Stephen Mitchell
c/o 12400 Ventura Blvd. #137
Studio City, California (18 U.S.C. 1342)

Lisa Jan Precious
c/o 12358 Ventura Blvd. #245
Studio City, California (18 U.S.C. 1342)

Kathleen Carey
c/o 5152 Sepulveda, Suite 205
Sherman Oaks, California (18 U.S.C. 1342)

Stephen Mitchell, Lisa Jan Precious, Kathleen Carey
In propria persona [NOT PRO SE]

In the superior court[1] for Los Angeles county, California

FOOTNOTE 1: Concurrent with and equivalent to the district court as created in the Constitution of the State of California of 1849, and the seventeenth judicial dietrict, see Stats 1872, ch. CXIV, p. 116

Stephen Mitchell; Lisa Jan Precious; Kathleen Carey


DAVID MISCAVIGE, a person, in the capacity as Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center and Inspector General of the Church of Scientology
MIKE RINDER, a person, in the capacity as head of the Office of Special Affairs International
JOHN/JANE DOE #1, a person, in the capacity as head of the L. Ron Hubbard Library JOHN/JANE DOE, #2-99

Case No. BC175367
Objection to Defendant Mike Rinder's Motion to Strike the Verified Complaint for Libel; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Objection to Defendant Mike Rinder's Motion to Strike

Date: September 10, 1997
Time: 8:30 am
Place: Department 62
Discovery Cut-off: None
Trial Date: None

1. The Plaintiffs, and each of them, object as to the validity of the "authority" upon which
the Defendant brings the Motion to Strike, i.e., the California Code of Civil Procedure at
Section 435 et seq.

2. In addition to the foregoing, the Defendant, Mike Rinder, has failed to present any facts
and/or evidence to support the grounds upon which the Motion to Strike has been brought.

Respectfully Submitted this fourth day of the ninth month, in the year A. D. nineteen hundred ninety seven,

Stephen Mitchell

Lisa Jan Precious

Kathleen Carey

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

1. The Defendant's attempt to label the Complaint as a "sham" and claim that the Complaint "fails to state facts showing a primary right of the plaintiff and a primary duty of, or wrong committed by, the defendant'", at a minimum, is a frivolous attempt to avoid responsibility as one of the named ultimate authorities giving approval to the libelous document.

2. The Defendant does correctly state that the Plaintiffs abjure the authority of the California Civil Code and the California Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The Defendant bases the Motion to Strike on the claim that the Complaint is not "in conformity with the laws of this state".

4. The Defendant's argument is based on the presumption that the code is in conformity with
the laws of this state.

5. The Defendant fails to take notice of, and/or controvert, the facts and evidence presented by the Plaintiffs in the Complaint that the Code itself is fundamentally not "in conformity with the laws of this state".

6. A well known maxim of law states, "Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Ignorance of law excuses no one," (See Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., page 747) With regard to said maxim, the Defendant demonstrates total ignorance of all of the following.

7. "The Secretary of State shall keep a fair record of the official acts of the legislative and executive departments ..." Constitution for the State of California of1849, Article V, Section 19.

8. The government of the State of California maintains a "web site" on the Internet. Specifically at the page which is located at www.leginfo.ca.gov.statute.html it is clearly shown that the Secretary Of State is responsible for assigning a "chapter number" to all statutes. The "chapter numbers" are then used to chronologically index the statutes when they are subsequently published in the volumes of the Statutes of Cal if ornia (see Exhibit AA).

9. With regard to the original four codes, it is clearly shown in the Complaint on page 3, line 16 that "The four codes were not published as part of the Statutes of 1871-72 and were not given chapter numbers,.. ", Kleps, The Revision and Codification of California Statutes 1849-1953, 42 Calif. L. Rev. 766, 775.

10. It is indisputable that the Senate Bill numbered 363 for the legislative session of 1871- 72 and entitled "An act to establish a Code of Civil Procedure", was never assigned a "chapter number" by the Secretary of State and therefore was not subsequently published in the "Statutes of California" for 1871-72.

11. Senate Bill 363 was signed by the governor on March 11, 1872. Printed copies of the Code of Civil Procedure were not available until over a year later, after March 31, 1873 (also, a full three months after it was alleged to be "in effect''). There is no evidence that any of the "handwritten changes" on the original SB 363 were done prior to March 11, 1872.

