UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

   NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

   RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a      )
   California non-profit corporation,  )
   Plaintiff,                          )
                                       )
   vs.                                 )
                                       )  No. C 96-20207 EAI RMW
   GRADY WARD, an individual,          )
                                       )  OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
   Defendant                           )  FOR FURTHER EXPEDITED DEPOSITION
                                       )  AND INVASIVE DISCOVERY
                                       )

   The defendant opposes the plaintiff's motion for Further Expedited
   Deposition and their request for invasive discovery of my computer media
   at home because:

   (1) In the one and a half days spent being interrogated in a room with
   several plaintiff's attorneys without the benefit of my own counsel, I
   answered their questions fully and to the best of my knowledge;

   2) As the plaintiff points out in their motion, I did not try to impede
   the deposition with extraneous objections or comments, even though I
   belatedly found out for the first time 15 minutes before the deposition
   was concluded that I had a right as a pro per to cross-examine myself.
   Rather than showing I was pleased with the proceedings, this willingness
   to proceed with fewer than a handful of objections proves that I was
   fully complying with my duty as a deponent and not being evasive as
   alleged by the plaintiff;

   3) Twice I objected to the plaintiff's attempt to evade the order of
   Judge Whyte of April 1st limiting the deposition to one day: the first
   time to Mr. Lieberman before the deposition began when he responded to
   my question "How would you like to divide the nine hours of time agreed
   to in my deposition?" with Mr. Lieberman's answer "I didn't see any such
   limitation [of a single day] in Judge Whyte's {April 1] order, did you?"
   The second time I objected at the conclusion of the first's day's
   testimony directly to Mr. Hogan. He echoed Mr. Lieberman's sentiment
   that he did not understand Judge Whyte's order limited the deposition to
   a single day or to a nine hour period as we had agreed to my response
   (Exhibit A).

   In his conversation with you on the second day of deposition, Mr Hogan
   told you that I had "sprung" this objection of the deposition length on
   him. This is provably untrue by both my prior verbal objections to both
   him and Mr. Lieberman, and by our explicit written agreement to a nine
   hour deposition time (Exhibit A).

   4) The reason for only nine and a half "on record" hours is due to the
   frequent long huddles that the plaintiff recessed to while I had to wait
   alone in the deposition room;

   5) This nine and a half "on record" hours is still longer than Mr Hogan
   and I had agreed to on April 4, 1996 (Exhibit A) and previously ordered
   by Judge Whyte in his April 1st order. In fact Judge Whyte and I
   compromised a full day to the plaintiff when Judge Whyte originally
   proposed the plaintiff's discovery to six hours during my March 29th
   hearing. (See Hogan's declaration Exhibit of the District Court
   transcript line 1 "Öconcerned about six hours.") My willingness to
   concede the extra time to the plaintiff was due to my willingness to be
   fully and completely deposed, while protecting me from the abuse that
   has been proven to be initiated by the plaintiff. Calling me a "liar" on
   the record and asking if I "keep pornography" is not the kind of
   behavior that is expected of a attorneys and casts a strong suspicion
   upon the plaintiff's true motives of further extended deposition.
   (Exhibit G)

   I specifically deny that I agreed orally or in writing, either
   affirmatively or by silent assent to more than nine hours of deposition
   as alleged by Counsel Hogan (Decl. ¸5, page 2).

   6) I categorically deny that I evaded plaintiff's questions propounded
   during the deposition. I repeatedly said under oath that a. I am not
   "scamizdat"; b. I do not know who is "scamizdat"; c. I am not working in
   participation or concert with "scamizdat." So the allegation that the
   plaintiff did not "question me fully" regarding "scamizdat" is false.
   (Hogan Decl. Appendix Ward Deposition, page 196, line 6, et. Seq.; page
   225, line 13, et. Seq.)

   7) I posted the so-called OTVIII document in which L. Ron Hubbard claims
   that Jesus was a pedophile with the disclaimer that the RTC attorney
   Helena K. Kobrin claimed that it was a forgery. This document was part
   of the so-called unsealed court documents known as the "Fishman
   Declaration" which was included among many other so-called "OT"
   documents that RTC claims are genuine under their theories of copyright
   and trade secret. (Exhibit B)

   8) While the plaintiff alleges in their motion that I was "evasive",
   they fail to provide evidence of their assertion which the deposition
   record shows is false:

   On page 5 of their motion they cite extracts of the deposition which the
   plaintiff claim demonstrates "evasiveness" on the part of the defendant:

