or a vortex public figure, the governmental employee would have never asked the question. Smith informed me in his other e-mail, that he found out about me per accident, researching another case. According to Smith himself, it was not my fame that made him find me.

The speaker of Scientology, Linda Simmons Hight, who Smith apparently cited as credible source of information, claimed they would have no clue as to who I am. Her statement is not a sign of my fame either.

(See the Tribune article, exhibit. B of my affidavit.)

Restaurant operator, a private figure, was not required to prove malice in part of newspaper that published article about him to recover actual damages for defamation. Englezos v. Newspress and Gazette Co., 980 S.W. 2nd 25 (MO 1998). And according to my information and knowledge, I am not known more than a restaurant operator.

Defendants ignored my request for damages. I am entitled to damages under the law. According to my legal research, I may request up to three Million Dollars damages, and I am asking at least for that.

(Those that received three Million Dollars damages in defamation case were not called terrorist and were not falsely accused having filed the most FOIA requests in history and were not falsely accused having overloaded the FOIA system of the mightiest country in the world, and nevertheless received the three Million Dollars in damages.)

Under Chapadeau standard, a private person may recover from defamation when the defendant has acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties. Khan v. NY Times Inc., 710 N.Y.S.2d 41, 269 AD2d 74.

Private party may recover damages caused by publication of defamatory material upon lesser showing of fault than that which must be made by a public official or public figure which must be made by public official or public official even where subject of communication is one of legitimate public concern; to recover, private party need only demonstrate by preponderance derance of evidence that defendant acted in grossly irresponsible manner? Mahoney v. State, 665 N.Y.S.2n 691, 236 A.D.2d 37. See also Dobson v. Harris, 530 S.E.2n 829, 352, NC 77.

A public figure may recover damages for defamatory falsehood relating to official conduct, if he proves that the defendant made statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Curtis Publishing co., v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, New York Times Co., v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254. I certainly can prove with my affidavit and the correspondence from Smith that he knew a lot better than defaming me so maliciously in his article.

There can't be any doubt that the Tribune was grossly irresponsible by not checking the FOIA logs of the agencies, that show other requesters names on them so many more times and to claim that I am the person that filed more requests and overloaded the FOIA system, and that Smith failed to contact reporter M., of who I told Smith that he filed most FOIA requests, thousands, while I just filed a few hundred.

During the interview, Smith told me that he read about M. in my court pleadings. I mentioned him in there already as the person that filed many more requests than I did, but this did not cause in Smith to do more research and write an accurate article. Same applies to the Tribune lie that my "overloading" of the federal government FOIA system would still go on and never stop, and other outrageous defamatory and malicious statements as described in details in my affidavit.

I am entitled to appropriate damages for my sufferings and the injuries incurred by the Tribune.

MY CLAIM THAT THE ARTICLE OMITTED IMPORTANT INFORMATION IS ACTIONABLE.

The defense of defendants is trying to misunderstand my claims, playing stupid and trying to avoid taking a hard look at the issue before this court. Their counsel claimed that my lawsuit is about that I did not get access to the pages of the Tribune in the manner I desired. As a fact the Tribune gave me their front page. I never complained that I got a bad spot in the newspaper. They also published the article in their on-line edition. My main complaint is that the article is malicious, defamatory, misleading, biased and wrong in sting and gist and violates my privacy outrageously. Smith deceived me, he lied to me he would write about how the denial of processing of my FOIA/PA requests have unusual ramifications for other members of the public and the free press. (See my affidavit and the exhibits.) I ask the court to read the article and to determine that Smith did not write about that issue. I never would have met Smith, never would have wasted three hours talking to him, never would have wasted to explain even more to him in e-mails, never would have agreed having my photos taken, if he would have not made me believe that the article was not about my personal life but about the other issues. I did not contact Smith or anybody else of the Tribune, Smith contacted me. I did not try to force access to that private newspaper. I wish the Tribune, Smith and Egan would have stayed the hell away from me. But as the Tribune decided to write an article about my matters, I sure can demand that the article is truthful, not malicious and not one-sided to help federal workers cover up their criminal activities. Counsel cited Justice Byron White from the U.S. Supreme Court saying that the First Amendment erects a virtually insurmountable barrier between the government and the print media?Oddly enough, the Tribune article reads as if it was written by corrupt governmental officials and not by an independent reporter. M. sent me information about that DOJ, OIP Co-Director Metcalfe was apparently so pleased about that Tribune article, that he spoke about the article and me for at length at the ASAP conference. (See my affidavit and exhibits Y, Y1 through Y4.)

Justice White elaborated that liberty of press is in peril as soon as the government tries to compel what is to go in a newspaper. And that is exactly what happened here. The government controlled that article.

They got their wish, and Smith reported how without failure and fault they are, despite that Smith himself, reporter M., and likely many more besides me, claimed it is otherwise.

I assume Smith wrote that article so very pro-government and covered up governmental crimes to advance his own career in Washington D.C. He did not apply editorial control and judgment; he rather wrote exactly what the corrupt officials wanted him to write. His wish to be appreciated in Washington D.C., within governmental agencies and courts, was more important to Smith than to report the truth as to what truly is going on.

Defendants must be punished for this conduct.

Defendants' counsel overloaded the court with statutes and case law that has nothing to do with this issue and he tries to distract from the facts and issues that indeed matter in this case.

