STEVEN FISHMAN
Dismas House, Room 324
141 N.W. 1st Avenue
Dania, Florida 33004
Defendant Pro Se
GRAHAM E. BERRY
JUDITH M. TISHKOFF
LEWIS, DIAMATO, BRISBOIS BISGAARD
221 North Ficlueroa Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90012
(213) 250-1800
Attorneys for Defendant,
UWE GEERTZ, Ph.D-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CASE NO. 91-6426 HLH (Tx)
INTERNATIONAL,
VERIFIED JOINT PRELIMINARY
Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION BY DEFENDANTS
STEVEN FISHMAN AND UWE GEERTZ
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS
COURT'S MARCH 22, 1993 ORDER
TRANSFERRING THE VENUE OF THIS
VS. CASE TO U.S.D.C., SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA AND MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM THAT SAME ORDER
PURSUANT TO F.R.CIV.P. 60
STEVEN FISHMAN and UWE GEERTZ, Date: April 26, 1993
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Defendants. Place: Courtroom 7
PRELIMINARY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that defendants Steven
Fishman and Uwe Geertz will shortly be filing a joint notice of
notion and motion for reconsideration of this court's March 22, 1993
order to transfer the venue of this case to the United States
(0134)
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (pursuant t
Local Rule 7.16) and a motion for relief from that same order
pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRELIMINARY NOTICE OF MOTIONS IS TO AVOID
ANY FURTHER INCONVENIENCE OR EXPENSE ON THE COURTS PART WITS REGARD
TO THE TRANSFER OF THE FILE PENDING THE FILING AND REARING OF SAID
MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND F.R.CIV.P. RULE 60 RELIEF.
DEFENDANTS GEERTZ AND PIS EXPECT TO FILE THEIR JOINT MOTION BY
MONDAY, APRIL S. 1993. THIS DELAY IS OCCASIONED BY FISHMAN,
GEERTZ
AND GEERTZ'S COUNSEL GRAHM E. BERRY, BEING ENGAGED FROM MARCH 15 TO
APPROXIMATELY MARCH26 IN VARIOUS DEPOSITIONS, FROM DAY TO DAY, IN
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA, INCLUDING THE DEPOSITIONS OF DR. GEERTZ
AND MR. FISHMAN.
This motion will be made, inter alia, on the following grounds:
A. AS TO DEFENDANT FISHMAN:
Prior to the March 22, 1993 hearing on his motion for change of
venue:
1. Mr. Fishman mistakenly thought that IRS officials,
(Messrs. Tronscoso and Kroggel) from Tampa, Florida could be
compelled to attend the trial of this matter in Miami, Florida and
that they could be compelled to testify about ongoing government
investigations;
2. Mr. Fishman mistakenly thought that Detective Angelo could
be compelled to attend trial in Miami, give testimony about an
ongoing police investigation and Mr. Fishman also did not realize
that statements by Detective Angelo regarding what Fishman told
Detective Angelo about Scientology would be hearsay;
3. With regard to "certain hostile witnesses who are staff
(0135)
members of the Church of Scientology":
(a) Mr. Fishman had not realized that these persons would
have to be subpoenaed for depositions, deposed, subpoenaed for trial
and paid witness fees, all at an impossible expense to himself;
(b) Mr. Fishman had inadvertently forgotten that these
witnesses would have been subjected to Scientology's TR-L (training
routine-lying) , witness training program ("hatting the witness") and
security procedures - all to subvert the truth and so render their
testimony futile to the standpoint of Mr Fishman's defense;
4. Mr. Fishman had mistakenly and inadvertently failed to
realize that the witnesses he really needs in this case are largely
ex-Scientologists -- most of whom are more readily available to
testify at trial in Los Angeles;
5. Fishman had mistakenly filed his motion for change of
venue after reviewing his file and noticing that defendant Geertz
once had filed the same motion, and without knowing that defendant
Geertz had subsequently made a determination that the case was
better venued in Los Angeles for an assortment of different reasons.
6. Mr. Fishman had mistakenly and inadvertently failed to
consider the logistical problems he faced in trying his case in
Miami without the support services of Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois &
Bisgaard being available with regard to the dozens of boxes of
documents that will be introduced into evidence in his case.
7. Mr. Fishman had not received Lewis, D'Amato's offers to:
(a) provide him with law library, support and office
services during the trial in Los Angeles;
(b) provide him with accommodations, air transportation
and a per them for food costs during trial in Los Angeles and to the
(0136)
extent plaintiff Scientology failed to do so;
(c) pay for the travel and accommodation of Marjorie
Wakefield to testify at trial in Los Angeles;
(d) take videotaped depositions of so many of the so-
called "Scientology hostile witnesses" in Fort Lauderdale and Miami
who could be subpoenad for deposition;
(e) use their best efforts to find Mr. Fishman a pro bono
trial counsel for a trial in Los Angeles;
(f) file a motion for summary judgment in Los Angeles, in
which Mr. Fishman would join; and
(g) transport his over 50 boxes of evidence to Los
Angeles and store it for him there pending trial and for six months
thereafter.