   ¸ starting on page 5, lines 3 and 6 -- Since I do not possess or store
   copies of my own postings to the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology I
   cannot corroborate the print-outs that the RTC alleges that I made. Many
   of them do have the character of my taunts. However, since I intend to
   prove in my counterclaim that the RTC or those working in concert or
   participation with the plaintiff RTC are actively and unlawfully forging
   "cancel" posts (Exhibit C) and impugning the character of critics of the
   plaintiff's belief system by forging additional lines that appear
   threatening to the church such as "BLOW UP YOU LOCAL CHURCH OF
   SCIENTOLOGY TODAY!" (Exhibit D), combined with the admitted "fair game"
   scriptures of the founder L. Ron Hubbard that is adhered to as received
   source scripture by the Scientology faithful (Exhibit E), there is a
   strong likelihood that at least some content attributed to me was
   fraudulently edited while in the custody of the plaintiff. In fact the
   plaintiff admits doing so in several of their deposition Exhibits
   (deposition exhibits 4 and 5 are two such examples).

   I have solicited other's archives that may be exist concerning posts
   made on alt.religion.scientology by me and members of the church. I have
   not yet received any such archives.

   Plaintiff ¸ starting on page 5, line 9. In the deposition I detailed the
   use of my statement "I hear" as a mockery of identical statements by
   individuals working in concert or participation with the RTC to
   intimidate lawful criticism by contributors to alt.religion.scientology.
   I am a student of the English language and am aware that their founder
   put an inordinate power to idiosyncratic words used in specific
   repetitive and ways differing from Standard English. (Exhibit F).

   Plaintiff ¸ starting on page 5, line 12. I admit to making many
   stylized, repetitive taunts, often using vulgarity designed to elicit
   responses from the plaintiff and those working in concert and
   participation with the plaintiff. As expert testimony will show at trial
   thousands upon thousands of readers of the newsgroup had access to the
   same information I had. I will show that in fact several posters did in
   fact seemingly "predict" the postings known as "scamizdat," while at the
   same time several of my taunts and "predictions" subsequently turned out
   not to be the case.

   I do not and never had access to the materials known as "Advanced
   Technology" beyond what is alleged as such by the plaintiff and
   published by others on the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

   Plaintiff ¸ starting on page 5, line 18. Mr Lieberman asserted that Mr
   Alerma testified under oath that Alerma had sent the "Fishman Affidavit"
   to me. Mr. Lieberman then asked me if Alerma were lying since he had
   testified as such. I testified I did not receive any such "advanced
   technology" materials from Lerma. I speculated that many other reasons
   other than "lying" would cause Mr Lerma to make such a mistaken
   assertion. When Mr Lerma is available in court for me to examine
   directly then perhaps I can ascertain the nature of Mr Lerma's erroneous
   testimony, if he in fact made such a statement and is simply not the
   fabrication of Mr. Lieberman made for some abusive reason.

   Footnote 5 of page 5, I testified that this alleged e-mail header is a
   forgery. The plaintiff admits that Mr. Alerma made in fact the first
   known posting of the "Fishman Affidavit" to the newsgroup
   alt.religion.scientology. It seems quite clear that his posting, seen by
   thousands or readers, was the basis of the subsequent "scamizdat" post,
   not any taunt that I made.

   9) On page 7 line 19, the plaintiff says that "key issues in the case,
   which must be addressed rapidly". No rationale is given why this must be
   done rapidly. I can think of no reason other than to take advantage of
   the defendant's pro per status. The defendant is under a preliminary
   injunction. The defendant has not impeded discovery so far and in fact
   has in a timely manner given the information and attendance that the
   plaintiff requested and that we agreed upon. The total basis of the
   plaintiff's claim is based upon post hoc propter hoc logic and
   unauthenticated computer printouts whose origin and accuracy I, in fact,
   dispute. I believe that the true reason for plaintiff's rush is that
   they do not intend to honor their obligation to provide discovery for me
   regarding this litigation and would like their discovery to fully
   completed and I to be unfairly harassed before this court realizes the
   nature of their litigation strategy. The plaintiff must not succeed in
   this ploy lest they be further encouraged to abuse the court and due
   process of law in this manner. (Exhibit G)

   10) Note that on Page 8, line 6 of the plaintiff's motion, while they
   claim that the defendant indulges in ad hominem by directly quoting the
   Ninth Circuit court record, they do not deny its assertions that RTC has
   and continues to have a record of abusive and evasive discovery. At the
   same time the defendant has never been charged or sued before in his
   life. I leave it to the court to decide considering these fact and the
   affidavits of my counterclaim who a priori is more likely to proceed
   with respect to due process of law.

   Notwithstanding these facts, I am willing to permit a Special Master
   appointed by the court, not affiliated with the church of Scientology or
   those working in concert or participation with Scientology or any of its
   enterprises, to copy my archive media that I store in my safe deposit
   box so that, given an agreed-upon protocol of searching by key words,
   that the plaintiff can determine whether it contains responsive
   documents while at the same time my privacy is preserved with respect to
   materials irrelevant to this litigation.

