Discussion:
Hubbard Advocated MURDER
(too old to reply)
Dilbert Perkins
2004-06-09 03:32:14 UTC
Permalink
http://www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/R2-45.html

"R2-45"

Despite the general exposure of many Scientology practice policies and
attacks in the media over the past several years, resulting primarily
from the F.B.I. 's seizure of documents fro Scientology headquarters,
there exists in Hubbard's twisted mind and writings a little known
policy called "R2-45" [garbled] in the book, "The Creation of Human
Ability - A Handbook of Scientology" written by Hubbard and distributed
by the Church of Scientology of California, the following quote appears:

"R2-45 - an enormously effective process for exteriorization, but its
use is frowned upon by this society at this time."(lol yeah cause its
called -murder-)
"Exteriorization", in Scientology policy is death. The policy refers to
shooting a person in the head. In a short internal Scientology
memorandum called "Racket Exposed", Hubbard attacks a number of
individuals, subjects them to the "Fair Game" doctrine, and states as
follows:

"Any Sea Organization member contacting any of them is to use auditing
process R2-45" <----

It is unknown to the authors of this Report whether the process was used
on those individuals.
During a meeting of Scientologists in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1954, Hubbard
demonstrated the R2-45 auditing process by firing a shot into the floor
during the middle of the meeting. There is some evidence to suggest that
between 1975 and 1977, during the F.B.I. investigation of Scientology,
meetings of Scientology executives were held in which there were
discussion relative to auditing high level F.B.I. members with auditing
process R2-45.
Guess who?
2004-06-10 01:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Dilbert Perkins <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<2xvxc.68598$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...

That headline is again libel per se, Perkins.

Pretty much all FBI field offices, approximately 40 offices, the
Special Agents in Charge or their Chief Division Counsels wrote to me
that they had L. Ron Hubbard never under electronical surveillance and
that he was not of any investigatory interest for them.

That is completely contrary to your lies about Ron.

Going exterior is no murder. You are nuts. I went exterior myself, it
is a out of body experience, but you don't die. You feel very good.

The "Fair Game" is also not by Ron but was sneaked in SCN by your
psychiatric Nazi case officers and mindcontrollers.

Barbara Schwarz
Zinj
2004-06-10 01:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guess who?
That headline is again libel per se, Perkins.
So tell Elron to get off the can and sue him fer Xenu sake.

That would be interesting, since in general it's impossible to lible the
dead; and in any case, it would practically be impossible to libel L.
Ron Hubbard in any case, unless one got into specifics.

Zinj
--
You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think
Barbara Schwarz
2004-06-11 01:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zinj
Post by Guess who?
That headline is again libel per se, Perkins.
So tell Elron to get off the can and sue him fer Xenu sake.
That would be interesting, since in general it's impossible to lible the
dead; and in any case, it would practically be impossible to libel L.
Ron Hubbard in any case, unless one got into specifics.
Zinj
Wrong. Especially the a family members can bring such a suit, and you
know such a family member, right?

Moreover, laws will change soon. Past lives will be scientific proven
and Ron and others will be able to sue you lying bastards. It's all
around the corner, you are just to mindcontrolled to see it comming.

Barbara Schwarz
Patrick Lee Humphrey
2004-06-11 02:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by Zinj
Post by Guess who?
That headline is again libel per se, Perkins.
So tell Elron to get off the can and sue him fer Xenu sake.
That would be interesting, since in general it's impossible to lible the
dead; and in any case, it would practically be impossible to libel L.
Ron Hubbard in any case, unless one got into specifics.
Zinj
Wrong. Especially the a family members can bring such a suit, and you
know such a family member, right?
You're not one of them, Barbakooka. Dead Druggie Hubbard is just plain DEAD,
and you can't libel the dead. He's rotted away in a hole in the ground, and
he'll have been nineteen years gone next January...and he's not coming back,
no matter how insane YOU are.
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Moreover, laws will change soon. Past lives will be scientific proven
and Ron and others will be able to sue you lying bastards. It's all
around the corner, you are just to mindcontrolled to see it comming.
I'd appreciate it if the BICS would drop-kick you back to Germany so Americans
don't have to foot the bill for your abuse of OUR society, Boobara.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to express my opinions of the mental illness that
passes itself off as the "Church" of Scientology, as I have for the past nine
years, and you are utterly powerless. Quit abusing your neighbors in SLC and
pack up and get the hell out of MY country, Frau Quatsch. Verstehen Sie?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (***@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2003-04 Houston Aeros)
Android Cat
2004-06-11 02:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by Zinj
So tell Elron to get off the can and sue him fer Xenu sake.
That would be interesting, since in general it's impossible to lible
the dead; and in any case, it would practically be impossible to
libel L. Ron Hubbard in any case, unless one got into specifics.
Zinj
Wrong. Especially the a family members can bring such a suit, and you
know such a family member, right?
Moreover, laws will change soon. Past lives will be scientific proven
and Ron and others will be able to sue you lying bastards. It's all
around the corner, you are just to mindcontrolled to see it comming.
If people have to be mindcontrolled to see it coming, how come you are the
only one who sees this?

And what if Xenu sues him first?
--
Ron of that ilk.
Zinj
2004-06-11 02:48:55 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@news2.lightlink.com>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by Android Cat
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by Zinj
So tell Elron to get off the can and sue him fer Xenu sake.
That would be interesting, since in general it's impossible to lible
the dead; and in any case, it would practically be impossible to
libel L. Ron Hubbard in any case, unless one got into specifics.
Zinj
Wrong. Especially the a family members can bring such a suit, and you
know such a family member, right?
Moreover, laws will change soon. Past lives will be scientific proven
and Ron and others will be able to sue you lying bastards. It's all
around the corner, you are just to mindcontrolled to see it comming.
If people have to be mindcontrolled to see it coming, how come you are the
only one who sees this?
And what if Xenu sues him first?
Boy, wouldn't that be something!

On a 'Clear Planet' we'd have literaly gadzillions of 'Whole Track'
lawsuits going on!

Koos alone would be suing the pants off anyone who's violated his Da
Vinci patents, and Mike could sue Xenu for glycol poisoning.

Barbara would be indicted for incest, and Nelson would *still* be shit
out of luck.

WISE would be getting rich, and all would be right with the world.

Zinj
--
You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think
Barbara Schwarz
2004-06-11 21:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zinj
says...
Post by Android Cat
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by Zinj
So tell Elron to get off the can and sue him fer Xenu sake.
That would be interesting, since in general it's impossible to lible
the dead; and in any case, it would practically be impossible to
libel L. Ron Hubbard in any case, unless one got into specifics.
Zinj
Wrong. Especially the a family members can bring such a suit, and you
know such a family member, right?
Moreover, laws will change soon. Past lives will be scientific proven
and Ron and others will be able to sue you lying bastards. It's all
around the corner, you are just to mindcontrolled to see it comming.
If people have to be mindcontrolled to see it coming, how come you are the
only one who sees this?
And what if Xenu sues him first?
Boy, wouldn't that be something!
On a 'Clear Planet'
On a Clear Planet, Joe Lynn, you would be incarcerated as a
phedophile, having sex with minors.

Barbara Schwarz
chris mankeyh
2004-06-11 10:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by Zinj
Post by Guess who?
That headline is again libel per se, Perkins.
So tell Elron to get off the can and sue him fer Xenu sake.
That would be interesting, since in general it's impossible to lible the
dead; and in any case, it would practically be impossible to libel L.
Ron Hubbard in any case, unless one got into specifics.
Zinj
Wrong. Especially the a family members can bring such a suit, and you
know such a family member, right?
Moreover, laws will change soon. Past lives will be scientific proven
and Ron and others will be able to sue you lying bastards. It's all
around the corner, you are just to mindcontrolled to see it comming.
Barbara Schwarz
Umm, Barb Ron's dead. I'm sorry, but I thought you should know. He passed in 1986.
Barbara Schwarz
2004-06-11 21:04:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by chris mankeyh
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by Zinj
Post by Guess who?
That headline is again libel per se, Perkins.
So tell Elron to get off the can and sue him fer Xenu sake.
That would be interesting, since in general it's impossible to lible the
dead; and in any case, it would practically be impossible to libel L.
Ron Hubbard in any case, unless one got into specifics.
Zinj
Wrong. Especially the a family members can bring such a suit, and you
know such a family member, right?
Moreover, laws will change soon. Past lives will be scientific proven
and Ron and others will be able to sue you lying bastards. It's all
around the corner, you are just to mindcontrolled to see it comming.
Barbara Schwarz
Umm, Barb Ron's dead. I'm sorry, but I thought you should know. He passed in 1986.
He did not. Ron was murdered by psychs in 1984. They guy who died in
1986 was Jack Marshall, an impostor.

And you apparently don't know that people come back, are born again.
Even stupid scum like you, Chris Monkey, find most of the time a new
body are annoy their environment once again.

Barbara Schwarz
chris mankeyh
2004-06-13 02:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by chris mankeyh
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by Zinj
Post by Guess who?
That headline is again libel per se, Perkins.
So tell Elron to get off the can and sue him fer Xenu sake.
That would be interesting, since in general it's impossible to lible the
dead; and in any case, it would practically be impossible to libel L.
Ron Hubbard in any case, unless one got into specifics.
Zinj
Wrong. Especially the a family members can bring such a suit, and you
know such a family member, right?
Moreover, laws will change soon. Past lives will be scientific proven
and Ron and others will be able to sue you lying bastards. It's all
around the corner, you are just to mindcontrolled to see it comming.
Barbara Schwarz
Umm, Barb Ron's dead. I'm sorry, but I thought you should know. He passed in 1986.
He did not. Ron was murdered by psychs in 1984. They guy who died in
1986 was Jack Marshall, an impostor.
And you apparently don't know that people come back, are born again.
Even stupid scum like you, Chris Monkey, find most of the time a new
body are annoy their environment once again.
Barbara Schwarz
No actually once somebody dies, thier simply gone. But to understand
this you would have to not be insane. Sad!
Barbara Schwarz
2004-06-14 22:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by chris mankeyh
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by chris mankeyh
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by Zinj
Post by Guess who?
That headline is again libel per se, Perkins.
So tell Elron to get off the can and sue him fer Xenu sake.
That would be interesting, since in general it's impossible to lible the
dead; and in any case, it would practically be impossible to libel L.
Ron Hubbard in any case, unless one got into specifics.
Zinj
Wrong. Especially the a family members can bring such a suit, and you
know such a family member, right?
Moreover, laws will change soon. Past lives will be scientific proven
and Ron and others will be able to sue you lying bastards. It's all
around the corner, you are just to mindcontrolled to see it comming.
Barbara Schwarz
Umm, Barb Ron's dead. I'm sorry, but I thought you should know. He passed in 1986.
He did not. Ron was murdered by psychs in 1984. They guy who died in
1986 was Jack Marshall, an impostor.
And you apparently don't know that people come back, are born again.
Even stupid scum like you, Chris Monkey, find most of the time a new
body are annoy their environment once again.
Barbara Schwarz
No actually once somebody dies, thier simply gone. But to understand
this you would have to not be insane. Sad!
Sad is your IQ. How can the spirit, the soul, something spiritual die,
Chris Monkey, ever thought of that? A spirit, a soul, a thetan is no
body that doesn't last forever. It is not bound on the rules of aging
and dying.

Moreover, you can see a spirit leaving the body while filming a dying
person with a special camera, but that is science, and that is all to
high for a mind like yours.

Eat you banana and throw your coconuts, ape.

Barbara Schwarz
chris mankeyh
2004-06-15 14:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by chris mankeyh
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by chris mankeyh
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by Zinj
Post by Guess who?
That headline is again libel per se, Perkins.
So tell Elron to get off the can and sue him fer Xenu sake.
That would be interesting, since in general it's impossible to lible the
dead; and in any case, it would practically be impossible to libel L.
Ron Hubbard in any case, unless one got into specifics.
Zinj
Wrong. Especially the a family members can bring such a suit, and you
know such a family member, right?
Moreover, laws will change soon. Past lives will be scientific proven
and Ron and others will be able to sue you lying bastards. It's all
around the corner, you are just to mindcontrolled to see it comming.
Barbara Schwarz
Umm, Barb Ron's dead. I'm sorry, but I thought you should know. He passed in 1986.
He did not. Ron was murdered by psychs in 1984. They guy who died in
1986 was Jack Marshall, an impostor.
And you apparently don't know that people come back, are born again.
Even stupid scum like you, Chris Monkey, find most of the time a new
body are annoy their environment once again.
Barbara Schwarz
No actually once somebody dies, thier simply gone. But to understand
this you would have to not be insane. Sad!
Sad is your IQ. How can the spirit, the soul, something spiritual die,
Chris Monkey, ever thought of that? A spirit, a soul, a thetan is no
body that doesn't last forever. It is not bound on the rules of aging
and dying.
Moreover, you can see a spirit leaving the body while filming a dying
person with a special camera, but that is science, and that is all to
high for a mind like yours.
Eat you banana and throw your coconuts, ape.
Barbara Schwarz
Go learn you grammar. Filming dying people with special cameras? This
is another fantasy of yours! You need a subscribition to scientific
american.
Android Cat
2004-06-15 14:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by chris mankeyh
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Sad is your IQ. How can the spirit, the soul, something spiritual die,
Chris Monkey, ever thought of that? A spirit, a soul, a thetan is no
body that doesn't last forever. It is not bound on the rules of aging
and dying.
Moreover, you can see a spirit leaving the body while filming a dying
person with a special camera, but that is science, and that is all to
high for a mind like yours.
Eat you banana and throw your coconuts, ape.
Barbara Schwarz
Go learn you grammar. Filming dying people with special cameras? This
is another fantasy of yours! You need a subscribition to scientific
american.
Do a search on "Barbara Schwarz rathbun FOIA". She's not just a Usenet
kook.
--
Ron of that ilk.
Ted Azito
2004-06-15 23:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Moreover, you can see a spirit leaving the body while filming a dying
person with a special camera, but that is science, and that is all to
high for a mind like yours.
Eat you banana and throw your coconuts, ape.
Barbara Schwarz
I'm pretty knowledgeable about cameras. What kind of 'special camera'
is this you speak of? Where can I see some pictures which it has
taken? What kind of film does it use?
Howard
2004-06-16 14:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Azito
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Moreover, you can see a spirit leaving the body while filming a dying
person with a special camera, but that is science, and that is all to
high for a mind like yours.
Eat you banana and throw your coconuts, ape.
Barbara Schwarz
I'm pretty knowledgeable about cameras. What kind of 'special camera'
is this you speak of? Where can I see some pictures which it has
taken? What kind of film does it use?
Perhaps she's thinking of a Kirlian camera, although AFAIUI, this
device has no utility for spirit spotting.

