[ Aug 19 updates ]

UPDATES August 21st 1999 at bottom
HOT Update August 22nd at 8PM at bottom

for immediate release - 19 August 1999 4.00 PM PST

Attorney fighting Scientologists may go to Jail

Attorney Graham Berry faces his toughest day in the courtroom yet tomorrow morning, when LA Judge Alexander Williams III decides whether to jail him for contempt of court stemming from a libel lawsuit against the Church of Scientology. This will happen in dept 35 at 830 am at 111 Hill Street in Los Angeles California.

Berry recently released a shattering affidavit by Robert Cipriano implicating Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon of suborning perjury and other serious federal offenses.

Cipriano, formerly a major witness against Berry for the CoS, has disavowed the allegations he once made against Berry, and has charged that CoS attorneys and representatives rewarded him for perjury and testimony against him.

Berry, a longtime activist with a special interest in cases involving ex-scientologists and critics of the church, is accused of 'vexatious litigation' under a little-used portion of California State law.

Scientologist Kendrick Moxon was convicted in 1982 as an "Unindicted-Co Conspirator" in the largested domestic spying case in US history - US vs Mary Sue Hubbard et al.

Allegations have been raised of serious conflicts of interest between the Judge and the Scientology's vast empire, including one called BPI, or Bridge Publications International.

For More information contact Graham E Berry at
(310) 393 2835
The Cipriano declaration is on the web at:
More information on Scientology's criminal history at and

[ after the filing of cipriano dec, [ we dont have the exhibits webbed ] - the Judge granted the cults ex parte motion to seal all future filings! and claimed Graham Berry was late for the court while he was still standing in line at the clerks office at 8:45 AM! seems the judges girlfriend has a contract to provide services to "BPI" Bridge Publications International, one of the shell corporations of the Scientology Empire that employs Moxon - this was on monday...

then this: below in at 10 Pm Thursday EST

Random bits from the LA soap opera.

Garry Sota is still claiming to be Cipriano's lawyer though dismissed by

Robert Cipriano and Graham Berry filed a 5 inch thick mess of papers,
mostly exhibits and a jointly written verified statement to disqualify
Judge Williams in Berry vs Cipriano. I.e., both plaintiff and defendant
asked to disqualify the judge

This kind of stuff has to be filed in the court, so Berry and Cipriano
took it to the court.

There was a new court clerk. The bailiff said he did not want to take
filings saying they were too thick. Clerk would not accept either

Papers were in total compliance of the rules, Berry insist that the clerk
take them.

She did, stamped them and marked them "filed on demand."

While Berry was dealing with the clerk, the bailiff made a strange call
and was talking in hushed tones to someone. Will the court's phone system
have recorded what number? Was it a scientology lawyer?

Graham is out there working for Truth Justice and the American way

He and Cipriano then filed a cc of the same papers with Chief Judge

Williams is extreamly pissed with Graham, the other lawyers have already
asked for 3k in sanctions event though one of the Chodos was also late and
walked in a few steps before Graham.

Turns out three years ago Williams did not like a lawsuit filed by a
chicano. Stuck the filling between his ass cheeks and walked around the
courtroom making comment about what the plaintiff could do with it. This
made the papers and got him in very hot water with the Committee for
judicial performance.

Someone should look this up in the news archives and post the story.

The potential for a three ring circus has never been better than tomorrow
morning 830 sharp in Judge Williams court, Dept 35, 111 Hill St.

Get there early, parking is a bitch.

Keith Henson

Association of Trial Lawyers of America December 1997 See the Web page: <> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Verbally abusive judge immune from suit, court says Calling a Los Angeles judge's verbally abusive conduct toward a plaintiff "despicable and inexcusable," a trial court nevertheless ruled the judge is protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity and therefore cannot be sued.

In dismissing the complaint against Superior Court Judge Alexander Williams III, Orange County Superior Court Judge James Jackman found that although Williams's actions "undoubtedly push[ed] the envelope of judicial immunity," they did not cross the line into "physically assaultive conduct," which would not have been protected behavior under the doctrine.

Because the Los Angeles bench recused itself, the case was moved to Orange County. (Soliz v. Williams, No. BC 166 394 (Cal., Orange County Super. Ct. Aug. 21, 1997).) The complaint alleges that on November 17, 1995, Williams was conducting a settlement conference in which the plaintiff, Robert Soliz, was a party. During the lunch recess, the defendants in the case remained in the courtroom while Soliz sat in the hallway outside. His attorney, Rees Lloyd, who practices in Banning, California, was out of earshot when Williams-who was not wearing his judicial robes-confronted Soliz and another plaintiff. Williams yelled that the plaintiffs' settlement demand was "bulls---," and if the plaintiffs thought there was money in the case, they had "s--- for brains."

According to the lawsuit, the judge-who was holding a rolled-up magazine in his hand-"lifted up his leg like a dog urinating, and motioned as if he was shoving the tube of papers up his rectum."

