GRAHAM E. BERRY (SBN 128503)
LAW OFFICES OF GRAHAM E. BERRY
1223 Wilshire Boulevard
Santa Monica, California 90403
Telephone: (310) 395-4800
Facsimile: (310) 393-4507
Plaintiff Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
GRAHAM E. BERRY, Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT J. CIPRIANO, et
al., Defendants. ______________________________________ AND
CONSOLIDATED CASES ______________________________________ Case
No. BC 184 355 186 168 196 402
DECLARATION OF CHERYL D. NELSON IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO DECLARE ATTORNEY GRAHAM E. BERRY A VEXATIOUS
LITIGATNT Date: August 13, 1999 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 35 Discovery Cutoff:
None Motion Cutoff: None Trial Date: NoneI, Cheryl D. Nelson, declare as follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein and if called as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto.
2. I was a member of the Church of Scientology from late 1977 through 1990. I was on staff at various organizations of the Church of Scientology in the Los Angeles area for approximately five years during that time period.
3. From approximately mid-January, 1999 to early March, 1999, I assisted attorney Graham E. Berry on a volunteer basis after his partners abruptly and unprofessionally withdrew from their partnership and left Mr. Berry alone and stranded, financially, legally and emotionally, in the face of the Scientology legal war machine.
4.I have been a professional legal secretary for over thirteen years.
5. My experience as a former member of the Church of Scientology and as a professional legal secretary places me in a unique position to comment as an observer of certain things described below.
6. My observation of attorney Graham E. Berry is that he is a consummate gentleman. His manners were impeccable the entire time that I was closely associated with him when I worked for him on a volunteer basis. He appeared to be very hard working and diligent about his work. He maintained a professional attitude the entire time I worked with him. He never engaged in name calling or verbal denigration of opposing counsel and their client, the Church of Scientology.
7. During the six or seven weeks I was in Mr. Berry's office, I noticed that the phones rang constantly. On a daily basis, many calls were numerous "hang up" calls. Some calls were from Scientology's attorney, Ms. Barbara Reeves. She was always brusque, to the point of rudeness, to the staff who answered the phones.
8. Extra precautions had to be taken to secure the office for fear of Scientology operatives breaking in.
9. The need for these precautions were proven to me because while I was there, a known scientologist (Ms. Jan Gau) suddenly started working around the corner from Mr. Berry's office.
10. I am further aware that, despite Mr. Berry announcing that he was taking a vaction to New Zealand to participate in his parents' golden wedding anniversary (at the encouragement of an LASC judge), letters and phone calls poured in from Scientology's counsel arbitrarily setting depositions and/or court hearings during the time when Mr. Berry had already announced multiple times that he would be absent. Mr. Berry wrote numerous letters regarding this matter (which was the desired result, to add needless work and worry to an already overburdened schedule) and attached as Exhibit "___." It was apparent to me that he was hounded and pounded upon by Scientology's counsel at every opportunity. These activities on the part of Scientology's counsel were constant, in arrogant violation of California State Bar ethics rules.
11. Mr. Berry escorted me to my car every night because of his fear that Scientology operatives might try to scare me, or worse. He commented that his last secretary (Maria, who had been with him for over 10 years) had been harassed by Scientology operatives and, upon the abrupt dissolution of Mr. Berry's law firm, decided to leave because she was tired of the Scientology harassment, even to the point of Scientology operatives showing up at her home. 12. I parked my car in a different spot every night and drove home different ways because I feared Scientology operatives would detect a pattern and seize upon it. I am very well aware of the tactics employed by scientologists against their perceived enemies.
13. One night I went to my car unescorted. I encountered someone who stared at me and told me to get lost. It may have been a psychotic street person, but they are hard to distinguish from some scientologists.
14. In about January, 1999, I was deposed by Scientology's attorney, Ms. Barbara Reeves of the law firm of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker in the Berry v. Barton case, a related case to the instant Berry v. Cipriano case.
15. When Mr. Berry, Ms. Jane Scott (Mr. Berry's paralegal) and I arrived, Ms. Reeves was extremely rude to us all. The deposition began and Mr. Berry asked that other people in the room be introduced. Ms. Reeves declined, arguing that it was already on the record and that we were late. Mr. Berry insisted, as was his right, and Ms. Reeves waved her hand toward a man and a woman and indicated that they were Paul, Hastings' personnel. The woman was a Paul, Hastings lawyer (Jennifer Stone?), but the man (Vince LeFevre) was an employee of Moxon & Kobrin/Scientology's Office of Special Affairs. Ms. Reeves willfully misrepresented Mr. LeFevre's identity.
16. The deposition proceeded. I was deposed because I had written a declaration about a statement made by Paul, Hastings' court services specialist's to me while I was employed by Paul, Hastings regarding possible bribery of court clerk's at the instigation of certain Paul, Hastings' lawyers.
17. Ms. Reeves made a big show of asking my permission to go into my confidential personnel file to obtain the Confidentiality Agreement I had signed, which I granted.
18. Ms. Reeves indicated that I did not have the right to go outside of Paul, Hastings with the information I had about possible illegal activities. I asked since when was a contract enforceable in regards to illegal activities?