Howard
--
hedmundo at macmail dot com
Barbara Schwarz
2004-06-16 21:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted Azito
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Moreover, you can see a spirit leaving the body while filming a dying
person with a special camera, but that is science, and that is all to
high for a mind like yours.
Eat you banana and throw your coconuts, ape.
Barbara Schwarz
I'm pretty knowledgeable about cameras. What kind of 'special camera'
is this you speak of? Where can I see some pictures which it has
taken? What kind of film does it use?
An infra-red camera should do it, Ted. It is that kind of film that
hotels use to spot hidden dirt and sperm. But please don't tell me
that this is what I saw, as the hidden dirt and sperm does not move
and fly and float as the thetans did.

I saw it on film by the Utah Ghost busters in the evening news one
day. I know there are hoaxes out there, and don't believe all what
such ghost busters are doing. I doubt that they recognize that this
are thetans, but they call them ghosts. They took a really very
conservative reporter with them and he acknowledged having seen those.

When I saw them, I knew right away what it was. Thetans, souls without
a body. They are small, size of golfballs, milky transparent, and move
slowly, behave like toddlers.

There is an ad on TV for an antidepressant Zoloft, I believe. Oddly,
they used animated form of such bodyless thetans. That is sort of how
they look and also move. Only very transparent and very milky. Some
look more orderly than the others. Some look like a piece of cotton
candy ripped off.

But do not capture one okay? Most will not know how to escape a prison
of a bottle or a box. They still think sort of think they have a body
and can't move through material.

Barbara Schwarz
Zinj
2004-06-17 00:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by Ted Azito
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Moreover, you can see a spirit leaving the body while filming a dying
person with a special camera, but that is science, and that is all to
high for a mind like yours.
Eat you banana and throw your coconuts, ape.
Barbara Schwarz
I'm pretty knowledgeable about cameras. What kind of 'special camera'
is this you speak of? Where can I see some pictures which it has
taken? What kind of film does it use?
An infra-red camera should do it, Ted. It is that kind of film that
hotels use to spot hidden dirt and sperm.
That's not infra-red, it's ultra-violet.
Post by Barbara Schwarz
But please don't tell me
that this is what I saw, as the hidden dirt and sperm does not move
and fly and float as the thetans did.
I saw it on film by the Utah Ghost busters in the evening news one
day.
I've seen a couple of so-called 'investigations', and they did tend to
use infra-red film, but that wouldn't spot 'dirt and sperm' unless it
were pretty warm (or amazingly cold)
Post by Barbara Schwarz
I know there are hoaxes out there, and don't believe all what
such ghost busters are doing. I doubt that they recognize that this
are thetans, but they call them ghosts. They took a really very
conservative reporter with them and he acknowledged having seen those.
Oh, I see 'thetans' all the time when I lie down and look at the sky.
Skeptics who claim these are 'floaters' in the vitreous humor are merely
uninformed. And the fact that they wiggle in the sky depending on how I
roll my eyeballs just goes to show my OT mastery of MEST.
Post by Barbara Schwarz
When I saw them, I knew right away what it was. Thetans, souls without
a body. They are small, size of golfballs, milky transparent, and move
slowly, behave like toddlers.
There is an ad on TV for an antidepressant Zoloft, I believe. Oddly,
they used animated form of such bodyless thetans. That is sort of how
they look and also move. Only very transparent and very milky. Some
look more orderly than the others. Some look like a piece of cotton
candy ripped off.
They're cute ar'nt they! Those bouncing thetans I mean. Especially the
ones who take Zoloft. They look happy, while the non-Zoloft bouncing
thetans look sad :(
Post by Barbara Schwarz
But do not capture one okay? Most will not know how to escape a prison
of a bottle or a box. They still think sort of think they have a body
and can't move through material.
Barbara Schwarz
Like I mentioned before, any thetans I capture in my lightning bug jar
get released when I happen to go by an org. This gives the poor clears
and OT's extra thetans to 'blow', so they'll never start thinking 'is
*that* all there is?'

Zinj
--
You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think
chris mankeyh
2004-06-16 17:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by chris mankeyh
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by chris mankeyh
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by Zinj
Post by Guess who?
That headline is again libel per se, Perkins.
So tell Elron to get off the can and sue him fer Xenu sake.
That would be interesting, since in general it's impossible to lible the
dead; and in any case, it would practically be impossible to libel L.
Ron Hubbard in any case, unless one got into specifics.
Zinj
Wrong. Especially the a family members can bring such a suit, and you
know such a family member, right?
Moreover, laws will change soon. Past lives will be scientific proven
and Ron and others will be able to sue you lying bastards. It's all
around the corner, you are just to mindcontrolled to see it comming.
Barbara Schwarz
Umm, Barb Ron's dead. I'm sorry, but I thought you should know. He passed in 1986.
He did not. Ron was murdered by psychs in 1984. They guy who died in
1986 was Jack Marshall, an impostor.
And you apparently don't know that people come back, are born again.
Even stupid scum like you, Chris Monkey, find most of the time a new
body are annoy their environment once again.
Barbara Schwarz
No actually once somebody dies, thier simply gone. But to understand
this you would have to not be insane. Sad!
Sad is your IQ. How can the spirit, the soul, something spiritual die,
Chris Monkey, ever thought of that? A spirit, a soul, a thetan is no
body that doesn't last forever. It is not bound on the rules of aging
and dying.
Moreover, you can see a spirit leaving the body while filming a dying
person with a special camera, but that is science, and that is all to
high for a mind like yours.
Eat you banana and throw your coconuts, ape.
Barbara Schwarz
S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System


Barbara Schwarz

By Christopher Smith
(c)2003, The Salt Lake Tribune

WASHINGTON -- Working from her austere Salt Lake City apartment or
a nearby public library for more than a decade, Barbara Schwarz has
carpet-bombed every federal department and agency with thousands of
requests for public records the government says don't exist.
With no legal training, she has filed dozens of lawsuits against
thousands of federal employees around the country, claiming they have
withheld information on her Utah hometown, which can't be found on any
map.
And she has written hundreds of letters to the White House,
demanding to know the whereabouts of a husband she contends was
falsely imprisoned for her own murder.
A twisted plot, to be sure, but one that can be recited almost
chapter and verse by a legion of civil servants and judges who have
dutifully waded through pages of her screeds since they began
appearing shortly after she moved to Salt Lake City in 1989 from
Europe in search of a murky past.
The U.S. Department of Justice contends Schwarz has made more
requests under the landmark public records statute known as the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) than any other person since it
became law in 1966. A blueprint for open democracy and government
accountability in other countries, the FOIA has been stretched to its
limits by a reclusive woman who, by her own admission, is in the
country illegally.
A Salt Lake Tribune review of federal court records and Justice
Department annual reports on FOIA litigation shows at least one of
Schwarz's lawsuits has been considered by a U.S. District or U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals somewhere in the nation every year since
1993. She also has filed unsuccessful appeals to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
In 1998 alone, Schwarz, who always acts as her own attorney and
claims indigency to avoid paying court filing fees, had a caseload any
rising lawyer would be proud of: 10 of her actions against the
government were reviewed in federal courts in Utah, Maryland, West
Virginia, Colorado, New York and the District of Columbia.
The slightly built woman in her late 40s with wavy dark hair
rarely appears in court and has never won any of her lawsuits. One of
her complaints filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., set a
record for voluminous litigation at 2,370 pages, naming 3,087
defendants, all of whom were employed as FOIA or "Privacy Act"
officers in the federal government. Some of those workers have dubbed
her a "FOIA terrorist" and coined a verb reflective of her unending
request letters: "Have you been Schwarzed today?"
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals based in Denver and the D.C.
District Court each have ruled that Schwarz's FOIA requests are
frivolous and a waste of government resources. Both courts have
enjoined or drastically limited her right to file future appeals
within either jurisdiction.

"Imaginary conspiracy": The FOIA's "admirable purpose is abused
when misguided individuals are allowed (in this case repeatedly) to
submit requests to every agency and subdivision of the government,
seeking information about an imaginary conspiracy," U.S. District
Court Judge John Bates wrote in a September ruling against Schwarz in
Washington.
The Justice Department has taken the unusual step of notifying all
of the thousands of federal employees charged with administering the
FOIA that until Schwarz satisfies outstanding search and copying
charges she incurred from various federal agencies, they can legally
deny her continued requests for records. While senior Justice
Department officials acknowledge such governmentwide notification of
what they term a "exceptional" requester has only happened once or
twice before in the history of the law, they say Schwarz is being
treated no differently than anyone else.
"In the case of any FOIA requester who defaults or reneges on a
commitment to pay, whether he or she has made two requests or 2,000,
there would be a basis for the request not to be acted upon until the
default is corrected," said Daniel Metcalfe, co-director of the
Justice Department's Office of Information and Privacy. "It's
certainly true that when Ms. Schwarz brought suit against virtually
every government agency and subpart, that created an interagency focus
that otherwise might not have existed."
But Schwarz is not giving up. She says she can't. Every boilerplate
rejection letter from the federal government only widens the circle of
suspicion that spawns more requests. And until she knows the answers
to her questions, she says she is incapable of moving on with her
life.
"I have no money for this but I am forced to do it because the
purpose of the law is to reveal, not conceal, and government should be
transparent," she said in a recent interview in a Salt Lake City
restaurant. "When I started this journey, I never imagined it would
take so long."
That quest, according to a September 2001 governmentwide memo on
Schwarz issued by the Office of Information and Privacy, is "all based
on unique personal notions that, most charitably stated, are entirely
fanciful in nature."
Schwarz believes she was born in approximately 1956 at a secretive
government compound "submarine base" called Chattanooga on the Great
Salt Lake, the alleged daughter of Church of Scientology founder L.
Ron Hubbard and the granddaughter of President Eisenhower, although
there is no proof of any such place or relationship.
The ensuing story reads like a science fiction novel -- kidnapping
by Nazis, mind control, conspiracy, hidden fortunes, faked deaths,
insane asylums, cover-ups and microchips implanted in unsuspecting
peoples' heads. Besides constantly referencing the tale in her FOIA
requests and court filings, Schwarz has posted it in more than 80
parts on the Web newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
"This is when people say, 'You're crazy,' " she says. "But I
remember all those things so clearly, it's not like I just made it up.
I need to know the truth of it and not to bury my perceptions."
That includes her belief she was once married to a man named Mark
Rathbun who has been framed for her death and is being held somewhere
in the United States, waiting for her to testify as his "relief
witness" so that he can be cleared of the crime and the pair can be
reunited.
Rathbun is, however, a high-ranking official of the Church of
Scientology International, headquartered in Los Angeles. "We're
clueless about this person and obviously she is delusional about Mr.
Rathbun and she needs help," says Linda Simmons Hight, director of
media relations for the church. "We're sorry for her."
When Schwarz is shown a recent photo of Rathbun from the church,
she maintains it is not the same man she has asked the federal
government to help her locate. She describes herself as a
"nonorganized" scientologist who was "kicked out" of the church in
Germany in the mid-1980s. University of Utah history professor Robert
Goldberg, who has studied the subculture of conspiracy theorists, says
Schwarz's manifestations seem based in the reality that the U.S.
government does have a cult of secrecy. For instance, the federal
Information Security Oversight Office's most recent study showed the
number of government records classified as secret increased 44 percent
in 2001 from the previous year, to more than 33 million.

Guarding secrets: "The context here is the government loves to
keep secrets and it guards those secrets very zealously," says
Goldberg, author of Enemies Within: the Culture of Conspiracy in
Modern America. "So when the federal government says you have
everything we have on this subject and there's nothing, that only
feeds more fuel to the fire in her soul."
Adding to the cycle of Schwarz's repeated requests is one of the
virtues of the FOIA law: administrators are not to render judgment on
the merits of the information being sought in a request. Those
determinations only can be made at the judicial level once a requester
loses an administrative appeal of a FOIA denial and files suit.
"Who's to say that one person's request has more validity than
anyone else's?" says William Ferroggiaro, director of the Freedom of
Information Project of the National Security Archive at George
Washington University and president of the American Society of Access
Professionals. "It's value neutral. In a way, she is using the law as
it is intended even if her efforts cannot be characterized as anything
but bizarre."
One of the other aspects of the FOIA law -- which has gained
increased scrutiny in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks -- is that it may be used by citizens and foreign nationals
alike. In some cases, fugitives of federal justice have filed FOIA
requests and received responses, since only the courts may declare
that a person who has flouted the laws of the land may not benefit
from them.
Schwarz says she entered the United States on a visitor visa in
the late 1980s and tried unsuccessfully for years to adjust her status
with the Immigration and Naturalization Service before giving up. She
says she has a German birth certificate but claims it was doctored to
conceal that she was actually born in Utah.