The complaint says that Soliz did not respond to the judge's outburst in any way because he feared retaliation. As Williams began to enter the courtroom, Lloyd returned. The judge then turned toward Lloyd, "thumped his chest repeatedly," and proclaimed that "now plaintiffs had to deal with him," and that he was their "enemy." Three days later, Lloyd filed a motion to disqualify Williams. Williams refused to grant the motion, but after Lloyd refused to withdraw it, Williams recused himself.

On or about that same day, Williams spoke to a reporter from the Los Angeles Daily Journal, a legal newspaper. Williams admitted he had engaged in inappropriate acts but denied he had acted as Soliz alleged in the motion for disqualification.

Earlier this year, the California Commission on Judicial Performance made public its findings after investigating the incident. It admonished the judge, finding that the acts Soliz alleged were true. In his five-page opinion dismissing the lawsuit, Jackman put Soliz's causes of action into three groups: negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil rights violations, and defamation.

In each cause of action, Jackman found that Williams was protected by judicial immunity because his actions were judicial in nature and occurred in his jurisdiction.

Jackman wrote, "[A] judicial act does not become less so by virtue of being done with malice or corrupt motives. If the action is a judicial function and with jurisdiction, the lawsuit cannot go forward." Jackman also rejected Soliz's claim that because

Williams falsely denied the misconduct to the Journal reporter, he had effectively called Soliz a liar in print. Jackson found that Williams's comments to the reporter were "regarding a matter before him and involved the lawsuit and litigants," not "just any person off the street." Jackman noted that while there "is no excuse for the conduct of Judge Williams as alleged . . . he is subject to other potent controls at the Commission and at the ballot box." Soliz's attorney, Lloyd, said he will appeal. "Assault is assault-whether it's verbal or physical-and neither should fall under the cloak of judicial immunity," Lloyd said. "Yet many lawyers have told me they would not challenge a judge in this way. But if we don't question unacceptable behavior, where will it all end?" -Kelly McMurry


Report from courthouse from Mark Bunker of XENU TV 7:51 PM EDT

here's why I was surrounded...

the XENU TV patented MintonCam was brought to the courthouse,
On my arrival this morning I was told I was noyt allowed to have the camera in the courthouse at all.
I was under the impression that I could film in the hallway but not the courtroom. This was not the case.
I then tried to get an establishing shot of the front of the courthouse and was surrounded
Seems you can not shoot anywhere on court property.
I had been told hours earlier that I was fine outside the courthouse but now it seems I wasn't
I was told i could step off the curb five feet away and shoot from there and that is what I did
Yes, I was told channel 9 was sanctioned for being where I was. The clams cam e over to add fule to the fire but the deputies didn't care the case
Before a word was said...Judge Williams had decided the case
no press...yet
they should be interested now though
no sanctions have been laid down as of looks like next Thursday
> ben; what Co$ presence was there?
BIG TIME CLAMS, Jeff, [Mike] Rinder showed up for the first time in this case, he looked very ill
It was a pleasure to meet him. I went up and asked for an interview for XENU TV and he found that laughable
I asked if he had seen any of my videos...he skrunched up his face and said slowly as if he was starring in EWS "Are you kidding?", He really look cancerous. Much older, grayer, paler and thin, I felt sorry for him
At one point I saw Rinder's folded hands and I started to tear up because they looked just like my dad's hands as he laid in his coffing two weeks back The judge not only found Graham to be a vexatious litigater but he said (I don't have my notes in front of me so it's not an exact quote)... Mr. Berry is the most vexatious litigater on God's green earth." don: no sanctions till next week but pobably not major when they come, i don't think he could be disbarred for that I plan to have some video coverage up tomorrow including an interview with Graham and Cipriano, Clams attornyes tried hard to have the Cipriano declaration striken from the record.The judge does not seem to be leaning toward this but nothing this guy does will surprise mehe judge says he is leaning toward open files for everything but the final decision is not made till he returns from vacation next week. The judge was clearly displeased with Graham. especially when Graham announced he would be filed suits against all the attorneys post haste. I am not saying Graham is suing all the attorneys but he asked if he was allowed to proceed with actions under these sanctions. The judge seemed to think he shouldn't but could not stop Berry from practicing law as he saw fit. Here's something I found the judge prepared to slap Graham with this "vexatious" label...he started by saying what a pleasure it has been to have Graham appear before him in his Graham is bright, clever, witty and brought poetry to the proceedings...

More just in from Graham Berry via phone - Re being deemed a vexation litigant "Coming from them it is a badge of honor" "Today the court said it wasn't what you did Mr Berry, it is how you did it"The Judge said at one point [paraphrased] look, Ive been in trouble before, I got reelected, and "I can behave like a Federal Judge. "I was a criminal prosecuter, I dont know nothing about civil law" Moxon and Rosen told Graham : "You still don't get it?" Graham then suggest to both of them it was time to "Turn States Evidence" graham pointed out to court a new attorney in the case, A Criminal Attorney Gerald Chaleff had just ben joined to the case.."by Scientology.

