From: Alt.Religion.Scientology

At a hearing held this morning, May 6, 1998, Judge Alan Jaroslovsky of the United States Bankruptcy Court *refused* to dismiss the Racketeering counterclaim of Grady Ward who is defending an adverse action brought by the cult to enforce any potential liability found in the main copyright litigation in district court.

The Judge -- who probably would rather snort pickle juice than to preside over an adversary action involving the criminal cult of scientology -- delayed any rulings until July 1, 1998 in order to see what happens in district court.

The cult had moved to withdraw the adverse action to the district court, but Ward has filed both an opposition to that withdrawal and timely filed an affidavit of bias in the cult's proposed forum, that of the court of the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte.

While the dischargeability action is properly a bankruptcy action, the RICO counterclaim would be mandatorily withdrawn at some point to the district court who could better handle discovery and trial. Precedent is divided whether RICO discovery is best handled in the original bankruptcy court or in district court.

The bankruptcy court also did not deny Ward sanctions in his related FRCivP 37(d) motion, although he did say he was not a great fan of sanctions.

Ward's trial in the main copyright action is nominally now scheduled for June 2, 1998, but the uncovering of a massive discovery fraud led by Warren McShane and Helena Kobrin of Religious Technology Center, Inc. has put the plaintiff's case in chief in serious jeopardy.

Ward has a pending motion to dismiss with prejudice in the main litigation and the criminal cult of scientology has not yet filed an opposition.

Click here for some additional truth about the Scientology crime syndicate: XENU.NET