Is Scientology breaking the law?

Allegations of obstruction of justice by Scientology

Excerpted from . Please see that page for the full text.

Emphasis added in red . Editorial comments, when added, are in purple .

Grady Ward's letter to Scientology lawyer Thomas Hogan


April 17, 1998


Thomas R. Hogan 60 South Market Street, Suite 1125 San Jose,

California 95113-2332

Re: Religious Technology Center, Inc. v. Grady Ward

No. C 96-20207

Dear Mr. Hogan,

As you know, your fax of April 15, 1998 first disclosed that the plaintiff has possessed crucial data compilations relevant to the Usenet posting facts alleged with particularity in your complaint. This was confirmed under oath in the depositions of Jean Carnahan and Rhea Smith in their deposition on April 16, 1998 admitting their role in allegedly collecting and maintaining these magnetic records since February 20, 1995 and continuously during the period at issue in this litigation begun on March 21, 1996. Coupled with the sworn statements that Warren McShane personally directed this monitoring and further revelations during yesterday's depositions proves this failure was willful.

You were required to disclose a description by category and location of this data compilation and these pivotal fact witnesses during initial disclosure as required by FRCivP 26(a)(1)(B) and L.R. 16. Moreover, the declarations by, and the deposition of Warren McShane on May 22, 1997 along with the plaintiff's answers to interrogatories and document requests proves conclusively that you and the plaintiff repeatedly and willfully concealed this evidence from the defendant and the court, even after multiple requests by the defendant for this information.

Disclosing this crucial data two years after it was required to be disclosed, after the joint pretrial statement has been filed and after the in limine motions have been made and opposed, and now on the eve of trial, is particularly reprehensible.

This information consists of more than 1,000 diskettes and 325,000 entries that would take weeks to examine and to extract the relevant materials, viz., individuals such as Ray Randolph who have admitted a role in SCAMIZDAT, Johan Wevers admitting his role in Vorlon, and proof that you relied upon NETCOM to tell you what the content of the alleged posts were. The same NETCOM during the same time period that you now say its User logs are defective that proved I was not logged in at the time you falsely allege I personally infringed your copyrights. The failure to disclose the existence of this material in a timely way as required by law is unconscionable especially considering you have eleven lawyers facing a pro per in forma pauperis.

You faxed me your letter on April 15, 1998 knowing that the next day I would discover the truth in deposition. Of course I will prove that it is false that I "never asked for the production of magnetic versions." A grossly unethical statement in light of your obligations under Rule 26 and the discovery requests I have made in this case. Moreover this ignores your explicit duty to disclose the existence of this absolutely relevant data compilation under pain of automatic exclusion of the information contained therein.

This failure to disclose has unfairly prevented me from taking effective discovery in this matter and has wasted my and the court's time for two years.

Beyond the automatic sanctions provided for in FRCivP 37(c), I will be filing for further expedited relief in this matter.


Very truly yours,


Grady Ward, in pro per

This page was last updated on May 8, 1999.