Subject: Re: Hogan, our favorite clam lawyer, again Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 05:47:44 GMT I g

======== Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.legal,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Hogan, our favorite clam lawyer, again From: hkhenson@netcom.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 05:47:44 GMT I got another mess of stuff from our favorate clam lawyer. Ah, how they must be spending money! They could simply drop the case at this point (like, how many more NOTs *could* I expose) but this is not the way of Hubbard's lawsuit instructions. Hubbard never in his life imagined that someone would be grandstanding before tens of thousands of people while his cult threw money to lawyers by the bushel. If Hubbard's thetan were to come back, it would abuse DM even more than the net has for such a waste of money. This stuff was reformated, but not corrected much. Keith Henson UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) CASE NO. C 96-20271 RMW California non-profit corporation, ) Plaintiff ) PLAINTIFF RELIGIOUS ) TECHNOLOGY CENTER'S FIRST ) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF v. ) DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT ) H.KEITHHENSON H. KEITH HENSON, an individual, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) Plaintiff Religious Technology Center hereby requests, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that defendant H. Keith Hen son produce for inspection and copying each of the documents described in Exhibit A. Written response to this Request must be served on or before March 5, 1997, and the documents are to be produced on the same date, at the law offices of Thomas R. Hogan, 60 5. Market St., San Jose, CA. 95113-2332. Dated: February 3, 1997 Respectfblly submitted, LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN Attorney for Plaintiff RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER EXHIBIT A DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS: 1. "Document" shall in all instances mean the original of each writing or other tangible thing within the meaning of Rule 34, as well as all non-identical copies, drafts and preliminary versions of any writing or other tangible thing of any kind within the meaning of Rule 34, by whatever means made or communicated, including but not limited to letters, e-mails, postings, drawings, sketches, graphs, charts, photographs, audio or video tapes, models, molds, prototypes and other tangible things in any form or media from which information can be obtained, either directly or through the aid of a machine or device. 2. The words "and" and "or" as used herein shall both mean "and/or." 3. The term "copy" shall mean all versions of a document in written, analog, or digital form, including but not limited to: (a) "hard copy" printouts of a document which previously appeared in digital form or on the Internet; and (b) digital versions of a document which previously appeared in "hard copy", written, or analog form. 4. The name or the term "you" and "Henson" means defendant H. Keith Henson, his present and former agents, servants, employees, representatives, attorneys, assistants, and partners, and all persons or entities acting or purporting to act on behalf ot or in concert with, Henson. 5 The term "Internet Postings" refers to the posting of matter to any computer having access to the Internet, including postings to bulletin boards, the World Wide Web and/or to any newsgroups, such as alt.religion. scientology. 6. The term "Advanced Technology" refers to the confldential Scientology materials otherwise known as "OT Levels" or "Advanced Courses" or "Upper Levels," and includes, without limitation, all of the works, in whole or in part, comprising OT I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII, New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans ("NOTs" or "NED for OTs"), Solo Part 2, Power, IClearing Course, R6EW, Class VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII courses, L-10, L-l 1, and L-12. -7. The term "concerning" means relating to, referring to, describing, evidencing or Iconstituting. 8. The term "USENET newsgroup" refers to a discussion group which can be accessed via the Internet. 9. If any documents requested herein are withheld from production on grounds of privilege, please provide with yopr response a complete privilege log including for each such document: (I) the date and number of pages of the document; (ii) its title (if any); (iii) its general subject matter; (iv) the identity of attachments or appendices to the document; (v) the name and address of each person who received a copy thereot, (vi) the name and address of each person to whom the document was distributed, shown, described to or explained; (vii) the name and address of the person or persons by whom it was written; (viii) its present custodian; (ix) the particular privilege claimed and a frill description of the factual grounds upon which it is being withheld; (x) the relationship of the author to each addressee and each person who received, was shown, or was informed of the contents of the document; and (xi) all facts which, objectively viewed, show or may tend to show a waiver of the privilege asserted. 