   I again remind the court that I live far distance from San Jose, my
   family has only one automobile, I am responsible for sharing the
   supervision of my two boys age 7 and 5, and that I have extremely
   limited funds. I anticipate I will declare insolvency this June or July.
   Examinations and hearings that require my frequent travel to San Jose
   impose a substantial hardship upon me and my family.

   I object to a Special Master or any other party intruding into my house
   in order to conduct such a lengthy intrusive search on my computers at
   home that I, for example, require to prepare my defense to this action.
   This demand on the plaintiff's part is designed to obstruct and harass
   me in my effort to act as a pro per since I continue to deny under oath
   that I have any responsive materials on any of my computers, storage
   media, or archives whether at home or in my safety deposit box. My
   children have been terrorized enough with Scientologists perpetrating
   criminal trespass and police threatening the arrest of my wife at the
   instigation of RTC process servers unless she accept service of this
   lawsuit. These kinds of terrorist tactics are considered "scriptural"
   admonitions by Scientologists (Exhibit E)

   On page 9, line 4, the plaintiff asserts that "Ward's testimony on this
   subject [responsive materials at home] should not be believed."

   The foundation for this allegation is false. I never claimed to archive
   posts to any newsgroup on my storage at home. In fact I repeatedly
   explicitly denied on both the newsgroup and to the plaintiff that I kept
   either e-mail or newsgroup posts. My home storage capacity is several
   gigabytes much of which is empty. On line 11 of page 9 that is why I
   store much less media than my capacity (Hogan Decl. Appendix Ward
   Deposition, page 86, line 12). I do not archive empty space. The regular
   archives I maintain in my safety deposit box contains usual and
   customary backup materials only, not materials responsive to the
   plaintiff's discovery demands.

   ¸ at line 14 on page 9, I do admit to frequently soliciting Scientology
   documents provided they were under the fair use exemption of the
   copyright act. I assumed they would not violate trade secrets covenants
   since I assume that I deal with law abiding individuals. (Hogan Decl.
   Appendix Ward Deposition page 153, line 8, et. Seq.) I in fact received
   few materials alleged to be descriptive of Scientology enterprises which
   I read, sometimes excerpted, then discarded. As I have repeatedly said
   both in the newsgroup and under oath in this litigation I do not make a
   practice of storing either e-mail or newsgroup posts. Not to store posts
   nor most e-mail is customary for long-time internet participants. The
   burden on storage space and time spent to organize such materials is
   excessive for frequent contributors.

   ¸ at line 21 on page 9, I do admit making fair use quotations of
   non-trade secret material on the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology. I
   do not, however, store or archive scientology material. Virtually all of
   my quoted material was previously posted on the newsgroup.

   ¸ at line 1 on page 10, is pure "guilt by association." I have no idea
   whether plaintiff's hearsay is true, nor have I had the opportunity to
   examine or refute such claims myself.

   I continue to assert under oath that I have responded honestly and
   accurately to the best of my knowledge to the plaintiff's accelerated
   discovery requests.

   ¸ at line 8 on page 10 claims examination of my home computers will see
   whether in fact I possess responsive materials and/or to detect whether
   such material has been deleted. This is quite illogical given the
   plaintiff's page 10 footnote 11 where they assert that I have
   sophistication in eliminating signs of deleted files. The only purpose
   of this request is to harass.

   Footnote 12 on page 10. I do admit to exchanging e-mail with many
   hundreds of writers. I do assert under oath that I keep only a
   vanishingly small fraction of such correspondence. With respect to the
   E.C.P.A, I did respond under oath that the question was moot anyway
   since I typically do not store or archive e-mail.

   Finally and somewhat ironically, the e-mail containing his motion the
   plaintiff counsel Hogan asserted that he sent me in his Friday, May 3
   letter hand-carried to you was in fact not sent to me. When I called him
   Friday evening to ask about this missing e-mail, Mr. Hogan personally
   asserted that it would be e-mailed to me. At this time of this filing it
   has not. I hope Mr. Hogan is again not economizing with the truth in
   order to prejudice the efforts of the defendant to carry on a timely pro
   per defense.

   For all the foregoing reasons, the defendant prays that the motion for
   continued expedited deposition be DENIED, that the motion for intrusive
   discovery of my home computers be DENIED, and that the motion to examine
   the archived contents of my safety deposit box should be GRANTED, but
   only upon the condition of a Special Master and an agreed-upon protocol
   to protect my privacy in unrelated documents and privileged materials.

   Concurrently, I pray that my separate motion for accelerated discovery
   of the plaintiff be GRANTED to permit me to begin discovery.

   Under penalty of perjury, the foregoing is true to the best of my
   knowledge.

   Respectfully submitted.

   ___________________

   Grady Ward, in pro per