Talk:Grady Ward

Unsubstantiated Claims

"...Moby Thesaurus, has more than 2.5 million synonyms and related words, making it the largest thesaurus in the English language...[1]"

"...Moby Shakespeare, which has been credited as being the most widely distributed works of Shakespeare in the world.[2]..."

The [1] and [2] footnotes lead to web sites at which I searched many pages and could find no substantiation for either of these claims. 47.214.177.17 (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Along with new opening sentence, put first name in parens to conform to Mr. Ward's own use of "Grady Ward" rather than "William Grady Ward."

New opening sentence

This article needs a new opening sentence which tells us who Mr. Ward is. Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Done.

The addition of the San Francisco chronicle article by Android Cat was reversed for the reason that the original article was sourced solely by the Church of Scientology and is materially false. By saying that Judge Jeremy Fogel "awarded" a $3 million dollar judgment against Ward implies that Judge Fogel made such an action based upon a finding or upon the merit of RTC copyright claim, one if which -- the trade secret claim -- had been dismissed with prejudice. No such finding was ever made, nor admitted.

Instead, Judge Fogel merely oversaw a mutual settlement of what is known as a stipulated judgment. Without any finding of liability or admission of wrongdoing, the judge approved that settlement. For this reason, and the reasons that the reporter did not speak to Ward nor mentioned that Ward prevailed on the trade secret claim, this Chronicle article unfairly paints Ward as a wrongdoer.

Since this Wikipedia article is meant to be a reasonably short biography and Ward does not have access to the public relations machinery that RTC / CoS does, no balancing third-party article is available. No should third party articles be needed as the supposed merit of RTC's claims should be supported by actual court documents which reflect both what actually happened and have had the benefit of Ward's rebuttal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.68.28 (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the SFC getting the story wrong, or the details changing through the various court actions—that's happened frequently—but it need references, and yes, they should be third party if possible. I'll keep looking for others [1] and I suggest that you do as well. AndroidCat 01:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a collection of all Ward legal documents, and I have seen the bulk, if not all, of the news stories about the settlement. ALL of the "news stories were seeded by the Church of Scientology / RTC and represent their view or spin on the settlement. The legal documents are "third party" as they are documents authored by either a judge or recorded by a court reporter. The "third" party "news reportage," on the other hand, never got the benefit of a balancing by Ward, and, worse, are discrepant with the primary court documented facts.

I suppose the ideal would be to publish everything and let the reader sort it out. But isn't that overkill for a simple bio article on one person involved with resisting scientology incursion to the Internet? On the other hand, if a subset of the documents are suitable, then they need to be as factual and balanced--"neutral point of view"--as possible. I think the actual court documents are called for in this case.

The next question is how to cite the court documents when, as far as I know, there is not a permanent home for them on the Internet. I have copies which can be verified with the Clerk of the Northern District of California, San Jose if desired. How should they be given a home on the Internet and subsequently cited in this article to verify whatever statements that need such verification? Post the entire documents in the article also seem somewhat of overkill and mostly boring to boot.

Any ideas? I am willing to send them anonymously to a third party for their own verification. I am not willing to be put on a Church of Scientology enemies list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.75.71 (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NORTHERN DIVISION

             RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY  		) 	C-96-20207-RMW-EAI 	

CENTER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) San Jose, California ) May 12, 1998 GRADY WARD, ) ) Defendant. ) )

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JEREMY FOGEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

             A P P E A R A N C E S:

             For the Plaintiffs:  	Law Offices of Thomas R.

Hogan

BY: THOMAS R HOGAN, ESQ

60 South Market Street

                                      San Jose, California  95113

                                      Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &

Walker

BY: SAMUEL D. ROSEN, ESQ

399 Park Avenue, 31st Floor

                                      New York, New York  10022

Moxon & Kobrin

By: HELENA K. KOBRIN, ESQ

6255 Sunset Boulevard

Suite 2000

Hollywood, California 90028

             For the Defendant:  	GRADY WARD, IN PRO PER

3499 Martha Court

                                      Arcata, California  95221

24	
             Court Reporter:  	Peter Torreano, CSR 	

25 Certificate Number 7623

San Jose, California May 12, 1998 PROCEEDINGS: THE COURT: Good afternoon. At this time

the Court will call the matter of Religious Technology Center versus Ward. Counsel state their appearances for the record.

