There are other matter in this letter that are more important, but for just being petty nasty the cult can't be beat and this shows that.
They lied to the court saying Graham's old jeep was worth over $6k, quoting the highest blue book price they could find. Since you can't own a vehicle in bankruptcy that is worth more than $1900, they got a court order to take his only car. They then lied to the court that he had another one, so they could keep the whole $900 they got from selling his only vehicle.
Such a *nice* cult.
GRAHAM E. BERRY
3384 McLaughlin Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone/Fax: (310) 745 3771 (Call First for Fax)
January 11, 2002
BY CLASS MAIL
By Fax: (213) 487 - 5385
Ava Paquette, Esq.
Moxon & Kobrin
3055 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90010
By Fax: (323) 650-0398
Elliot J. Abelson, Esq.
8491 West Sunset Boulevard
Public Mail Box 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90069-1911
Re: BARTON v. BERRY, USBC, CDCA, Case Number LA 99 - 32264 ER.
JEAVONS V. CSI, LASC Case Number BC 20763.
Dear Ms.Paquette and Mr. Abelson:
I have received a fax of a purported "Association of Counsel" in the Barton v. Berry case captioned above. It violates applicable Federal law in that it refers to a Public Mail Box address as "Suite #". You should be personally aware of this from information available at the Mail Boxes R Us type facility. Not wanting to participate in further criminal conduct by you, I am making the appropriate correction in all of my communications with you and the Court.
Furthermore, despite express requests by me in the past, your fellow scientology counsel and clients have generally refused to agree to fax service of papers with me. Presumably to cause me maximum expense and inconvenience. Presumably for similar reasons, and especially the Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette law firm, also refuse to extend similar courtesies extended to permit receipt and signing of deposition transcripts- requiring me to go to court reporter's offices to review and sign deposition transcripts. Having taken approx. 26 days of deposition of me over the past several years, this has been very effective abuse of process by the Moxon & Kobrin, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker and Elliot J. Abelson law firm (in the Berry v. Cipriano and related litigation). It also breaches applicable rules of ethics. Accordingly, until such time as you and your co-counsel agree to mutual service of papers by fax, I will not extend you or your co-counsel this common courtesy between counsel.
Notice is hereby given of the following:
A. Filing of Notice of Objection:
On or before January 16, 2002 Plaintiff will file a Notice of Objection to the Notice of Association of Elliot J. Abelson herein. That objection will be based upon Mr. Abelson's personal participation in the underlying and related matters to those herein. That participation involves demonstrable criminal, civil and unethical misconduct directed intentionally at me personally and which are the subject of criminal complaints, soon to be filed disciplinary complaints, a complaint to be filed for malicious prosecution and abuse of process and that it is otherwise an act in continuing R.I.C.O. activities against me. You reportedly engaged in recent related unlawful activity in connection with criminal complaints arising out of these matters, that in December 2001, were before the Los Angeles District Attorney's and Los Angeles City Attorney's Offices in connection with a Los Angeles Police Department recommendation that aspects of these matters be criminally prosecuted. Your involvement in such determinations was no more proper than would be the involvement of Enron's management in Department of Justice determinations as to whether Enron should be criminally prosecuted. Clearly, and in these circumstances, your Notice of Association violates numerous statutory and applicable ethics provisions.
B. Filing of Ex Parte Application To Disqualify:
On or before January 21, 2002, Defendant will file with the Court in the Barton v. Berry matter, a Motion To Disqualify Elliot J. Abelson, Esq. as counsel herein. Said motion will be made upon the grounds and evidence referenced above and will also rely upon other applicable sanctions Rules and statutes. The Ex Parte will include a proposed motion and seek an order shortening the hearing date until the first day of trial the following week. In addition, the motion will also be filed as a motion in limine.
C. Rule 11:
Defendant will be following appropriate procedure in filing a Bankruptcy Court Rule 9011 (F.R.Civ.P.Rule 11) motion in connection with the filing of each of the Adversary Proceedings herein (Moxon v. Berry, Church of Scientology v. Berry, Barton v. Berry and Hurtado v. Berry cases and bankruptcy court appearances and proceedings on behalf of Michel Reveillere, Isadore Chait and others. The motion will also seek sanctions for Ms. Paquette's filing of an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment based upon what the court described as "inaccuracies" in counsel's representations to the court and the recent unsuccessful Ex Parte Application herein for similar reasons. In that connection I will be seeking actual costs of approx.$75.00.
Appropriate motions are also being prepared for filing in the Church of Scientology's proceedings against me in the Jeavon's case. Twelve months ago Ms. Paquette seized my vehicle and had it sold. In doing so she made serious misrepresentations to the court regarding the value of the vehicle. I was to receive the first $1,900. The $900 net proceeds of sale were paid directly to Ms Paquette. Before I knew the actual facts, I advised Ms.Paquette to retain the money. Subsequently, I was advised by the court, and provided with documents, that evidence that the $900 was paid to Ms.Paquette/Moxon & Kobrin upon the documented misrepresentation that I owned two vehicles and was therefore not entitled to the federal and state exemption of $1,900 in connection with the seizure and sale of my vehicle. Accordingly, I now make formal demand that the net proceeds of sale of my sole vehicle, the sum of $900.00 be delivered to me in cash (since I can no longer afford to operate a bank account) on or before Tuesday January 15,2002. An appropriate written receipt will be either signed or provided. Failure to so comply will result in an appropriate motion to both the State court and the Bankruptcy Court, which, in essence, authorized the seizure.
I acknowledge receipt of a telephone call this morning from Elliot Abelson, Esq. I returned his message telling a person who answered the telephone to advise Mr. Abelson "the person his client loves to hate had returned his call."
Very truly yours,