10. If any document called for by this Document Request has been destroyed, lost, altered, or discarded, please include in your written response separately for each such document: (I) the identity of all authors, addressees and recipients; (ii) the date, subject matter, and number of pages of the document; (iii) a description of any attachment or appendices to the document; (iv) the names and identification of all persons to whom the document was distributed, shown or explained; (v) the date when it was destroyed, lost, altered, or discarded, the manner and circumstances in which same occurred, and the reason for same; (vi) the names and addresses of all persons who authorized or effectuated such conduct; and (vii) the names and addresses of all persons who might still have a copy of the document or any part of it. REOUESTS FOR PRODUCTION I. All documents concerning your storage of messages downloaded from USENET newsgroups. 2. All Scientology documents which you have scanned into any computer. 3. All documents which discuss your scanning of Scientology materials onto any computer. 4. All copies of materials by L. Ron Hubbard which you have made. 5. All documents concerning Rinding which you have received or been offered from other people or groups for the financing of your legal expenses in this case. 6. All documents consisting of or containing Advanced Technology which you have received from anyone prior to January 6, 1997. 7. All documents consisting of or containing Advanced Technology which you have received from anyone since January 6, 1997. 8. All copies of Advanced Technology documents which you have downloaded from the Internet. 9. All copies of NOTs Series 34 in your possession, custody or control. 10. All copies of the NOTs Series or any part thereof in your possession, custody or control. 11. All copies of NOTs Series 23 in your possession, custody or control. 12. All documents concerning your attempt to determine the content of the masked portions of NOTs Series 23 that was given to you as part of plaintiffs Initial Disclosures. 13. All documents identif~ng anyone to whom you have given the results of your attempt to determine the content of the masked portions of the masked NOTs Series 23 that was given to you as part of plaintiffs Initial Disclosures. 14. All documents concerning any attempt by you to determine the content of the masked portions of any of the masked NOTs Series works. 15. All documents identit~ing anyone to whom you have given the results of any attempt by you to determine the content of the masked portions of any works contained in the masked NOTs Series works. 16. All documents responsive to the document request that was served on you as pan of your deposition notice that you did not produce previously or that you have acquired since you were deposed. 17. All documents concerning any funds that you have received in connection with providing copies of Advanced Technology materials to anyone. LNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) Case No. C-96-20271-RMW EM California non-profit corporation, ) ) PLAINTIFF RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY Plaintiff ) CENTER'S FIRST SET OF ) INTERROGATORIES v. ) ) H. KEITH HENSON, an individual ) ) Defendant. ) ) Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff Religious Technology Center requests that defendant H. Keith Henson answer the following interrogatories in writing under oath by March 5, 1997. DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS: 1. The term "you" as used herein shall mean defendant H. Keith Henson, his present and former agents, servants, employees, representatives, attorneys, assistants, and partners, and all persons or entities acting or purporting to act on behalf of; or in concert with, defendant H. Keith Henson. Each and every interrogatory herein is directed to "defendant" or "you," as so defined, unless expressly indicated otherwise. 2. The words "and" and "or" as used herein shall both mean "and/or." 3. If any information requested herein is withheld on grounds of privilege, please provide with your response a complete privilege log including for such information: (i) the name and address of each person to whom the information was distributed, described to or explained; (ii) the name and address of each person who participated in any conversations or communications regarding the information; (iii) the particular privilege claimed and a flill description of the factual grounds upon which it is being withheld; (iv) the relationship of each participant in any conversation or communication regarding the information to each other such participant; and (v) all facts which, objectively viewed, show or may tend to show a waiver of the privilege asserted. 4. The term "Advanced Technology" refers to the Scientology materials otherwise known as "OT Levels" or "Advanced Courses or "Upper Levels," and includes any of the works which make up the levels known as OT I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII, New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans or "NOTs," Solo Part 2, Power (Grades V and VA), Clearing Course, R6EW, Class VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII courses, L-10, L-1 1, and L-12. 5. The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice-versa. 