And, Mr. Ward, when they are done you can state your appearance.

MR. HOGAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Thomas R. Hogan, Samuel Rosen, Helena Kobrin, all on behalf of the plaintiff, Religious Technology Center.

THE COURT: And could you identify your principal for the record.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Warren McShane is the president of Religious Technology Center.

MR. WARD: I'm Grady Ward, defendant pro per.

19 THE COURT: Thank you very much. 20 The parties have reached a settlement and 21 what I will do is recite the material terms of the 22 settlement as the Court understands them. Then I 23 would ask if any of the attorneys or Mr. Ward have 24 anything to add or delete or correct, please do so. 25 It's anticipated that this settlement

1

1 agreement will be reduced to writing. Mr. Rosen 2 has agreed to prepare the papers and submit them to 3 the Court and to Mr. Ward for review, but what I'm 4 going to do now is recite what I understand to be 5 the essential terms of the settlement. 6 There will be a judgment entered in favor 7 of the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. It 8 will be stipulated that that judgment is not 9 dischargeable in bankruptcy. The Court's 10 understanding is Mr. Ward has a bankruptcy 11 proceeding presently pending and all legal steps 12 necessary to withdraw that proceeding to the extent 13 that it would affect this judgment will be taken

14 such that this judgment will not be affected by any 15 bankruptcy now or in the future. 16 In addition there will be an agreement by 17 the plaintiff that the $3 million judgment will not 18 be collected except as follows: First, Mr. Ward 19 agrees that he will pay the sum of $10,000 20 forthwith upon receipt of an advance he is due to 21 receive with respect to a book from a Mr. Minton 22 and that will be set out in more detail in the 23 written agreement. 24 Second, that Mr. Ward additionally would 25 agree that he will pay the sum of $200 a month on

2

1 account of the judgment commencing -- shall we say 2 the 1st of July? Does that work? 3 MR. ROSEN: The first of the month after 4 the judgment is entered upon as so ordered by the 5 Court. 6 THE COURT: That's fine. Is that 7 acceptable, Mr. Grady? 8 MR. WARD: Yes.

9 THE COURT: And that obligation shall 10 continue so long as Mr. Ward shall live but shall 11 not survive his death and shall not be chargeable 12 to his estate or to his heirs. 13 In the event of any of the following the 14 agreement not to collect the judgment would no 15 longer be of any force and effect: First, if 16 Mr. Ward fails to pay any installment such that he 17 becomes more than thirty days in arrears. 18 Second, that it is found by the Court that 19 Mr. Ward has violated any term of the permanent 20 injunction to which the Court will refer in a 21 moment. Third, that -- I should say any material 22 term because obviously if it's a de minimus 23 violation it wouldn't matter, but if there's a 24 material violation of a permanent injunction. 25 Third, if any of the following torts are 3

1 proved and reduced to judgment by plaintiff against 2 the defendant, Mr. Ward: Copyright infringement, 3 trademark infringement, theft of trade secrets or

4 defamation against the defendant -- the plaintiff in this case, the Religious Technology Center, or 6 any Church of Scientology entity. 7 It is further agreed that the plaintiff 8 would have the right to review prepublication the 9 book upon which Mr. Ward is presently engaged, but the right to review shall not include the right to 11 approve or consent to anything. It's simply a 12 right of review prior to the publication of the 13 book. It's further agreed that if there is a net 14 profit received by Mr. Ward from sales of the book that those profits would be paid over to the 16 plaintiff. 17 And, finally, that there will be a 18 permanent injunction entered in favor of the 19 plaintiff as prayed for in the pleadings filed by the plaintiff and the task of drafting the precise 21 language of that injunction will be that of 22 Mr. Rosen. However, he assures the Court and 23 Mr. Ward that the material terms of the injunction 24 will be as set forth in the pleadings. In other words, the substance of what is sought to be 4

enjoined will be as set forth in the pleadings filed by the plaintiff.