Fighting INS: "I have tried to get it worked out with the INS,"
says Schwarz. "They could probably arrest me or throw me out of the
country for filing FOIA requests, but I'm not easily scared."
While the FOIA law is open to all, it does not guarantee free
access to government information. Although Schwarz always requests
that the standard fees for searching and copying records be deferred
because she is poor and the request is in the public interest, a
federal judge in the nation's capital ruled in 2001 that she didn't
deserve a fee waiver because her disclosure would not "contribute
significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities
of the government."
As a result, the Department of Justice began tracking her
outstanding FOIA bills and using those debts to disqualify further
requests, beginning with a $16.80 balance due to the Salt Lake field
office of the FBI.
"Anyone can see I'm not rich; I haven't bought new clothes for 12
years," says Schwarz, who does not hold a job or driver license and
relies on a monthly stipend sent from relatives in Germany to pay for
her rent, utilities and food. "I finally paid the FBI bill and two
days later the chief counsel of the division said I owed $303.30 to
the Veterans Administration. They are generating fees behind my back
so they don't process my requests and it's spread to every agency."
To her, it's all part of the conspiracy.
"This circle is never going to close," says Goldberg. "Perhaps
having this cause and mission gives her a will to live."
But Schwarz says being labeled a kook and an "FOIA terrorist" is
not how she had hoped to find fame.
"It's not that this is my hobby and I don't have anything better
to do," she says. "I would love to just write fiction and have a life.
But I'm an optimist. I believe something will come my way that will
end this."
***@sltrib.com
Barbara Schwarz
2004-06-16 22:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by chris mankeyh
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by chris mankeyh
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by chris mankeyh
Post by Barbara Schwarz
Post by Zinj
Post by Guess who?
That headline is again libel per se, Perkins.
So tell Elron to get off the can and sue him fer Xenu sake.
That would be interesting, since in general it's impossible to lible the
dead; and in any case, it would practically be impossible to libel L.
Ron Hubbard in any case, unless one got into specifics.
Zinj
Wrong. Especially the a family members can bring such a suit, and you
know such a family member, right?
Moreover, laws will change soon. Past lives will be scientific proven
and Ron and others will be able to sue you lying bastards. It's all
around the corner, you are just to mindcontrolled to see it comming.
Barbara Schwarz
Umm, Barb Ron's dead. I'm sorry, but I thought you should know. He passed in 1986.
He did not. Ron was murdered by psychs in 1984. They guy who died in
1986 was Jack Marshall, an impostor.
And you apparently don't know that people come back, are born again.
Even stupid scum like you, Chris Monkey, find most of the time a new
body are annoy their environment once again.
Barbara Schwarz
No actually once somebody dies, thier simply gone. But to understand
this you would have to not be insane. Sad!
Sad is your IQ. How can the spirit, the soul, something spiritual die,
Chris Monkey, ever thought of that? A spirit, a soul, a thetan is no
body that doesn't last forever. It is not bound on the rules of aging
and dying.
Moreover, you can see a spirit leaving the body while filming a dying
person with a special camera, but that is science, and that is all to
high for a mind like yours.
Eat you banana and throw your coconuts, ape.
Barbara Schwarz
S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System
Barbara Schwarz
By Christopher Smith
(c)2003, The Salt Lake Tribune
The Salt Lake Tribune article about me is maliciously defamatory and
wrong in sting and gist. The Salt Lake Tribune is no credible paper.
Some of their reporters sold lies about the Elizabeth Smart family to
the National Enquirer for $ 20.000.

See below my affidavit to their false reports about me:

From: Barbara Schwarz (***@excite.com)
Subject: AFFIDAVIT OF BARBARA SCHWARZ IN CASE VS. SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Date: 2003-08-09 09:16:30 PST


The transmission of the response motion (the other thread) and the
affidavit did not function picture book perfect. The text is somehow
displaced, not as in the original, but anyway, below is the affidavit.



Barbara Schwarz,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111



IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
DISTICT OF SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

AFFIDAVIT OF BARBARA SCHWARZ
BARBARA SCHWARZ
PLAINTIFF,

V.


SALT LAKE TRIBUNE,
MEDIA NEWS GROUP, PUBLISHER
WILLIAM DEAN SINGLETON,
CHIEF EDITOR NANCY CONWAY,
INTERIM EDITOR BILL LONG,
EDITITIAL PAGE EDITOR VERN
ANDERSON,
MANAGING DIRECTOR TIM
FITZPATRICK,
REPORTER CHRISTROPHER
SMITH,
PHOTO EDITOR LORI POST,
PHOTOGRAPHER RICK EGAN,

DEFENDANTS.
CIVIL CASE


NO: 030912398 MI


JUDGE GLENN IWASAKI


I, Barbara Schwarz, the plaintiff in above captioned case file
herewith under penalty of perjury this affidavit, in response to the
affidavit of Salt Lake Tribune ("Tribune") reporter Christopher Smith
("Smith"), as filed in this case in July 2003.

