Cult vs Henson (Hemet Civil)
Keith Henson
the crooked lawyers and cult corrupted courts in Hemet.
Basic law say that after a case has gone to appeal the court of
original jurisdiction has no authority over the case. But here we see
the cult asking the judge who ruled against me in the civil case to
effectively dismiss the appeal by denying me the right to even *file*
an appeal. Be interesting to see if he takes the risk. It would make
an interesting civil rights case against the judge, maybe even a RICO
case.
The other not so obvious point mentioned here is the permanent
injunction. This is a limited case. Courts in limited cases do not
have the authority to issue permanent injunctions. The judge did it
anyway at the cult's request in violation of California law. The
injunction has been used to deny the first amendment rights of people
to protest. (See Graham's report on the last time he was at gold base
and note, after the injunction abuses in Clearwater, that nobody
picketed gold even though a number of people drove by to and from Los
Angeles.)
An additional point is that limited cases are not supposed to be for
more than $25k. There would be a number of appealable issues if the
appeal is not dismissed by the trial court.
Wojcik is of course the son of the judge who told James Harr that he
was terrified of the cult.
My immigration lawyers here in Canada were pleased to get the
information, but utterly boggled that some of the courts in the US
have been so completely corrupted by a cult that was criminally
convicted in Canada *and* the US.
Keith Henson
DAVIS & WOJCIK
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
ROBERT A. DAVIS Jr., Ca State Bar No. 160357 DEC
JOSEPH M. WOJCIK, Ca State Bar No. 177296
1105 E. Florida Ave.
Hemet, Ca 92542
Telephone: (909) 652-9000 "------------
Facsimile: (909) 658-8308
Elliot J. Abelson, Ca State Bar No. 41846
LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOT J. ABELSON
8491 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, Ca 90069-1911
Telephone: (323)960-1935
Facsimile: (323)650-0398
Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Hilary Dezotell, Ken Hoden, and Bruce
Wagoner
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE - HEMET BRANCH
HILARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
H. KEITH HENSON,
Defendant.
CASE NO. HECO09673
MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT H. KEITH HENSON'S NOTICE OF APPEAL BASED
ON THE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE
Date: Time: Dept:
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on 2003, at _:_ a.m., or as
soon thereafter as this matter may be heard in Department - of the
above-entitled Court, Plaintiffs Hilary Dezotell, Ken Hoden and Bruce
Wagoner, will and do hereby move this Court to Dismiss Defendant H.
Keith Henson's "Notice of Appeal" on the following grounds:
Defendant is an admitted fugitive from justice, with an outstanding
bench warrant
issued by the Honorable Judge Robert Wallerstein of the Riverside
Superior Court for his arrest. Under the fugitive disentitlement
doctrine, defendant is prohibited from initiating and pursuing his
appeal in this action herein.
This motion is based on this notice of motion, the attached memorandum
of points and authorities, the declaration of Joseph M. Wojcik, the
Court's file herein, and such other and further evidence as may
properly be presented to the Court at the hearing of this motion.
DATED: December 5, 2002 Respectfully submitted, DAIS & WOJCIK
JOSEPH, N-, Attorney for Plaintiffs Hillary Dezotell, Ken Hoden and
Bruce Wagoner
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
The Plaintiffs submit the following points and authorities in support
of their Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Notice of Appeal.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs move to dismiss Defendants' Notice of Appeal because
California case law is clear that Henson, a fugitive from justice, has
no right whatsoever to seek "assistance of a court in hearing his
demands while he stands in an attitude of contempt to legal orders and
processes of the courts of his state." Estate of Scott (1957) 150
Cal.App.2d 590, 310 P.2d 46.
II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
On April 26, 2001, Defendant was convicted by a jury for violating
California Penal Code § 422.6, for intimidating, threatening, and
oppressing individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs.
After his conviction, Defendant was released on his own recognizance
until his scheduled appearance for sentencing on May 16, 2001.
However, prior to his sentencing date, Defendant fled to Canada.
On July 20, 2001, Defendant was sentenced in absentia to a term of 365
days subject to probation terms which he did not accept. Additionally,
due to Henson's failure to appear, Judge Wallerstein issued a bench
warrant which is still outstanding.
On July 30, 2001, plaintiffs filed their civil action, alleging
violation of their civil rights pursuant to Civil Code § 52.1, which
is essentially a parallel statute to the hate crime Henson was
convicted under. Plaintiffs civil action included other causes of
action for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress
arising out of the very acts for which defendant was convicted.
On September 17, 2001, defendant entered his appearance and filed an
Answer from an address in Canada.
In the meantime, Henson attempted to appeal his criminal conviction,
but in February 2002, the Honorable Judge Sharon Waters of the
Appellate Department of the
Riverside Superior Court dismissed the appeal based upon the fugitive
disentitlement doctrine.
On June 14, 2002 Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication of
Liability on the first cause of action for violation of civil rights.
Defendant filed an opposition and the motion was granted after a
hearing on August 26, 2002.
On September 4, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting a final
judgment and an order: (1) for permanent injunctive relief to be
entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant; (2) for
statutory civil penalties in the amount of $75,000 ($25,000 per
plaintiff); and (3) for reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of
$23,666.65.' That motion for final judgment was unopposed by Defendant
and was granted by the Court on October 7, 2002. The final judgment
was signed on October 7, 2002 and served on Defendant's counsel on
October 15, 2002 and the permanent injunction was signed on October 8,
2002 and served on Defendant's counsel on October 9, 2002.
Defendant served his "Notice of Appeal" on November 14, 2002. On
November 26, 2002, the Court sent Henson a Notice of Default for his
failure to pay his filing fee giving him 15 days to cure said default.
Henson cured the default on or about December 3, 2002. Thus,
Plaintiffs are filing this motion to dismiss Henson's Notice of
Appeal. IIl. ARGUMENT
A. Defendant's Notice of Appeal Should Be Stricken Pursuant to the
Disentitlement Doctrine
It is well settled that courts have the inherent power to dismiss an
action initiated by one who has refused to comply with the "legal
orders and processes of the courts of this state." TMS, Inc. v. Aihara
(2000) 71 Ca1.AppAth 377, 379, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 835. This doctrine,
called the "disentitlement doctrine," has been used in a variety of
circumstances, but the "case for application of the doctrine is most
evident where . . . the party is a fugitive who refuses to comply with
court orders or make an appearance despite being given notice and an
opportunity to appear and be heard." Adoption of.Jacob C.
Plaintiffs also dismissed their other causes of action.
(1994) 25 Cal.AppAth 617, 624, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 591, 595 (where mother
was barred from participating in a hearing regarding her parental
rights where she was a fugitive with her abducted daughter ).
For example, a felon who flees from the jurisdiction of the court
waives appellate review of the conviction. People v. Buffalo (1975) 49
Ca1.App.3d 838, 123 Cal.Rptr. 308 (holding that "courts have no
jurisdiction over persons charged with crime, unless in custody actual
or constructive. It would be a farce to proceed in a criminal cause,
unless the Court had control over the person charged so that its
judgment might be effective. 1-citation omitted]. We exercise our
discretion to refuse to consider the appeal of one who is not
answerable to court processes."Id. at 839, 123 Cal.Rptr. at 309.).
The disentitlement doctrine has been held to apply "with greater force
in civil cases where an individual's liberty is not at stake."
Conforte v. Commissioner (9th Cir. 1982) 692 F.2d 587, 589 (dismissal
of appeal in civil tax proceeding because appellant was a fugitive
from justice as a result of his criminal conviction for tax evasion);
Broadway v. City of Montgomery, (5th Cir. 1976) 530 F.2d 657, 659
(appeal from summary judgment in civil rights action brought by
fugitive dismissed under disentitlement doctrine; United States v.
$129,374 in U.S. Currency (9th Cir. 1985) 769 F.2d 583 (fugitive
barred from intervening in a civil forfeiture action under the
disentitlement doctrine).
This rule has been uniformly applied and followed by the California
courts. Weeks v. Superior Court (1921) 187 Cal. 620, 203 P. 93
(fugitive barred from entry of final divorce decree for disobeying
trial court's order relating to custody of minor child); MacPherson v.
MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, 89 P.2d 382 (fugitive's appeal of
contempt order in divorce case dismissed)
The Courts have also applied this fugitive disentitlement doctrine to
appeals of civil judgments. Indeed, Estate of Scott (1957) 150
Cal.App.2d 590, 310 P.2d 46, is a case with facts analogous to those
here. Scott was an action for appointment of a trustee for a missing
woman's estate. While the civil action was ongoing, the missing
woman's
husband was indicted by a grand jury on nine counts of forgery and
four counts of grand theft in connection with his missing wife's
property. He failed to appear at his plea and thus became a fugitive
from justice. At the same time, an order appointing a trustee to the
missing wife's estate was issued which the fugitive husband appealed
from his position of hiding:
The issue before the Scott court was whether the appeal in the civil
matter should be dismissed because the husband was a fugitive from
justice in the criminal action. The Scott court held yes, relying upon
those principles set forth in MacPherson and Weeks:
"A party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and
assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an
attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of
this state" . . . "It is contrary to the principles of justice to
permit one who has flaunted the orders of the court to seek j udicial
assistance." Estate of Scott, 150 Ca1.App.2d at 594 (emphasis added).
As aptly stated by one appellate court:
"The (defendant's] attitude seems to be that if this case is decided
in his favor it will be quite all right but if it is not so decided he
will be out of reach of the court, so that no matter what is done or
what decision is made, he will continue to do just as he has done in
the past, namely pay no attention whatsoever to any order of any court
in California insofar as complying with any such order is concerned."
Rude v. Rude (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 243, 314 P.2d 226 (where appeal of
a husband, who was found in contempt of court and sentenced to jail,
was dismissed because he was a fugitive from justice and "therefore he
is not entitled to invoke the aid of this court"). The only relevant
factual distinction between Scott and the case at bar is that Scott
was a fugitive from a criminal indictment while Henson is a fugitive
from a criminal conviction.
Here, just as in MacPherson, Weeks, Estate of Scott, supra, defendant
is a fugitive from justice who has no intention of submitting himself
to the jurisdiction of the court. Indeed, Defendant here, unlike
defendants in the cases cited above, has flaunted his fugitive status
to the world. As set forth in the cases cited above, defendant cannot
now ask for aid and assistance from this court by way of his appeal
while he continues to stand in an attitude of contempt of the legal
processes and order of the Superior Court of this
state.' Accordingly, his notice of appeal should be dismissed. IV.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing points and authorities and arguments,
Plaintiffs respectfully request that Henson's appeal be stricken
entirely on the basis of the disentitlement doctrine.
Dated: December 5, 2002 Re s ectfu11y submitted,
Attorney for Plaintiffs Hillary Dezotell, Ken Hoden and Bruce Wagoner
DAVIS & WOJCIK
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
ROBERT A. DAVIS Jr., Ca State Bar No. 160357 JOSEPH M. WOJCIK, Ca
State Bar No. 177296 1105 E. Florida Ave. Hemet, Ca 92542 Telephone:
(909) 652-9000 Facsimile: (909) 658-8308
Elliot J. Abelson, Ca State Bar No. 41846
LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOT J. ABELSON
8491 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, Ca 90069-1911
Telephone: (323)960-1935 Facsimile: (323)650-0398
Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Hilary Dezotell, Ken Hoden, and Bruce
Wagoner
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE - HEMET BRANCH
HILARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN and BRUCE WAGONER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
H. KEITH HENSON,
Defendant.
CASE NO. HECO09673
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH M. WOJCIK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANT, H. KEITH HENSON'S, NOTICE OF APPEAL BASED ON THE
DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE
Date: Time: Dept:
I, Joseph M. Wojcik, declare:
1. I am a Partner in the Law Firm of Davis & Wojcik and am licensed to
practice law in the State of California.
2. 1 am one of the attorneys responsible for the representation of the
plaintiffs HILARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER in this
action. Accordingly, the following facts are within my personal
knowledge and I could and would competently testify to them.
3. On April 26, 2002, defendant H. Keith Henson (hereinafter referred
to as "HENSON"), was convicted by a jury in the Hemet Superior Court
for violation of penal code section 422.6 (intimidating, threatening,
and oppressing the plaintiffs on the basis of their religious
beliefs). A true and correct copy of the court docket verifying the I
conviction is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
4. Pursuant to Exhibit "A" HENSON was released on his own recognizance
until l his scheduled sentencing on May 16, 2001 which was later
continued to July 20, 2001.
5. Pursuant to Exhibit "A" prior to sentencing HENSON applied for
refuge/asylum in Canada. Consequently on July 20, 2001 HENSON was
sentenced in abstencia to a term of 365 days. In addition, the
Honorable Robert Wallerstien issued a bench warrent for HENSON's
arrest.
6. According to Exhibit "A", on or about August 15, 2001, HENSON filed
a notice of appeal.
7. On or about February 27, 2002 the Honorable Sharon Waters dismissed
HENSON's appeal based on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. A true
and correct copy of the minute order dismissing HENSON's appeal along
with a letter previously sent by our office detailing the history of
this case is attached as Exhibit "B".
8. On July 30, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a civil action alleging
violation of their civil rights pursuant to Civil Code Section 52.1
which is essentially a parallel statute to Penal Code Section 422.6.
9. On June 14, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
adjudication of r liability on the first cause action (Civil Code
Section 52.1). HENSON filed an opposition and, after a contested
hearing, the motion was granted on August 26, 2002.
10. On September 4, 2002 the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting a
final judgment and an order for: 1) Permanent injunctive relief to be
entered in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendant; 2) For
statutory civil penalties in an amount of $75,000.00 ($25,000.00 per
each plaintiff); and 3) Reasonable attorney fees in the amount
$23,666.65. Plaintiffs also requested that the remaining causes of
action be dismissed.
11. The motion for final judgment was unopposed by the defendant and
was granted by the court on October 7, 2002. The final judgment was
signed on October 7, 2002 and served on defendant's counsel on October
15, 2002.
12. The permanent injunction was signed on October 8, 2002 and served
on defendant's counsel on October 9, 2002.
13. As of the date of this notice there remains a bench warrant for
HENSON'S arrest and he remains a fugitive in Canada.
15. It is for the above reasons we are respectfully requesting the
Court to apply the disentitlement doctrine and dismiss HENSON's appeal
as a result thereof.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that
the foregoing is
true and correct, and that this declaration was executed 4onecember 5,
2002 at Hemet, Califomia.
J~os D oi cla
oseph M. ojcik, eclarant
Jeff Jacobsen
wrote:
>Sometimes you just have to sit back in open mouthed astonishment at
>the crooked lawyers and cult corrupted courts in Hemet.
I'm learning a whole lot more about the law by studying Scientology's
activities. Your case has several unusual attributes though. For one
thing, I assume the courts consider you, as Scientology attorneys
constantly bring up, a fugitive? In that case, what rights under US
law do you lose? The judge may simply be going by US law for the
situation you are in.
In other words, you appealed, but Scientology lawyers come in and
say you can't appeal because you're a fugitive. I don't know that
they're right, but I do certainly assume that fugitive status alters
the court's view of your legal maneuvers.
So if you know, I'd like to know what your somewhat unique status
does to alter the court's actions.
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
Yes, all of the available documentation should support your appeal to
the Canadian authorities as to the need to grand you political asylum
and the abuse and violation of the law by Judges and even District
Attorney offices should help. The fact that the DA's office in
Riverside County was caught collaborating with a notorious Gambino
Mafia ringleader against your free speech activities should, I would
hope, clinch the evidence needed to show how far the organized crime
syndicate has managed to get in Riverside County.
>Keith Henson
>SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
>Plaintiffs,
>v.
>H. KEITH HENSON,
>Defendant.
>CASE NO. HECO09673
>Date: Time: Dept:
>I. INTRODUCTION
>Disentitlement Doctrine
>DAVIS & WOJCIK
>A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
>SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
>Plaintiffs,
>v.
>H. KEITH HENSON,
>Defendant.
>CASE NO. HECO09673
>Date: Time: Dept:
>J~os D oi cla
>oseph M. ojcik, eclarant
--
George W. Bush threatens to kill us all -- for oil
http://www.gwbush.com/ http://www.bushwatch.net/
Soon to come: http://www.notserver.com/
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
What happens if Canada approves his political asylum? Then Mr. Henson
would be considered to hold citizenship as a Canadian and he would no
longer be considered an American citizen, right?
If Canada doesn't approve his bid for sanctuary, there's the fact that
the Riverside District Attorney's office was caught openly collaborating
woth Eliot Abelson, noted Gambino Mafia ganglander. Given that
undeniable fact -- and the DA's office even admitted it in public -- I
can't imagine how Canada would think Keith being returned to the United
States wouldn't be a death sentence.
Levi Murphy
wrote:
Disclaimer - I am not a licensed attorney and nothing contained herein
is legal advice.
>Sometimes you just have to sit back in open mouthed astonishment at
>the crooked lawyers and cult corrupted courts in Hemet.
>
>Basic law say that after a case has gone to appeal the court of
>original jurisdiction has no authority over the case. But here we see
>the cult asking the judge who ruled against me in the civil case to
>effectively dismiss the appeal by denying me the right to even *file*
>an appeal.
That is odd - Motions to Dismiss appeals are usually filed in the
appellate courts, not the original court. But of course in California
there are all sorts of strange laws and procedures. In PA - I'd Motion
to Quash the CoS's Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Be interesting to see if he takes the risk. It would make
>an interesting civil rights case against the judge, maybe even a RICO
>case.
>
>The other not so obvious point mentioned here is the permanent
>injunction. This is a limited case. Courts in limited cases do not
>have the authority to issue permanent injunctions. The judge did it
>anyway at the cult's request in violation of California law.
Why wait? In California, isn't there a right to appeal
interlocutionary orders? In Pa, we have "final orders" and
"interlocutory orders". Perhaps the injunction itself is appealable
right away - even before the whole thing is over. Of course - they
may or may not be able to use the fugitive card for an appealed
interlocutory order.
LOGIC18
Levi Murphy
<cul...@primenet.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:36:16 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
>wrote:
>
>>Sometimes you just have to sit back in open mouthed astonishment at
>>the crooked lawyers and cult corrupted courts in Hemet.
>
>I'm learning a whole lot more about the law by studying Scientology's
>activities. Your case has several unusual attributes though. For one
>thing, I assume the courts consider you, as Scientology attorneys
>constantly bring up, a fugitive? In that case, what rights under US
>law do you lose? The judge may simply be going by US law for the
>situation you are in.
Yes, but perhaps the CoS filed the Motion to Dismiss based on Henson's
alledged fugitive status- in the wrong court. They didn't file it in
the appellare court - they filed it in the original court - which is
odd. Of course California sometimes has strange rules of procedure
which may or may not permit such a thing.
LOGIC18
roger gonnet
"Keith Henson" <hkhe...@rogers.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3e0655fb....@news2.lightlink.com...
The problem is that the USA use the crime cult as a branch of their
inside maffia, created by a criminal named J. Edgar Hoover, the guy who
was blackmailing all the US presidents since Roosevelt, maffia that have
never changed since.
To change the cult, change the aims of the US govt.
To avoid spending billions upon billions in an insane project of defense
(the anti-bombing system), get rid of this insane president and his
puppets, and instead, pay 3 % of the US GI to poor countries (and get
european countries doing the same), while stopping the insane tranfer of
fabrications outside the countries. That's how a balance could be done
bit by bit.
roger
roger
pts2
In many states, interlocutory orders are not appealable. An appeal
would just render a ruling remanding the pending issues back to the
trial court.
I would think there is grounds for injunctive relief for Keith though.
> right away - even before the whole thing is over. Of course - they
> may or may not be able to use the fugitive card for an appealed
> interlocutory order.
>
> LOGIC18
>
>
> The
> >injunction has been used to deny the first amendment rights of people
> >to protest. (See Graham's report on the last time he was at gold base
> >and note, after the injunction abuses in Clearwater, that nobody
> >picketed gold even though a number of people drove by to and from Los
> >Angeles.)
> >
> >An additional point is that limited cases are not supposed to be for
> >more than $25k. There would be a number of appealable issues if the
> >appeal is not dismissed by the trial court.
> >
> >Wojcik is of course the son of the judge who told James Harr that he
> >was terrified of the cult.
> >
> >My immigration lawyers here in Canada were pleased to get the
> >information, but utterly boggled that some of the courts in the US
> >have been so completely corrupted by a cult that was criminally
> >convicted in Canada *and* the US.
> >
> >Keith Henson
I think this case is sooooooo ripe for a major prime time network
piece - 60 Minutes, DateLine, Court TV, Etc. The international
complications and cultic implications becomes so crystal clear with
every BS legal manuever they attempt.
Hiding? Interesting choice of word which does not apply
to Henson case.
> >The issue before the Scott court was whether the appeal in the civil
> >matter should be dismissed because the husband was a fugitive from
> >justice in the criminal action. The Scott court held yes, relying upon
> >those principles set forth in MacPherson and Weeks:
> >
> >"A party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and
> >assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an
> >attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of
> >this state" . . . "It is contrary to the principles of justice to
> >permit one who has flaunted the orders of the court to seek j udicial
> >assistance." Estate of Scott, 150 Ca1.App.2d at 594 (emphasis added).
> >
> >As aptly stated by one appellate court:
> >
> >"The (defendant's] attitude seems to be that if this case is decided
> >in his favor it will be quite all right but if it is not so decided he
> >will be out of reach of the court, so that no matter what is done or
> >what decision is made, he will continue to do just as he has done in
> >the past, namely pay no attention whatsoever to any order of any court
> >in California insofar as complying with any such order is concerned."
> >Rude v. Rude (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 243, 314 P.2d 226 (where appeal of
> >a husband, who was found in contempt of court and sentenced to jail,
> >was dismissed because he was a fugitive from justice and "therefore he
> >is not entitled to invoke the aid of this court"). The only relevant
> >factual distinction between Scott and the case at bar is that Scott
> >was a fugitive from a criminal indictment while Henson is a fugitive
> >from a criminal conviction.
Having been a former convicted criminal, but over turned in an Appeal,
I would say Keith is a fugitive from injustice and a victim of a
complete railroad job!
Tom
Dave Bird
>Xenu allowed Jeff Jacobsen <cul...@primenet.com> to write:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:36:16 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
>>wrote:
>
>>>Sometimes you just have to sit back in open mouthed astonishment at
>>>the crooked lawyers and cult corrupted courts in Hemet.
>
>>I'm learning a whole lot more about the law by studying Scientology's
>>activities. Your case has several unusual attributes though. For one
>>thing, I assume the courts consider you, as Scientology attorneys
>>constantly bring up, a fugitive? In that case, what rights under US
>>law do you lose? The judge may simply be going by US law for the
>>situation you are in.
>> In other words, you appealed, but Scientology lawyers come in and
>>say you can't appeal because you're a fugitive. I don't know that
>>they're right, but I do certainly assume that fugitive status alters
>>the court's view of your legal maneuvers.
>> So if you know, I'd like to know what your somewhat unique status
>>does to alter the court's actions.
>
>What happens if Canada approves his political asylum? Then Mr. Henson
>would be considered to hold citizenship as a Canadian and he would no
>longer be considered an American citizen, right?
Um, wrong at many and various levels. He would have refugee
status in Canada entitling him to live there; later he could apply
for full citizenship. Secondly AFAIK America allows dual citizenship
with approved countries including Canada, so this would make him
a citizen both of America and Canada. Third, none of this affects
his fugitive status... suppose a Canadian citizen living in America
is convicted of a crime and, rather than stay around for sentencing,
returns to Canada. Then the American courts consider him a fugitive:
it's not where he came from or whose citizen he is, the point is that
he left jurisdiction to avoid being sentenced.
>
>If Canada doesn't approve his bid for sanctuary, there's the fact that
>the Riverside District Attorney's office was caught openly collaborating
>woth Eliot Abelson, noted Gambino Mafia ganglander.
Um, gang-lawyer: I don't think he shoots people, or gives orders
to have people shut, himself. And shouldn't that be the "Clambino"
organised crime family he works for now?
__ .\|/////..
||_.-' '. /\\|// ----
// ; | -----
--._// .\|/. .==== =====. ---
(( //(####) \d]>||<[d]>\ (~\ The only real crime for which
|| v '--'\\ . | \ | one can be punished by govern-
|| ; v . {_ \ : \/ ments of today is lack of money
// .' : .'___' : ' In other crimes, if one has the
// ; '. ~===~ /\ huge sums necessary to hire
// . .... o : /__\'''' / \ lawyers, one can often get off.
. \\\\~~~~|~~~~~~~|\\ / /\/,,,L.RON HUBBARD,
. | .\''. |/''''/.|,,\\ //,,,,,,,Phat Dead Phounder of
'.|: O :|[ / ]|,,,,\/,,,,,,,,, the $cientology cult.
----------------| '...' |[__O__]|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,[in HCOPL 20/sept/1976]-------
|_______|_______|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
ptsc
>In article<v0d3g31...@corp.supernews.com>, Rev. Fredric L. Rice:
>>Xenu allowed Jeff Jacobsen <cul...@primenet.com> to write:
>>What happens if Canada approves his political asylum? Then Mr. Henson
>>would be considered to hold citizenship as a Canadian and he would no
>>longer be considered an American citizen, right?
> Um, wrong at many and various levels. He would have refugee
> status in Canada entitling him to live there; later he could apply
> for full citizenship. Secondly AFAIK America allows dual citizenship
> with approved countries including Canada, so this would make him
> a citizen both of America and Canada. Third, none of this affects
> his fugitive status... suppose a Canadian citizen living in America
> is convicted of a crime and, rather than stay around for sentencing,
> returns to Canada. Then the American courts consider him a fugitive:
> it's not where he came from or whose citizen he is, the point is that
> he left jurisdiction to avoid being sentenced.
No, that's not true. If by "allow," you mean "tolerate," then perhaps,
but it's technically against US law to be a citizen of both the US and
another country. This is not usually aggressively pursued and one
is merely forced to choose one country if somehow it ends up creating
a conflict. Additionally, most of the laws against dual or multiple
citizenship have been greatly weakened by a few Supreme Court
cases on the subject. Either way, it's a lot more complicated than
merely being "allowed." About the only cases explicitly authorized
by law are when someone is a dual national by birth, having been
born in circumstances that resulted in being a citizen of the US and
another country.
It's apparently easier to become a dual national as an American if
one already has a US citizenship. Generally becoming a US citizen
via naturalization requires renouncing other citizenships. However,
the country in question might not recognize the renunciation or the
US citizenship, so you can end up in a situation where Countries X
and Y both consider you a citizen, but neither X nor Y recognize that
you are a citizen of the other country.
In either case, someone in Henson's situation should consider
carefully what they do in such a situation, because while people usually
get away with dual citizenship even when it's not technically legal, Henson
has an army of scum out to get him who will stop at nothing to create
problems or even just nuisances.
ptsc
--
Liberty is better served by presenting a clear target to one's opponents
than by joining with them in an insincere and useless brotherliness.
-Benedetto Croce
Stephen Gallagher
> >>would be considered to hold citizenship as a Canadian and he would no
> >>longer be considered an American citizen, right?
>
> > Um, wrong at many and various levels. He would have refugee
> > status in Canada entitling him to live there;
Correct. Refugee status is not the same as citizenship.
> > later he could apply
> > for full citizenship. Secondly AFAIK America allows dual citizenship
> > with approved countries including Canada, so this would make him
> > a citizen both of America and Canada.
Actually, there is no list of approved countries. You can
be a citizen of both the US and any other country (as long
as that other country allows it.)
> > Third, none of this affects
> > his fugitive status... suppose a Canadian citizen living in America
> > is convicted of a crime and, rather than stay around for sentencing,
> > returns to Canada. Then the American courts consider him a fugitive:
> > it's not where he came from or whose citizen he is, the point is that
> > he left jurisdiction to avoid being sentenced.
>
> No, that's not true. If by "allow," you mean "tolerate," then perhaps,
> but it's technically against US law to be a citizen of both the US and
> another country.
There is no US law that says you cannot be a citizen of the
US and another country. So, having both US and another
citizenship is not against the law.
The US "allows" dual citizenship by the fact that there is
no law that "disallows" or "prohibits" it. There does not
have to be a specific law that you are allowed to hold
dual citizenship, any more than there has to be a law
that says you are allowed to build a snowman in your
backyard in January. Both are "allowed" on the basis
that they are not "disallowed".
(snip)
> About the only cases explicitly authorized
> by law are when someone is a dual national by birth, having been
> born in circumstances that resulted in being a citizen of the US and
> another country.
Yes that's allowed. But it's not expressly authorized
by law.
Zinj
sgall...@rogers.com says...
> There is no US law that says you cannot be a citizen of the
> US and another country. So, having both US and another
> citizenship is not against the law.
>
> The US "allows" dual citizenship by the fact that there is
> no law that "disallows" or "prohibits" it. There does not
> have to be a specific law that you are allowed to hold
> dual citizenship, any more than there has to be a law
> that says you are allowed to build a snowman in your
> backyard in January. Both are "allowed" on the basis
> that they are not "disallowed".
You are incorrect as far as I know, not having researched it for a while.
US Citizenship *can* be revoked upon offering allegiance to any other
nation. In many cases it is not, but 'dual citizenship' is far from
'allowed'.
It's especially questionable in cases where the 2nd citizenship
*requires* mandatory military service for all citizens.
In practice, dual citizenship is allowed in many cases, including Israel,
Germany, and Rupert Murdoch.
This is just due to wiggle room however. US Citizenship *can* be revoked
upon merely granting allegiance to a foreign nation.
Zinj
--
Scientology is the *Cure* for escalating Health Care Costs
'We didn't think it was a big deal'
'She died! People die! - David Miscavige
ptsc
>> No, that's not true. If by "allow," you mean "tolerate," then perhaps,
>> but it's technically against US law to be a citizen of both the US and
>> another country.
>There is no US law that says you cannot be a citizen of the
>US and another country. So, having both US and another
>citizenship is not against the law.
>The US "allows" dual citizenship by the fact that there is
>no law that "disallows" or "prohibits" it. There does not
>have to be a specific law that you are allowed to hold
>dual citizenship, any more than there has to be a law
>that says you are allowed to build a snowman in your
>backyard in January. Both are "allowed" on the basis
>that they are not "disallowed".
Okay, correct on my misphrasing of what I said. It wasn't
what I meant to say, but since it was what I actually said,
you're right.
What I should have said is that you can lose your citizenship by becoming
a citizen of another country. Other forms of dual nationality (the most common
of which by being born in circumstances that result in dual citizenship) are not
illegal in and of themselves.
Note particularly #1, which would apply to Henson:
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > Sec. 1481. Next
Sec. 1481. - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen;
voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(a)
A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or
naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the
following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality -
(1)
obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an
application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of
eighteen years; or
(2)
taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of
allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having
attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3)
entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A)
such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B)
such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(A)
accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or
employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision
thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the
nationality of such foreign state; or
(B)
accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or
employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision
thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or
employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5)
making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular
officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be
prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6)
making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such
form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by,
the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and
the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the
interests of national defense; or
(7)
committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or
bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any
of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act
in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18
by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the
Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is
convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b)
Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or
proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the
provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person
or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a
preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has
committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this
chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such
presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.
---
Note that this itself isn't as strong as it could be, since one must have
done the action knowingly and with the intent of renouncing citizenship.
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html#1986 is on this. It's pretty complicated
and the case law cited often seems arbitrary and contradictory.
For example, here http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Kawakita is
Kawakita v. US. where they wanted a man who had held citizenship both
in the US and Japan to be a US citizen so they could execute him for
treason. In that case, he retained citizenship despite having committed
numerous acts which would otherwise have constituted renouncing
his citizenship.
Just six years later you have http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Perez
Perez v. Brownell, in which someone loses their US citizenship just for
voting in a Mexican election.
After looking at this site and others, I have decided to take back the idea
that I can actually say anything about what the law is in this area, since it
seems it's whatever is politically expedient in a particular case and the
court will fall back on whatever tortured justification will rationalize its
decision. Not that this isn't often the case, but this area seems more of
a mess than others.
And here http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Miller there is Miller
v. Albright, which is a perfect example of a Supreme Court muddle, with
nobody apparently having any clear idea fo what's going on. The split
of views on the constitutionality of the law were 5-4 that it was
unconstitutional but 6-3 to uphold it. (It was a case involving a claim of
citizenship by paternity of a child born in the Philippines to a foreign mother,
combined with a claim that the law was sexually discriminatory and
therefore unconstitutional.)
>> About the only cases explicitly authorized
>> by law are when someone is a dual national by birth, having been
>> born in circumstances that resulted in being a citizen of the US and
>> another country.
>Yes that's allowed. But it's not expressly authorized
>by law.
If "law" includes case law then there have been
Supreme Court cases on the subject that involve
not being forced to renounce a foreign citizenship.
There's no statute about it, though.
This is a State Department policy statement which may
(or may not) clarify the issue:
http://travel.state.gov/dualnationality.html
Stephen Gallagher
> > US and another country. So, having both US and another
> > citizenship is not against the law.
> >
> > The US "allows" dual citizenship by the fact that there is
> > no law that "disallows" or "prohibits" it. There does not
> > have to be a specific law that you are allowed to hold
> > dual citizenship, any more than there has to be a law
> > that says you are allowed to build a snowman in your
> > backyard in January. Both are "allowed" on the basis
> > that they are not "disallowed".
>
> You are incorrect as far as I know, not having researched it for a while.
> US Citizenship *can* be revoked upon offering allegiance to any other
> nation.
ONLY if the US citizen has the intention of giving up
his US citizenship. If the intention is to keep US
citizenship then it is kept. The US State Department
has an administrative standard whereby they presume that
a US citizen who becomes a citizen of another country
intends to KEEP his US citizenship. Additionally,
the US Supreme Court has ruled that the action of taking
another citizenship cannot, by itself, be used as
proof of an intent to give up US citizenship. There
has to be other significant evidence that the US
citizen did intend to give up his citizenship. A
US citizen cannot involuntarily or accidentally lose
his citizenship. This has been the case since
the 1960s, and there are even cases whereby someone
who did lose his US citizenship prior to then can
request to have it reinstated.
> In many cases it is not, but 'dual citizenship' is far from
> 'allowed'.
It's allowed because it's not disallowed.
>
> It's especially questionable in cases where the 2nd citizenship
> *requires* mandatory military service for all citizens.
>
> In practice, dual citizenship is allowed in many cases, including Israel,
> Germany, and Rupert Murdoch.
Actually, Rupert Murdoch does not have dual citizenship
because, until April 2002, Australia did not allow
Australian adults to apply for another citizenship and
still keep their Australian citizenship. Murdoch automatically
lost his Australian citizenship when he became a
US citizen.
US citizens can also hold citizenship with many other
countries (including Britain, Canada, Israel, France, etc)
because those countries do not prohibit dual citizenship
either.
> This is just due to wiggle room however. US Citizenship *can* be revoked
> upon merely granting allegiance to a foreign nation.
A person born or naturalized in the US has a right to US
citizenship through the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
It cannot be taken away unless he intended to give it up.
Taking an oath of allegiance to another country does not
constitute an intention to give up US citizenship.
The following website discusses the US position on
dual nationality. http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
Stephen Gallagher
P.S. I am a dual citizen of Canada and the US. I was
born in the US. In 1996 I moved to Canada and in 2000,
I naturalized as a Canadian citizen. I hold both a
US and Canadian passport. I verified through the US
consulate that I would not lose my US citizenship when
becoming a Canadian as long as my intent was to keep it.
When I travel between Canada and the US, I use my US
passport to enter the US and my Canadian passport
to enter Canada.
Stephen Gallagher
"with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality".
Unless the person performing the action has the intention
of giving up his US citizenship then it's will not be lost.
The action that is performed cannot, in and of itself, be
used as proof of an intent to give up US citizenship.
The State Department's administrative standard is that
a US citizen who makes an oath of allegiance to another
country, or who performs mandatory military service
in another country, does so with the intent of keeping
his US citizenship. He will not lose it in this case.
(snip)
>
> Note that this itself isn't as strong as it could be, since one must have
> done the action knowingly and with the intent of renouncing citizenship.
That's right.
>
> http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html#1986 is on this. It's pretty complicated
> and the case law cited often seems arbitrary and contradictory.
>
> For example, here http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Kawakita is
> Kawakita v. US. where they wanted a man who had held citizenship both
> in the US and Japan to be a US citizen so they could execute him for
> treason. In that case, he retained citizenship despite having committed
> numerous acts which would otherwise have constituted renouncing
> his citizenship.
That's because the US wanted to charge him with treason
(you must be a citizen for this) and they used the fact
that after WWII, where he worked for the Japanese, he
reentered the US on a US passport. Kawakita, when captured,
tried to use the law to claim that he had lost his citizenship.
>
> Just six years later you have http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Perez
> Perez v. Brownell, in which someone loses their US citizenship just for
> voting in a Mexican election.
The law that caused loss of US citizenship by voting in a
foreign election was made unenforceable by the US Supreme Court
in 1967 (Afroyim v. Rusk). It remained on the books (although
the courts had to ignore it), until the 1970s. A person who
lost his citizenship by voting in a foreign election can
apply to have it reinstated.
> After looking at this site and others, I have decided to take back the idea
> that I can actually say anything about what the law is in this area, since it
> seems it's whatever is politically expedient in a particular case and the
> court will fall back on whatever tortured justification will rationalize its
> decision. Not that this isn't often the case, but this area seems more of
> a mess than others.
The US State Department, in the early 1990s has adopted their
adminstrative standard regarding dual citizenship. Prior to then
the US was pretty much against dual citizenship, and would try
to interpret the law to allow it only in the fewest number of cases.
Since the early 1990s, the administrative standard has been
to not do this.
> And here http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Miller there is Miller
> v. Albright, which is a perfect example of a Supreme Court muddle, with
> nobody apparently having any clear idea fo what's going on. The split
> of views on the constitutionality of the law were 5-4 that it was
> unconstitutional but 6-3 to uphold it. (It was a case involving a claim of
> citizenship by paternity of a child born in the Philippines to a foreign mother,
> combined with a claim that the law was sexually discriminatory and
> therefore unconstitutional.)
This was not a case regarding dual nationality or loss of
citizenship, though. It was
about the fact that the US nationality laws do not automatically
grant US citizenship to the foreign born child of a US citizen
father and foreign mother, when the child is born out of wedlock.
They will if certain qualifications are met.
> >> About the only cases explicitly authorized
> >> by law are when someone is a dual national by birth, having been
> >> born in circumstances that resulted in being a citizen of the US and
> >> another country.
>
> >Yes that's allowed. But it's not expressly authorized
> >by law.
>
> If "law" includes case law then there have been
> Supreme Court cases on the subject that involve
> not being forced to renounce a foreign citizenship.
>
> There's no statute about it, though.
>
> This is a State Department policy statement which may
> (or may not) clarify the issue:
> http://travel.state.gov/dualnationality.html
Yes. I'm very familiar with that webpage and it does
affirm everything that I said.
Stephen Gallagher
P.S. I'm a dual citizen of the US and Canada. Born
in the US and a Canadian via naturalization.
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>In article<v0d3g31...@corp.supernews.com>, Rev. Fredric L. Rice:
>>What happens if Canada approves his political asylum? Then Mr. Henson
>>would be considered to hold citizenship as a Canadian and he would no
>>longer be considered an American citizen, right?
> Um, wrong at many and various levels. He would have refugee
> status in Canada entitling him to live there; later he could apply
> for full citizenship. Secondly AFAIK America allows dual citizenship
> with approved countries including Canada, so this would make him
> a citizen both of America and Canada. Third, none of this affects
> his fugitive status... suppose a Canadian citizen living in America
> is convicted of a crime and, rather than stay around for sentencing,
> returns to Canada. Then the American courts consider him a fugitive:
> it's not where he came from or whose citizen he is, the point is that
> he left jurisdiction to avoid being sentenced.
I thought it was an automatic thing, that he would be Canadian and
thus have to acquire another circumcision to make it legal. }:-}
But in retrospect, I do believe you're right; he would be paying
taxes to both countries, then?
>>If Canada doesn't approve his bid for sanctuary, there's the fact that
>>the Riverside District Attorney's office was caught openly collaborating
>>woth Eliot Abelson, noted Gambino Mafia ganglander.
> Um, gang-lawyer: I don't think he shoots people, or gives orders
> to have people shut, himself. And shouldn't that be the "Clambino"
> organised crime family he works for now?
Let's see... The books I have here -- most bought from ebay --
that cover organized crime, and the one that addresses the
Gambino Family specifically tend to indicate to me that lawyers
and other operatives don't retire or "quit" their operation as if
it were a company job in the normal sense. (He's apparently never
been a "trigger man" and the books I have almost all indicate
that actual hits are extrmely rare; that it's a Hollywood myth.)
Still, my impression is that the connections and "favors" and
responsibilities to one's crime boss that a lawyer incures while
immediately under their employ is merely mitigated when shifting
their primary work to another criminal client, not entirely severed
-- I could be wrong but that's the way I read the popularized
coverage. Presumably Abelson knows a considerable amount of
embarrassing information about the Gambino's operations, just as
I suspect he knows considerable about Scientology's -- so it would
behoove the surviving Gambino men to maintain relations with Eliot,
wouldn't it?
If anyone's interested I can find my Gambino paperback and post
the ISBN, title, and author. Just two days ago something like
10 e-mails came in with the subject line "Gambino" and I need
to go through those to see if there's Eliot Abelson mentioned
in any of them.
The threat to Keith isn't from the immediate Scientology criminal
enterprise's owners and operators but to the people inside prison
that Scientology would, in my opinion, pay to silence once and for
all. The business has already complained in public about how all
their racketeering efforts have failed to shut him up so there's
the question of what the criminal enterprise will try next. I
fear the worst.
Keith Henson
wrote:
>Sometimes you just have to sit back in open mouthed astonishment at
>the crooked lawyers and cult corrupted courts in Hemet.
>
>Basic law say that after a case has gone to appeal the court of
>original jurisdiction has no authority over the case. But here we see
>the cult asking the judge who ruled against me in the civil case to
>effectively dismiss the appeal by denying me the right to even *file*
>an appeal.
Bit of follow up. It may be that the cult filed motions in both
courts.
H. Keith Henson
176 Henry St. #45
Brantford, ON N3S 5C8 Canada
519-770-0646 (Fax by arrangement)
416-529-2789 (cell)
hkhe...@rogers.com
In Pro Per
RIVERSIDE SUPERIOUR COURT
APPEALS DIVISION
HILARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER
Plaintiff/Respondent,
vsKEITH HENSON,
Defendant/Appellant
Appellate No. 003381
Case No. HEC009673
REQUEST FOR EXTENTION OF TIME TO RESPOND,
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
December 17, 2002 this court issued an order:
"Hearing: Ex Parte Hearing re Respodent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
"Honorable JUDGE SHARON J. WATERS, Presiding
"Clerk: D.AVILA
"Court Reporter: NONE
"The court has received Respondent's Motion to Dismiss appellant H.
Keith Henson's appeal based on the entitlement doctrine. Appellant
shall have ten (10) days from the date of this minute order to file
opposition. Preparation of the record is ordered STAYED pending the
court's decision on the motion."
According to the post office cancellations on the envelope,
the order was duly mailed on Dec. 17, 2002 but with inadequate
postage. That caused it to be delayed in Riverside and/or San
Bernadino (two cancellation marks) until December 20, 2002 when more
postage was added. The letter then made good time (for international
Christmas mail) arriving in Oakville on December 29, 2002. As the
court knows from my notice of address change filed December 22, 2002,
I no longer live in Oakville. Mr. Hagglund informed me December 31,
2002 that I had mail and I picked it up later that day.
Since the time to respond was past before the notice arrived,
I request additional time to file an opposition.
Further, I would like the court to clarify what I am opposing.
I have a motion dated December 5, 2002, but the December 5, 2002
motion is to dismiss the Notice of Appeal rather than the appeal and
is directed to the trial court in Hemet rather than the Appeal court
in Riverside. The motion I have lacks the Appeal case number on the
motion and the proof of service. I presume there was another motion
filed in Riverside that I have not been seen.
Respectfully submitted,
H. Keith Henson, pro se Dated January 1, 2003
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 4050 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92501
CLERKS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
PLAINTIFF: HILLARY DEZOTEL
VS.
DEFENDANT: H KEITH HENSON
Case No. 003381
TO: H KEITH HENSON
2237 MUNNS AVE.
OAKVILLE ON L6H3M9
I, clerk of the above entitled court, do hereby certify I am not a
party to the within action or proceeding; that on the date below
indicated, I served a copy of the attached RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO
DISMISS depositing said copy enclosed in a sealed envelope with
postage thereon fully prepaid in the mail at Riverside, California
addressed as above.
CLERK OF THE COURT
Dated: 12/17/02
By: DOLORES AVILA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Minute Order/Judgment
Case No.: 003381 Date: 12/17/02 Dept: 06
Case Name: HILLARY DEZOTEL VS H. KEITH HENSON Case Category: Appeal
from Judgment - CIVIL
Hearing: Ex Parte Hearing re Respodent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
Honorable JUDGE SHARON J. WATERS, Presiding
Clerk: D.AVILA
Court Reporter: NONE
The court has received Respondent's Motion to Dismiss appellant H.
Keith Henson's appeal based on the entitlement doctrine. Appellant
shall have ten (10) days from the date of this minute order to file
opposition. Preparation of the record is ordered STAYED pending the
court's decision on the motion.
Clerk's Certificate of Mailing re: RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
APPEAL
Notice sent to DAVIS & WOJCIK on 12/17/02
Notice sent to MT SAN JACINTO JUDICIAL DIST - HEMET on 12/17/02
Notice Sent to H KEITH HENSON
Keith Henson
wrote:
>
>On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:36:16 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
>wrote:
>
>>Sometimes you just have to sit back in open mouthed astonishment at
>>the crooked lawyers and cult corrupted courts in Hemet.
>>
>>Basic law say that after a case has gone to appeal the court of
>>original jurisdiction has no authority over the case. But here we see
>>the cult asking the judge who ruled against me in the civil case to
>>effectively dismiss the appeal by denying me the right to even *file*
>>an appeal.
>
>Bit of follow up. It may be that the cult filed motions in both
>courts.
Decided to let the appeal court know what was filed in the lower
court.
H. Keith Henson
176 Henry St. #45
Brantford, ON N3S 5C8 Canada
519-770-0646
416-529-2789 (cell)
hkhe...@rogers.com
In Pro Per
RIVERSIDE SUPERIOUR COURT
APPEALS DIVISION
HILARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER
Plaintiff/Respondent,
vsKEITH HENSON,
Defendant/Appellant
Appellate No. 003381
Case No. HEC009673
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Attached Exhibit A is a motion before the trial court to
dismiss the Notice of Appeal filed before this court.
Such an action is against the law and the rules of the
California courts. I am informally instructed by counsel that this
motion is illegal and cannot be granted by a trial court and that I
need do nothing about it. I have however decided to notify this court
about it.
As this court may be aware, my cases in Hemet have been rife
with similar abuses. I have proof in the form of the unfolded,
unmailed indictment that the DA's office attempted to frame me at the
start with failure to appear. Judge Wojcik demonstrated frank fear of
the cult in his chambers in the presence my lawyer James Harr. Judge
Walker (who expressed grave First Amendment concerns about the case)
recused himself on the thinnest excuse possible. Judge Wallersheim
ruled in the cult's motions in lemine, denying witnesses and implying
jail time for contempt if I was a witness in my own defense (I was
forbidden to mention the cult's fair game policies or the deaths at
the cult's compound which were the reason I was picketing). At the
end of trial he admitted knowing former mafia lawyer Elliot Abelson
who was openly directing DDA Robert Schwarz for the cult, then sealed
parts of the record (in violation of the rules of the court) wiping
appeal material from the case that he had previously ruled in open
court was part of the record (the Frank Oliver documents the cult
wanted suppressed). There is additional detailed history of court and
DA abuses in the previous appeal papers.
In this case, the trial judge has already exceeded his authority by
issuing a permanent injunction in a limited case. This is clearly in
violation of the statutory authority given to courts in limited cases
under CCP Section 86(a)(8). Given the previous history and that my
lawyer reported the judge shaking like a leaf when reading a ruling
prepared for him by the cult, you can see that I have reason to
believe the Hemet courts are extra judicially influenced by the cult.
The court might consider contacting law enforcement in this
matter. While many years of many people reporting cult's criminal
activity and terrorizing people to the authorities has been ignored,
they may pay more attention to a judge. On the other hand, the cult's
corrupting influence may now be so pervasive that even a judge will be
ignored.
Respectfully submitted,
H. Keith Henson, pro se Dated January 3, 2003
Dave Bird
Um. This is a complicated subject. There clearly is a law which was
MEANT to remove American citizenship if you acquired another
citizenship, and the act of taking a new allegiance was to be
considered voluntary unless you could show you had been compelled.
It seems now to be weakened by taking the (?perverse) interpretation
that act of new allegiance does not cancel the old allegiance
unless you specifically meant it to. So I guess Keith could seek
to move from being a resident to a naturalised citizen of Canada
without losing citizenship of America.
--
FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD, AND BUGGER THE DWARF HE RODE IN ON!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8====3 (O 0) GROETEN --- PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL no real OT has
|n| (COMMANDER, FIFTH INVADER FORCE) ever existed
.................................................................
A society without a religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw.
Keith Henson
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
ROBERT A. DAVIS Jr., Ca State Bar No. 160357 JOSEPH M. WOJCIK, Ca
State Bar No. 177296 1105 E. Florida Ave. Hemet, Ca 92542 Telephone:
(909) 652-9000 Facsimile: (909) 658-8308
Elliot J. Abelson, Ca State Bar No. 41846 LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOT J.
ABELSON 8491 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, Ca
90069-1911 Telephone: (323)960-1935 Facsimile: (323)650-0398
Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Hilary Dezotell, Ken Hoden, and Bruce
Wagoner
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE - HEMET BRANCH
HILARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
H. KEITH HENSON,
Defendant.
CASE NO. HECO09673 APP003381
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT H.
KEITH HENSON'S NOTICE OF APPEAL BASED ON THE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE
TO ALL PARTIES AND A T TORNEYS OF RECORD: Appellant having failed to
file his opposition to the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal
within the time ordered by the court, Respondents by and through their
attorney of record respectfully request the court to grant
Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Appeal and enter the Proposed Order
attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
DAVIS & WOJCIK
Dated: 1/6/03
Joseph M. cllc
Attorneys for ent
[snip boilerplate]
CASE NO. HECO09673 APP003381
[PROPOSED]
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT H. KEITH HENSON'S NOTICE OF
APPEAL BASED ON THE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE
The motion of plaintiffs Hilary Dezotell, Ken Hoden and Bruce Wagoner
to dismiss defendant, H. Keith Henson's Notice of Appeal Based on the
Disentitlement Doctrine came on Exparte Hearing on December 27, 2002
before this Court in Department 06, The Honorable Judge Ronald L.
Taylor presiding. Having considered Plaintiffs' motion for dismissal
of appeal based on the disentitlement doctrine, all papers submitted
in support thereof and having received no opposition thereto, and for
good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
The Defendants appeal in this matter is hereby DISMISSED.
Dated:
THE HONORABLE RONALD L. ,TAYLOR, JUDGE OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT
[My response filed today]
H. Keith Henson
176 Henry St. #45
Brantford, ON N3S 5C8
519-770-0646
416-528-2789
hkhe...@rogers.com
January 13, 2003
The Honorable Sharon Waters
Appeals Division
4100 Main Street.
Riverside, CA 92501
909-955-1565
Dear Judge Waters:
I am putting this urgent plea in the form of a letter instead of a
motion because I have no idea of how to respond to a proposed order I
received last Friday, January 10, 2003. The proposed order is the
attached REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF ORDER . . . and (PROPOSED) ORDER
GRANTING . . . It came to the Munns Street Address in Oakville,
Ontario. The Order and the Request were mailed to my old address more
than two weeks after I gave notice of my address in Brantford to the
court and the opposing attorneys. These papers request that Judge
Taylor at the Hemet Branch dismiss the appeal.
I have seen the motion to the trial court dated December 5, 2002 to
dismiss my appeal, and I have seen the appeal court's show cause order
to respond to a motion I have not seen which arrived here later than
the date on which I could respond (see my REQUEST FOR EXTENTION OF
TIME TO RESPOND, REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION dated January 1, 2003). I
have not seen either a motion to dismiss in the appeals court, nor an
order to respond to the trial court motion of December 5, 2002 from
the trial court.
By the rules I *cannot* respond to a motion in the trial court without
dismissing my attorney and becoming pro se in that court. Since the
case is on appeal (pro se) I don't know if the trial court even has
the authority to let me change attorneys there. My attorney has
assured me that a motion in a trial court to dismiss an appeal is
entirely outside of due process and would be ignored. She also told
me it is impossible for a court of limited jurisdiction to issue a
permanent injunction and that the cases have gone as far as to say
that that issue can even be raised on appeal for the first time, even
on the appellate court's own motion. (Ash v. Hertz Corp (1997) 53
CA4th 1107, 1112, 62 CR2d 192,195 and Rest. 2d Conflict of Laws
Section 97, comment "d")
In their motion of Dec. 5, 2002, opposing counsel states that a
permanent injunction was issued by the trial court (see my REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE dated January 3, 2003). If the trial court has
exceeded its authority in this matter (on top of the other shocking
irregularities in my cases in Riverside County) I am not as confident
as my attorney that the courts will abide by due process or even the
law where the Scientology cult is involved. I need to know from this
appeals court if the trial court *can* issue the proposed order
dismissing my appeal.
I have tried several times to get through on the phone to clarify what
has been filed in the courts, but have had no luck trying to find a
person to talk to through the voice mail system. My lawyer has had
serious medical problems and I have had great difficulty reaching her
as well.
I would very much appreciate a call (collect is fine) from your clerk.
I need to know if the motion to dismiss the appeal before Judge Taylor
can be granted or if the Scientology attorneys are just trying to
confuse me. I also need to know if there is a similar motion before
the appeals court I can respond to.
Very truly yours,
H. Keith Henson
Cc Karen Novorr
Opposing counsel
Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board
Pts 2
I wish you luck in a response from your letter re: the "proposed" order
drafted by the cult's lawyers. However, it's been my experience
judge's will not respond to letters, especially from pro se parties,
whereby the pro se party
is not a practicing attorney...or in this case "ordained."
Can't you find a member of the Calif. Bar to finish at least this one
Appeal case? I had 3 appeal cases. The two I did pro se, one was lost,
and the other was dismissed as interlockatory (sp) The one were I was
represented, I won!
Best,
Tom
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/Scientology/
demon...@kabul.af
>DAVIS & WOJCIK
One night, a Sergeant that I worked with told me that he had just returned
from New Folsom and learned that a child molester was found murdered in his
cell. The perpetrator was the cellmate of the child molester -- a murderer who
apparently didn’t like the opprobrious acts the child molester committed. The
molester was found hanging by his neck in the cell with his hands and feet
tied behind his back; he was nude from the waist down and a TV Guide was
rolled tightly and inserted deep into his rectum.
Keith Henson
wrote:
>Decided to let the appeal court know what was filed in the lower
>court.
snip
>REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
snip
DAVIS & WOJCIK A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ROBERT A. DAVIS, JR.,
State Bar No. 160357 JOSEPH M. WOJCIK, State Bar No. 177296 1105 E.
Florida Ave. Hemet, CA 92542 Telephone: (909) 652-9000 Facsimile:
(909) 658-8308
LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOT J. ABELSON
ELLIOT J. ABELSON, State Bar No. 41846 8491 West Sunset Blvd., Suite
1100 Los Angeles, CA 90069-1911 Telephone: (323) 960-1935 Facsimile:
(323) 650-0398
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Appellees Hilary Dezotell, Ken Hoden, and
Bruce Wagoner
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Appellate Division
HILARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER,
Plaintiffs and Appellees,
v.
H. KEITH HENSON,
Defendant and Appellant
Appellate No. 003381 CASE NO. HEC 009673
OPPOSITION TO HENSON'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Defendant Henson's "Request for Judicial Notice", is an attempt to try
and misdirect this Court from the fact that he is still a fugitive
from justice and disentitled to seek the protection of this Court or
any other court. Further, nothing in Henson's "request" demonstrates
that judicial notice is either authorized or required by law under
California Evidence Code §452 or §453.
After a trial in which he was represented by counsel, Henson was
convicted by a jury for violating Penal Code § 422.6. Henson fled the
jurisdiction and his appeal of his conviction was dismissed by the
Honorable Judge Sharon Waters pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement
doctrine.
Henson's "Request for Judicial Notice", is a rambling tirade of things
he claims happened in his criminal case; however, Henson already
appealed that conviction, and that appeal was dismissed in February
2002. Additionally, his "request" is full of hearsay and opinion and
does not actually ask the court to take "judicial notice" of anything
which it can validly notice per California Evidence Code Sections 452
and 453. There are two types of Judicial notice, mandatory and
optional; mandatory is for the decisional, constitutional, and public
statutory law of this state and the U.S.; and optional notice is for
decisional, statutory and constitutional law of other states, official
acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
U.S. or any state, records of any court, rules of court and other
items delineated in Evidence Code §452.
In actual fact, Henson's request for judicial notice has nothing to do
with the instant case, it is not a valid request but it is an attempt
to poison the court with wild accusations including accusations about
one of plaintiffs' counsel. None of these statements, nor anything
else in his "request" are proper for a judicial notice.
Per California Evidence Code §450, "judicial notice may not be taken
of any matter unless authorized or required by law" and nothing in
Henson's request demonstrates that judicial notice is either
authorized or required by law.
Here, defendant Henson is a fugitive from justice who has no intention
of submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Thus, pursuant
to case law cited in our Motion to Dismiss, defendant cannot now ask
for aid and assistance from this court by way of his appeal and his
request for judicial notice, while he continues to stand in an
attitude of contempt of the legal processes and order of the Superior
Court of this state.
Accordingly, his Request for Judicial Notice should be denied.
Dated: January 9, 2003 Respectfully submitted,
DAVIS & WOJCIK
SEP OJ IK
Attorney for ffs and Appellees
Keith Henson
176 Henry St. #45
Brantford, ON N3S 5C8 Canada
519-770-0646
416-529-2789 (cell)
hkhe...@rogers.com
In Pro Per
RIVERSIDE SUPERIOUR COURT
APPEALS DIVISION
HILARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER
Plaintiff/Respondent, vsKEITH HENSON,
Defendant/Appellant )))))))))) Appellate No. 00338Case No.
HEC009673
REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT H. KEITH HENSON'S NOTICE OF
APPEAL BASED ON THE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE
DECLARATION OF H. KEITH HENSON
Late last week I finally reached one of the Appeal Division
clerks. I now understand that the motion directed to the trial court
was forwarded to the Appeal Division and that (unlike in the trial
court) I am permitted to respond pro se. (My lawyer is winding up
her practice due to a life threatening illness and could not help.) I
have included Attachment A, a draft for my refugee hearing here in
Canada for background to the court. This document is mostly links to
sites on the World Wide Web. If the court wishes to explore the
links, they will be available through
http://www.operatingthetan.com/IandR.html or I can supply them on a
diskette.
Plaintiff states:
"Plaintiffs move to dismiss Defendants' Notice of Appeal because
California case law is clear that Henson, a fugitive from justice, has
no right whatsoever to seek "assistance of a court in hearing his
demands while he stands in an attitude of contempt to legal orders and
processes of the courts of his state." Estate of Scott (1957) 150
Cal.App.2d 590, 310 P.2d 46."
In fact, there is precedent for courts to hear civil matters of people
who are fugitives physically beyond the reach of other courts: Doe v.
Superior Court , 222 Cal.App.3d 1406 [No. B048466. Second Dist., Div.
One. Aug. 20, 1990.] JANE DOE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; ROMAN POLANSKI, Real Party in
Interest.
"May a fugitive from justice appear through counsel when sued in a
civil action based on conduct for which he was convicted in a criminal
prosecution? We conclude that the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution fn. 1 compels an [222
Cal.App.3d 1408] affirmative response to this question and therefore
deny Jane Doe's petition for a peremptory writ of mandate."
There is also the U.S. Supreme Court decision DEGEN v. UNITED STATES,
(1996) which is worth quoting at length:
"Petitioner Degen is outside the United States and cannot be
extradited to face federal drug charges. When he filed an answer in a
related civil action, contesting the Government's attempt to forfeit
properties allegedly purchased with proceeds from his drug dealings,
the District Court struck his claims and entered summary judgment
against him, holding that he was not entitled to be heard in the
forfeiture action because he remained outside the country, unamenable
to criminal prosecution. The court's final order vested title to the
properties in the United States, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held:
A district court may not strike a claimant's filings in a forfeiture
suit and grant summary judgment against him for failing to appear in a
related criminal prosecution. Pp. 2-8.
(a) The Government contends that the District Court's inherent powers
authorized it to strike Degen's claims under what has been labeled the
"fugitive disentitlement doctrine." Principles of deference counsel
restraint in resorting to the courts' inherent authority to protect
their proceedings and judgments in the course of discharging their
traditional responsibilities, see, e.g., Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501
U.S. 32, 44, and require its use to be a reasonable response to the
problems and needs provoking it, Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States,
507 U.S. 234, 244. Pp. 3-5.
(b) No necessity justifies disentitlement here. Since the court's
jurisdiction over the property is secure despite Degen's absence,
there is no risk of delay or frustration in determining the merits of
the Government's forfeiture claims or in enforcing the resulting
judgment. The court has alternatives, other than the harsh sanction of
disentitlement, to keep Degen from using liberal civil discovery rules
to gain an improper advantage in the criminal prosecution, where
discovery is more limited. Disentitlement also is too arbitrary a
means of redressing the indignity visited upon the court by Degen's
absence from the criminal proceedings and deterring flight from
criminal prosecution by Degen and others. A court's dignity derives
from the respect accorded its judgments. That respect is eroded, not
enhanced, by excessive recourse to rules foreclosing consideration of
claims on the merits."
Plaintiff states:
"On April 26, 2001, Defendant was convicted by a jury for violating
California Penal Code § 422.6, for intimidating, threatening, and
oppressing individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs."
Plaintiff neglects to add that the jury could not agree on the
other two charges, 422 and 664/422 indicating that maters were not so
determined in the criminal case that summary judgment was appropriate.
They also left out the fact that 422.6 is a misdemeanor. Following
public threats (on alt.religion.scientology) of death or injury in
jail, defendant did remain in Canada after going there to picket.
Given the history of Scientology's influence in the criminal case,
which is in the previous case records of the appeal court, defendant
was less than confident that he would emerge alive and uninjured from
the Riverside jail.
Because this appeal depends on a case where appeal was not
allowed, the application of the law to the original criminal case
should at least be considered. I was convicted after a trial in which
I was permitted no witnesses and no defense of 422.6 (a). (Section
422.6 (b) refers to property damage, which nobody alleged at any
time.) Section 422.6 (c) states in part:
"However, no person shall be convicted of violating subdivision (a)
based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that the speech itself
threatened violence against a specific person or group of persons and
that the defendant had the apparent ability to carry out the threat."
Picketing is considered speech protected by the US First
Amendment, as is writing. I was arrested while picketing (my only
arrest ever were while picketing the Church of Scientology), and the
only real objection to my behavior, as was made clear to my wife by
pickets at our home, was to my picketing and other speech and writing.
Throughout my prosecution and conviction, pressure was brought to bear
on my wife and me to stop picketing and writing. My only threats
involved threats to picket, which, as my wife was told with regard to
the "Church's" threats to picket, are not considered true threats
within the meaning of the law. Despite this fact, the main accusation
of the prosecution involved my jocular follow up to a posting about a
joke ballistic ("Tom Cruise") missile that involved an estimate of
error in trajectory. (As an engineer, I pointed that that "modern
weapons are more accurate.") It boggles the imagination to consider
my two-line comment a threat or that an individual of modest means
"had the apparent ability to carry out" a "threat" requiring huge and
costly strategic weapons controlled by a handful of national
governments. What's more, I did not know by sight or any other way
any of the individuals who were pressured into accusing me, until my
trial. (Ken Hoden who I did know was added on the eve of trial.)
Early in the movie "Judgement at Nuremberg" (a dramatization of the
third of the thirteen Nuremberg trials), Dr. Karl Wieck, Former
Minister of Justice, was questioned by the prosecutor on the changes
that came about in German courts (judges were on trial) as a result of
National Socialism's coming to power. His reply:
"Judges became subject to something outside of objective justice."
And a bit later:
"The right to appeal was eliminated."
There is almost universal belief that my prosecution in Hemet was
corrupted by the Scientology cult's extra-legal influence. This
belief was partly fueled by former high-ranking members who were
familiar with internal policies to influence the courts and the
administration of justice. The court may consult hundreds of news
stories in newspapers and on the Internet to verify that this
perception is prevalent.
I hope the court considers in this in light of the last two sentences
of the Supreme Court Degen decision quoted above.
To the extent that facts are stated in this reply, I declare under
penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the foregoing is
true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on January
21, 2003 in Brantford, Ontario, Canada.
Respectfully submitted,
H. Keith Henson, pro se Dated January 21, 2003
Attachment A
Immigration and Refugee Board.
Background and timelines for H. Keith Henson
My late father, Lt. Col. Howard W. Henson, was in the US Army (G2 and
Signal Corp). As a child our family moved as he was reassigned: New
Jersey, Hawaii, Washington, DC, Japan, Washington again, and Arizona.
I graduated from Prescott High School (Arizona) in 1960, two years
after my father retired and the family moved there.
In 1969 I graduated from the University of Arizona (Tucson) with a BS
in electrical engineering. While going to school I worked for a
geophysics company doing fieldwork (magnetic, gravity, and induced
polarization surveys). I also did instrument design and programming.
After graduation I worked about two years for Burr-Brown Research (now
part of Texas Instruments) as a design engineer. I then started a
company, Analog Precision, Inc. that I sold in 1985. Since that time
I have been a consultant for a variety of hardware and software
companies.
I have been involved in grassroots public policy matters since I was
one of the founders of the L5 Society in 1975. (L5 is one of the
locations in space for the space colonies proposed by the late
Princeton Professor Gerard K. O'Neill.) Jointly with either my wife
at the time (Carolyn Meinel) or Eric Drexler of nanotechnology fame I
wrote science or engineering papers for the Space Manufacturing
Conferences held in 1975, 1977 and 1979.
"The L5 Society, which built a very active local chapter base, pushed
the O'Neill space colony concepts for many years. The Society's
greatest accomplishment, in retrospect, was in arousing enough
opposition to stop the approval of the Moon Treaty by the US Congress.
The treaty would have put a severe restraint on space development
since it would set the precedent of preventing private ownership of
space resources." [link]
I testified with L5's lobbyist/lawyer Leigh Ratiner before the US
Congress opposing the Moon Treaty in 1980. In a 1982 article, Star
Laws in Reason Magazine, Arel Lucas (my wife) and I contrasted the
Moon Treaty's treatment of human rights with those in the United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
My interest in space colonies as a "social movement" led me into
memetics, the study of the replicating information patterns in human
culture that lie behind social movements, religions, cults, fads and
the like. Analog Magazine published my article "Memetics and the
Modular Mind" in 1987. A similar article was "Memes, MetaMemes and
Politics." (Or search Google)
From about 1989 on I was deeply concerned with freedom of speech and
privacy issues on the growing Internet. There are about 100 postings
I made during this time on the Usenet news groups misc.legal and
comp.org.eff.talk. (EFF is the Electronic Frontier Foundation)
In January 1995, Scientology made their first attempt to destroy
critical opposition on the Internet. This got my attention and over
the next year I followed the news group they had targeted for
destruction, alt.religion.scientology. On December 5, 1995 Lisa
McPherson died as a result of medical malpractice at the hands of
Scientology in Clearwater, Florida.
Scientology sued Grady Ward, a person I knew through the Internet, for
copyright violation in March of 1996. Two weeks later, in response to
an open letter to Judge Whyte questioning the wisdom of forbidding
quoting NOTs 34, clearly a criminal instruction manual on the illegal
practice of medicine, Scientology sued me for copyright violation.
In late 1997 and early 1998 Scientology attacked me in three civil
cases and two trumped-up criminal cases. The criminal cases stemmed
from a civil case (Barton) of picketing Scientology in Los Angeles.
One of the civil cases was for picketing near Hemet, California, the
other was to prevent me from being in Clearwater in Dec. 1997 for the
Lisa McPherson picket and memorial. Costs for defending these cases
exceeded $35,000 and exhausted my resources to defend the copyright
case before Judge Whyte. After I lost (and was subject to $175,000 in
damages, legal costs and fees) a Wall Street Journal editorial said
this:
"Judge Whyte, in short, has turned copyright law on its head. The
purpose of the law is to encourage free speech, giving authors and
artists comfort in knowing that others cannot misappropriate their
works for their own profit. The essence of the matter before him, as
anyone not blinded by a Pecksniffian literalness can see, is that the
plaintiffs are using the law to muzzle their critics. In addition, the
judge is in the process of morphing an already dubious tort case into
a criminal matter through the contempt power--a threat to freedom of
speech well recognized in the First Amendment community."
I was forced to declare bankruptcy, which Scientology then used to
subject me my wife, my daughter, my consulting clients and various
other people such as Bob Minton to numerous debtor's examinations over
the next several years.
Scientology agents invaded MediaGate where I was consulting in late
1998 or 1999 and distributed flyers attacking my character to the
startled secretaries. They subjected three of my consulting clients,
Kubik, MediaGate, and Microtech, to expensive depositions. Their
agents plastered my neighbourhood with defamatory posters (I have
about a dozen different examples), picketed my house, and had private
investigators follow me when I was looking for more work. I believe
they interfered with at least one prospective client. In one abusive
deposition, their lawyer Samuel Rosen proposed to depose
representatives of a company with whom I had only interviewed for a
job.
On the last day of 1998 I filed a suit against the IRS for the illegal
tax deal they gave Scientology arguing that the IRS cannot overrule
Congress and the Supreme Court. The suit was dismissed for "lack of
standing" a few months later and the appeal was unsuccessful. (In the
Sklar appeal ruling, dated January 29, 2002 the same Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals had a different opinion about Scientology's special
tax status.
As Judge Silverman wrote in concurring with the opinion:
"[24] Accordingly, under both the tax code and Supreme Court
precedent, the Sklars are not entitled to the charitable deduction
they claimed. The Church of Scientology's closing agreement is
irrelevant, not because the Sklars are not "similarly situated" to
Scientologists, but because the closing agreement does not enter into
the equation by which the deductibility of the Sklars' payments is
determined. An IRS closing agreement cannot overrule Congress and the
Supreme Court.
"[25] If the IRS does, in fact, give preferential treatment to members
of the Church of Scientology -- allowing them a special right to claim
deductions that are contrary to law and rightly disallowed to
everybody else -- then the proper course of action is a lawsuit to put
a stop to that policy.
The remedy is not to require the IRS to let others claim the improper
deduction, too."
However, the suit Judge Silverman wanted to see has not been filed to
the best of my knowledge.