6. The term copy shall mean all versions of a document in wriflen, analog, or digital form, including but not limited to: a. "hard copy" printouts of a document which previously appeared in digital form or on the Internet; and b. digital versions of a document which previously appeared in "hard copy", written, or analog form. 7. The term "identiiy" or "identiiying" means: (i) when referring to a natural person, state his Rail name, present or last known business and home addresses, his present or last known business position, and, if different, his occupation or business position at the time to which the interrogatory or your response thereto has reference. When used with reference to any particular person, the information other than his hill name need be given only once. (ii) when referring to a corporation or other business enterprise or legal entity, state the hill name and address and a brief description of the primary business in which such entity is engaged. With respect to any particular entity, the information other than the flaii name need be given only once. (iii) when referring to a communication or act: (1) state its date and place of occurrence (or, if a telephone call is involved, so state and provide the location of all parties to such telephone call and identifi' the person who initiated it), the identity of each person participating therein, who each such person participating therein represented or purported to represent, the nature and subject matter or any circumstances surrounding it, and the substance of what transpired or was said; and (2) identiiy all documents summarizing, recording, reflecting, reporting or containing a reference to it. 8. These Interrogatories are to be deemed continuing so as to require flirther and supplemental responses if defendant finds or receives additional responsive information after the time of the original response. II,, 1. Identity anyone to whom you have given copies of Advanced Technology materials. 2. Identity anyone who has given you copies of Advanced Technology materials. 3. Identity anyone to whom you have given copies of the results of any attempt by you to determine the content of the masked portions of any works contained in the masked NOTs Series. 4. Identity anyone to whom you have given the results of your attempt to determine the content of the masked portions of the masked NOTs Series 23 that was given to you as part of plaintiffs Initial Disclosures. 5. Identity anyone who assisted you in your attempt to determine the content of any of the works contained in the masked portions of the masked NOTs Series. 6. Identity anyone who assisted you in your attempt to determine the content of the masked portions of the masked NOTs Series 23 that was given to you as part of plaintiffs Initial Disclosures. 7. Identity all facts upon which you deny the allegations of the complaint as set forth in paragraph 1 of your Answer filed on April 25, 1996. 8. Identity all facts upon which you rely in support of the First Affirmative Defense of your Answer filed on April 25, 1996. 9. Identity all facts upon which you rely in support of the Second Affirmative Defense of your Answer filed on April 25, 1996. 10. Identity all facts upon which you rely in support of the Third Affirmative Defense of your Answer filed on April 25, 1996. 11. Identity all facts upon which you rely in support of the Fourth Affirmative Defense of your Answer filed on April 25, 1996. 12. Identity all facts upon which you rely in support of the Fifth Affirmative Defense of your Answer filed on April 25, 1996. 13. Identity all facts upon which you rely in support of the Sixth Affirmative Defense of your Answer filed on April 25, 1996. Dated: February 3, 1997 Respectfblly submitted, Helena K. Kobrin Attorney for Plaintiff RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, ) Case No. C-96-20271-RMW EM a California non-profit corporation, ) ) PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF Plaintiffi ) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ) V. ) ) H. KEITh HENSON, an individual, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff hereby submits its First Requests for Admission ("RFA") to defendant H. Keith Henson. Plaintiff requests that defendant respond to each request for admission, separately, within thirty (30) days after service hereof Definitions and Instructions 1. The term "concerning" shall mean relating to, referring to, describing, evidencing, or constituting. 2. The "Complaint" shall mean the Complaint filed by plaintiff against defendant in the Northern District of California, which has been designated as Case No. C-96-2027 1 -RMW EM. 3. "Plaintiff' or "RTC," shall mean the plaintiff in this action, Religious Technology Center. 4. The term "communication" means the trans mittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries, or otherwise), whether by verbal or electronic means, or on paper. 5. "Document" shall in all instances mean the original of each writing or other tangible thing within the meaning of Rule 34, as well as all non-identical copies, drafts and preliminary versions of any writing or other tangible thing of any kind within the meaning of Rule 34, by whatever means made or communicated, including but not limited to letters, e-mails, postings, drawings, sketches, graphs, charts, photographs, audio or video tapes, models, molds, prototypes and other tangible things in any form or media from which information can be obtained, either directly or through the aid of a machine or device. 6. The term copy shall mean all versions of a document in written, analog, or digital form, including but not limited to: a. "hard copy" printouts of a document which previously appeared in digital form or on the Internet; and b. digital versions of a document which previously appeared in "hard copy", written, or analog form. 7. The term "copy" shall also mean any version of a document or other material that is not in every detail identical to the document referred to in the RFA or annexed as an Exhibit to the RFA. 8. The term "USENET newsgroup" refers to a discussion group which can be accessed via the Internet. 9. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a), if objection to any of the RFAs is made, the reasons therefor shall be stated. 10. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a), if you are able to admit only a portion of any particular RFA, set forth specifically in your response which portion of the RFA is admitted; and which portion is denied, if any. 11. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a), you may not give lack of sufficient knowledge or information as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless you have first made reasonable inquiry, and the information known or readily obtainable by you is insufficient to enable you to admit or deny the RFA. 12. Pursuant to Rule 36 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, you may not object on the ground that you believe that a matter of which an admission has been requested presents a genuine issue for trial. 13. Unless the text clearly requires otherwise, you shall interpret: a. The singular form of a word to include the plural and vice versa; b. The conjunctive "and" to include the disjunctive "or" and vice versa; c. All pronouns to apply to the masculine, feminine and neuter genders; d. The word "any" to include the word "all" and vice versa; and e. The past tense of a word to include the present tense and vice versti 14. If you encounter any terms or references that you deem to be ambiguous, either in the RFA itself or in any defmition or instruction applicable to the RFA, set forth specifically in your response the matter deemed ambiguous and the construction employed by you in responding to the RFA. 15. If the matter that you are requested to admit would be true but for a typographical or spelling error in a name, date or other particular appearing in the RFA, so state in your response. 16. If you are asked to admit that a fact is true as to a stated period of time, and the fact is true only as to a portion of that period of time, you are to admit the RFA in part, specitying in your answer and the particular portion of the stated period as to which the REA is true, as well as the particular portion of the stated period as to which the RFA is false, or as to which you lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the RFA. 17. All documents referred to herein with respect to which an admission is requested by plaintiff are attached hereto as exhibits. 18. Any request that contains subparts (e.g., "a." or "b." or the like), requires a separate admission or denial for each subpart. REOUESTS FOR ADMISSION 1. You have seen a copy of the document known as "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34". 2. You have read the document known as "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34". 3. You are aware of the existence of a series of documents known as the "NOTs Series", the "NOTs materials", or the "NOTs pack". 4. You have read the documents known as the "NOTs Series", the "NOTs materials", or the "NOTs pack". 5. You have seen a copy of the documents known as the "NOTs Series", the "NOTs materials", or the "NOTs pack", excluding the document known as "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34". 6. You are aware that the documents known as the "NOTs Series", the "NOTs materials", or the "NOTs pack" were stolen from a Scientology Church in Denmark in 1983. 7. You are aware that RTC alleges that the documents known as the "NOTs Series", the "NOTs materials", or the "NOTs pack" were stolen from a Scientology Church in Denmark in 1983. 8. On or about February 21, 1995, an electronic mail communication with the Subject "Re: Writ of Seizure Against Erlich" was posted to the USENET newsgroup alt. religion.scientology. 9. The document attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the electronic mail communication referred to in RFA No.8. 10. Exhibit A contains a "LIST OF THE PUBLISHED LITERARY WORKS" and a "LIST OF UNPUBLISHED CONFIDENTIAL LITERARY WORKS" which were the subject of the lawsuit known as Religious Technolo~ Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., No. C-95-20091-RMW 11. Exhibit A contains the copyright registration numbers and registration dates for the "LIST OF THE PUBLISHED LITERARY WORKS" and "LIST OF UNPUBLISHED CONFIDENTIAL LITERARY WORKS" which were the subject of the lawsuit known as Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On- Line Communication Services, Inc., No. C-95-20091-RMW. 12. The last line of Exhibit A reflects that the electronic communication was authored by Keith Henson. 13. The From line in the header of Exhibit A reflects that the electronic communication contained in Exhibit A was sent from the e-mail account of H. Keith Henson. 14. You authored Exhibit A, with the exception of the "LIST OF THE PUBLISHED LITERARY WORKS" and "LIST OF UNPUBLISHED CONFIDENTIAL LITERARY WORKS" which are the subject of the lawsuit known as Religious Technology Center v. Nercom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., No. C-95-20091-RMW. 15. On or about February 21, 1995, you made the posting attached hereto as Exhibit A to the USENET newsgroup alt. religion. scientology. 