1. Reporter Smith, the Tribune, and their counsel Michael Patrick
O'Brien ("O'Brien") filed the Smith declaration to mislead the court,
which is, according to my knowledge obstruction of justice. They try
to make the court believe that the few electronic mail copies,
attached as exhibits E and F to the Smith-affidavit would be all there
is. They conceal important information to the court, esp. about what
kind of article reporter Smith had promised me to write, how he
deceived me to agree to meet him and later, how he managed to get
under false promises the photographer in my apartment to take
pictures.
2. Concealing the other communication between us in an affidavit is
also perjury in my book. An attorney, as O'Brien, who participates in
this kind of cover up and obstruction of justice, should be disbarred.
The Tribune, Smith and their counsel know that there was much more
written communication, and this communication is damaging to the
Tribune. They don't want the court to see it.
3. The e-mails, as attached as exhibits to the Smith-declaration and
the defendant's memorandum in support of motion to dismiss and/or for
summary judgment, ("memo") were carefully selected by the Tribune,
Smith and their attorney to distract from the other letter and e-mails
we exchanged, in which reporter Smith promised me to write about a
very different subject than he later did in his maliciously defamatory
and despicable article of May 11, 2003, about me.
4. Here is the list of communication between Smith and I, as well as
other important documents in this case, all attached as exhibits to my
affidavit.
- Handwritten Christopher Smith, letter dated April 3, 2003 (Exhibit
A)
- Salt Lake Tribune Front Article, about me of May 11, 2002 (Exhibit
B)
- E-mail from Smith to me of April 3, 2003 (Exhibit C)
- My e-mail to Smith of April 5, 2003 (Exhibit D)
- My e-mail to Smith of April 14, 2003 (Exhibit E)
- E-mail from Smith to me of April 15, 2003 (Exhibit F)
- My e-mail to Smith of April 17, 2003 (Exhibit G)
- My first e-mail to Smith of April 18, 2003 (Exhibit H)
- My second e-mail to Smith of April 18, 2003 (Exhibit I)
- My third e-mail to Smith of April 18, 2003 (Exhibit J)
- E-mail from Smith to me of April 18, 2003 (Exhibit K)
- My e-mail to Smith of April 19, 2003 (Exhibit L)
- E-mail from Smith to me of May 1, 2003 (Exhibit M)
- My e-mail to Smith of May 1, 2003 (Exhibit N)
- E-mail from Smith to me of May 5 and May 7, 2003, both in content
same e-mails (Exhibit O)
- My e-mail to Smith of May 6, 2003 (Exhibit P)
- First E-mail from Smith to me of May 8, 2003 (Exhibit Q)
- Second E-mail from Smith to me of May 8, 2003 (Exhibit R)
- Third E-mail from Smith to me of May 8, 2003 (Exhibit S)
- My e-mail to Smith of May 8, 2003, (Exhibit T)
- My e-mail to Smith of May 9, 2003 (Exhibit U)
- My e-mail to Smith of May 10, 2003 (Exhibit V)
- E-mail from Smith to me of May 12, 2003 (Exhibit W)
- My e-mail to the Salt Lake Tribune executives, reporter Smith and
others reporters to correct their false reports of May 12, 2003
(Exhibit X)
- First July 2003 photo of me, Barbara Schwarz (Exhibit B1)
- Second July 2003 photo of me, Barbara Schwarz (Exhibit B2)
- Article in "News of the Weird" based on the maliciously and
defamatory Tribune article (Exhibit B3)
- Article in "Potpourri" based on the malicious Tribune article,
(Exhibit B4)
- Internet Usenet groups decision to vote me "Kook of month" based on
Tribune article. (Exhibit B5)
- E-mail from reporter M. of May 27, 2003 to me (Exhibit Y) (His full
name is deleted because he mentioned to me that he appreciates not
being named in Usenet.)
- Excerpt of e-mail from reporter M. of May 29, 2003 to me (Exhibit
Y1)
- Excerpt of e-mail of May 30, 2003 from reporter M. to me (Exhibit
Y2)
- Excerpt of e-mail of June 2, 2003 from reporter M. to me (Exhibit
Y3)
- Excerpt of other e-mail of June 2, 3003 from reporter M. (Exhibit
Y4)
- Alt.Religion.Scientology newsgroup headlines on me, listing my
private address against my wish. (Tribune referred the readers to this
newsgroup) (Hardcopy attached as exhibit Z)
- Information about the criminal anti-religious extremists that hailed
the Tribune article (Exhibit Z1).
5. Reporter Smith deceived me to agree to an interview and my photo
taken. I never would have met him, talked to him, responded to him, if
he would have not lied to me that the article would be about "how my
cases have resulted in an unusual ruling on how and when public
information may be released, which have broad implication for the free
press", and not about my personal life. (See his lie in his letter of
April 3, 2003 and his e-mail of April 3, 2003, referring to his
January e-mail of 2003 to me, exhibit A and exhibit C attached to my
affidavit.)
6. On April 3, 2003, I heard first time from reporter Smith. He came
to my apartment but did not met me. He did not reach me with e-mail,
but he also did not mail me any letter with the U.S. Postal Service.
He left a handwritten letter on my door with following information:"…I
am an investigative reporter from Washington D.C. who has studied your
legal cases on how the federal government has responded to your
request for information on Mark Rathbun. I have traveled to Salt Lake
City in the hopes of talking with you, since your cases have resulted
in an unusual ruling on how and when public information may be
released, which may have broad implications for the free press. I have
tried to reach you via e-mail but received no response… Could you
please contact me?" (See a copy of his letter attached to my affidavit
as exhibit A.)
7. The content of this letter is a far cry from the article "Salt Lake
Woman's quest strains public records system", that Smith later wrote
and the Tribune published on the front page of the issue May 11, 2003,
on Mothersday, to it approximately 150.000 readers and to an unknown
number of readers worldwide by putting the article also in their
online issue. (See a copy of the May 11, 2003 article with a distorted
or probably even doctored photo of me, to abuse my image attached to
my affidavit as exhibit B.) Smith wrote in this article the opposite
from what he had promised me he would write about. That is deception,
and that is how he got the interview and the photos.
8. I met him in good faith, because he had promised me to write about
the unusual rulings of the federal agencies and courts and how those
have a broad impact on the free press. If he would have told me that
he thinks I overloaded the FOIA system and that he wants to write
about that, I would have not agreed to see him or corresponded with
him, I would have not told him personal information about me, I would
have never agreed to photos taken, because it's not true that I
overloaded the FOIA system. Actually, during my interview and also in
his e-mails to me, Smith made me think that he is convinced that the
federal governmental agencies are at fault and not I, that the
agencies and courts treated me unfairly, that I deserve justice, that
the information that I requested would exist, that I requested smart
information, and that governmental employees are lazy and don't want
to work. However, I learned that what Smith says and claims in private
talk and mails is different from what he publishes in the Tribune or
claims through his attorney in this lawsuit.
9. I was rather open to Smith in the interview and my e-mails, because
he deceived me, making me think of him as a friend. In truth, Smith
was my enemy who never had plans to help me. He rather wrote a yellow
journalism article in which my image was abused, in which false facts
were stated, facts twisted, the readers furthermore misled through
many omissions and that all to increase the readership for his greedy
and already scandal riddled newspaper, the Salt Lake Tribune and to
advance his personal career on my costs.
10. The defendants and their dishonest counsel withheld also the Smith
e-mail of April 3, 2003. In this mail, Smith sent me a copy of his
January 27, 2003 e-mail, in which he also explains why he wants to
talk to me. In the January 27 e-mail, Smith did once more not say that
he wants to write an article on "how I overloaded the FOIA system" or
me being a crazy woman, but he wrote the following to me: "…I would
like to do a story on your efforts and how the government responded,
both in the courts and in rejecting your FOIA requests because of an
apparently brand new requirement that FOIA requesters must pay back
due bills to the federal government (noting your alleged $ 303 Bill to
the VA) before the government responds to a request for public
information. I recently encountered this Department of Justice
decision regarding your requests when I was researching another Utah
case here in Washington. As a member of the press, this is an unusual
requirement that in my experience I have never encountered before. The
precedent set with your request in requiring payment of fees not
related to search and retrieval of federal records has unusual
ramifications for both, the press and the public. Is there a time or a
phone number where I could reach you to discuss some background of
your fight with the federal government for access of those documents?
I am sorry but I don't have your phone number, although I know you
list an address in Salt Lake City on your court filings. Perhaps
publicity to your case will help in prying lose the records that you
have seeking for so long, please contact me…"
11. Even a dummy will understand, that Smith clearly deceived me by
tricking to meet him, to talk to him, to get my photos taken by lying
to me that he would write a very different article, than the "SL
Woman's quest strains public records system", in which he made me to
the bad guy, the kook, and the governmental employees that he called
lazy, work shy, unjust, secretive in private talks and even his
e-mails to me became suddenly his dutiful heroes. (See exhibit C, the
e-mail of April 3 and January 27, 2003 attached to my affidavit.) By
withholding those e-mails, defendants and their counsel once more try
to mislead the courts that the Tribune did not deceive me.
12. Smith pulled my leg by writing and telling me that his article
could pry lose the records that I am seeking for so long. His article
rather made sure that I never will get them. His article supported the
unconstitutional activities by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Information and Privacy, and other FOIA offices, and they feel
better than before concealing information before me and conspiring
against me. Director Daniel Metcalfe spoke 5-10 Minutes at the ASAP
conference about that article and me, according to information that I
received from reporter M. (See his e-mail to me attached as exhibit Y4
to my affidavit.)
13. On April 5, 2003, Smith e-mailed again. He thanked me for the
interview. He again did not reveal that he planned to write a very
different article than promised and that I will be trashed, defamed
and my privacy outrageously maliciously violated in that that
article. He had to keep the deception up, because he still had to
trick me into my photos taken to abuse my identity even more. (See
exhibit D, his e-mail to me and mine to him attached.)
14. Smith deceived me in making me think that he is a friend and that
is the only reason I provided private information to him, but as the
court and everyone else can read in the exhibits, also in exhibit D,
my e-mail to Smith, I was operating completely under the assumption
that he would write the article, that he promised to write in his
letter, his April 3, 2003 letter and also the e-mails and what he had
declared as his true intentions during the interview. I was convinced
that Smith would use private information only as his background
information, that he would not use it at all, or if, then in just a
footnote.
15. In my e-mail of April 5, I informed Smith about an
unconstitutional ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, using my
impecuniosity to deny access to this court to me, but I also explained
to him that not all justices agreed with that decision. Smith did not
use the information in his unfair article, because wanted to defame
me. Despite that Smith knows about the outrageous unconstitutionality,
his lawyer O'Brien is pushing the Third District court to adopt same
unconstitutional rules to deny access to the courts to me.
16. During the interview, Smith told me suddenly out of the blue that
he doesn't hope that I will be murdered. He did not explain who wants
to murder me and why I could be murdered, but he apparently had
information hereto. He seemed having not informed police, FBI, CIA or
any other authority on what he knew and that they shall protect me. On
top of all of that, he wrote later an article that made people hate me
and threaten me, and they expressed it on the Internet. He also
provided 150.000 households, the Tribune readers, with the address of
a criminal newsgroup of which he knew had illegally listed my home
address, even my apartment number in highlights on their front pages.
He did not only violate my privacy outrageously by doing so, he also
put my life on risk. Any criminal in the world knows where to find me
and I don't have the money to move. (See hardcopy of newsgroup
Alt.Religion.Scientology. They have my home address in their Google
headlines and that without my consent and against my wish. Exhibit Z
attached to my affidavit.)
17. I made clear to Smith in the interview, that if he wants to
contact the Church of Scientology, that he should contact its
President Heber Jentzsch, because the Scientology organizations are
infiltrated by non-religious people which lie. Despite that Smith had
this information, even knew that Heber had local ties, being original
from Utah, what could have added another interesting aspect to his
article, he did not contact Heber for his information and input, but
rather talked to an infiltrator of the Church of Scientology, Linda
Simmons Hight, who helped Smith smear my image. She misinformed that
they would not know about me and that I would be "delusional", when in
fact I was a high executive in Scientology and many Scientology
executives, including Heber Jentzsch, know me.
18. Further very odd is the fact that Smith did not try to reach Mark
Rathbun (de Rothschild) at all. How better to determine if somebody is
wrongfully incarcerated or not, by contacting that person? I conclude
that Smith knew that Mark Rathbun is wrongfully incarcerated in a
correctional facility and that he actively tried to conceal that in
his despicable article.
19. During the interview, I informed Smith that I had filed FOIA
requests to the U.S. intelligence community agencies in October 2000,
and asked them to pull the files on Osama Bin Laden and that none of
the federal employees checked his files, because they don't respect
the FOIA laws and are lazy and corrupt. I also e-mailed information
hereto to Smith. I claimed that if they would have pulled his files,
they could have connected the dots and stepped up the security for the
United States and the intelligence surveillance around Bin Laden and
that it would have been a darn good chance to prevent the September 11
terror attacks. Instead of reporting about that in his article, the
Tribune rather chose to defame my image. The very unqualified counsel
O'Brien tries to make me look nutty in his memo and twisted my words
in that I would have claimed that I could have prevented the terror
attacks or something like that. I never claimed so, I just very
correctly stated, that I pointed the government over and over to
search the Bin Laden files eleven months before the September 11
attacks and during the months before September 11, because I studied
the news and felt that the man was more dangerous than it was reported
about him in that time, and that he was up to atrocities. The
congressional panel that investigated the governmental failure to stop
the September 11 terror attacks, published a report in which they came
to the conclusion that governmental agencies had information in their
files which pointed towards the September 11, attacks, but they did
not connect the dots and did not coordinate. My requests for records
could have helped, if they just would have conducted searches instead
conspiring against my right to FOIA information. I tried at least, and
I tried hard to get the government look in the right direction. But
now, I am being blamed for that by the scornful counsel of the
Tribune, who did nothing himself to prevent the terror. I am defamed
by the Tribune, who could and should have written articles that could
have woken up the government to not ignore terrorists. Their
investigative reporters could and should have connected the dots in an
article to prevent September 11, but they did not. Smith should have
at least mentioned my October 2000 efforts, but why being honest to
the readers? The article was published to smear me, not to publish the
truth that I was right on target. I also wrote to Smith that it is
outrageous that I am called a "FOIA terrorist" by the government, by
trying to prevent terrorism, and the official that claimed me being
one, failed to pull the Bin Laden files to see what the real terrorist
was up to, and that we later got the September 11 attacks. (See my
e-mail with the Bin Laden information to Smith of April 14, 2003 as
exhibit E)
20. Tribune and their counsel also concealed the Smith e-mail to me of
April 15, 2003, to mislead the court. In this mail, Smith informed me
that federal workers are lazy and that they find any excuse not to
come to work. He did not mention that in his article. In his article
he called the lazy employees suddenly "dutiful" and "overloaded".
Smith had the insider information that the government doesn't like
FOIA requests, because federal employees don't like to work. The
readers of the Tribune would be certainly much more interested to read
how tax Dollars are used to pay lazy federal workers instead to read
about how the Tribune defames a private woman by smearing her
character, state of mind and activities.
21. In the April 15, 2003 e-mail, Smith also wrote that the government
treats me differently than other requesters, but he did not make that
clear in his article. This e-mail also confirms that Smith
acknowledged that I understood that he would not write about my
personal history. He continued to mislead me, telling me that he is
mainly interested in the long legal battle and the interesting
precedent that may be set with the way my FOIA request was treated.
Here are some excerpts from what Smith wrote to me that day: "One of
your interested FOIA officers – not the one who said you were a
"Terrorist", and he meant it with sarcasm – did indeed call me last
week to see if I have managed to find you in the flesh. He said he
wants to alert his colleagues that I had the ‘first visual' of the
legendary Barbara Schwarz, and wanted to know what the conversation
was like. I told him, he first has to wait till the story runs in the
paper to answer those questions and secondly, he may be disappointed
to discover you're not from outer space! I am hoping to get an
interview this week or next week with the government employees in the
Office of Information and Privacy here in the Justice Department who
came with the unusual policy on your request. The trouble is, when
Congress leaves town, all the government workers also tend to take
their vacations or leaves. It's sort of when the boss is on vacation,
all the employees come in late, take long lunches and go home early.