Each side would bear its own attorneys fees and costs and there is no admission of liability by Mr. Ward's consent to judgment.

Is there anything else?

Mr. Rosen?

MR. ROSEN: Well, yes, Your Honor. First of all, let me start with the last one. We have never discussed nor do we agree to a non-admissions clause.

THE COURT: We are simply going to have a judgment with nothing said?

MR. HOGAN: Right.

THE COURT: Okay. I'm not asking Mr. Ward to confess anything -- Mr. Ward -- I misspoke or did not speak artfully.

Mr. Ward is not being asked to admit liability. There is simply nothing going to be said about it one way or the other.

MR. ROSEN: Let me go over a couple of

22 points quickly and some of them are really just 23 refinement and perhaps for the benefit of and more 24 important for Mr. Ward so we don't have anything go 25 wrong between this point and the drafting.

5

1 If Mr. Ward does not commit any of the 2 three conditions, then the judgment is deemed 3 satisfied or finished upon his death and is not 4 charged against his estate. Conversely if he 5 commits any of the three, then the judgment is 6 accelerated and the entire judgment is immediately 7 due and payable and it is a charge against his 8 estate to the extent that that is permitted by 9 California law. I'm not asking -- we have not 10 asked Mr. Ward to agree to anything that California 11 law does not provide, but California law will 12 govern that issue. 13 Your Honor said that if Mr. Ward commits 14 or is found to have committed a tort in an action 15 by the plaintiff -- and I wanted to make this 16 clear -- that the acceleration is the finding of

17 any court of competent jurisdiction reduced to 18 judgment of -- of a tort of the kind Your Honor 19 enumerated against the Religious Technology Center, 20 any Scientology entity or any officer or agent of 21 Scientology in their capacity as an officer or 22 agent. 23 And to make that clear, if Mr. Ward 24 commits some tort that has nothing to do with 25 Scientology but the plaintiff happens to be a

6

1 Scientologist or an agent of Scientology, that is 2 not what is intended. It's a tort against an 3 officer or agent of Scientology qua Scientology 4 officer. 5 THE COURT: And only one of these four 6 enumerated types of torts. 7 MR. ROSEN: Only as Your Honor has 8 correctly enumerated: Copyright, trade secret, 9 trademark or defamation. 10 The other thing I just wanted to make 11 clear on is there is a motion pending before Judge

12 Whyte which I think is an expedient way of 13 accomplishing something Your Honor just said. It's 14 a motion to withdraw reference to the Bankruptcy 15 Court for purposes of the adversary proceeding and 16 dischargeability. I would suppose that -- 17 MR. WARD: I would stipulate. 18 MR. ROSEN: We would stipulate to that 19 motion that Judge Whyte can then do that. Of 20 course, at the same time we will ask Judge Whyte on 21 agreement to dismiss Mr. Ward's counterclaims from 22 that very action. We have a claim pending of 23 non-chargeability and Mr. Ward has some 24 counterclaims. So we would have Judge Whyte do 25 that as well.

7

1 MR. WARD: Yes. 2 MR. ROSEN: Okay. And I think with those 3 clarifications -- excuse me just one second, Your 4 Honor. 5 Yes. Your Honor, one thing we did not 6 address and perhaps it's just a minor point, but on

7 the prepublication review of the book I would ask a 8 reasonable time, say, thirty days before the first 9 publication date. 10 THE COURT: Mr. Ward, is that -­ 11 MR. WARD: No. That's reasonable, sure. 12 MR. ROSEN: Okay. 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 MR. ROSEN: Okay. And, Your Honor, so as 15 we said before with respect to the scope of the 16 injunction, it is a copyright infringement 17 injunction which would enjoin Mr. Ward from 18 infringing any of the works that are alleged and 19 any other copyrights owned whether by RTC or BPI or 20 any other Scientology entity, and it will also have 21 the language that Mr. Ward is familiar with which 22 is not pleaded in the Complaint I don't believe but 23 is required -- and is part of Rule 65. It's not 24 only Mr. Ward who is enjoined or any person who is 25 in active concert with him -­ 8