12. There is no evidence a. to the original text of SB 363 on the actual date and time that it was signed by the governor. The original of SB 363 which is in the State Archives in Sacramento was not an "engrossed" document. It was only a "rough draft", It contains "cross outs" and "handwritten changes" which are not dated[2].

FOOTNOTE 2: Stats 1871-72, C. 350,, Sec. 26 stated, "Upon demand, the Secretary of State must deliver to the Commission the bills enacting such Codes". It is not irrational to come to the conclusion that the Commission could have made further handwritten revisions to these bills during the year that passed before they were available in published form, and there would be no accountability for these changes. The integrity of the text of these bills simply cannot be established.

13. The Legislature does not have any delegated authority to create a "new" type of "law"
outside the framework of the Statutes of California.

14. The California Supreme Court published a ruling on this very subject of "delegated authority" which states as follows:

"Under our form of government, the Legislature is not supreme. It is only one of the organs of that absolute sovereignty of the people; like other departments of government it can only exercise such powers as have been delegated to it, and when it steps beyond that boundary, its acts, like those of the most humble magistrate in the state, who transcends his jurisdiction, are utterly void" Billings v. Hall, 7 Cal. 1 [bold emphasis added, italic emphasis supplied]

15. The custom and usage of the code, instead of the Public Statutes of California, over a
long period of years is not "in and of itself" any evidence that its use has been lawful.

"Quod initio vitiosum est non potest tractu temporis conva1escere" "That which is void from the beginning cannot become valid by lapse of time." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., page 1253.

16. For the Defendant to maintain the position that the Code of Civil Procedure was enacted by any constitutionally delegated legislative' authority, there would have to be, of necessity, a presentation of evidence by the Defendant to controvert all of the foregoing and provide disclosure as to the date that the Code of Civil Procedure became a "Statute of California", and in what manner this was accomplished.

17. Even within the authority claimed by the Defendant in the Code of Civi1 Procedure, the Motion to Strike is not proffered as an alternative method to "answer" allegations of a Complaint. In effect, the Defendant has attempted to use a Motion to Strike to challenge the truth of the allegations in a ''verified" complaint, without having to file a "verified answer" .

18. The Plaintiffs have properly alleged the Libel. It is indisputable that the Plaintiffs have a primary right to not have their reputation defamed by an unproven published document.

19. It is indisputable that one's reputation is a sacred and fundamental property. When that sacred property is attacked, and defamed, one has a right to protect and defend that property. The Plaintiffs' right to file and prosecute this Verified Complaint for Libel is as fundamental as the acknowledgment of certain inalienable rights at Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution for the State of California of 1849.

"To say that one may not defend his own property is a usurpation of the power by the legislature. lf by legislation a right vouchsafed by the constitution could be so abridged or limited, the right would not be an absolute or inalienable one but a mere privilege revocable at the will of the law-making body." O'Connell v, Judnich, 71 Cal.App. 386.

20. The Plaintiffs aver that there is no legislative intent for a Motion to Strike to be used to destroy the remedy for a citizen to defend an inalienable property right such as the defending of the sanctity of one's reputation from the onslaught of libel.

21. The court also ruled in O'Connell, supra., that "[o]ne of the prime objects of the courts is to protect the constitutional rights of the citizen".

22. The Plaintiffs have alleged the "wrong committed" by the Defendants, and have supported these allegations with facts and evidence. The actual controversy has been demonstrated. The Verified Complaint for Libel has been properly placed in this court.


Based on all the foregoing, it is indisputable that this court must deny the Motion to Strike filed by Defendant Mike Rinde .

We, Stephen Mitchell, Lisa Jan Precious, and Kathleen Carey, hereby swear under penalty of perjury, under the law of the Land in California, one of the United States of America, that paragraphs 1 through 20 and the conclusion hereinabove are true and correct and so done in good faith to the best of our knowledge and belief.

Subscribed and sworn this fourth day of the ninth month, in the year A.D. nineteen hundred ninety seven.

Stephen Mitchell

Lisa Jan Precious

Kathleen Carey

[Home] . . [Documents] . . [$190,000,000 Libel Suit]