Washington federal employees will find any excuse not to come to work
– snow in the forecast, the terror level alert is raising, or the
pollen count or ozone pollution is too high. So I am not sure if the
OIP folks will be able to do an interview with me this week, but as
soon as they sit down and talk to me about why they treated your
requests differently than others, I will relay that to you." (See the
Smith e-mail of April 15, 2003, attached to my affidavit as exhibit
F.)
22. It certainly costs the taxpayer a lot more money paying lazy
federal workers that don't show up in their offices than the FOIA
requests mailed to the government by an individual. It is very
unethical by the Tribune to not report rather about governmental
workers kind of outrageous waste of taxpayer money. They misuse also
taxpayer money to conspire and campaign against me.
23. Smith mentioned in his April 15 e-mail that he had no time to
visit the newsgroup and read postings on my personal history and
added: "…But you are right, I don't necessarily think that's part of
this story. I am mainly interested in your long legal battle and the
interesting precedent that may be set with the way your FOIA requests
are being handled. And from what I have seen of other newsgroups,
there are definitely people whose only purpose in life is to write
nasty attacks and post them to these lists." (See Smith e-mail of
April 15, 2003, exhibit F attached to my affidavit.)
24. Smith knew that I was counting on that the article was not about
my personal life but about the precedent that was set by the
arbitrarily and conspiring acting and otherwise lazy governmental
employees on how my FOIA and other people's FOIA requests are being
treated. Smith continued to lie to me and mislead me in thinking he
would write this article.
25. Smith knew that newsgroups are nasty and that its posters are
often above the law. He knew that I was a target of at least one of
such groups, which spreads horrendous lies about me, nevertheless,
instead of sparing the Tribune readers such kind of information, he
referred them to the hostile group in his article. Smith also knew
that the newsgroup had my home address illegally in their headlines
and he sort of published my home address in the article, which is a
violation of my privacy rights without comparison. (See exhibit Z
attached to my affidavit.)
26. Furthermore, in his e-mail of April 15, 2003, Smith informed me
that he doesn't think that conspiracy theorists are crazy. He sort of
considered himself as one, but he certainly made me look like a crazy
conspiracy theorist in the Tribune article. He wrote in his e-mail:
"As far as conspiracy theories and theorists, many of my stories over
the year at the Tribune – and you came across several of them – deal
with things that some people say are conspiracies and things others
say are threats to our constitutional protection. I did a story that
ran front page of Sunday's Tribune about some of the new government
surveillance programs – total information awareness, project
Carnivore, etc. and how Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch is pushing these
programs. They may sound like the ramblings of a paranoid, but these
programs exist…" (See again e-mail by Smith of April 15, 2003, that he
did not attach to his affidavit, that the counsel did not attach to
his memo, to mislead the court.)
27. The Tribune, Smith and their counsel also withheld deliberately my
e-mail of April 17, 2003, part one in a series of four, that Smith
acknowledged having all received. In this e-mail, I told Smith that
it would be good to write an article about the problem with Congress,
that they pass their bills in one or two marathon sessions, otherwise
piddle around (those are the words of reporter Smith, see his e-mail
of April 15) and that it would be hard for reporters to keep up with
that. An article about that the public might miss information on what
Congress is doing because the reporters are not given fair time to
work through all of that certainly will be more interesting for the
readers than an article in which I am maliciously defamed, violated
and ridiculed on the front page.
28. In this April 17 e-mail, I pointed Smith towards the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and the DOJ Office of
Intelligence Policy Review, its suspicious handling of my FOIA request
and my conclusion was that they have me unlawfully under surveillance.
Smith should have pulled that string and investigated, if his report
about that he finds total surveillance programs, Project Carnivore,
unconstitutional and threatening, was true. But he did not, because
the Tribune rather defamed me.
29. In same April 17 e-mail, that Smith acknowledged having received
on April 18, 2003, I informed Smith about my correspondence with
Senator Hatch, that I contacted him, that we exchanged many letters,
that he never wrote to me that he thinks that I am crazy suspecting a
governmental infiltration by non-American forces, but that he would be
unable to help, and that I shall hire an private detective and an
attorney. Smith doesn't like Hatch's spy program but ignored how
irresponsible Hatch acted in the matter that I presented to him. Hatch
was leaving any investigation into a secretly infiltrated government
solely on my indigent private shoulders. This would be a story the
Tribune readers would very much appreciate, not me being slam dunk on
the front page.
30. I made clear to Smith in my April 17 e-mail once again, that I
expect the article to be about the precedent on how requests are being
handled by the government and not my private life. – However, I felt
sorry about Smith having to read through that hostile newsgroup with
its bad language, assaults, threats and libel, just for a bit
background information or perhaps a footnote in his article. I decided
to mail Smith a summary of my life in three installments. It is very
despicable by the Tribune to publish such a maliciously hostile and
defamatory article about me, after being in details informed how hard
my life was, and how I was abused already before. The Tribune
defendants, all involved with this article, and also their counsel
O'Brien appear to be people without any human compassion or human
qualifications. (See me three e-mails of April 18, 2003, attached to
my affidavit as exhibits H, I, and J.)
31. Once again, I operated under the impression that Smith would read
the personal information as a friend, and for background information
only, and not that he would use the information out of concept and
context on the front page of his newspaper. In his e-mail of April 18,
2003, that he did not attach to his affidavit and that was also not
attached by the counsel to his memo, Smith acknowledged having
received all four parts of this series (First part of April 17, the
other three parts of April 18). He wrote with no word that he planned
to use any of the information in his article, he rather wrote that I
shall write a book about my life, which made me conclude that he has
no interest whatsoever to write about my private life, and that he
would stick to his promise to write about how other members of the
public and the media might become victims of governmental corruption
as well. Otherwise, Smith complained again about the missing work
moral of federal workers but also the State of Utah employees. (See
exhibit K, e-mail of Chris Smith, that was not attached to his
affidavit and not attached to the memo of counsel to mislead the
court.)
32. Smith did neither attach my e-mail of April 19, 2003 to his
affidavit neither did counsel O'Brien mention it. In that e-mail, I
explained to Smith that my life is not a science fiction and that the
CIA would be the agency to confirm that my memories are correct or
false. I explained to Smith that it is strange that none of the
agencies referred my request for records to the CIA, the agency that
most likely had records to my FOIA request for information to who I
am, because that would have ended the search. Instead of writing in
the article, that the CIA never conducted the smallest search, Smith
concealed the important information entirely, which is outrageous and
just serves to make the readers wrongfully think that such search took
place and no records were found. (See my e-mail of April 19, 2003,
attached to my declaration as exhibit L.)
33. In meantime, the Salt Lake Tribune Michael Vigh, Kevin Cantera and
Jay Shelledy scandal broke. The first two reporters sold fabricated
information about the Elizabeth Smart family for $20.000 to the
National Equirer, and Shelledy did not fire them. As Smith misinformed
me he would be an honest reporter, I consoled him in an e-mail of May
1, 2003, that he should not worry about the scandal because people
would judge reporters individually on their own ethically researched,
balanced and comprehensive style. But that was before I read the
Tribune article about me from which I concluded that Smith proved to
be another deceiving, dishonest, unethical, truth concealing and
misleading reporter, without respect of my rights and who is just
interested in yellow journalistic sensations, and not interested to
report how the facts really are. Smith claimed that Tribune reporters
and employees would have been smeared by other Tribune reporters, but
that did not stop the allegedly smeared Tribune reporters, editors,
executives and other employees to smear me.
34. On May 1, 2003, Smith wrote to me the following: "On other fronts,
I managed to speak this week to a top Justice Department official who
would not talk to me on the records but was involved in the decision
to notify other agencies about your FOIA requests and the unpaid bills
that are being used to reject your request…" Smith did not mention in
his article that the official did not talk to him on the record and
why the official did not talk to him on the record. I have to conclude
that was because he provided false information, and Smith knew about
that.
35. Smith continued to write in the May 1 e-mail: "…My editor asked me
if I would ask you to see if a photographer could take a photo of you,
maybe with the stacks of rejection letters of files of responses you
have to show how doggedly you have pursued this search. Let me know if
you are comfortable with that, since I know you value your privacy,
but it would help put a human face on the struggle with a faceless
bureaucracy. It was funny, but I asked the justice guy if he knew of
anyone in the entire government who has tried to resolve this outside
of appeals, courts, etc., and he said it has been resolved by no
longer processing any of your requests." (See the May 1, 2003, that
Smith and his counsel did not attach to the Smith declaration or the
counsel's memo to mislead the court having not deceived me. It is
attached to my declaration as exhibit M.)
36. Once again Smith misled me to believe that the article would help
me, not defame me, and it would be about how the government mistreated
my requests, denied my rights, didn't care to find a solution,
provoked appeals and litigation and to prevent that it will happen to
other members of the public or members of the free press. This Smith
e-mail very clearly described that he knew that my trying to get
records from the government was "doggedly" for me and not the
government, that he knew that I wanted to have my privacy, which he
outrageously violated by smearing my personal life (also by giving the
readers of the Tribune a direct link to my home address), that he
deceived me in agreeing to photos taken under the aspect that he would
write a very different article than he did. He also asked me to get my
files or letters on the photo. I pulled them out, which was a lot of
work, because I thought the files would be important, not my face, but
the Tribune did not use the photos with the files, because the article
was just to abuse my image. – And how in the world would a maliciously
defamatory and hostile article as the one of Smith about me pry lose
answers or records from the government? His article assisted the
government in feeling fine about denying them to me and mistreating
me. In any case, his e-mail is evidence that Smith knew that the
government had the information that I requested, but unlawfully wasn't
giving it to me.
37. Smith wrote in the May 1, 2003 e-mail: "It was funny, but I asked
the justice guy if he knew of anyone in the entire government who had
tried to resolve this outside of appeals, courts, etc. and he said it
has been resolved by no longer processing any of your requests. So,
there you go." He apparently thought it's all a big joke, but people
whose rights are being denied, don't find it funny.
38. Smith did not mention in his article that the government should
have offered a solution outside of appeals and courts, but he should
have included that in his article. Smith unfairly portrayed me as
unreasonable, while it was in fact the government who is. Smith knew
that if the government would had truthfully provided me with the
information they had on me and Mark Rathbun's whereabouts, I would
have not filed a second FOIA request, no administrative appeals and
certainly no litigation.
39. It's also striking that the Tribune makes now the same mistake as
the federal government, finding no solution outside of courts. They
could have printed my demand for correction or at least a letter to
the editor. They should have returned the approximately 100 photos and
the negatives that they illegally keep, and that is theft, theft and
theft. They rather provoke litigation than getting clean. In my e-mail
of May 12, 2003 to the Tribune executives and reporters I demanded
foregoing very clearly, but they ignored all of it. (See exhibit X,
attached to my affidavit, my September 12, 2003 letter to the Tribune
publisher, the executives. Editors, reporter Smith and other Tribune
reporters and employees.)
40. In the May 1, 2003 e-mail, Smith revealed that his editor and
photo editor Lori Post were also involved in the making of the article
about me. They are legally justified defendants to my lawsuit. So is
the photographer, who either doctored the photo they used in the
article, or he took the worst of a hundred shots to smear my image.
41. It is revealing that the counsel for defendants provided the court
twice and only with a copy of the Tribune article that doesn't show
the distorted or even doctored photo. They definitely try to mislead
the court that they A) did not publish a photo with the files (and
that was the whole purpose of the photo session as far as I was told
by Smith), and B) that they either doctored a photo of me or used the
worst shot of a hundred to give me a look that would fit in the
hostile article about me, to defame me, abuse my image and to ridicule
me. The readers of the Tribune article, esp. those on the Internet
reacted very cruel to the article. I was called publicly "drag-queen",
"Mr. Spock", "sin-ugly", etc.
42. Tribune photographer Rick Egan was 20 minutes in apartment. In
that time he shot one photo after the other of me. My estimate is that
he took around a hundred pictures. From those hundred, he and the
Tribune could have chosen a photo that looks more like me and also one
that showed my files.
43. With my little camera from the "All a Dollar-store", I had a
friend taking July 2003 photos of me outside of my apartment house.
They show how I really look like. (See attached two July 2003 photos
of me, attached to this affidavit as exhibits B1 and B2, and compare
them with the either doctored photo or worst shot of a hundred, as
used by the Tribune, exhibit B attached.)
44. Counsel of defendants lied over and over to the court that I would
have consented to the photos taken, which is not true, because I
consented only to a use of a photo showing me and my files or letters,
and only to be used in the article that Smith promised me he would
write. The Tribune clearly deceived me, because they knew, if I would
have known their true intentions to smear me, they would have not
gotten any interview and no photo of me.
45. On May 2, 2003, I e-mailed Smith in return. Nice as I am, I
continued to console him over the other Tribune scandals and today
wish, I just should have slammed the door on this reporter and the
photographer. In my e-mail of May 6, 2003, I wrote to Smith that I
indeed value my privacy. I also made clear to him that I don't like
photos on which I don't look like myself. That should have been enough
information for the Tribune to let me choose the photo that their
photographer took and to not use private information, from my life, in
this article.
46. After the photo was taken, the Tribune hurried terribly to publish
the article, to prevent that I might ask them to see the article
before it goes in print and let me choose my photo.
47. I agreed only to the interview, an article and the photo taken
because the Tribune deceived me in that Smith would write a very very
different article as they later published. This is also supported by
my May 6, 2003 e-mail, in which I go straight back telling Smith more
about the fraudulent fee issues by the federal government, how they
criminally fabricated fees without my knowledge, without my consent
and used them in a campaign to deny FOIA processing and records to me.
In this e-mail, that Smith attached to his affidavit, I informed Smith
once again that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) never asked me
if I can or will pay, that I never allowed them to incur any fees,
that they knew I was indigent, and this is why they incurred the fees
in the first place, to get me in debts. They knew I did not have the
financial means to pay the fees. I informed Smith once again (I had
told him that already in details during the interview) that the FBI
Salt Lake City came up with a bill of $16,80 fees for same records
that they already sent earlier to me. The FBI also did not ask me for
consent to incur any fees and knew that I am impecunious. The DOJ,
Office of Information of Privacy took in September 2001 the $ 16,80
fees and wrote to all federal agencies to not more process my FOIA
requests because of the outstanding $ 16,80. In the interview, Smith
told me that it is unbelievable that the government launched such a
campaign just for $ 16,80, but he concealed his outrage in the
article. He knew that the campaign against me, involving almost all
federal agencies, did cost a hell of a lot more than $ 16,80. I
informed Smith that despite the fees were incurred without my
knowledge and consent, that I paid the $ 16,80 to the FBI Salt Lake in
early October 2001, and immediately after the FBI had the money order,
the OIP started a new campaign against me, using the criminally
fabricated $303, 30 VA fees, as new ground to deny FOIA processing and
records to me. I informed Smith, that I wrote an affidavit and sent it
to the agencies, explained that the fees were a fraud, that they never
were actually incurred, that the VA mailed me only 106 pages records
and that 100 of those were free, according to the FOIA statutes. I
informed him that the 106 pages came from a VA-file that they had
ready on hand, and no search time was involved. I made clear to him
that the VA charged me $ 303, 30 Dollars for six pages of records, and
that is fraud. – But Tribune and Smith made sure that the Tribune
readers and the on-line readers would not get the facts in that
defamatory and malicious article about me.
48. In the restaurant, during the interview, Smith admitted that it
doesn't matter how much I pay to the government, they would constantly