THE COURT: I have actually discussed that

2 with Mr. Ward while we were negotiating that the 3 injunction would extend not only to him personally 4 but to anyone acting in concert with him. MR. ROSEN: Before we continue may I ask a 6 preliminary question? 7 When does Mr. Ward expect the next payment 8 from Mr. Minton on his book? 9 MR. WARD: In theory it could happen as soon as July 1st. He's been very late, at least 11 thirty days. So he's not -­ 12 THE COURT: Mr. Ward, can you agree as 13 part of this that you will notify -- I don't know 14 which counsel wants to get the notice, but you'll notify them as soon as you know? 16 MR. ROSEN: That would be Mr. Hogan. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. WARD: I don't mind the additional 19 scope of the injunction to include all works. My problem is since I don't -- since Mr. Hubbard was 21 so prolific, if you could reduce to a list. I'm 22 just afraid that I'll do something and then you say 23 oh, well, it was copyrighted and, you know, we want 24 it and -­ MR. ROSEN: Except I think you can get

that from the Registrar of Copyrights if you want a list of all the works.

THE COURT: Can you do that? You're getting into an area that I don't have enough knowledge about to be very intelligent. How cumbersome would it be to provide that list to Mr. Ward?

MR. ROSEN: Cumbersome.

THE COURT: I don't want to end up in a case where we have innocent infringement and then we get into an argument as to whether we ought to have a $3 million judgment when there's truly innocent infringement. So what can be done to direct it by that?

MR. WARD: We both agree that the Advanced Technology is part of that.

THE COURT: I understand. That's not what we're talking about here.

MR. ROSEN: Yeah. The problem is that providing a list would not help Mr. Ward because I

21 can give him a title, but he would not know what 22 he's saying if I looked at a work. 23 MR. WARD: Okay. Could you tell me -- 24 THE COURT: Let's find out what Mr. Ward 25 would --

10

1 MR. WARD: For example, if you can give me 2 a list of the names in which the copyrights were 3 introduced as of the date whatever is registered in 4 the Copyright Office, that would be part of the 5 scope. It would not include new ones but that 6 would have fixed knowledge of what it was. 7 THE COURT: Can we go off the record for a 8 second.

9 	(Off-the-record discussion.) 	

10 THE COURT: Let's go back on the record. 11 With respect to this point that was just 12 discussed, the parties I believe have agreed that 13 the plaintiffs will endeavor to provide Mr. Ward 14 with a list of copyright material such that it 15 gives him notice of what -­

16 MR. ROSEN: No, Judge. 17 THE COURT: I'm sorry. 18 MR. ROSEN: We have not agreed. We said 19 we will go back and explore some way of giving him 20 notice -- 21 THE COURT: All right. 22 MR. ROSEN: -- so that he sees what is 23 copyrighted by our clients. I can't give him a 24 list. 25 THE COURT: All right. What I think the

11

1 spirit of the agreement is you're going to tell him 2 the scope of what is copyrighted to the best of 3 your ability without disclosing any confidential 4 material? 5 MR. ROSEN: That's correct. We're going 6 to try and figure out some way to give him notice 7 so he knows going in what is ours and what he's got 8 to stay away from. 9 THE COURT: The precise form of that is to 10 be worked out initially by the plaintiff and

11 presented again to Mr. Ward for final approval. 12 MR. ROSEN: I have one final point I'd 13 like to propose and that is this: What has been 14 placed on the record today is a statement of the 15 material terms. When it comes to drafting there 16 may be good faith disagreements as to whether this 17 was discussed or agreed to, et cetera. 18 So that the settlement does not fall apart 19 over that I would respectfully ask Your Honor to 20 take on the additional responsibility that if, 21 Mr. Ward, there were any disputes since the judge 22 has the history -- 23 MR. WARD: Yes. 24 MR. ROSEN: -- of how this came about if 25 there were any disputes as to any terms that are