My claim that the article omitted information that I wanted to have published is actionable. The Tribune decided on its own motion to write about me. Smith lied to me that article would be not about my personal life, but about the injustice that I suffered in the hands of the agencies and courts, and how that injustice has ramifications for others and the media. He tricked me into granting him an interview and to agree to the photos taken. It was all a big deception. It was breach of agreement and contract. It was fraud by the Tribune.

An action for fraud lies where there are false representations by the defendant and reliance thereon by plaintiff to his damage. Semenov v.

Hill, 982 F2d 578 (1999 Utah).

The Tribune tries to come away by citing the First Amendment, the "right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all."

I never would have sued the Tribune if they would have chosen not to write about me at all, but as they have chosen to write about me, and that on their front page, they have to be held accountable to that their right to speak freely violated rights of mine, including constitutional rights. They did not use their First Amendment rights honestly and ethically, but in a harmful, malicious article, that is wrong in sting and gist and violates my rights of privacy and security and defames me outrageously.

My claim to bring a lawsuit based on my "disagreement with the editorial choices of the Tribune" doesn't fail, because I never tried to dictate what they should write. I expected them to write the truth, which they didn't, and this is what this lawsuit is about.

Defendants and their counsel have a strange way to treat the U.S.

Constitution. For them, the constitution is a tool to bless any and all unlawful, even criminal actions, as "protected", but on the other side, I have no constitutional rights whatsoever. They can lie about me, defame me, know about a planned murder and don't have to report that to authorities. They can be as malicious as they want, can violate my privacy, and I should have not even the right to ask a court of relief. If I dare so, they want my communication controlled and my indigency used as a tool to deny access to the courts to me. I don't know if I ever met any people that were worse hypocrites as the Tribune defendants and their counsel.

Tribune counsel also misinformed the court that I did not claim any constitutional violations of my rights. I did so, in my complaint, page 2. I claimed that the Tribune violated following of my constitutional rights: Utah Constitution, Article 1, Right to protect property (my photos); Private property for public use (using maliciously defamatory story about me and my photo to entertain other people that buy paper) without compensation for me; Section 25, Rights retained by people; Section 27, fundamental rights (to live in peace, to be not defamed, to protect my privacy).

Furthermore, defendants violated following of my U.S. constitutional rights:

The First Amendment that protects rights to communicate ideas, concepts, thoughts, beliefs and artistic impressions, but not malicious defamation, libel, invasion into privacy, violation of privacy by a newpaper against a private citizen. ? The Tribune also cited me incoherently and out of context. This is also a violation of my right for free speech.

Defendants abused the First Amendment by having published defamatory and malicious article about me. Defendants and counsel also abuse the First Amendment trying to deny to me access to the court; the right to petition to the court for a redress of grievances by asking the court to deny that access upon my inability to pay the court fees and by not filing my motions and unconstitutionally controlling my motions into not filing them. That is also a violation of my Fourteenth Amendment rights.

By publishing maliciously defamatory article about me that is wrong in sting and gist, defendants violated the Ninth Amendment. This Amendment is about the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall be not construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. One of these rights is being left alone, having privacy.

The word privacy is not in the Bill of Rights but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled through a variety of amendments that people have a fundamental right to privacy. The Tribune had no business to spill twisted, out of context or false private information about me to 150.000 and more readers and to provide a direct link to my home address.

Defendants violated also the Fifth Amendment. It grants people property, which shall be not taken without just compensation. My image, my looks are my property, so are the approximately 100 photos that the Tribune photographer took under deception and fraud, and which they don't return to me.

ARTICLE AND USE OF PHOTO WAS CLEARLY ABUSE OF IDENTITY

Defendants knew that I value my privacy. Smith even acknowledged that in his e-mail to me (See my affidavit, the exhibits M and M.) He and the other defendants knew that I never would have agreed to a photo of me taken and published for a defamatory malicious article about my private life. As already clearly pointed out, Smith informed me he would write about a completely different subject. That is how they tricked me in the photo session.

Defendants' counsel's statement that I consented to publication of my photograph in this article is completely false. The Tribune should have shown the article to me in draft, to tell them what is false, and I should have given the opportunity to pick the photos of the approximately hundred that the photographer shot.

Defendants' counsel also is deaf to the issue that the Tribune reporter shot at least around hundred photos of me and that I demanded the photos back. The Tribune did not return the photos which is definitely theft of my image. Defendants furthermore ignore the issue that the photo used was either doctored or they chose the worst shot to make it fit their malicious article about me.

Furthermore, the Tribune abused my image under Utah Code Ann paragraph 45-3-3. They used the article and my photo on the front page to attract public attention, patronage and readership and the consent for use of my photo in that article was not obtained by me. Smith promised me to write about a completely different subject and not about my private life. The court just has to read my affidavit and the exhibits, letter and e-mails from Smith, to get the picture of the outrageous deception by the Tribune.

I only agreed to a photo used that shows my files or the rejection letters from the government. I ask myself what the use was to send a photographer in my home to take photos there when none of the photos that show my files or letters were being used. I have to consider that the visit of the photographer was just another illegal spy operation by the Tribune to check out my apartment and how I live. It's all invasion and violation of my privacy.

My abuse of personal identity can't fail, because I did not consent to publication of my photo in an article about my private life and because the Tribune deceived me outrageously.

NONE OF MY OTHER CLAIMS FAIL.

I am aware that prosecutors file criminal charges and bring them in court. I plan to file a penal complaint against the Tribune, the defendants, however, even in a murder case, a party might bring a civil suit against the offender. Counsel of defendants, as so often, misled the court, claiming falsely that I would have not explained how defendants violated criminal or civil laws.