come up with new fees to deny FOIA processing and records to me.
49. Smith misinformed me, that he would be an investigative reporter.
He did not investigate the VA fraud. I told him that the VA avoids
filing an affidavit because they know the fees are a fraud. Smith, who
has his office in Washington D.C., should have asked the VA for an
interview and pull the strings on the fraud, which he didn't, because
he knew the fees are a fraud. The article was not meant to reveal the
truth, the article was meant to maliciously defame me, abuse my image,
mislead the readers and to cover up corrupt governmental activities.
50. However, I also informed Smith in the May 6, 2003 e-mail, that
most agencies participate in the campaign, but that they Federal Trade
Commission (who are fraud investigators) and the Hill Air Force Base
in Utah knew of the campaign, but decided to not participate in it and
to continue to process my FOIA/PA request and appeal. Smith should
have contacted them and asked them why they decided not to
participate, but as he did not want to write a fair article about the
matter, he did not contact them.
51. In my May 6, 2003 e-mail, and in the interview, I pointed out to
Smith how ridiculous the orders of the U.S. District Court of Columbia
on my legal cases were, that the judges did not care to look at the
facts, that I was not heard and that the judges cited the federal
defendants, the U.S. Departments over and over as "U.S. Depot of
Agriculture", "U.S. Depot of Energy", "U.S. Depot of Transportation",
etc. and that the judges made the impression as if they never attended
any high school. If Smith would have been a fair reporter, he would
have mentioned the outrageous unprofessional decisions, the fact that
I was not heard and the fact that the cases were not investigated in
his article. Smith concealed those facts to smear my image and to
mislead the readers. (See my e-mail of May 6, 2003 to Smith attached
as exhibit P to this affidavit.)
52. On May 5, and May 7, 2003, Smith replied with another e-mail of
same content. He informed me that Lori Post, the photo editor would be
happy to make a photo in my apartment, but Post never showed up, Egan
showed up instead, on May 9, 2003, twenty minutes late. My question is
why Tribune wanted to come to my apartment, when just a photo of my
head was used?
53. Smith continued to conceal that he did not plan to write the
article he promised me, he would write. He added: "I've got an
interview set up with one of the directors of the National Security
Archives today, which files numerous FOIA requests on the federal
government to reveal secret military and spying campaigns that were
conducted without the public knowledge. They are very respected and if
the government started saying that their requests were based on nutty
information, then that would be the end of what they do. The director
is also President of the American Society of Access Professionals, a
group of FOIA researchers. He seemed familiar with some of your cases
so I'll let you know what his thoughts are." (See e-mails of Smith of
May 5 and 7, 2003, attached to my affidavit as exhibit O.)
54. In the Tribune article, Smith certainly did not made clear to the
readers that the NSA files requests that could be looked at as
"nutty", but he sure did his best to let me look like a nut. I don't
know yet as how many other newspapers, TV stations, radio stations,
magazines and websites will use in future false information from the
yellow journalistic article of the Tribune about me, but many already
did. My image was further abused by "The News of the Weird", on June
15, 2003. That is a column by reporter Chuck Shepherd and as far as I
know, it runs in many papers of this nation and is also available
on-line and was picked up by on-line news providers as MSNBC and
others. Shepherd called me very falsely, maliciously and wrongfully
"People out of Control". He cited me wrongfully as most prolific filer
of FOIA requests (which I am not, according to reporter and FOIA
insider M. and according to the FOIA logs of the agencies.) Shepherd
didn't contact me for input, but further distributed malicious
falsehoods that Smith had made up and even cited a wrong date of the
Tribune article, May 5, 2003, instead of May 11, 2003. Apparently,
lying and truth twisting reporters do not only work for the Salt Lake
Tribune or the New York Times, but also for other papers. – The
headline, me being out of control, was as deliberately false and
malicious, as the headline of the Tribune, that I would have
overloaded the FOIA system. (See the News of the Weird article
attached as exhibit B3 to this affidavit.)
55. A Gazette with name "Potpourri" picked on June 9, 2003 the
malicious article of the Tribune up. They called me a "nut uses the
law (FOIA) idiotically". They spread the lie of Smith furthermore,
that I was born in a secret government compound. I never claimed that.
I was born in a hospital. Potpourri did not contact me either for my
comment. The other data used by Potpourri in the article are also
twisted, and the Tribune is mainly to blame. (See the Potpourri
article attached to my affidavit as exhibit B4)
56. The Internet, Usenet, was especially abusive. They voted me "Kook
of the month" for May 2003, based on the Tribune article. They
promoted the article all over the Internet right after it was
published. I was called "Psycho-Barb", "Drag Queen" and they compared
the Tribune photo to "Mr. Spock" from the Enterprise, called me a
"loon", "mentally ill" and numerous other insults, and they are still
at it. (See copy of Usenet printout about this attached to my
affidavit as exhibit B 5.)
57. On May 6, 2003, I e-mailed Smith more information and he claimed
he would have not received it. (See my e-mail of May 6, 2003 attached
to my affidavit as exhibit P.)
58. On May 8, Smith e-mailed me again that he wants a photographer to
come to my apartment. (See his e-mail to me of May 8, 2003 attached to
my affidavit as exhibit Q.)
59. On May 8, 2003, I e-mailed Smith that I did reply and that it was
not my fault that he did not receive the e-mail. I agreed to a
photographer coming, because Smith still was deceiving me that he
would write about a completely different subject than my private life.
(See my e-mail of May 8, 2003 attached to my affidavit as exhibit Q.)
Also this e-mail was withheld from the court. Defendants did not
attach it to the affidavit of Smith or to the memoranda. In this
e-mail Smith claimed that the Tribune Internet server has something
against Hotmail and Yahoo accounts, because they would get sometimes
blocked. With that information in mind, I changed to another e-mail
address of mine, not Hotmail and Yahoo and Smith complained later that
my mail "seem to come from various addresses". In the May 8, 2003,
Smith had twisted also my address, the street number and would have
sent the photographer to a false address. Today I regret that I
corrected that mistake of Smith, if I just would have known what the
Tribune was up to.
60. On May 8, 2003, Smith e-mailed me three times. In the last e-mail
he informed me that he spoke with Will Ferroggiaro, the FOI Project
Director of the National Security Archives. Smith wrote: "His point
was what you said earlier – the government cannot make a value
judgment on the validity of the information requested, that it must
respond as "value neutral", meaning even if the government thinks your
request is crazy, they cannot act by law any differently in responding
than they would to a request they may think is not crazy." – I don't
know what information Smith provided to Ferroggiaro, but most of my
FOIA requests were about the internal processing and search records
that the agencies generated, litigation records, and requests if the
attorney of Mark Rathbun (de Rothschild) or another attorney or an
Independent Counsel contacted the agencies to ask them for a copy of
my files or litigation records. What is crazy about such requests?
All the government had to do is to search their FOIA files for their
internal processing and search records, their litigation and their
subpoena files. I did not ask the government for UFO records or
something out of this world.
61. Smith e-mailed me that Ferroggiaro said that I am an example that
the system works. He must have been joking, because I am the example
that the system does not work. I did not get the records and the
government conspired against me with criminally fabricated fees to use
my indigency to deny records to me.
62. Smith e-mailed me that Ferroggiaro said that I acted properly
within the constraint of the law and could using it if the outstanding
fees were paid. But what he didn't say and what the Tribune didn't
print is, that the government acted unlawfully even criminally by
making up fees behind my back and without my consent to deny FOIA
processing to me. Smith knew that the fees were a fraud and he did
deliberately not contact the VA to get more evidence hereto. He rather
concealed the fraud and defamed me in his front page article. Why
should I pay fraudulent fees? It's also rotten and criminal to tell an
impecunious person, she shall pay hundreds of Dollars of fees, by
knowing the person doesn't have the money. According to my intuition,
there were offers to the government, likely by the attorney of Mark
Rathbun (de Rothschild) or others to pay the fees for me, but I think
that the government deliberately misinformed them, that the fees would
not exist, so that they can't be paid and the government can go on
campaigning against me.
63. In this May 8, 2003 e-mail, which Smith withheld in his affidavit
to the court, he continued to tell me that he also spoke to Daniel
Metcalfe from the DOJ, Office of Information and Privacy (OIP).
Metcalfe lied, that I would have agreed to the VA-fees. I provided the
VA, the OIP, and all agencies that wrote to me, that they would not
process my FOIA requests or appeals anymore because of the VA-fees,
with an affidavit and a request for investigation and explained the
background of the fraudulent fees. I told Smith during the interview
that the VA has no consent letter to show that says that they were
allowed to incur any fees, or that I would agree to pay any fees.
Smith, who lied to me that he is investigative reporter, did not pull
the strings. I also told and e-mailed Smith that the VA never provided
any declaration that the fees are no fraud, because they know they are
a fraud. Smith knew the fees are a fraud and that I was not treated
equally with others or lawfully, but he certainly concealed that to
the readers of the Tribune.
64. In the May 8, 2003 e-mail, Smith mentioned Professor Robert
Goldberg from the University of Utah, who confirmed that the
government has secrets, 33 million classified documents last year. But
Smith did not inform me what else Goldberg said about me. Those
remarks, I read first time in the article, and they are a completely
defamation of my character and state of mind. I don't know if Goldberg
came up with that by himself, or if Smith provided him with crazy
ideas about me, all I know is that the article is maliciously
defamatory. The Tribune should have never repeated those remarks in
the article.
65. Smith closed his May 8, 2003 article with the sentence: "It was
funny, but the first thing one official in the federal government said
when I began calling asking about your case was: "Can I ask how you
came to find out about Ms. Schwarz?" I had to laugh. (See the Smith
e-mail of May 8, 2003, attached as exhibit S.) I sure wonder what was
so funny. Probably his idea to smear me in a front page article of the
biggest newspaper in my home state. He should have included in the
article that the government wants to keep their violations against my
rights to be a secret, otherwise the official would not have asked
that question. Smith knew that government had dirty hands and tried to
conceal their activities, and he certainly helped them by twisting the
facts and made them look so perfect and innocent and me guilty and
crazy.
66. On May 8, 2003, I e-mailed to Smith and explained to him that
Ferroggiaro is to quick to judge that the records that I requested did
not exist. I referred again to the Bin Laden records that I requested
in October 2000, which did exist. I informed Smith again that the fees
that the VA made up were a fraud and that I overwhelmingly asked for
records on Mark Rathbun, internal search and processing records that
were generated during the first FOIA/PA search, and litigation
records. Those records definitely exist within the FOIA, legal files
and probably also executive office files of the agencies. (See exhibit
T, attached to my affidavit, my e-mail of May 8, 2003 to Smith.)
67. On May 9, I was still operating under the false impression that
Smith would really investigate and research my case, which he did not.
In my May 9, 2003 e-mail, which Smith did not attach to his affidavit,
I informed him about that many agencies had my FOIA/PA requests
pending for years, before anybody ever spoke about alleged fees, that
the agencies just waited for something to come along to assist them to
not having to process my requests at all. That "assistance" was the
fraudulent and criminally fabricated fees. I informed Smith again
that the OIP works with Mafia methods to deny FOIA processing and
records to me.
68. I also informed Smith about the de Rothschild family and he
concealed their name completely in his article, which is odd. I
furthermore informed him in the May 9 e-mail that I received contrary
information from the NARA, the Information and Security Oversight
Office about classification. Only a few years ago, I was informed in
an affidavit that they don't classify many documents, which would be
contrary to the claims of Professor Goldberg. I furthermore informed
Smith in that e-mail that Utah Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Sorenson
made rumors up about what I said about family de Rothschild. Smith
twisted that even more around in his article and made "hidden
fortunes" and "faked death" out of data he arbitrarily twisted and
threw in his very badly and completely unprofessional researched
article. Smith received my May 9, 2003 e-mail, and I gave another
hardcopy for him to the photographer on same day. (See exhibit U
attached to my affidavit, my e-mail of May 9, 2003 to Smith.)
69. My May 10, 2003 e-mail is attached to the Smith declaration.
Amongst other data I informed Smith that Egan took many photos. (See
copy of my e-mail of May 10, 2003 attached to my affidavit as exhibit
V.)
70. On May 11, 2003, Sunday and Mothersday, the Salt Lake Tribune
published the article in a rush on the front page. The article about
that a Third District Court clerk was probed by the FBI run in the
same issue, but did not make the front page. Abusing my image in a
malicious article meant more to the Tribune than putting the criminal
activities of a court clerk on the front page. (See exhibit B, the
article attached to my affidavit.)
71. On May 12, 2003, Smith e-mailed me again. It was odd, because he
apparently tried to stay friend with me despite the malicious article
that he wrote. However, it can be easily explained. Smith knew that I
wasn't the abusing and nutty person that he described. He just hoped I
would overlook the malicious article, the falsehoods and the hostility
and would enjoy "the fame." (See his e-mail of May 12, 2003 attached
as exhibit W.)
72. On May 12, 2003, I e-mailed to 44 Salt Lake Tribune e-mail
addresses a demand for correction and asked them to return all the
photos and negatives to me. That e-mail was mailed for Publisher Dean
Singleton, to Editors Nancy Conway, Bill Long, Vern Anderson, Tim
Fitzpatrick, Lori Post, Christopher Smith, Rick Egan and several other
Tribune reporters and employees. I also delivered a hard copy on same
day to Tribune employee Lea, who told me she will hand it to Bill Long
same day. The Tribune ignored that request completely. They did not
print any correction, not even a letter to the editor and did not
return the photos or the negatives. I indicated in that letter that I
consider suing them. They did not care and provoked this litigation.
73. Counsel of defendants claimed in his rambling and with false
information overloaded memoranda, that my complaint was disjointed. It
wasn't. The article by Smith is disjointed and badly written. I used
his article, going through it step by step, while writing my
complaint. He should blame Smith and not me.
74. Counsel O'Brien claimed falsely that it would not be clear what
exactly would be not true in the article. Of course he knows what
exactly the falsehoods are, as I explained it already in my complaint
and the supplemental complaint that I filed in this case so far.
However, here again what's so terribly wrong in the Salt Lake Tribune
article: the article is false in sting and gist.
75. The headline is also completely false. The headline "S.L. Woman's
Quest strains public records system" is completely wrong and
misleading. Other people filed more FOIA requests than I did. Smith
e-mailed me not just once, that federal employees don't like to work.
They were not overloaded with work, but they are lazy and corrupt.
They waste taxpayers money by not doing what they are supposed to do.
They denied to me processing of FOIA/PA requests in September 2001,
which means, that if I ever overloaded the system (which I didn't), it
was not longer true in May 2003. Smith knew that he was two years late
in reporting about the story, so he misled the readers and made
socalled ancient history in newspaper business to present time events.
76. I did not "carpetbomb" every federal department and agency for
more than a decade with thousands of requests for public records the
government says don't exist. I filed only a few FOIA/PA requests
before 1997. That statement is also false. It is also defamatory
statement and should insult me furthermore of being a terrorist.
77. I did not count my requests, but I think I filed only a couple of
hundred requests. Many of my FOIA/PA requests were illegally not
logged in as such and not processed by the federal workers. The
requests that were logged in and processed were just a few hundred. M.
is a FOIA insider. He is also called "a serious student of the FOIA".
According to my information, he is a reporter, holds a Bachelor degree
from Cornell University and a law decree from William Mitchell College
of Law. He has written extensively on FOIA and Declassification Policy
issues. He thinks he is the person that filed most FOIA requests,
because unlike Smith, he seems having ordered the logs from the
agencies and saw that most FOIA requests were filed by him or other
reporters. The Tribune statement that I filed thousands of FOIA
requests is wrong. The statement that I filed most FOIA requests is
also wrong according to reporter M, who thinks that he filed most. I
believe that M., who worked for American Lawyer Media, sent an e-mail
to Smith informing him about that he filed most FOIA requests, second
ranked may be William Burr at the National Security Archive and also
Bill Bastone and David Green at the Smoking Gun website and William P.
Barrett, reporter of Forbes magazine. He sent me a copy of that
e-mail. (See e-mail from M. to me, dated May 30, 2003, attached as
exhibit Y2) Despite that Smith apparently received this e-mail, he did
not write any correction of his article of May 11, 2003. Amongst other
data, that are not important in this case, reporter M. guessed that