This is same Chaleff of the LA police comission.

More soon...




1223 Wilshire Boulevard

Box 1028

Santa Monica, California 90403

Telephone: (310) 395-4800

Facsimile: (310) 393-4507

Plaintiff Pro Per



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: None

I, 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. Nelson



) ss.


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:


[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 PRINT Scott 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



Today the Court held that it was not what I did, it was the way I did it, and determined me to be a vexatious litigant. It also held, in essence, that the outcome of a case is unaffected by opposing parties' and counsels' blackmail, bribery, witness tampering, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice. In other words, as a matter of fact and equity that the "end justifies the means" - which is really what the "Fair Game" Policy is all about.

The judge should have disqualified himself. He refused to do so, but did not deny that his significant other worked for a Scientology corporation and his former clerk for its attorney.

It was clear from the moment Cipriano and I walked into the courtroom that the judge had predetermined the matter. It was astonishing when he questioned me as to why the Cipriano Declaration had any relevance at all. It was significant that he concluded by saying that he knew little about civil law having practiced as a prosecutor.

The cult insisted that the minute order be entered immediately. Despite the vexatious litigant ruling my abuse of process claim will still be filed against Moxon, Ingram and Hurtado. The new Cipriano Declaration now adds R.I.C.O. potential and federal jurisdiction.

The judge also indicated that he will deny any motion for civil and criminal contempt or sanctions against Moxon. For the sake of the trial court record that motion will still be filed. A similar motion is being filed in the Pattinson case early next week.

A writ will be filed seeking reversal of the vexatious litigant ruling.

This is just one round in my quest for justice and I thank everyone who has expressed their support to date.



in the matter of Attorney Graham E Berry, Cipriano, and a Unindicted Co-conspirator in US vs Mary Sue Hubbard 1982 - one Scientologist Attorney Kendrick Moxon

There are a growing number of ex members of the cult which has mastered the art of deception, who have stood the test of time, the perils of well financed litigation, and are joined by folks who want nothing more than the WHOLE OF THE TRUTH to be known, and known broadly to all, over the entire world.

We also seek PEACE, but without enforced SILENCE

But to achieve PEACE, we are forced to seek JUSTICE

And to get JUSTICE we must seek the whole TRUTH

Graham Berry is a lonely one man advocate for individuals who have sought equity after experiencing the mind destruction sold by Scientology. Scientology has committed a violation of the United States Criminal Code - Subordination of Perjury and it is Mr Moxon who should go to jail.

Mr Berry has stood up for the little guy. Against a well financed conspiracy to silence anyone who knows how the trick is done. How long would I have to run a small electric charge through your body, [ like scientology's E-Meter does], while telling you things that you wanted to hear, before you would feel that I held the secrets of the universe? Mr Moxon will do whatever he needs to do or say while in this trance.

Against all odds, Graham Berry is still alive to walk into your courtroom this morning.

I seek nothing more than JUSTICE for Mr. Berry against overwhelming piles of money.

And seek to remind you that the WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING. 766 copies

of the Cipriano declaration have been downloaded from my website in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I don't know how many copies are being downloaded now of the 1977 Trial Lawyers Article.

This is supposed to be a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people'

Not of the money, by the money, and for the money, - And money was used by Scientologist Kendrick Moxon in order to Suborn Perjury against Mr Berry. That is a Federal Crime.


Arnaldo Pagliarini Lerma

A Citizen Fighting Corruption

6045 N 26th rd Arlington VA 22207

"I would prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak"

At approximately 4 a.m., Sunday, August 22, 1999, Robert Cipriano returned
to his former temporary residence with friends in Marina Del Rey, a suburb
of Los Angeles, California. Apparently, Moxon has been "camped out" in their
living room for days.

A short time later, Cipriano walked outside and somehow ended up with
Moxon's private investigator, Edwin Richardson, who drove him to an airport

At approximately 9:30 a.m. Cipriano telephoned Graham. Cipriano told Berry
that Moxon had told him by telephone that a group of them (from OSA) were on
their way to pick him up and take him to an "old" attorney somewhere on
Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles. This "old" attorney would "make
everything all right" and Scientology would give him another car, another
apartment and
"his life back."

Cipriano asked Graham to visit him at the hotel before he went with Moxon
to visit the "old" attorney. Graham had a friend keep Cipriano on the
telephone as he raced to the hotel near the airport. While Graham was in
transit his friend could hear over the phone Edwin Richardson continuously
banging on Cipriano's door.

When Graham arrived he saw a grinning Richardson leaving. Graham said to
him, "Moxon's tits are really in the wringer now!"

At Cipriano's request he is now in a "safe house".

Goto Main Lerma Anti Scientology Page