Instead of making sure that the defendants come clean on their criminal activities against me, a responsibility that attorneys have, counsel O'Brien is covering up criminal activities by the defendants.

Defendants' attorney is of the law firm Jones Waldo Holbrook &

McDonough PC. They wormed themselves out of a legal malpractice case, Bennett v. Jones Waldo Holbrook & McDonough, Utah Supreme Court case 20010296, however, it doesn't surprise me that this law firm came under fire by others. O'Brien, in my case, is completely above the law.

DENYING TO ME TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I am truly indigent and defendants know that. I provided the court with a sworn affidavit as to my impecuniosity. My claims against the defendants are not frivolous as the court saw by reading my affidavit, the exhibits and this motion. By denying to proceed informa pauperis to me, the court would take away my constitutional right for access to the court, because I can't pay the court fees. I am indigent as to Utah Code 78-7-36. In order to determine impecuniosity see Kelsey v.

Hanson, 818 P2d 590 (Ut. Ct. App.1991) and State v. Vincent, 845 P.2d 254 (Ut. Ct. App. 1992). Denying access to the court for me means violating U.S. Constitutional Amendment IX, treating me not equally with others, and violating Amendment I and III, my right for access to the court, because I can't pay any court fees. I don't have the money.

The only reason why defendants want to deny access to the courts for me, using my poverty as tool to their advantage, is because they have very dirty hands and are guilty as claimed by me.

CONCLUSIONS

For all the reasons states above, I, plaintiff Barbara Schwarz, request that the motion to dismiss or alternatively summary judgment will not be granted. I ask the judge for a hearing but also a jury trail.

Dated this: August 8, 2003 by Barbara Schwarz

MAILING CERTIFICATE:

I hereby certify that I personally delivered a copy of foregoing response motion to the law firm Jones Waldo Holbrook & McDonough PC, attorneys for defendants, for attorney Michael Patrick O'Brien, 170 South Main Street, Suite 1500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

Dated this: August 8, 2003 by Barbara Schwarz

<p><hr><p>

From: BarbaraSchwarz@excite.com (Barbara Schwarz) Subject: AFFIDAVIT OF BARBARA SCHWARZ IN CASE VS. SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Date: 9 Aug 2003 09:16:22 -0700 Message-ID: <8385d874.0308090816.1232da45@posting.google.com>

The transmission of the response motion (the other thread) and the affidavit did not function picture book perfect. The text is somehow displaced, not as in the original, but anyway, below is the affidavit.

Barbara Schwarz, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

BARBARA SCHWARZ, AFFIDAVIT OF BARBARA SCHWARZ PLAINTIFF, v.

SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, MEDIA NEWS GROUP, PUBLISHER WILLIAM DEAN SINGLETON, CHIEF EDITOR NANCY CONWAY, INTERIM EDITOR BILL LONG, EDITITIAL PAGE EDITOR VERN ANDERSON, MANAGING DIRECTOR TIM FITZPATRICK, REPORTER CHRISTROPHER SMITH, PHOTO EDITOR LORI POST, PHOTOGRAPHER RICK EGAN,

DEFENDANTS.

CIVIL CASE

NO: 030912398 MI

JUDGE GLENN IWASAKI

I, Barbara Schwarz, the plaintiff in above captioned case file herewith under penalty of perjury this affidavit, in response to the affidavit of Salt Lake Tribune ("Tribune") reporter Christopher Smith ("Smith"), as filed in this case in July 2003.

1. Reporter Smith, the Tribune, and their counsel Michael Patrick O'Brien ("O'Brien") filed the Smith declaration to mislead the court, which is, according to my knowledge obstruction of justice. They try to make the court believe that the few electronic mail copies, attached as exhibits E and F to the Smith-affidavit would be all there is. They conceal important information to the court, esp. about what kind of article reporter Smith had promised me to write, how he deceived me to agree to meet him and later, how he managed to get under false promises the photographer in my apartment to take pictures.

2. Concealing the other communication between us in an affidavit is also perjury in my book. An attorney, as O'Brien, who participates in this kind of cover up and obstruction of justice, should be disbarred.

The Tribune, Smith and their counsel know that there was much more written communication, and this communication is damaging to the Tribune. They don't want the court to see it.

3. The e-mails, as attached as exhibits to the Smith-declaration and the defendant's memorandum in support of motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, ("memo") were carefully selected by the Tribune, Smith and their attorney to distract from the other letter and e-mails we exchanged, in which reporter Smith promised me to write about a very different subject than he later did in his maliciously defamatory and despicable article of May 11, 2003, about me.

4. Here is the list of communication between Smith and I, as well as other important documents in this case, all attached as exhibits to my affidavit.

- Handwritten Christopher Smith, letter dated April 3, 2003 (Exhibit A) - Salt Lake Tribune Front Article, about me of May 11, 2002 (Exhibit B) - E-mail from Smith to me of April 3, 2003 (Exhibit C) - My e-mail to Smith of April 5, 2003 (Exhibit D) - My e-mail to Smith of April 14, 2003 (Exhibit E) - E-mail from Smith to me of April 15, 2003 (Exhibit F) - My e-mail to Smith of April 17, 2003 (Exhibit G) - My first e-mail to Smith of April 18, 2003 (Exhibit H) - My second e-mail to Smith of April 18, 2003 (Exhibit I) - My third e-mail to Smith of April 18, 2003 (Exhibit J) - E-mail from Smith to me of April 18, 2003 (Exhibit K) - My e-mail to Smith of April 19, 2003 (Exhibit L) - E-mail from Smith to me of May 1, 2003 (Exhibit M) - My e-mail to Smith of May 1, 2003 (Exhibit N) - E-mail from Smith to me of May 5 and May 7, 2003, both in content same e-mails (Exhibit O) - My e-mail to Smith of May 6, 2003 (Exhibit P) - First E-mail from Smith to me of May 8, 2003 (Exhibit Q) - Second E-mail from Smith to me of May 8, 2003 (Exhibit R) - Third E-mail from Smith to me of May 8, 2003 (Exhibit S) - My e-mail to Smith of May 8, 2003, (Exhibit T) - My e-mail to Smith of May 9, 2003 (Exhibit U) - My e-mail to Smith of May 10, 2003 (Exhibit V) - E-mail from Smith to me of May 12, 2003 (Exhibit W) - My e-mail to the Salt Lake Tribune executives, reporter Smith and others reporters to correct their false reports of May 12, 2003 (Exhibit X) - First July 2003 photo of me, Barbara Schwarz (Exhibit B1) - Second July 2003 photo of me, Barbara Schwarz (Exhibit B2) - Article in "News of the Weird" based on the maliciously and defamatory Tribune article (Exhibit B3) - Article in "Potpourri" based on the malicious Tribune article, (Exhibit B4) - Internet Usenet groups decision to vote me "Kook of month" based on Tribune article. (Exhibit B5) - E-mail from reporter M. of May 27, 2003 to me (Exhibit Y) (His full name is deleted because he mentioned to me that he appreciates not being named in Usenet.)

- Excerpt of e-mail from reporter M. of May 29, 2003 to me (Exhibit Y1) - Excerpt of e-mail of May 30, 2003 from reporter M. to me (Exhibit Y2) - Excerpt of e-mail of June 2, 2003 from reporter M. to me (Exhibit Y3) - Excerpt of other e-mail of June 2, 3003 from reporter M. (Exhibit Y4) - Alt.Religion.Scientology newsgroup headlines on me, listing my private address against my wish. (Tribune referred the readers to this newsgroup) (Hardcopy attached as exhibit Z) - Information about the criminal anti-religious extremists that hailed the Tribune article (Exhibit Z1).

5. Reporter Smith deceived me to agree to an interview and my photo taken. I never would have met him, talked to him, responded to him, if he would have not lied to me that the article would be about "how my cases have resulted in an unusual ruling on how and when public information may be released, which have broad implication for the free press", and not about my personal life. (See his lie in his letter of April 3, 2003 and his e-mail of April 3, 2003, referring to his January e-mail of 2003 to me, exhibit A and exhibit C attached to my affidavit.)

6. On April 3, 2003, I heard first time from reporter Smith. He came to my apartment but did not met me. He did not reach me with e-mail, but he also did not mail me any letter with the U.S. Postal Service.

He left a handwritten letter on my door with following information:"?I am an investigative reporter from Washington D.C. who has studied your legal cases on how the federal government has responded to your request for information on Mark Rathbun. I have traveled to Salt Lake City in the hopes of talking with you, since your cases have resulted in an unusual ruling on how and when public information may be released, which may have broad implications for the free press. I have tried to reach you via e-mail but received no response? Could you please contact me?" (See a copy of his letter attached to my affidavit as exhibit A.)

7. The content of this letter is a far cry from the article "Salt Lake Woman's quest strains public records system", that Smith later wrote and the Tribune published on the front page of the issue May 11, 2003, on Mothersday, to it approximately 150.000 readers and to an unknown number of readers worldwide by putting the article also in their online issue. (See a copy of the May 11, 2003 article with a distorted or probably even doctored photo of me, to abuse my image attached to my affidavit as exhibit B.) Smith wrote in this article the opposite from what he had promised me he would write about. That is deception, and that is how he got the interview and the photos.

8. I met him in good faith, because he had promised me to write about the unusual rulings of the federal agencies and courts and how those have a broad impact on the free press. If he would have told me that he thinks I overloaded the FOIA system and that he wants to write about that, I would have not agreed to see him or corresponded with him, I would have not told him personal information about me, I would have never agreed to photos taken, because it's not true that I overloaded the FOIA system. Actually, during my interview and also in his e-mails to me, Smith made me think that he is convinced that the federal governmental agencies are at fault and not I, that the agencies and courts treated me unfairly, that I deserve justice, that the information that I requested would exist, that I requested smart information, and that governmental employees are lazy and don't want to work. However, I learned that what Smith says and claims in private talk and mails is different from what he publishes in the Tribune or claims through his attorney in this lawsuit.

9. I was rather open to Smith in the interview and my e-mails, because he deceived me, making me think of him as a friend. In truth, Smith was my enemy who never had plans to help me. He rather wrote a yellow journalism article in which my image was abused, in which false facts were stated, facts twisted, the readers furthermore misled through many omissions and that all to increase the readership for his greedy and already scandal riddled newspaper, the Salt Lake Tribune and to advance his personal career on my costs.

10. The defendants and their dishonest counsel withheld also the Smith e-mail of April 3, 2003. In this mail, Smith sent me a copy of his January 27, 2003 e-mail, in which he also explains why he wants to talk to me. In the January 27 e-mail, Smith did once more not say that he wants to write an article on "how I overloaded the FOIA system" or me being a crazy woman, but he wrote the following to me: "?I would like to do a story on your efforts and how the government responded, both in the courts and in rejecting your FOIA requests because of an apparently brand new requirement that FOIA requesters must pay back due bills to the federal government (noting your alleged $ 303 Bill to the VA) before the government responds to a request for public information. I recently encountered this Department of Justice decision regarding your requests when I was researching another Utah case here in Washington. As a member of the press, this is an unusual requirement that in my experience I have never encountered before. The precedent set with your request in requiring payment of fees not related to search and retrieval of federal records has unusual ramifications for both, the press and the public. Is there a time or a phone number where I could reach you to discuss some background of your fight with the federal government for access of those documents?

I am sorry but I don't have your phone number, although I know you list an address in Salt Lake City on your court filings. Perhaps publicity to your case will help in prying lose the records that you have seeking for so long, please contact me?"

11. Even a dummy will understand, that Smith clearly deceived me by tricking to meet him, to talk to him, to get my photos taken by lying to me that he would write a very different article, than the "SL Woman's quest strains public records system", in which he made me to the bad guy, the kook, and the governmental employees that he called lazy, work shy, unjust, secretive in private talks and even his e-mails to me became suddenly his dutiful heroes. (See exhibit C, the e-mail of April 3 and January 27, 2003 attached to my affidavit.) By withholding those e-mails, defendants and their counsel once more try to mislead the courts that the Tribune did not deceive me.

12. Smith pulled my leg by writing and telling me that his article could pry lose the records that I am seeking for so long. His article rather made sure that I never will get them. His article supported the unconstitutional activities by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Information and Privacy, and other FOIA offices, and they feel better than before concealing information before me and conspiring against me. Director Daniel Metcalfe spoke 5-10 Minutes at the ASAP conference about that article and me, according to information that I received from reporter M. (See his e-mail to me attached as exhibit Y4 to my affidavit.)

13. On April 5, 2003, Smith e-mailed again. He thanked me for the interview. He again did not reveal that he planned to write a very different article than promised and that I will be trashed, defamed and my privacy outrageously maliciously violated in that that article. He had to keep the deception up, because he still had to trick me into my photos taken to abuse my identity even more. (See exhibit D, his e-mail to me and mine to him attached.)

14. Smith deceived me in making me think that he is a friend and that is the only reason I provided private information to him, but as the court and everyone else can read in the exhibits, also in exhibit D, my e-mail to Smith, I was operating completely under the assumption that he would write the article, that he promised to write in his letter, his April 3, 2003 letter and also the e-mails and what he had declared as his true intentions during the interview. I was convinced that Smith would use private information only as his background information, that he would not use it at all, or if, then in just a footnote.

15. In my e-mail of April 5, I informed Smith about an unconstitutional ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, using my impecuniosity to deny access to this court to me, but I also explained to him that not all justices agreed with that decision. Smith did not use the information in his unfair article, because wanted to defame me. Despite that Smith knows about the outrageous unconstitutionality, his lawyer O'Brien is pushing the Third District court to adopt same unconstitutional rules to deny access to the courts to me.

16. During the interview, Smith told me suddenly out of the blue that he doesn't hope that I will be murdered. He did not explain who wants to murder me and why I could be murdered, but he apparently had information hereto. He seemed having not informed police, FBI, CIA or any other authority on what he knew and that they shall protect me. On top of all of that, he wrote later an article that made people hate me and threaten me, and they expressed it on the Internet. He also provided 150.000 households, the Tribune readers, with the address of a criminal newsgroup of which he knew had illegally listed my home address, even my apartment number in highlights on their front pages.

He did not only violate my privacy outrageously by doing so, he also put my life on risk. Any criminal in the world knows where to find me and I don't have the money to move. (See hardcopy of newsgroup Alt.Religion.Scientology. They have my home address in their Google headlines and that without my consent and against my wish. Exhibit Z attached to my affidavit.)

17. I made clear to Smith in the interview, that if he wants to contact the Church of Scientology, that he should contact its President Heber Jentzsch, because the Scientology organizations are infiltrated by non-religious people which lie. Despite that Smith had this information, even knew that Heber had local ties, being original from Utah, what could have added another interesting aspect to his article, he did not contact Heber for his information and input, but rather talked to an infiltrator of the Church of Scientology, Linda Simmons Hight, who helped Smith smear my image. She misinformed that they would not know about me and that I would be "delusional", when in fact I was a high executive in Scientology and many Scientology executives, including Heber Jentzsch, know me.

18. Further very odd is the fact that Smith did not try to reach Mark Rathbun (de Rothschild) at all. How better to determine if somebody is wrongfully incarcerated or not, by contacting that person? I conclude that Smith knew that Mark Rathbun is wrongfully incarcerated in a correctional facility and that he actively tried to conceal that in his despicable article.