Smith probably never filed a FOIA request himself. He wrote that the
agencies engage in disingenuous cat and mouse games with requesters,
lying, cheating and just plain being grossly uncooperative with people
who ask for records. I told Smith about reporter M. and his thousands
of FOIA requests. I referred Smith to M.'s website. He should have
contacted this reporter for his experience with the agencies, but
Smith did not, he rather wrote an article that is wrong in sting and
gist. Smith also should have reviewed the FOIA logs of the agencies
himself and would have found that M., but also other likely other
reporters filed many many more requests than I did.
78. Smith should have explained to the Tribune readers that the
government is maybe claiming that the records don't exist, but that he
himself believes that they, or some of them, indeed exist. Once
again, I asked mainly for copies of their internal processing and
search records, my litigation records, records about Bin Laden,
President Eisenhower, Mark Rathbun (de Rothschild) and his family, L.
Ron Hubbard, Scientology, subpoenas, etc. The claim, that I mainly
requested records that don't exist, is false.
79. Smith claimed that I have no legal training. That is not correct
either. I have no official legal training, but I trained myself by
reading laws and court rules. I also told Smith during the Interview,
and e-mailed him, that I was the President of the Church of
Scientology Germany, and before worked in the press office of the
Church of Scientology and also otherwise held executive positions in
European and International Scientology organizations. I received
public relations and legal training in those organizations. It was
malicious by Smith to misinform the readers about "no legal training".
They should view me as dummy that files unqualified papers and bothers
the government with it. People should get angry over me. In the
interview, Smith complimented me on my sharp mind, excellent memory
capacity and told me I should become an attorney. He certainly left
that out of the article. The claim, that I have no legal training at
all, is false too and statement was made to degrade and humiliate me
and misinform about me in public.
80. I did not stretch FOIA to its limits, because other people filed
so many more requests as I did. They filed thousands and I just
hundreds, and furthermore, as Smith himself wrote, the federal
employees don't like to work. They delayed my requests most of the
time and avoided processing my requests long before the unpaid fee
issue came up. The claim, that I stretched the FOIA system to its
limits, is a lie.
81. Smith wrongfully made the submarine village, a place that I recall
having the name Chattanooga, to the center of my FOIA requests, which
is another lie. It is false in sting and gist, because I requested
mainly internal search records, subpoena and litigation records. The
claim that I mainly asked for my hometown records, is false.
82. I never claimed that the submarine was a governmental owned. I
always wrote and said that I recall it was a privately owned sub. The
claim, that the submarine village is governmental owned, is another
false report.
83. I never said or wrote to anybody that I am illegally in the USA.
The claim that I am illegally in the USA is false, because everyone
born in the USA, as I am, is a United States citizen.
84. I never claimed indigency to avoid paying court fees. I am
indigent, and Smith and the photographer, who came to my apartment
know that. They describe my "austere" apartment in the same article.
If I would have money, it wouldn't be that "austere". Smith also knew
that I have no job and no car. I also provided affidavits to the
courts explaining my indigency. I claim indigency, because I am
impecunious. The claim, that I would claim indigency to avoid having
to file court fees, is another nasty lie by the Tribune.
85. I am not a slightly build woman. I am a normally sized build
woman. The statement that I am a slightly build woman is false.
86. The derogatory statement by the Tribune that a federal employee
called me a "FOIA terrorist" is misleading, and outrageously
malicious, defamatory and insulting. This kind of insult is not
covered by free speech, which is libel. Question is also why those
people that filed so many more FOIA requests than I did were not
defamed as "terrorists".
87. I told Smith during the interview, that only one employee of the
EPA asked others if they have been "schwarzed" and Smith blew that out
of proportions for his yellow journalistic article. My letters to the
EPA were also not "unending". The statement by Smith that more than
one employee used the verb "schwarzed" is false, and so is his
statement that I sent unending request letters.
88. Tribune concealed in the article that I am not the person that
filed most pro se civil cases the courts, but they made it certainly
look like that. The person that filed most civil cases is a man with
name Clovis Green and according to my information, he filed
approximately 700 cases to courts. I am also convinced that there are
other litigants that filed many more cases than I did. It raises
eyebrows when others may file 700 law suits and are not restricted, or
not sooner restricted filing those, and I was restricted in my
constitutional rights asking courts for relief by filing a lot less.
That doesn't sound like equal justice to me. Tribune portrayed me as
prolific filer of lawsuits without reporting that others filed so many
more. The Tribune claimed that at least one of my lawsuits were
considered by a U.S. District Court or a U.S. Circuit court somewhere
in the nation every year since 1993. Fact is - one is not many. The
courts also did not "consider" my cases, they just looked for
justifications to illegally throw them out.
89. The Tribune cited U.S. District Court judge John Bates having
claimed that I would be a "misguided individual" that files requests
to every agency or subdivision on "imaginary conspiracy". Smith knew
that he is one of the judges who don't know that the U.S. Departments
of the government are called just that and not U.S. Depots, and he
signed an order/judgment that shows that this man is everything else
than a professional or impartial judge. I pointed that out to Smith,
and also that the court worked with outrageous illegal activities
denying access to the court to me. For example, the chief judge Thomas
Hogan allowed me to proceed in forma pauperis while I had a bit more
money, but said my complaint would be too long and not permitted by
the court rules. After I corrected that and filed smaller complaints,
other judges on the same court suddenlydid not allow me anymore to
proceed in forma pauperis with the case, despite that I had less money
than when Hogan granted the in forma pauperis status to me. If that
happens to you, you can claim rightfully that there is a conspiracy,
and the conspiracy is not imaginary. Smith failed completely to report
facts and my side of the legal story and misled the readers.
90. The Tribune article mentioned that two federal courts have ruled
that my requests are frivolous and a waste of governmental resources.
Smith knew that the agencies, the lazy federal workers denied my
rights and conspired against me with fraudulent fees and that me
filing lawsuits against them was not frivolous and no waste of
government resources. He also knew that the courts did not hear me and
never investigated the facts, the merits of the case. He furthermore
knew that the orders/judgments that the U.S. District of Columbia
issued on my cases were absolutely unprofessional, as if those
judgments/orders were not written by American judges. The judges
referred to the defendants, the U.S. Departments as "Depots", and
there is no such a thing in the U.S. government as a U.S. Depot of
Energy, a U.S. Depot of Transportation, a U.S. Depot of Agriculture,
etc. Smith knew of the unconstitutionality and unprofessionalism of
the judges and did not mention that in his article to mislead the
readers. During the interview, I referred Smith to the non-profit
group "A matter of Justice", who tries to hold esp. federal judges
accountable for their actions of unconstitutionally mistreating people
that seek justice from the courts. Smith failed to contact them,
because he did not want to hear about the sad statistics of abuse of
power by federal judges. This group has contacted me a couple of
times, because they looked in my cases. They also published following
information this month: "Hofstra Law Professor Monroe Freedman said
this recently to a conference of federal judges: ‘Frankly, I have had
more than enough judicial opinions that bear no relationship
whatsoever to the cases that have been filed and argued before the
judges. I am talking about judicial opinions that make the
disingenuous use or omission of material authorities, judicial opinion
that cover up things with no publication and no citations rules.'
Afterwards when Professor Freedman sat down, a judge sitting next to
him turning to him and said: ‘You don't know half of it.'(Suggesting
even more serious implication than the alleged statement by Professor
Freedman.)" If Smith would be a fair and investigative reporter, as he
had claimed to me he would be, he would have found that the judges in
my cases made the same with my cases, and that they also did to me
what the one federal judge was suggesting to Professor Freedman, which
is, according to my own experience, conspiring with federal defendants
to get rid of cases with unconstitutional and unlawful means. If
Smith would have pulled strings, he could have discovered that the
House Republicans, led by Lamar Smith of Texas, were working to set up
a new task force to scour the output of federal judges for evidence of
what the Republicans call "judicial abuse." The dismissal of my cases
was judicial abuse, and the Tribune concealed that from the readers.
91. I did not claim that Marty Rathbun, my husband, is wrongfully
incarcerated for my own murder. This is another false statement by the
Tribune. I claimed and still claim that he is wrongfully accused
(framed) of having abused, raped and murdered me, but that he was
wrongfully arrested on November 21, 1988, in Madrid, Spain, on false
charges having transferred high amounts of Spanish money to the USA
while being employed by the Church of Scientology. Those are two
different matters, and Smith packed it in one to misinform the readers
outrageously. The claim, that I have stated claimed that Marty Rathbun
is imprisoned for my own murder, is false.
92. The Tribune misled the readers with the report that "this plot can
be recited almost chapter and verse by a legion of civil servants and
judges who have dutifully waded through pages of her screeds." This
can't be true, because I did not claim that, but I claimed what I
wrote in forgoing paragraphs of this affidavit. It would have been
better if Smith had made his homework for the article dutiful, which
he didn't. Not one agency has information from me in their files that
Mark Rathbun is imprisoned of my murder. He is imprisoned on other,
but also false charges, however, according to my intuition also
accused (framed) of having harmed, raped and murdered me, but not
convicted on these fabricated crimes.
93. Smith concealed that I asked the governmental agencies if the
attorney of Mark Rathbun (de Rothschild) or an Independent Counsel
subpoenaed my FOIA or litigation records from the agencies. I believe
that this is the fact, and Smith knew about it and deliberately did
not mention that in the article, rather filled the article with
malicious falsehoods.
94. Smith deliberately withheld which of the White House
administration received the many letters from me, because the Tribune
was years late with reporting about the matter. It was the Clinton
White House administration, but I did not claim to President Clinton
or to any other U.S. President that Mark Rathbun is falsely imprisoned
for my own murder. I wrote to them what I stated under foregoing
paragraphs of this affidavit. The statement by the Tribune "And she
has written hundreds of letters to the White House, demanding to know
the whereabouts of a husband she contends was falsely imprisoned for
her own murder", is misleading and partly false.
95. I also made clear to Smith that I think that Mark Rathbun is still
falsely imprisoned.
96. Smith failed to report in this article that DOJ, Office of
Information and Privacy, starting a nationwide campaign against me for
outstanding fees of $ 16,80, to which I never gave my consent to be
incurred, is an outrageous waste of governmental money.
97. Smith wrote that I incurred search and copy charges. I did not,
and I told and wrote to him that many times. I am indigent. I never
tell somebody to incur fees for me, because I can't pay them. The
statement, that I have outstanding search and copy charges that I
incurred from various federal agencies, is false.
98. Smith wrote that the DOJ claims I am not treated differently than
others, but in private, Smith told and e-mailed me that he believes, I
am treated differently. He did not cite the one or two other
requesters that were allegedly treated as I was, so that nobody can
check if that is really true and what the difference was between them
and I. The claim, that I am not treated differently than other
requesters, is false. I am treated a lot more lawless than other
requesters. I also refer again to M. and the other requesters that
filed thousands of requests, but definitely more than I. According to
my knowledge the government did not launch such a fee campaign against
them under same or similar circumstances. Smith failed to provide
evidence in this article, that others were treated just like me.
99. Smith cited Daniel Metcalfe, co-director of the DOJ, Office of
Information and Privacy, claiming that there was a commitment to pay
and that I am in default, but Smith knew that I never gave any agency
any authority, any agreement, any consent to incur fees for me. Filing
a FOIA request means that the first two hours search time and the
first 100 pages documents are free. If the agency has more documents
or hasn't completed the search, it has to provide the requester with
an estimate of costs, how much she has to pay and has to wait till the
requester mails a written consent form to them, authorizing the agency
to incur the amount. The DOJ, OIP, Metcalfe, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and Smith knew that I never received such an
estimate from the VA, that they never informed me they want to incur
fees. They knew I never authorized the VA to incur any fees, I was
completely surprised when they asked me to pay 303,30 Dollars, and
those are no search fees and no copy fees, but the study time of my
file by a student. It says nowhere under the FOIA that a FOIA
requester has to pay students for their study time of files. It was
irresponsibly by Smith to just throw the fee issue in his article, but
not to contact the VA to see how the fees came about to be and not to
write that the DOJ plotted with the VA to deny my rights for FOIA
records with the fraudulent fees.
100. I don't doubt that my litigation against the agencies created an
interagency focus, as Smith cited Metcalfe, but the Tribune failed to
mention that my litigation was provoked by the agencies and justified.
Most of the agencies referred me to the courts for review, and my
guess is that they know that corrupt judges will cover for them and
let them come away with their violation of federal laws and the U.S.
Constitution.
101. The Tribune wrote that the DOJ, OIP, can legally deny me my
requests for records. That is false too, because he knew that the fees
are a fraud, and OIP can not legally deny processing my FOIA/PA
requests and appeals based on fraudulent fees.
102. Smith wrote: "But Schwarz is not giving up. She says she can't.
Every boilerplate rejection letter from the federal government only
widens the circle of suspicion that spawns more requests. And until
she knows the answers, she says she is incapable of moving on with her
life." I did not say that. Smith cited me out of context. It was
another false report. Smith knew that I had to give up asking the
federal government for records, because they simply did not process
them anymore since they came up with the illegal fee campaign in
September 2001. He lied by writing that every boilerplate rejection
letter from the federal government would spawn more requests. He knew
that I had to give up filing requests. He was two years late reporting
about that. I did not tell Smith that I can't move on with my life. I
don't use that expression, because it's a stupid one. No matter what a
person does or doesn't do in her life, life goes on.
103. Smith cited me like an incoherent idiot, to make that fit in his
malicious article. The Tribune printed, that I should have said: "I
have no money for this but I am forced to do it because the purpose of
the law is to reveal, not conceal and government should be
transparent." This sentence makes no sense and I don't talk that
incoherent. Smith cited me deliberately incoherent to defame me as an
idiot. If one wants to know how I express myself, read this affidavit,
which is my style, not fractions of sentences put together that make
no sense at all.
104. The Tribune mentioned a memo issued by the Office of Information
and Privacy in September 2001, saying that my quest would be "all
based on unique personal notions that, most charitably stated, are
entirely fanciful in nature." Smith never showed me the memo, but he
should have, to get my input. Smith knew that the government has to be
face value neutral, to the content of FOIA requests, and he did not
write in his article that the OIP violated that with their memo. Smith
also knew that the agencies had internal search and processing
records, records on my litigation, records on Mark Rathbun, L. Ron
Hubbard, former President Eisenhower, Scientology, records on Bin
Laden, and in all likelihood the subpoenas, and that those records
were not fanciful nor crazy in nature. Smith knew that the government
just did not want me to have the records, and that is the reason why
they wrote the memo and stated nationwide campaigns against me.
105. Smith wrote that I believe that I am born in 1956. That is a
false report too. I know I am born in 1955.
106. Smith wrote that I believe that I am born in a secretive
government compound "submarine base" called Chattanooga on the Great
Salt Lake. That is also a deliberate false statement by the Tribune. I
never stated anywhere that the submarine village, whose name I recall
as "Chattanooga", is a governmental compound. Smith concealed that I
told and wrote to him that the village is owned by family Rathbun/de
Rothschild and is privately owned. I also never claimed that it is on
the Great Salt Lake, but rather in the Great Salt Lake, on the ground
of the lake.
107. Smith picked deliberately information of my personal life,
twisted it and threw it out of context in his malicious article. I was
not officially kidnapped by Nazis after 1955 – 1960, but by a private
German woman, who was supported by people that still were secretly
Nazis. The Tribune recited a list belonging to my life story, e.g.
mind control, conspiracy, insane asylums, cover-ups, and microchips
implanted in unsuspecting people's head, which made no sense and was
not helpful for the reader. The Tribune just tried to confuse the
readers. They never had my authority to put that in the article, esp.