16. Prior to March 30, 1996, you were aware that plaintiff considered the following documents to be confidential religious scriptures: a. "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34" b. "NOTs Series", "NOTs materials", or "NOTs pack" 17. Prior to March 30, 1996, you were aware that plaintiff claimed that the following documents were protected under the copyright laws of the United States: a. "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34" b. "NOTs Series", "NOTs materials", or "NOTs pack" 18. Prior to March 30, 1996, you were aware that the United States Copyright Office had issued a copyright registration for the following documents: a. "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34" b. "NOTs Series", "NOTs materials", or "NOTs pack" 19. Prior to March 30, 1996, you were aware that the following documents were protected under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act and/or the trade secret law of any state within the United States: a. "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34" b. "NOTs Series", "NOTs materials", or "NOTs pack" 20. Prior to March 30, 1996, you were aware that plaintiff claimed the following documents were trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act and/or the trade secret law of any state within the United States: a. "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34" b. "NOTs Series", "NOTs materials", or "NOTs pack" 21. Prior to March 30, 1996, you were aware that RTC requires adherents of the Scientology religion to sign confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements prior to being shown the following documents: a. "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34" b. "NOTs Series", "NOTs materials", or "NOTs pack" 22. On or about August 12, 1995, an electronic mail communication with the Subject "Re: International Noose is loosening fast on Scn" was posted to the USENET newsgroup alt. religion. scientology. 23. The document attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the electronic mail communication referred to in RFA No.22. 24. The last line of Exhibit B reflects that the electronic communication was authored by Keith Henson. 25. The From line in the header ob Exhibit B reflects that the electronic communication contained in Exhibit B was sent from the e-mail account of H. Keith Henson. 26. You authored the following text contained in Exhibit B: "I have never signed any silly billion year contracts, or agreeded [sic] to keep the OT tripe secret. So are you bozos going to raid *my* house if I put up a web site or report the silly stuff?" 27. On or about August 12, 1995, you made the posting attached hereto as Exhibit B to the USENETnewsgroup alt. religion. scientology. 28. On or about March 30, 1996, an electronic mail communication entitled "SCAMIZDAT", which contains "An Open Letter to Judge Whyte" was posted to the USENET newsgroup alt.religion.scientology. 29. The document anached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the electronic mail communication referred to in RFA No.28, with the text of the document known as "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34" and an additional word redacted. 30. The last line of Exhibit C reflects that the electronic communication was authored by H. Keith Henson. 31. The From line in the header of Exhibit C reflects that the electronic communication contained in Exhibit C was sent from the e-mail account of H. Keith Henson. 32. Exhibit C states: a. "I am also publicly seeking more NOTs materials, stolen or not, which describes criminal activities." b. "It is my intent to POST and discuss any parts of NOTs which amount to manuals for criminal activities. Such discussions are in the public interest, which overrides commercial copyright considerations.'' 33. As originally posted, Exhibit C contained a copy of the document known as "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34". 34. You authored the following text contained in Exhibit C: a. "I am also publicly seeking more NOTs materials, stolen or not, which describes criminal activities." b. "It is my intent to POST and discuss any parts of NOTs which amount to manuals for criminal activities. Such discussions are in the public interest which overrides commercial copyright considerations." I 35. On or about March 30, 1996, you made the posting attached hereto as Exhibit C, including a copy of the document known as "NOTs 34" or NOTs Issue 34", to the Internet discussion group alt.religion.scientology. 36. On or about March 30, 1996, you received an electronic mail communication from Helena K. Kobrin complaining about the Internet posting of a portion of the document known as "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34". 37~ The document attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the electronic mail communication referred to in REA No.36. 38. Exhibit D states: & "I am hereby placing you on notice that NOTs Series 34 is a copyrighted, unpublished work." b. "You have also included in your notice a request for people to send you the NOTs materials. Please be advised that the California Uniform trade Secrets Act prohibits even the *acquisiti~n* of materials containing trade secrets." 39. Exhibit D contains a copy of the "Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re" Preliminary Injunction" in the case of Religious Technology Center v. Ward, No. 96-20207-RMW EM. 40. On or about March 31, 1996, an electronic mail communication with the Subject "Re: **Biased Journalism**V2no4 Just Before Court" was posted to the Internet discussion group alt. religion. scientology. 41. The document attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the electronic mail communication teferred to in RFA No.40, with the text of the document known as "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34" and one additional word redacted. 42. The last line of Exhibit E reflects that the electronic communication was authored by H. KeithHenson. 43. The From line in the header of Exhibit E reflects that the electronics communication contained in Exhibit E was sent from the e-mail account of H. Keith Henson. 