19. During the interview, I informed Smith that I had filed FOIA requests to the U.S. intelligence community agencies in October 2000, and asked them to pull the files on Osama Bin Laden and that none of the federal employees checked his files, because they don't respect the FOIA laws and are lazy and corrupt. I also e-mailed information hereto to Smith. I claimed that if they would have pulled his files, they could have connected the dots and stepped up the security for the United States and the intelligence surveillance around Bin Laden and that it would have been a darn good chance to prevent the September 11 terror attacks. Instead of reporting about that in his article, the Tribune rather chose to defame my image. The very unqualified counsel O'Brien tries to make me look nutty in his memo and twisted my words in that I would have claimed that I could have prevented the terror attacks or something like that. I never claimed so, I just very correctly stated, that I pointed the government over and over to search the Bin Laden files eleven months before the September 11 attacks and during the months before September 11, because I studied the news and felt that the man was more dangerous than it was reported about him in that time, and that he was up to atrocities. The congressional panel that investigated the governmental failure to stop the September 11 terror attacks, published a report in which they came to the conclusion that governmental agencies had information in their files which pointed towards the September 11, attacks, but they did not connect the dots and did not coordinate. My requests for records could have helped, if they just would have conducted searches instead conspiring against my right to FOIA information. I tried at least, and I tried hard to get the government look in the right direction. But now, I am being blamed for that by the scornful counsel of the Tribune, who did nothing himself to prevent the terror. I am defamed by the Tribune, who could and should have written articles that could have woken up the government to not ignore terrorists. Their investigative reporters could and should have connected the dots in an article to prevent September 11, but they did not. Smith should have at least mentioned my October 2000 efforts, but why being honest to the readers? The article was published to smear me, not to publish the truth that I was right on target. I also wrote to Smith that it is outrageous that I am called a "FOIA terrorist" by the government, by trying to prevent terrorism, and the official that claimed me being one, failed to pull the Bin Laden files to see what the real terrorist was up to, and that we later got the September 11 attacks. (See my e-mail with the Bin Laden information to Smith of April 14, 2003 as exhibit E) 20. Tribune and their counsel also concealed the Smith e-mail to me of April 15, 2003, to mislead the court. In this mail, Smith informed me that federal workers are lazy and that they find any excuse not to come to work. He did not mention that in his article. In his article he called the lazy employees suddenly "dutiful" and "overloaded".

Smith had the insider information that the government doesn't like FOIA requests, because federal employees don't like to work. The readers of the Tribune would be certainly much more interested to read how tax Dollars are used to pay lazy federal workers instead to read about how the Tribune defames a private woman by smearing her character, state of mind and activities.

21. In the April 15, 2003 e-mail, Smith also wrote that the government treats me differently than other requesters, but he did not make that clear in his article. This e-mail also confirms that Smith acknowledged that I understood that he would not write about my personal history. He continued to mislead me, telling me that he is mainly interested in the long legal battle and the interesting precedent that may be set with the way my FOIA request was treated.

Here are some excerpts from what Smith wrote to me that day: "One of your interested FOIA officers ? not the one who said you were a "Terrorist", and he meant it with sarcasm ? did indeed call me last week to see if I have managed to find you in the flesh. He said he wants to alert his colleagues that I had the ?first visual' of the legendary Barbara Schwarz, and wanted to know what the conversation was like. I told him, he first has to wait till the story runs in the paper to answer those questions and secondly, he may be disappointed to discover you're not from outer space! I am hoping to get an interview this week or next week with the government employees in the Office of Information and Privacy here in the Justice Department who came with the unusual policy on your request. The trouble is, when Congress leaves town, all the government workers also tend to take their vacations or leaves. It's sort of when the boss is on vacation, all the employees come in late, take long lunches and go home early.

Washington federal employees will find any excuse not to come to work ? snow in the forecast, the terror level alert is raising, or the pollen count or ozone pollution is too high. So I am not sure if the OIP folks will be able to do an interview with me this week, but as soon as they sit down and talk to me about why they treated your requests differently than others, I will relay that to you." (See the Smith e-mail of April 15, 2003, attached to my affidavit as exhibit F.)

22. It certainly costs the taxpayer a lot more money paying lazy federal workers that don't show up in their offices than the FOIA requests mailed to the government by an individual. It is very unethical by the Tribune to not report rather about governmental workers kind of outrageous waste of taxpayer money. They misuse also taxpayer money to conspire and campaign against me.

23. Smith mentioned in his April 15 e-mail that he had no time to visit the newsgroup and read postings on my personal history and added: "?But you are right, I don't necessarily think that's part of this story. I am mainly interested in your long legal battle and the interesting precedent that may be set with the way your FOIA requests are being handled. And from what I have seen of other newsgroups, there are definitely people whose only purpose in life is to write nasty attacks and post them to these lists." (See Smith e-mail of April 15, 2003, exhibit F attached to my affidavit.)

24. Smith knew that I was counting on that the article was not about my personal life but about the precedent that was set by the arbitrarily and conspiring acting and otherwise lazy governmental employees on how my FOIA and other people's FOIA requests are being treated. Smith continued to lie to me and mislead me in thinking he would write this article.

25. Smith knew that newsgroups are nasty and that its posters are often above the law. He knew that I was a target of at least one of such groups, which spreads horrendous lies about me, nevertheless, instead of sparing the Tribune readers such kind of information, he referred them to the hostile group in his article. Smith also knew that the newsgroup had my home address illegally in their headlines and he sort of published my home address in the article, which is a violation of my privacy rights without comparison. (See exhibit Z attached to my affidavit.)

26. Furthermore, in his e-mail of April 15, 2003, Smith informed me that he doesn't think that conspiracy theorists are crazy. He sort of considered himself as one, but he certainly made me look like a crazy conspiracy theorist in the Tribune article. He wrote in his e-mail:

"As far as conspiracy theories and theorists, many of my stories over the year at the Tribune ? and you came across several of them ? deal with things that some people say are conspiracies and things others say are threats to our constitutional protection. I did a story that ran front page of Sunday's Tribune about some of the new government surveillance programs ? total information awareness, project Carnivore, etc. and how Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch is pushing these programs. They may sound like the ramblings of a paranoid, but these programs exist?" (See again e-mail by Smith of April 15, 2003, that he did not attach to his affidavit, that the counsel did not attach to his memo, to mislead the court.)