not out of context. The Tribune wanted the readers to think that I am
crazy, while Smith knew that I am not. The Tribune violated my privacy
by publishing such a list to approximately 150.000 households in my
home state and on-line, and they failed to explain to the readers what
my real life story is.
108. The Tribune mentioned "hidden fortunes" and "faked death" being a
part of my life story, which is not true either. I don't know of any
hidden fortunes, and nobody who I know ever faked a death, and neither
did I.
109. The Tribune wrote: "Besides constantly referencing the tale in
her FOIA requests and court filings, Schwarz has posted it in more
than 80 parts on the web newsgroup alt.religion.scientology." It is
another false report by Smith that I would cite his foregoing list,
which he claims to be my life story, constantly in my FOIA requests
and court filings. I claimed mainly to the agencies and the courts
that I don't get the internal search records, their e-mail, logs,
memoranda, work sheets, notes, fax transmittal sheets that they
generated during the first searches, that they don't provide me with
the litigation records that they also have, that they don't conduct
adequate searches to subpoenas received, etc., and that is also what I
mainly claimed to the courts. Smith referred the approximately 150.000
households that read the Sunday issue to above mentioned web
newsgroup. This was an outrageous violation by Smith and the Tribune,
because that newsgroup has my private address including the apartment
number published in headlines and refused to take it down, despite
that I demanded it. The referral to this newsgroup is not only very
tasteless by the Tribune, because Smith knows that the majority of
people posting there are very lawless and insulting, it as if he would
have published my home address and my apartment number directly in the
article. All what the Tribune readers and also those readers on-line
have to do is: log in to the newsgroup, type my name in, and they know
my home address! (See exhibit Z2 attached hardcopies of newsgroup
headlines under my name.)
110. Many of the other people that post on this website have a
criminal history, as described on the "Extremist-pages" of the
www.religiousfreedomwatch.org. (See exhibit Z1 attached.) It is
incomprehensible, that a newspaper, that claims having conservative
readers, refers their leaders to a criminal snake pit as this
newsgroup for information about my private life. It's reckless, it's
malicious. Tribune attorney O'Brien misinformed the court that this
group is a Scientology newsgroup. It is not. It is an anti-Scientology
newsgroup.
111. The Tribune wrote that I should have said: "This is when people
say, ‘You're crazy', she says. Once again, the Tribune cited me
incoherent and out of context. I don't talk like Smith cited me. I am
very good in expressing myself and I did not make statements like
that, which makes no sense at all.
112. Smith lied in the article: "That includes her belief she was once
married to a man named Mark Rathbun…" I told and wrote crystal clear
to Smith that we never got divorced, which means that Mark Rathbun (de
Rothschild) and I are still married. I told and wrote to Smith that
the Scientology organizations are infiltrated by non-Scientologists,
which also outed me. I made clear to him that when he calls them that
he might be lied to by such an infiltrator. From our talk and
correspondence it should have been clear to Smith that he should try
to reach Mark Rathbun (de Rothschild) himself, or, if that is not
possible, because he is wrongfully incarcerated, that he should
contact the President of Scientology International, Heber Jentzsch,
who is originally from Utah. Smith deliberately contacted only Linda
Simmons Hight, an infiltrator, who misinformed that they would be
clueless about me and that I am delusional (a psychiatric word that
Scientologists don't use) about Mark Rathbun and would need help (in
other words, of course psychiatric help, which is also one of the
worst violations of the Scientology belief and the psychiatric free
lifestyle of Scientologists).
113. The Tribune, Smith and Simmons Hight concealed that I was the
President of the German Scientology organization and held also high
executive position in the European Scientology Org and was one of the
three board members of pretty much all of the international
Scientology financial reserve accounts. Smith failed to do the most
logical thing, trying to get hold of Mark Rathbun for his input, or
alternatively, because Mark Rathbun can't be found as wrongfully
incarcerated, to ask a real Scientologist as Mr. Jentzsch, for his
opinion.
114. Simmons Height is also "not sorry" for me. She did not contact me
to offer any help, and the only help that I need from her or anybody
else, is the truth about Mark Rathbun's whereabouts.
115. The Tribune wrote: "When Schwarz is shown a recent photo of
Rathbun from the church, she maintains it is not the same man that she
asked the federal government to help her locate." This is another
outrageous lie by Smith. Neither he nor the church or anybody else
showed me a recent photo of Mark Rathbun. I told Smith crystal clear
in the interview that there is a recent photo of Mark Rathbun on the
official website of the Church of Scientology, and that this is the
real Mark Rathbun, but that I nevertheless believe that he is
wrongfully incarcerated. That Tribune statement is so mean, because it
was made to alienate us. If Marty reads the article, he should think
that it is not him, who I want back.
116. Smith wrote me in his e-mail only little of what Professor
Goldberg said about me, and after I read the article, I know why,
because either Smith misinformed Goldberg about my state of mind, or
Goldberg, who never saw me, never talked to me, never corresponded
with me, made sort of psychiatric or psychological evaluations of my
state of mind, which is very unprofessional. His evaluations are
false, and if the Tribune would be a smarter paper and Smith a better
reporter, he would have not used those statements. The statement that
I have "manifestations" is wrong. I have opinions like other people
too, but I am not fixed on them. If somebody shows me crystal clear
facts that things are different, I see and accept them, but those must
be facts and not just lies by criminal people that try to mislead me.
117. Smith cited Goldberg saying: "So when the federal government says
you have everything we have on this subject and there's nothing, that
only feeds more fuel to the fire in her soul." Fact is, if the
government would have truthfully stated that they don't have more
records to my request, it would not feed more fuel to the fire in my
soul. However, I have the evidence that the agencies withheld
internal communication records and litigation records from me. I also
don't have a fire burning inside me as far as agencies are concerned.
I am not fired up on them, I just notice their outrageous violations
of my rights, but Smith knows that despite all of that, I am calm and
emotionally balanced.
118. The Tribune cited William Ferroggiaro, director of Freedom of
Information Project of National Security Archive at George Washington
University and President of the American Society of Access
Professionals. He properly stated that I am using the law as it was
intended, but the Tribune added that he stated: "…even if her efforts
cannot be characterized as bizarre." The Tribune should have seen that
this statement is contradictory, because when I use the law as
intended, my efforts are not bizarre. The Tribune should have not used
such a contradictory statement, because it makes not only me, but also
Mr. Ferroggiaro look unintelligent.
119. Smith wrote in the article that I tried unsuccessfully for years
to adjust my status with the Immigration and Naturalization Service
before giving up. That statement is not correct either. Smith made it
up. I told him that I am born in the USA. U.S. citizens don't need the
INS. I told Smith during the interview that the INS wrote to me that
they consider me to be a U.S. citizen. I tried to obtain records from
the INS on me, but I did not fight the INS differently than any other
agency of which I believe had not handled my FOIA requests adequately.
I also told Smith that the INS mailed me citizen papers, but that
those belong to an immigrant Barbara Schwarz, and that is not me.
120. Smith wrote that I would have said that I have a German birth
certificate, but it was doctored to conceal that I was actually born
in Utah. He concealed that I said that the German authorities knew
that I was born in Utah, that is why they left the most important
information in a birth certificate out, the place and the country in
which I was born. I told him crystal clear that according to this
"birth certificate", I AM NOT BORN IN GERMANY, and I would have shown
it to him, if he would have said he wants to see it. It was not
doctored, it was issued in that suspicious form by the German
government.
121. During the statement, Smith made a remark out of the blue, that
he hopes that I am not being murdered. I did not mean the INS, when I
replied: "They could probably arrest me or throw me out of the country
for filing FOIA requests, but I am not easily scared." I meant a set
up, by those of which Smith knew, want to murder me. And he certainly
has a way to help a woman that might be murdered by writing a
malicious article about her that invites people to hate and probably
even murder her. He certainly showed them the way directly to my
apartment. Smith used that statement of mine completely out of
context.
122. Smith misinformed the readers of the Tribune also with following:
"Although Schwarz always requests that the standard fees for searching
and copying records be deferred because she is poor and the request is
in public interest, a federal judge in the nation's capital ruled in
2001 that she didn't deserve a fee waiver because her disclosure would
not "contribute significantly to public understanding of the
operations or activities of the government." The Tribune did not make
their homework once again. FOIA statutes grant any requester, rich or
poor, two hours free search time and 100 pages free records. What
Smith did not report is that agencies often did not grant those two
free hours and 100 pages free records to me and violated the FOIA
statutes and my rights. – However, if an agency has more records than
100 pages and the employees have to conduct longer searches, a
requester may ask for a fee waiver, which is very often granted to
requesters, unless, the requester is I, Barbara Schwarz, and the
records requested show how corrupt the agencies are in concealing
records or not wanting to search them in the first place. The judge
was completely wrong with his ruling that disclosure of the internal
processing records that I requested, would not "contribute
significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities
of the government."
123. Very strange is that Smith did not cite the judge with a name and
that he would not cite more details, e.g. case name and number that
readers can verify his statement. That probably was because the order
of the judge was also otherwise completely unprofessional, and just as
that from judge Bates of the same court, cited the U.S. Departments as
"U.S. Depots." I refer again to the earlier paragraphs in this
affidavit in which I cited Professor Freedman's statement about
corruptions by federal judges and to that the GOP, the House
Republicans have set up task force to investigate federal judicial
abuses. - "A matter of Justice" posted recently "From the Supreme
Court on down, America's judiciary, once representing the hope of
justice, equally under the law and protection of the innocent, has
largely become just the opposite – protector of the corrupt and
destroyer of the Constitution, according to the no-holds-barred August
2003 edition of WorldNetDaily's popular Whistleblower magazine." It
says that Americans fear attorneys and judges more than terrorists.
124. The Tribune reported that upon that court decision, the DOJ
"began tracking her outstanding FOIA bills and using those debts to
disqualify further requests, beginning with a $ 16,80 balance due to
the Salt Lake field office of the FBI. However, the legal judgment,
which Smith cited, without making any specific reference, did not
state that the government is allowed to fabricate fees behind my back
and use them against me. But as the courts conspire with the
defendants and as the courts denied access to the courts using also my
poverty, the agencies think they will come away with it. Smith knew
about the outrageous injustice and has concealed it from the readers.
He wrote in the article "To her it is all a part of the conspiracy."
Heck, what else should it be than a conspiracy when the government
criminally fabricates fees without my knowledge or consent and almost
all agencies participate in that campaign denying FOIA processing and
records to me?
125. The Tribune should have not printed the remarks of Goldberg, who
allegedly said: "This circle is never going to close. Perhaps having
this cause and mission gives her a will to live." What lie did Smith
tell him about me? That I am suicidal? This statement is completely
contrary to my own statement at the end of the article, a statement
that I indeed made, that I am an optimist. And why does this circle
never close? It closed already in September 2001, when the agencies
decided to fabricate fraudulent fees to use my indigency to deny
records to me! Once more, the Tribune lied to their readers that I
still would "overload" the FOIA system, despite that I never
overloaded it in the first time. From my experience, most of the
agencies had no backlog at all processing FOIA/PA requests, and were
not overloaded by anybody with requests.
126. At the end, the Tribune wrote: "But Schwarz says being labeled a
kook or an ‘FOIA terrorist' is not how she had hoped to find fame."
This also did not belong in the article, because I made also clear to
Smith that I don't listen nor consider the judgments of primitive,
lawless people that made such outrageous false statements about me.
Both are malicious and insulting false statements, and if the Tribune
would be a professional paper, it never would have printed those.
However, as a sum, the Tribune article of May 11, 2003 is false in
sting and gist, and also the headline is false in sting and gist. It
contains numerous malicious falsehoods, libel and false citations, it
violates my privacy outrageously, it is misleading, conceals facts, it
is defamatory, harassing and degrading. The article is badly
researched. It is written unprofessionally and disjointed in a yellow
journalistic style, to attract more readers, the primitive kind.
127. The Tribune, Smith had promised me to write an article about how
the decisions on my cases were used by the agencies to deny other
people their rights, including the rights of the members of the free
press. The Tribune, all involved reporters and editors, the
defendants, apparently don't care for the rights of other people and
turned also out to be traitors towards their colleagues, other
reporters. On May 27, 2003, I received e-mail from reporter M. He
informed me that DOJ, DOD and TSA have cancelled all of his pending
FOIA requests. (See exhibit Y, his e-mail of May 27, 2003 to me.)
128. On May 29, 2003, M. provided more information. He wrote to me:
"The agencies cancelled all of my pending requests (about a dozen at
DOD, about a dozen at DOJ, and a half a dozen at TSA) after my boss
asked them to transfer the requests to me personally because I would
not be employed at American Lawyer Media after this month. When a
request is cancelled, I simply have posted it for other reporters to
use themselves. So instead of one request, they get 10. – I don't like
going to federal court because it is usually not friendly territory –
the judges are not knowledgeable about FOIA practices and procedures.
(See copy of this e-mail to me of May 29, 2003, attached as exhibit
Y1)
129. On June 2, 2003, M. mailed me two more e-mails. In one he
explained to me what kind of records he requested. He wrote: "In some
cases, I wanted to see what techniques are being used against the
requesters and how and why agencies were declining to do what they are
supposed to do. At some point, I want to write an article about how
FOIA Offices use improper tactics to avoid processing requests, and
how agencies undertake illegal methods of denying records." (That was
sort of the article that Smith promised me to write before he turned
against me for no reason.)
130. M. continued to write to me: "I believe that the agencies have
done such things in your case. – I asked for such paperwork in many
cases, for a variety of people and organizations. Often such material
leads to an interesting news story. – In other cases, I can see where
an agency has lied to a requester, or worded a request in such a way
that they are literally telling the truth, but not the whole truth,
and through their misleading wording, the person is likely to drop the
matter, even though the agency probably has responsive records. – Or
in some cases, agencies charged excessive fees and shouldn't have, but
the person dropped the request. In a few cases, I may have dropped the
person a note and let them know they were screwed over and how." (See
e-mail of M. of June 2, 2002, attached to my affidavit as exhibit Y2)
There you have it, written by that reporter who most likely is the
person that filed most FOIA requests in history and has lots of the
experiences with the agencies, a person that the Tribune failed to
contact on "agency ethics", despite that I told Smith about him.
131. In the other June 2, 2003 e-mail, M. informed me that he was
informed (by apparently a colleague) that OIP Co-Director Metcalfe
spoke about me and the Tribune article during the ASAP conference at
length (5-10 minutes). (See e-mail from M. of June 2, 2003, attached
as exhibit Y4.) The Tribune, Smith certainly must have done Metcalfe a
huge favor with that article. My suspicion is that Smith tries to
advance his personal career on my costs in Washington by writing that
unbelievable one-sided article that covers up the outrageous
wrongdoing by federal employees and corrupt co-conspiring courts.
132. Otherwise, Counsel O'Brien attached a list of my legal cases as
his exhibit A. The list is disjointed and the cases are not listed in
any sequence. The "overview" that counsel provided doesn't reflect the
truth about my cases. (Just as one example, he wrongfully claimed
that I sued the Church of Scientology for damages, which I never did.
I just tried to compel them to inform me about the whereabouts of Mark
Rathbun.) But this is definitely not the only falsehood in O'Brien's
list. As my other cases don't have anything in merits to do with this
case (this case is about the deception, fraud, breach of
agreement/contract, violation of privacy, the malicious article, false
reports, defamation, libel, the theft of hundreds of photos, etc.), I
don't go in details to explain each of my other cases to the court,
but if the court wants to know, it should read rather the original
court rulings, and should ask me directly, instead believing in
O'Brien's list.
Under penalty of perjury, I declare the above as true and correct to
the best of my knowledge and belief.

Dated this: August 8, 2003
by Barbara Schwarz
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...