19. She then produced a copy of a fax cover sheet which was addressed to her client (Moxon) but had the phone number to Mr. Berry's law firm. She asked me if I recognized the handwritten number at the top of the form. I said I did, that it was some kind of control number for the fax department's internal use. She tried to give the impression that the number could be traced to me, but that was erroneous. Many times staff put faxes in the out-trays on every floor that were picked up by runners regularly.
20. I was not Ms. Reeves' assigned secretary but sat a few doors down from her. I assisted her on only one occasion, mailing two documents for her. Ms. Reeves creating a false impression on the record that I had acted as some sort of spy for Mr. Berry which was not true. I did not even meet Mr. Berry in person until October 31, 1998, two weeks after I had voluntarily terminated my employment with Paul, Hastings. And we produced the evidence to prove it at my deposition.
21. Ms. Reeves asked me if I had ever gone by any other name than Nelson. I told her that my prior married name was Sola. She asked when I stopped using that name. I said 1991, when I became officially divorced, or perhaps 1992. She asked if I had used the name Nelson after 1992 and I said no, I did not remember using it. She then produced a letter I had forgotten about that I had written to Moxon & Kobrin about 8 months prior. The purpose of the letter was to request a refund of contributions based on my learning that the Church of Scientology had defrauded me. I never received any response. I had, in fact, used the name Cheryl Sola in that correspondence because that is how Scientology personnel knew me and all my records were under that name. Given the fact that I was well acquainted with Scientology's "fair game" policies, I declined to give my maiden name (Nelson) and used a post office box address of a friend in San Diego to protect my privacy.
22. After the deposition concluded, it occurred to me that the only way the "Cheryl Sola of San Diego" letter could have been linked to Cheryl Nelson of Santa Clarita (where I lived at the time) was the fact that it was noted on my resume (which was contained in my confidential personnel file at Paul, Hastings) for prior job verification purposes. So it then became apparent why Ms. Reeves put on such a show asking me permission to access my confidential personnel file. It was all show.
23. In the context of the bribery issue, I commented to Ms. Reeves that where there is one illegal activity found out, there are probably ten more not found out. I believe my personnel file raid is yet another one of those illegal activities conducted by certain Paul, Hastings' personnel hand in glove with their client, the Church of Scientology.
24. Based on my observations while working at Mr. Berry's office, my knowledge and experience as a former scientologists, and my knowledge and experience as a professional legal secretary, I can say with certainty that Mr. Berry has been treated as unprofessionally as possible by Scientology's counsel, for the obvious reason of driving him out of business. Scientology's goal is to plough the road of any opposition to its goal of planetary conquest. Its plot to intimidate Mr. Berry's partners into leaving him and driving Mr. Berry out of business was unsuccessful, so now the Scientology Litigation War Machine turns its evil eye towards the judicial system in an attempt to manipulate our judiciary to achieve what Scientology could not, to wit, to drive attorney Berry out of business by impairing his ability to accept scientology-related cases. This also furthers Scientology's purposes by removing one of only four attorneys in the United States willing to dedicate themselves to the excessive perils of Scientology-related litigation. With Mr. Berry essentially put out of business, there will remain only three courageous attorneys who are willing to stand in the face of the dreaded Scientology Litigation War Machine and take the extremes of abuse that his litigation generates to advocate for the underdogs, those victims of Scientology fraud, abuse and illegal conduct. I appeal to this Honorable Court to stand for the rights of the people who have been seriously damaged by Scientology by not allowing Mr. Berry to be declared a vexatious litigant.
DATED: August 13, 1999 Respectfully Submitted By: _______________________________ Cheryl D. NelsonPROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1223 Wilshire Boulevard, Box 1028, Santa Monica, California 90403.
On August , 1999 I served the foregoing document described as DECLARATION OF CHERYL D. NELSON IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DECLARE ATTORNEY BERRY A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, on interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof, enclosed in sealed envelopes, addressed and distributed as follows:
[SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST]
[XX] By Facsimile: I served the above described document(s) to the interested parties listed on the attached Service List herein. A copy of the transmission confirmation report(s) are attached hereto.
[XX] By Mail: I am readily familiar with the firm?s practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage fully paid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing affidavit.
 State. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the above is true and correct.
Executed this ______ day of August, 1999, at Los Angeles, California.
SCOTT A. MAYER_________________________
TYPE OR PRINTScott A. Mayer
Berry v. Cipriano, et al.
LASC Consolidated Case Nos.
BC 184355, 186168 and 196402
Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq. Helena Kobrin, Esq. Moxon & Kobrin 6255 Sunset Boulevard, #2000 Los Angeles, CA 90028-6329 Fax: (323) 993-4436
Monique E. Yingling Zuckert, Scoutt & Rasenberger LLP 888 17th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20006-3309
Michael Turrill, Esq. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP 555 South Flower St., 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2371 Fax: (213) 627-0705
Elliot J. Abelson 8491 Sunset Blvd., Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90069-1911
David Chodos, Esq. James Martin, Esq Simke Chodos 1880 Century Park East, #1511 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Fax: (310) 203-3866
William T. Drescher 23679 Calabasas Road, Suite 338 Calabasas, CA 91302
Samuel D. Rosen, Esq. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP 399 Park Avenue, 31st Floor New York, NY 10022