27. The Tribune, Smith and their counsel also withheld deliberately my e-mail of April 17, 2003, part one in a series of four, that Smith acknowledged having all received. In this e-mail, I told Smith that it would be good to write an article about the problem with Congress, that they pass their bills in one or two marathon sessions, otherwise piddle around (those are the words of reporter Smith, see his e-mail of April 15) and that it would be hard for reporters to keep up with that. An article about that the public might miss information on what Congress is doing because the reporters are not given fair time to work through all of that certainly will be more interesting for the readers than an article in which I am maliciously defamed, violated and ridiculed on the front page.

28. In this April 17 e-mail, I pointed Smith towards the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and the DOJ Office of Intelligence Policy Review, its suspicious handling of my FOIA request and my conclusion was that they have me unlawfully under surveillance.

Smith should have pulled that string and investigated, if his report about that he finds total surveillance programs, Project Carnivore, unconstitutional and threatening, was true. But he did not, because the Tribune rather defamed me.

29. In same April 17 e-mail, that Smith acknowledged having received on April 18, 2003, I informed Smith about my correspondence with Senator Hatch, that I contacted him, that we exchanged many letters, that he never wrote to me that he thinks that I am crazy suspecting a governmental infiltration by non-American forces, but that he would be unable to help, and that I shall hire an private detective and an attorney. Smith doesn't like Hatch's spy program but ignored how irresponsible Hatch acted in the matter that I presented to him. Hatch was leaving any investigation into a secretly infiltrated government solely on my indigent private shoulders. This would be a story the Tribune readers would very much appreciate, not me being slam dunk on the front page.

30. I made clear to Smith in my April 17 e-mail once again, that I expect the article to be about the precedent on how requests are being handled by the government and not my private life. ? However, I felt sorry about Smith having to read through that hostile newsgroup with its bad language, assaults, threats and libel, just for a bit background information or perhaps a footnote in his article. I decided to mail Smith a summary of my life in three installments. It is very despicable by the Tribune to publish such a maliciously hostile and defamatory article about me, after being in details informed how hard my life was, and how I was abused already before. The Tribune defendants, all involved with this article, and also their counsel O'Brien appear to be people without any human compassion or human qualifications. (See me three e-mails of April 18, 2003, attached to my affidavit as exhibits H, I, and J.)

31. Once again, I operated under the impression that Smith would read the personal information as a friend, and for background information only, and not that he would use the information out of concept and context on the front page of his newspaper. In his e-mail of April 18, 2003, that he did not attach to his affidavit and that was also not attached by the counsel to his memo, Smith acknowledged having received all four parts of this series (First part of April 17, the other three parts of April 18). He wrote with no word that he planned to use any of the information in his article, he rather wrote that I shall write a book about my life, which made me conclude that he has no interest whatsoever to write about my private life, and that he would stick to his promise to write about how other members of the public and the media might become victims of governmental corruption as well. Otherwise, Smith complained again about the missing work moral of federal workers but also the State of Utah employees. (See exhibit K, e-mail of Chris Smith, that was not attached to his affidavit and not attached to the memo of counsel to mislead the court.)

32. Smith did neither attach my e-mail of April 19, 2003 to his affidavit neither did counsel O'Brien mention it. In that e-mail, I explained to Smith that my life is not a science fiction and that the CIA would be the agency to confirm that my memories are correct or false. I explained to Smith that it is strange that none of the agencies referred my request for records to the CIA, the agency that most likely had records to my FOIA request for information to who I am, because that would have ended the search. Instead of writing in the article, that the CIA never conducted the smallest search, Smith concealed the important information entirely, which is outrageous and just serves to make the readers wrongfully think that such search took place and no records were found. (See my e-mail of April 19, 2003, attached to my declaration as exhibit L.)

33. In meantime, the Salt Lake Tribune Michael Vigh, Kevin Cantera and Jay Shelledy scandal broke. The first two reporters sold fabricated information about the Elizabeth Smart family for $20.000 to the National Equirer, and Shelledy did not fire them. As Smith misinformed me he would be an honest reporter, I consoled him in an e-mail of May 1, 2003, that he should not worry about the scandal because people would judge reporters individually on their own ethically researched, balanced and comprehensive style. But that was before I read the Tribune article about me from which I concluded that Smith proved to be another deceiving, dishonest, unethical, truth concealing and misleading reporter, without respect of my rights and who is just interested in yellow journalistic sensations, and not interested to report how the facts really are. Smith claimed that Tribune reporters and employees would have been smeared by other Tribune reporters, but that did not stop the allegedly smeared Tribune reporters, editors, executives and other employees to smear me.

34. On May 1, 2003, Smith wrote to me the following: "On other fronts, I managed to speak this week to a top Justice Department official who would not talk to me on the records but was involved in the decision to notify other agencies about your FOIA requests and the unpaid bills that are being used to reject your request?" Smith did not mention in his article that the official did not talk to him on the record and why the official did not talk to him on the record. I have to conclude that was because he provided false information, and Smith knew about that.

35. Smith continued to write in the May 1 e-mail: "?My editor asked me if I would ask you to see if a photographer could take a photo of you, maybe with the stacks of rejection letters of files of responses you have to show how doggedly you have pursued this search. Let me know if you are comfortable with that, since I know you value your privacy, but it would help put a human face on the struggle with a faceless bureaucracy. It was funny, but I asked the justice guy if he knew of anyone in the entire government who has tried to resolve this outside of appeals, courts, etc., and he said it has been resolved by no longer processing any of your requests." (See the May 1, 2003, that Smith and his counsel did not attach to the Smith declaration or the counsel's memo to mislead the court having not deceived me. It is attached to my declaration as exhibit M.)