Also, for 11 months starting in late 1998, Scientology perpetrated a
denial of service (DOS) budgeted for at least half a million dollars
(US) to inject forged postings of nonsense into the
alt.religion.scientology news group in an attempt to drown out free
speech. I was a minor player in the investigation--the fruits of
which were eventually presented to the FBI. The FBI declined to
investigate further, being forbidden to investigate organizations
claiming to be religions before 9/11. Tory Bazazian (who subsequently
left Scientology and become a major critic) was a participant-witness
in the high budget DOS exercise. She has described her part in the
operation, which was to obtain the accounts that were used to overload
the new group with some 4 million forged postings.
On May 20, 2000, I read about an "accident" in which a 16-year-old,
Ashlee Shaner, had been killed in a collision with construction
machinery that was being used on the Scientology headquarters called
"Gold Base" near Hemet, California. I later carefully read the
accident report, which was in near perfect accord with my initial
estimate of the cause. According to the Highway Patrol report, a
paving crew had been "asked" by Scientology agents to work late the
night before the all-important weekly "stats" ("production"
statistics) are due. The machinery was being moved after dark across
Gilman Springs Road with no precautions such as flagmen or flares to
protect motorists.
I protested her death with a picket sign at this same paramilitary
compound on May 26 and May 30 of 2000. There was a newspaper story
about my picket. In between I attended (as a director) the annual
conference and board meetings in Tucson put on by the National Space
Society. (The L5 Society had merged with VonBraun's National Space
Institute to form the NSS in 1987.) I was in a car, and I believe
(from what happened) that Scientology private investigators followed
me the 425 miles to Tucson and back.
There was fairly steady picketing from May through August of 2000 by
Bruce and Kathy Pettycrew, Justin (no last name), Fred and David Rice,
Barbara Graham, Brent Stone and me. I was not there on June 25 when a
*second* preventable death occurred. This time Stacy Moxon Meyer,
daughter of in house lawyer Kendrick Moxon, was electrocuted and
burned beyond recognition. She most likely slipped and fell into the
wires from a poorly placed ladder while entering a "hot" transformer
vault (in the presence of the chief electrician) to inspect for
rodents. (A ground squirrel had caused a power outage 3 weeks
previously.) Scientology escaped taking responsibility for her death
by blaming the victim for entering the transformer vault on her own
initiative at the start of the working hours for that Sunday.
There is a detailed timeline from before the first picket to mid
September. It is backed up by all the postings (over 500 pages) I
made from the death of Ashlee Shaner to shortly after I was indicted
in mid September.
This is a draft account of high questionable actions of the DA in the
service of Scientology.
Draft in progress, not completed
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss:
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
On January 21, 2003, I served the foregoing documents described as
REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT H. KEITH HENSON'S NOTICE OF
APPEAL BASED ON THE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE
DECLARATION OF H. KEITH HENSON
on all parties in this action.
(x) by Mail
I placed the above referenced document in an envelope first class
postage prepaid in the Canadian Mail addressed as follows:
DAVIS & WOJCIK A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
ROBERT A. DAVIS, JR.
JOSEPH M. WOJCIK
1105 E. Florida Ave.
Hemet, CA 92542
LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOT J. ABELSON
ELLIOT J. ABELSON
8491 West Sunset Blvd., Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90069-1911
Executed January 21, 2003 at Brantford Ontario.
The document was also posted on the news group
alt.religion.scientology which is monitored full time by Scientology
for their lawyers. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
of the State of California that the above is true and correct.
H. Keith Henson
Declarant
Keith Henson
wrote:
snip
I was slightly amused to find:
NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF NOTICE OF APPEAL
UNDER THE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE
in my mail today.
"On December 5, 2002, Respondents filed their motion requesting that
Appellant's Notice of Appeal be dismissed based upon the
disentitlement doctrine as Henson is a fugitive, presently living in
Canada.
"Per a minute order by the Honorable Sharon J. Waters, dated December
17, 2002, Appellant Henson had ten (10) days from the date of the
minute order to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss.
"On January 6, 2003, the court received Appellant Henson's request for
an extension of time to file an opposition, which was granted in a
minute order on January 8,2003, and he was given an additional ten
(10) days from January 8t" in which to file a response. Since January
18th fell on a Saturday and the following Monday was a holiday, Henson
had until the end of Tuesday January 21St to file his opposition.
"No opposition was filed or received by Respondents.
"Thus, Respondents respectfully request that this Court grant the
Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Notice of Appeal by executing the
Proposed Order filed on January 6, 2003."
(signed Jan 23)
I.e., they didn't check with the court that the response had been
filed on time and scientology didn't tell them I had posted the reply
on Jan. 21.
So I called them today and they admitted they got my copy after the
usual mail delays from Canada and sent me their reply.
DAVIS & WOJCIK
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
ROBERT A. DAVIS, JR., State Bar No. 160357
JOSEPH M. WOJCIK, State Bar No. 177296
1105 E. Florida Ave.
Hemet, CA 92542
Telephone: (909) 652-9000
Facsimile: (909) 658-8308
LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOT J. ABELSON
ELLIOT J. ABELSON, State Bar No. 41846
8491 West Sunset Blvd., Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90069-1911
Telephone: (323) 960-1935
Facsimile: (323) 650-0398
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Appellees
Hilary Dezotell, Ken Hoden, and Bruce Wagoner
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Appellate Division
HILARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER,
Plaintiffs and Appellees,
v.
H. KEITH HENSON,
Defendant and Appellant
Appellate No. 003381
CASE NO. HEC 009673
RESPONSE TO "REPLY
[sic, OPPOSITION] TO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT H. KEITH HENSON'S
NOTICE OF APPEAL BASED ON THE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE DECLARATION OF
H. KEITH HENSON"
Appellant H. Keith Henson mailed a "Reply [sic, Opposition] to Motion
to Dismiss Defendant H. Keith Henson's Notice of Appeal based on the
Disentitlement Doctrine Declaration of H. Keith Henson" which was
received by the Respondents on January 27, 2003 and is dated January
21, 2003. While Henson's paper is titled as a declaration, it is
filled with argument and irrelevancies including Henson's background
and timeline which he says he will be filing with the Immigration and
Refugee board in Canada. Therefore, strictly on its form alone, the
declaration should be rejected as improper and the motion to dismiss
granted.
Further, Henson's "reply" was not served timely. On January 6, 2003,
the court received Appellant Henson's request for an extension of time
to file an opposition, which was granted in a minute order on January
8, 2003, and he was given an additional ten (10) days from January 8th
in which to file a response. January 18th fell on a Saturday and the
following Monday January 20th was a holiday, therefore Henson had
until the end of Tuesday January 21st to file and serve his
opposition. No Opposition was received by the end of January 21st
although Plaintiffs' counsel's fax number is on all papers.
[This is just BS. The law states you have to serve the other side,
but mail is acceptable service. They know I am here in Canada and
mail just takes a long time to get to the States. There is *no*
requirement to fax stuff.]
Notwithstanding its improper form and lack of timeliness, Henson's
"reply" is still faulty and does not overrule the clear case law
supporting the dismissal of the appeal under the disentitlement
doctrine. Two of the cases that Henson cites are actually
inapplicable for his situation. Henson refers the court to Doe v.
Superior Court (Polanski) (1990) 222 Cal.App. 3d 1406, 272 Cal.Rptr.
474. However, the Doe case concerned a defendant in a civil matter
who wanted to appear via his attorney because he was a fugitive and
did not want to return. The court noted that scenario is different
than when the fugitive is the one who initiated the proceeding, such
as in an appeal. In Henson's case, he did appear via his attorney in
the civil action, it was not until he initiated an action (his appeal)
that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine must be followed.
Henson also referred the court to Degen v. U.S. (1996), 517 U.S. 820,
116 S.Ct. 1777. However, again, Henson has miscited the case and it
does not in fact support his position. Degen was a civil forfeiture
case where the government sought to forfeit properties purchased from
drug money. The government attempted to have the defendants answer
stricken and a summary judgment entered against him because he
remained outside of the U.S. but the Supreme Court overturned the
lower court's entry of the summary judgment so that Degen could defend
the forfeiture action without being present
///
in the country. In doing so, the Supreme court also said:
We have sustained, to be sure, the authority of an appellate court to
dismiss an appeal or writ in a criminal matter when the party seeking
relief becomes a fugitive...
We have held federal courts do have authority to dismiss an appeal or
writ of certiorari if the party seeking relief is a fugitive while the
matter is pending...
We have said an appellant's escape "disentitles" him "to call upon the
resources of the Court for determination of his claims."
Degen v. U.S. (1996), 517 U.S. 820, 823, 824, 116 S.Ct. 1777, 1780,
1781
The last case which Henson referred to was Estate of Scott (1957) 150
Cal.App.2d 590, 310 P.2d 46, which was cited in Respondent's Motion to
Dismiss the Notice of Appeal. That case is applicable to Henson's
situation and it says that a fugitive from justice has no right
whatsoever to seek "assistance of a court in hearing his demands while
he stands in an attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of
the courts of his state."
In February 2002, the Honorable Judge Sharon Waters of the Appellate
Department of the Riverside Superior Court dismissed Henson's appeal
of his criminal case based upon the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.
Thus, Respondents respectfully request that this Court grant the
Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Notice of Appeal by executing the
Proposed Order filed on January 6, 2003.
DATED: January 28, 2003 Respectfully submitted,
DAVIS & WOJCIK
______________________________________
JOSEPH M. WOJCIK
Attorney for Plaintiffs and Appellees
Hillary Dezotell, Ken Hoden and
Bruce Wagoner
************
What surprises the heck out of me is that they didn't say a word about
my citing testimony from the Nuremberg Trials.
Either they don't have a clue about the historical significance or
they don't care. Rosen must be out of the loop because he would have
had a fit.
Keith Henson
roger gonnet
hey, they are paid $ 650 an hour for such a job? Go to retrain and
RPF!
roger
Dave Bird
<hkhe...@rogers.com> writes:
>[This is just BS. The law states you have to serve the other side,
>but mail is acceptable service. They know I am here in Canada and
>mail just takes a long time to get to the States. There is *no*
>requirement to fax stuff.]
It might be advisable to send everything as quickly as possible.
For example, if there is an (expensive) guaranteed rapid mail
delivery then use that. While it is tempting to send slower to
the other side than to the court, this would be unethical and
not what you would want done to you.