44. Exhibit E states: & "Well, I don't know the document is legit, but I sure thought I posted it last night." b. "I will be happy to see any parts of NOTs which describe criminal actions or are examples of the cult's bait and switch operations." 45 When originally posted to the Internet, Exhibit E contained a copy of the document known as "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34". 46. You authored the following text contained in Exhibit E: a. "Well, I don't know the document is legit, but I sure thought I posted it last night." b. "I will be happy to see any parts of NOTs which describe criminal actions or are examples of the cult's bait and switch operations." 47. On or about March 31, 1996, you made the posting attached hereto as Exhibit E, including a copy of the document known as "NOTs 34" or NOTs Series 34", to the Internet discussion group alt. religion. scientology. 48. On or about April 1, 1996, an electronic mail communication with the Subject "your note" was sent to Helena Kobrin at hkk@netcom.com and was posted to the Internet discussion group alt. religion. scientology. 49. The document attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the electronic mail communication referred to in RFA No.48. 50. The last line of Exhibit F reflects that the electronic communication was authored by Keith Henson. 51. The From line in the header of Exhibit F reflects that the electronic communication contained in Exhibit F was sent from the e-mail account of H. Keith Henson. 52. Exhibit F states: a. "'I have been informed that you have posted NOTs Series 34 to the Internet without the authorization of my client, who, of course, who not have given such authorization had it been requested.' That I did. In particular the HCOB of Nov.14, 1978." b. "Well, Helena, I am going to put it a little nicer that Grady would, but you can take your demand, fold it till it is all corners, and stick it where 'the Sun don't shine."' c. "And, just to show I mean it, I am *again* asking for NOTs or any other Scientology 'AT' materials, acquired by legal, or *illegal* means which describe criminal acts, amount to criminal instruction manuals, or show the fraudulent bait and switch nature of Scientology." d. "It is my intent to comment on and post this material in the public interest. I do not believe that either copyright law or trademark law will prevent the publication of information relating to unlawful acts." 53. You authored the following text contained in Exhibit F: a. "That I did. In particular the HCOB of Nov.14, 1978." b. "Well, Helena, I am going to put it a little nicer that Grady would, but you can take your demand, fold it till it is all corners, and stick it where 'the Sun don't shine."' c. "And, just to show I mean it, I am *agaifl* asking for NOTs or any other Scientology 'AT' materials, acquired by legal, or *illegal* means which describe criminal acts, amount to criminal instruction manuals, or show the fraudulent bait and switch nature of Scientology." d. "It is my intent to comment on and post this material in the public interest. I do not believe that either copyright law or trademark law will prevent the publication of information relating to unlawful acts." 54. On or about April 1, 1996, you posted a copy of Exhibit F to the Internet discussion group alt. religion. scientology. 55. Prior to March 30, 1996, you were aware of the existence of a Temporary Restraining Order issued by District Judge Ronald M. Whyte on March 21, 1996 against an individual named Grady Ward in the case of Religious Technology Center v. Ward, No. 96-20207-RMW. 56. Prior to March 30, 1996, you had read a copy of the Temporary Restraining Order issued by District Judge Ronald M. Whyte on March21, 1996 against an individual named Grady Ward in the case of Religious Technology Center v. Ward, No. 96-20207-RMW. 57. On April 1, 1996, you were present in the Courtroom of United States District Judge Ronald M. Whyte when Judge Whyte in open court issued a preliminary injunction against an individual named Grady Ward in the case of Religious Technology Center v. Ward, No. 96-20207-RMW. 58. Prior to April 4, 1996, you downloaded to your personal computer a copy of the document known as "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34" from the Internet. 59. Prior to April 4, 1996, you printed a "hard copy" of the document known as "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34" from your personal computer. 60. You currently have a copy of the document known as "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34" on the hard drive of your personal computer. 61. You currently have a copy of the document known as "NOTs 34" or "NOTs Series 34" in disk space afforded you through your Internet account with Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc. 62. You have taken the masked copy of NOTs Series 23 that was given to you by plaintiff in its Initial Disclosures and have attempted to determine the content of the masked portion. 63. You have sent copies to other individuals of the results of your attempt to determine the content of the masked portions of the masked NOTs Series 23 that was given to you as part of plaintiWs Initial Disclosures. 64. You have attempted to determine the content of the masked portions of other masked NOTs Series works besides NOTs Series 23. 65. You have sent copies to other individuals of the results of attempts by you to determine the content of the masked portions of masked NOTs Series works other than NOTs Series 23. Dated: February 3, 1997 Respectfiilly submitted, LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R HOGAN By: ~ Thomas R Hogan "<3 Attorneys for Plain tif RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER