The judge granted Ilena Rosenthal a continuation.   ILENA ROSENTHAL, Plaintiff in Pro Per 1380 Garnet #444 San Diego, California 92109 (858) 270-0680 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ILENA ROSENTHAL in Pro Per Plaintiff,                             v.         AMERICA-ON-LINE; McGHAN CORPORATION, INAMED CORPORATION; PATRICK J. O'LEARY, SUSAN SCHAEZLER, ETC. INFORMATION SERVICES; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive                 Defendants.      CASE NO.  GIC739307     EX PARTE APPLICATION AND DECLARATION OF ILENA ROSENTHAL  REQUESTING CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TELEPHONIC NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED   Date: May 31, 2000 Time: 4:00 p.m. Dept.: 60 Judge: Honorable William C. Pate Complaint Filed:  Nov. 24, 1999   I, ILENA ROSENTHAL, declare as follows:    1. I am the plaintiff in the above-captioned action and am currently representing myself in this action. Because of recent developments beyond my control, I am now in the process of retaining new counsel to protect my legal interests in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below. If called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify to the facts set forth herein.    2. This lawsuit was filed as a result of a defamation and libel campaign by Patrick O'Leary and others against me over a span of several years and continues today. I believe Mr. O'Leary was originally acting on behalf of his former employer, Inamed / McGhan in concert with several others in an attempt to smear my reputation and destroy my credibility, and Discovery will so indicate this.    3.    I head a large International Support Group for those harmed by breast implants and other silicone products. The Internet Newsgroup I created, alt.support.breast-implant was to support these women, and was NOT a public debate forum.    4. As a member of the International Board of Prostheses Manufacturers: McGhan, Mr. O'Leary has publicly spoken on behalf of the silicone industry, most recently at the  FDA Saline Hearings in Washington, D.C. in March, 2000. He expressed these same viewpoints on the internet, under the pseudonym of "m...@aol.com." This viewpoint, is unquestionably, "pro-silicone," and "pro-manufacturer."    5. As Vice President, and later President of McGhan, Ireland, Mr. O'Leary was in direct violation of U.S. District Court, MDL 926, The Honorable Judge Samuel C. Pointer's Court Order #8 prohibiting silicone manufacturers and their employees from contacting plaintiffs in the on-going breast implant litigation and influencing their cases. Although not a plaintiff myself, the Newsgroup I created, and the email lists I maintain, reach thousands of plaintiffs. Mr. O'Leary's presence in this Support Group was aggressive, in violation of the stated purpose of the group, and created disharmony and dissension. Many of his postings were caustic and critical of scientists, doctors and other Support Leaders in this cause. Repeatedly asked, he denied his employment as a silicone manufacturer until his identity was finally uncovered in October, 1999. At that point in time, I retained counsel to represent me, and my attorney, Steven B. Morris, filed suit in this jurisdiction. Within days of being served with this lawsuit, several new aliases appeared on the internet, publicly posting case documents then in Mr. O'Leary's possession alone, accelerating the defamation against me, while supporting Mr. O'Leary's claims that this case is "frivolous," etc. This continues to this day.    6. On  February 28, 2000, this Court ordered a change of venue to Santa Barbara upon Mr. O'Leary's Motion. Soon thereafter, my attorney, Steven B. Morris, advised me to seek counsel in that jurisdiction.    7. I was in the process of doing so, and had advised my attorney by telephone, email and fax, to not dismiss this case under any circumstances.    8. On March 19, 2000, I received a letter by mail from Mr. Morris informing me that on March 14, 2000, he had dismissed my case without prejudice. No copy of the dismissal was included in the envelope, although the letter indicated that there was.    9. In telephone conversations with him thereafter, he assured me that I did not have to respond to any Motions, as the case was dismissed.    10.   On April 29, 2000, to my complete surprise, I received a "Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs" from Mr. O'Leary's attorneys.   11.   In speaking with Mr. Morris, I discovered that the dismissal had been filed in San Diego on March 14, 2000, but because the file was en route to Santa Barbara, the dismissal had not been entered.   12.   Mr. Morris then re-filed the dismissal, and on May 5, 2000, he confirmed with Diane Howard of Department 60, that all motions were off calendar, and informed me that there was nothing more I needed to do.    13.   At 5pm on May 19, 2000, I received yet another motion  -- "Reply to Non-Opposition" with the date for me to respond long passed, and the hearing on May 26, 2000 -- less than one week away from date of service. This included a letter to Mr. O'Leary's attorneys, that Mr. Morris was no longer representing me in this matter.   14.   The motion by Mr. O'Leary seeks to take advantage of the fact that I am currently representing myself while I seek new counsel in Santa Barbara, that my prior attorney dismissed this case without my approval, and that I relied on my attorney's advice that I need do nothing further because he had dismissed my complaint.      15.   I respectfully request the court continue Mr. O'Leary's motion for at least 90 days or deny it without prejudice at this time so I can retain and have my case evaluated by new counsel in Santa Barbara. Mr. O'Leary will suffer no prejudice if the Court grants me this reasonable and necessary opportunity to retain new counsel to protect my legal rights and respond to Mr. O'Leary's SLAPP motion.    l6.   On May 30, 2000, I called Mr. O'Leary's attorney at 10:30 a.m. and advised her of this ex parte telephonic hearing on May 31, 2000, at 4 p.m., in Department 60 of this court (888-527-7327) and served her by fax at (619) 236-9669 at 2pm. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that declaration was executed this 30th day of May, 2000.                   By: Ilena Rosenthal