12

1 being written from these final documents that Judge 2 Fogel decides those terms and what he says goes. 3 MR. WARD: I would agree to that. 4 THE COURT: So that we're clear what I've 5 tried to do here and that's why we've taken as much

6 time as we have is get all of the basic essential 7 terms on the record so that nobody can back out 8 later. The precise language of the way those terms 9 are going to be reduced to writing is yet to be 10 determined. Both sides will have an opportunity to 11 have input. Both sides will have an opportunity to 12 be heard. 13 You agree I will have an ultimate right to 14 decide what the final form is so it comports with 15 the intent of what we've spent the entire afternoon 16 negotiating. 17 So that's agreeable with you, Mr. Ward? 18 MR. WARD: Yes, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Is there anything else you 20 want to add before we ask each party to consent to 21 the settlement? 22 MR. WARD: No. I'm perfectly happy. I 23 think we've already dealt with the free speech 24 issues and all of that. It's just the fair notice. 25 I don't want to inadvertently cause -­ 13

THE COURT: I think I understand what you want. I'll say it one more time just to make sure. If I have it correctly you're not asking them to disclose unpublished material. You're asking them to tell you to the greatest extent that it's practicable to do so what the scope of their copyrighted protection is so that you do not unintentionally infringe on their copyrights?

MR. WARD: That's correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And within reason that's something that the plaintiff is agreeable to doing?

MR. ROSEN: Yes.

We're going to explore how we can do that, but, of course, so Your Honor understands and Mr. Ward does the problem is as follows: I could tell him this is copyrighted, you know, the title of this is "HCOB Number 17," et cetera. When Mr. Ward looks at the Internet the infringers ordinarily do not preprint the material.

THE COURT: It doesn't insulate Mr. Ward.

MR. ROSEN: It just goes right into the infringed material.

THE COURT: Right:

24 MR. ROSEN: It's like leaving the title in 25 a book and here it is. 14

THE COURT: He could still unintentionally infringe a copyright, but I think what he's asking for is the best notice that it's possible to give him. He's not asking for a guarantee. He's asking for the best notice that's possible to give him.

MR. ROSEN: Yes. And I just wanted you and Mr. Ward to understand the limitations because Mr. Ward raised when he sees something on the Internet. But, as Mr. Ward knows, people who post infringing works on the Internet ordinarily don't include the copyright notice.

THE COURT: They don't put a big sign on it saying this is an infringing work. I understand that, but I don't think that's what Mr. Ward is asking for. He's asking for the best notice he can get.

MR. WARD: I don't think I have quoted even small quotes in the last year.

19 THE COURT: Mr. Ward, you understand the 20 terms and as stated and clarified you agree to 21 these terms? 22 MR. WARD: Yes, I do. 23 THE COURT: And, Mr. McShane, you have the 24 authority of the plaintiffs to agree to these 25 terms?

15

1 MR. McSHANE: Yes, I do, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: And you agree to them? 3 MR. WARD: Yes. 4 THE COURT: What I will do is state on the 5 record that this is a judicially supervised 6 settlement agreement. It is binding on the 7 parties. The final form of the order is to be 8 determined by this Court. I will notify Judge 9 Whyte that the parties have asked me to do that. 10 I'm sure it will be fine with him. And I think 11 what you should probably do is after -- let's set a 12 deadline for getting a draft. What's reasonable? 13 MR. ROSEN: What's today? Today is

14 Tuesday? 15 THE COURT: Tuesday, the 12th of May. 16 MR. ROSEN: A week? 17 THE COURT: All right. So draft to the 18 Court and Mr. Ward by the 19th of May? 19 MR. ROSEN: Sounds good. 20 MR. WARD: May I ask you one -- 21 THE COURT: Mr. Ward, then I'll give you a 22 week if you have any objections or input so that it 23 would have both sets of proposals by the 26th and 24 that I'll have my clerk contact you and we can set 25 up a hearing, if necessary.

16

1 MR. WARD: Can I ask? If you would please 2 write the sort of stipulations it takes to make 3 sure the bankruptcy is handled essentially as far 4 as the -­ 5 THE COURT: Will you prepare a stipulation 6 for Mr. Ward. 7 MR ROSEN: He consents to the withdrawal 8 of reference to the motion pending before Judge

9 Whyte and he consents to withdraw both as to the 10 various proceedings and the counterclaims and Your 11 Honor knows what the disposition is. 12 THE COURT: And Mr. Hogan will take care 13 of that. 14 Let me just recapitulate the schedule. 15 There will be a drafted document to Mr. Ward and 16 the Court by next Tuesday, May 19th. Any 17 objections, deletions, suggestions, what have you 18 that Mr. Ward has are to be served on the Court and 19 counsel by the 26th of May. If there are any 20 disputes to be resolved which require further input 21 from the parties, I will have my courtroom deputy 22 contact you and we will bring you in for a brief 23 hearing. 24 MR. WARD: Yes. 25 THE COURT: Okay. Very good. 17

1 MR. ROSEN: Thank you, Your Honor. 2 MR. HOGAN: Thank you very much. 3 MR. ROSEN: And thank you very much for

4 your attention and your patience today. THE COURT: My pleasure. Thank you very 6 much.

7 (Whereupon, the proceedings were

8 concluded.)

9

---oOo---

I, Peter Torreano, hereby certify: That the foregoing is a full, true and correct transcript of the proceedings had in the Religious Technology Center versus Ward, Case No. C-96-20207-RMW-EAI, dated May 12, 1998; that I reported the same in stenotype to the best of my ability, being the duly-appointed, qualified and acting official stenographic reporter of said court, and thereafter had the same transcribed by computer-aided transcription as herein appears.

Dated this 12th day of May, 1998

                                       Peter Torreano, CSR

Certificate Number 7623 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.75.71 (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversing SeanSasser's coda of a particular motion

This litigation consisted of more than 1500 federal court docket items (a docket item is either a motion with exhibits and briefs or an order from the bench, including oppositions and rebuttals) and two visits to the Ninth Circuit court of appeals, which include their own set of motions, oppositions, and rebuttals. Therefore this entry must remain a *summary* entry rather than an exhaustive review of lesser importance particular motions or counter-motions because of the lack of context, which makes then misleading. And to supply such context for the details of the litigation would make this entry an encyclopedia unto itself.

Therefore the framework, allegations, and ultimate factual disposition of the case is presented without citing individual sub-motions, which of course can be presented here in the edit history (such as the actual settlement agreement). Grady Ward is reachable at [email protected] if in need of specific documents or recollections.

For the record, I agree with Mr. Sasser's note that Mr. Ward complained about Scientology litigants alleged attempts to thwart the settlement agreement contrary to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that must accompany every California contract. It is just that the significance of this article will be hidden if it is submerged with too much litigation detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.140.135 (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Did He Die?

I have not heard from Grady in over 15 years. Is he still living? The biography does not have an "end date" so I assume he's still out there. Damotclese (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC) \

He is still alive. I just spoke to him in his role as lexicographer of Moby Thesaurus. He lives in a town in northern California called Arcata, population just over 10,000. His email that he uses for Twitter and Amazon authors is [email protected]. He frequently tweets on Twitter as @gradyward

Restored distinction between opposition to Scientology in general and opposition to Scientology practices specifically. Mr Ward has no objection to Scientology as a belief system, but only to certain of its practices.

Restored distinction between opposition to Scientology in general and opposition to Scientology practices specifically. Mr Ward has no objection to Scientology as a belief system, but only to certain of its practices which he views as unlawful and coercive. This isn't a quibble. He often has said that he believes in radical free speech and expression regardless of the content. He does however condemn overt acts which are crimes or are in his view immoral. By saying that he opposes the Church of Scientology entirely wrongly paints him as what some followers of the OT belief system have tried to smear his as--a "religious bigot."