36. Once again Smith misled me to believe that the article would help me, not defame me, and it would be about how the government mistreated my requests, denied my rights, didn't care to find a solution, provoked appeals and litigation and to prevent that it will happen to other members of the public or members of the free press. This Smith e-mail very clearly described that he knew that my trying to get records from the government was "doggedly" for me and not the government, that he knew that I wanted to have my privacy, which he outrageously violated by smearing my personal life (also by giving the readers of the Tribune a direct link to my home address), that he deceived me in agreeing to photos taken under the aspect that he would write a very different article than he did. He also asked me to get my files or letters on the photo. I pulled them out, which was a lot of work, because I thought the files would be important, not my face, but the Tribune did not use the photos with the files, because the article was just to abuse my image. ? And how in the world would a maliciously defamatory and hostile article as the one of Smith about me pry lose answers or records from the government? His article assisted the government in feeling fine about denying them to me and mistreating me. In any case, his e-mail is evidence that Smith knew that the government had the information that I requested, but unlawfully wasn't giving it to me.

37. Smith wrote in the May 1, 2003 e-mail: "It was funny, but I asked the justice guy if he knew of anyone in the entire government who had tried to resolve this outside of appeals, courts, etc. and he said it has been resolved by no longer processing any of your requests. So, there you go." He apparently thought it's all a big joke, but people whose rights are being denied, don't find it funny.

38. Smith did not mention in his article that the government should have offered a solution outside of appeals and courts, but he should have included that in his article. Smith unfairly portrayed me as unreasonable, while it was in fact the government who is. Smith knew that if the government would had truthfully provided me with the information they had on me and Mark Rathbun's whereabouts, I would have not filed a second FOIA request, no administrative appeals and certainly no litigation.

39. It's also striking that the Tribune makes now the same mistake as the federal government, finding no solution outside of courts. They could have printed my demand for correction or at least a letter to the editor. They should have returned the approximately 100 photos and the negatives that they illegally keep, and that is theft, theft and theft. They rather provoke litigation than getting clean. In my e-mail of May 12, 2003 to the Tribune executives and reporters I demanded foregoing very clearly, but they ignored all of it. (See exhibit X, attached to my affidavit, my September 12, 2003 letter to the Tribune publisher, the executives. Editors, reporter Smith and other Tribune reporters and employees.)

40. In the May 1, 2003 e-mail, Smith revealed that his editor and photo editor Lori Post were also involved in the making of the article about me. They are legally justified defendants to my lawsuit. So is the photographer, who either doctored the photo they used in the article, or he took the worst of a hundred shots to smear my image.

41. It is revealing that the counsel for defendants provided the court twice and only with a copy of the Tribune article that doesn't show the distorted or even doctored photo. They definitely try to mislead the court that they A) did not publish a photo with the files (and that was the whole purpose of the photo session as far as I was told by Smith), and B) that they either doctored a photo of me or used the worst shot of a hundred to give me a look that would fit in the hostile article about me, to defame me, abuse my image and to ridicule me. The readers of the Tribune article, esp. those on the Internet reacted very cruel to the article. I was called publicly "drag-queen", "Mr. Spock", "sin-ugly", etc.

42. Tribune photographer Rick Egan was 20 minutes in apartment. In that time he shot one photo after the other of me. My estimate is that he took around a hundred pictures. From those hundred, he and the Tribune could have chosen a photo that looks more like me and also one that showed my files.

43. With my little camera from the "All a Dollar-store", I had a friend taking July 2003 photos of me outside of my apartment house.

They show how I really look like. (See attached two July 2003 photos of me, attached to this affidavit as exhibits B1 and B2, and compare them with the either doctored photo or worst shot of a hundred, as used by the Tribune, exhibit B attached.)

44. Counsel of defendants lied over and over to the court that I would have consented to the photos taken, which is not true, because I consented only to a use of a photo showing me and my files or letters, and only to be used in the article that Smith promised me he would write. The Tribune clearly deceived me, because they knew, if I would have known their true intentions to smear me, they would have not gotten any interview and no photo of me.

45. On May 2, 2003, I e-mailed Smith in return. Nice as I am, I continued to console him over the other Tribune scandals and today wish, I just should have slammed the door on this reporter and the photographer. In my e-mail of May 6, 2003, I wrote to Smith that I indeed value my privacy. I also made clear to him that I don't like photos on which I don't look like myself. That should have been enough information for the Tribune to let me choose the photo that their photographer took and to not use private information, from my life, in this article.

46. After the photo was taken, the Tribune hurried terribly to publish the article, to prevent that I might ask them to see the article before it goes in print and let me choose my photo.

47. I agreed only to the interview, an article and the photo taken because the Tribune deceived me in that Smith would write a very very different article as they later published. This is also supported by my May 6, 2003 e-mail, in which I go straight back telling Smith more about the fraudulent fee issues by the federal government, how they criminally fabricated fees without my knowledge, without my consent and used them in a campaign to deny FOIA processing and records to me.

In this e-mail, that Smith attached to his affidavit, I informed Smith once again that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) never asked me if I can or will pay, that I never allowed them to incur any fees, that they knew I was indigent, and this is why they incurred the fees in the first place, to get me in debts. They knew I did not have the financial means to pay the fees. I informed Smith once again (I had told him that already in details during the interview) that the FBI Salt Lake City came up with a bill of $16,80 fees for same records that