8. Mr. Fishman had not developed the close working
relationship he now has with Graham E. Berry of Lewis D'Amato as a
result of the Steven Fishman, Jack Fishman, Jamie Lee Nuryev, Keith
Nosetta and Dr. Geertz depositions now being conducted in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida.
9. Mr. Fishman had not realized that the granting of his
motion for change of venue may adversely affect Dr. Geertz's
representation by the Lewis D'Amato firm and threaten the informal
assistance now being received by him from the Lewis, D'Amato firm
including but not limited to receiving copies of all deposition
transcripts, discovery propounded and received that he had not
hitherto been able to afford himself and that plaintiff had been
unwilling to provide him.
(0137)
B. AS TO DEFENDANT GEERTZ:
10. The defense of defendant Dr. Geertz was "stayed" by his
bankruptcy petition until only days before the February 22, 1993
hearing on Fishman's motions. [Scientology has since moved to
reconsider the bankruptcy court's exemption of Dr. Geertz from
personal liability when it partially lifted the stay.)
11. Mark Augustine was originally responsible for handling
this matter on behalf of Lewis, D'Amato. During the pendency of the
automatic stay Mark Augustine resigned from the Lewis D'Amato firm
and was replaced on this matter by Graham Berry.
12. Only hours after the February 22, 1993 continuance of
Fishman's motion, and this court orders that Fishman submit
declarations as to the change of venue, Graham Berry was admitted to
Cedar Sinai Hospital on an emergency basis. During his
hospitalization and recuperation, Mr. Fishman served a new motion
for change of venue (by Federal Express and not first class mail on
Lewis, D'Amato). Due to either mistake or inadvertence, either
Judith Tishkoff, Esq. or her paralegal, failed to ensure that Graham
Berry saw the new motion and failed to ensure that the date for new
opposition papers was properly calendared. Accordingly, at the
March 22, 1993 hearing on Fishman's motion for change of venue,
Graham Berry was not aware that Mr. Fishman had filed new motion
papers now supported by the declaration the court had previously
ordered.
13. Defendant Geertz selected the Lewis, D'Amato law firm as
his counsel partly because of its considerable experience in
handling Scientology litigation. Over $100,000 has been expended on
this defense to date. Transfer of the case to Florida would mean
(0138)
either:
(a) the appointment of replacement counsel at enormous cost
and expense and the loss of Lewis, D'Amato's general expertise and
acquired knowledge in this case, or
(b) the appointment of unnecessarily expensive and duplicative
Miami co-counsel.
14. If defendant Geertz's counsel (Lewis, D'Amato) has to try
this case in Miami instead of Los Angeles:
(a) over 80 boxes of documents in this case will have to be
transported and accommodated in Miami;
(b) selected boxes of documents from over 200 boxes of
documents acquired from other Scientology cases will have to be
transported and accommodated in Miami;
(c) document handling and logistical support services would
have to be specially hired in Miami;
(d) The cost of trying this case will vastly exceed the
$300,000 already projected because of the travel and accommodation
costs that will be incurred by the attorneys and staff in contrast
to merely transporting and accommodating Messrs. Fishman, Geertz and
certain witnesses in Los Angeles.
C. PLAINTIFF CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
As to plaintiff Church of Scientology International, it would
be argued that it opposed Fishman's motion for change of venue now
sought to be set aside.
(0139)
Dated: March 26, 1993 LEWIS, D'AMATO BRISBOIS & BISGAARD
By: (bears signature of)
Graham E. Berry
Attorneys for Defendant
UWE GEERTZ, Ph.
Dated: March 26 1993 (bears siganture of)
Steven @shman
Dated March 26 1993 (bears signature of)
Dr Uwe Geertz
VERJOINT.MOT
(0140)
VERIFICATION
I, STEVEN FISHMAN, hereby declare and state as follows:
I have read the foregoing verified Joint Preliminary Notice
of Motion, etc., and know its contents.
I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the
foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to
those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as
to those matters I believe them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 26 day of March, 1993 at Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida.
(bears signature of)STEVE FISHMAN
(0141)
VERIFICATION
I, UWE GEERTZ, hereby declare and state as follows:
I have read the foregoing Verified Joint Preliminary Notice
of Motion, etc., and know its contents.
I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the
foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to
those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as
to those matters I believe them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of California that,the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 26th day of March, 1993 at Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida.
(Bears siganture of) UWE GEERTZ
(0142)
VERIFICATION
I, GRAHAM E. BERRY, hereby declare and state as follows:
I have read the foregoing Verified Joint Preliminary Notice
of Motion, etc., and know its contents.
I am a one of the attorneys for defendant Uwe Geertz, a
party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing
document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters
which are stated on information and belief, and as to those
matters I believe them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of