Draft motion for unsealing order
Keith Henson
This is draft, I intend to file it in a few days. As always,
editorial help is appreciated, especially if you can see weakness in
the arguments or if I have missed something significant.
H. Keith Henson
P.O. Box 12441
Prescott, Arizona 86304
Telephone: (928) 445-4412
hkhe...@rogers.com
Pro Se
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
In re:KEITH HENSON,Debtor
HILLARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER, Plaintiffs,
vs.H. KEITH HENSON Defendant.
CASE NO.: 98-51326 ASW-7
ADV.NO.035136
EX PARTE MOTION FOR ORDER TO UNSEAL AND TRANSCRIBE MISSING PARTS OF
THE TRIAL RECORD.
Time: TO BE SET
Date: TO BE SET
Courtroom: 3099
Judge: Arthur S. Weissbrodt
At the hearing before this court on November 7, 2006 , the
plaintiff's attorney David Cook was tasked with obtaining the entire
trial record of the criminal trial upon which the civil trail was
based and in turn upon which plaintiff's advisory motion to make the
judgment non-dischargeable is based.
Due to the press of business involving an attempt to collect a
judgment from OJ Simpson, Mr. Cook has asked for and was given a
continuance to June 21, 2007. Defendant's investigation indicates
that Mr. Cook took no steps to implement producing the complete record
of the criminal trial.
Defendant also has an interest in the complete trial record,
having expended considerable effort in 2001 to obtain the complete
trial record and having failed. The late Judge Wallerstein informally
sealed all parts of the court reporter's transcript outside of the
presence of the jury without notice. (Exhibit A Declaration of H.
Keith Henson dated November 27, 2001.) At that date the court
reporter, Amanda Fagan, stated she had the tapes and could transcribe
them given an appropriate judicial order.
This motion is a request for such an order.
Defendant is aware that if the court issues an order to court
reporter Amanda Fagan unsealing the informally sealed record,
defendant will have to pay for the record to be transcribed.
Defendant believes the complete record will show
irregularities, particularly with respect to the Frank Oliver
exhibits. Because motions in limine had eliminated the defendant's
witnesses and his ability to testify on his own behalf, defendant and
his attorney felt that making the Frank Oliver declaration and
exhibits part of the record was essential to have appeal issues. It
is defendant's memory and that of his attorney that the exhibits were
admitted to the record in open court (over the strenuous objections of
DDA Robert K Schwarz). However, the court's minutes of that day do
not confirm the exhibits' being admitted, and the Frank Oliver
declaration and exhibits vanished from the appellate record.
The court may recall a hearing September 13, 2000, at which
defendant was surprised by a docket sheet indicating there had been
criminal charges against him filed in Hemet, California.
Defendant has long believed that Riverside DDA Tom Gage filed
false information with the court in an attempt to entrap defendant
into failure to appear; specifically that Mr. Gage falsely swore he
had mailed the indictment to the defendant. (Secor letter Exhibit B.)
Rather than being mailed, the copy of the indictment that should have
been mailed was handed to the defendant at the arraignment hearing
early on September 15, 2000. Defendant still has the never-folded,
never-mailed indictment papers.
It seems the never folded indictment is not the only irregular
court paper generated around this time. In the context of an
extradition hearing in Arizona, defendant was given Exhibit C.
Exhibit C is an arrest warrant with its fax cover sheet. The
significance of the date and the charges on Exhibit C as well as the
judge who authorized it requires considerable explanation.
The date on this arrest warrant is September 15, 2000. That
date had been scheduled for defendant's videotaped deposition in
Hurtado vs. Berry on August 25, six days before the MISDEMEANOR
COMPLAINT AND NOTICE TO APPEAR was filed (September 1, 2000).
There was no reason for defendant to be deposed in Hurtado vs Berry at
a location at least two hours travel time from Hemet. Defendant filed
for a protective order in the Hurtado case September 12, 2000, which
said in part:
"Mr. Berry has been my counsel in this and a number of other matters
since then, and is currently my counsel for surrender notice from the
District Attorney in Riverside County on pending criminal charges
involving purported threats of the use of chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons of mass destruction."
Mr. Berry had been trying to see if an arrest warrant was
going to be issued, since defendant was aware of an investigation by
Sheriff Deputy, Tony Greer. But Mr. Berry had been asking the DA's
office in Riverside, some 30 miles from the Hemet court where the
NOTICE TO APPEAR was filed. RTC's lawyers concluded incorrectly from
defendant's protective motion in the Hurtado case that defendant had
somehow found out about the arraignment. (RTC's lawyers apparently
knew of the entrapment, since they had set it up.)
On September 12, 2000 an agent for RTC bought a printout of
the docket-which was introduced by RTC at the hearing in the
bankruptcy case the next day before this court. "(09/12/2000
MISCELLANEOUS PAYMENT OF $0.50 RECEIVED.)" The docket sheet from
previously unknown Hemet criminal case was filed in this court in an
attempt to prejudice the court against defendant and salvage something
from the overlapping deposition and arraignment entrapment.
As it turned out, on September 14, 2000, the court in the
Hurtado case considered defendant's protective motion and required the
deposition to be reset for later date with a referee to prevent
possible physical violence by RTC's attorney Kendrick Moxon due to his
threats on a three-way phone conversation. Given the hint from the
docket sheet, defendant's council, Graham Berry, reached DDA Tom Gage
by telephone late on September 14, 2000.
Mr. Gage reluctantly admitted that there was an arraignment
for defendant the next morning. Defendant reported the abusive
conversation between Mr. Berry and Mr. Gage at the time in an Internet
posting September 14, 2000 on alt.religion.scientology. (The personal
attacks by Mr. Gage against Mr. Berry in the conversation indicated
close contact between Scientology operatives and Mr. Gage.) Defendant
traveled to Hemet that night and showed up for the arraignment when
the court opened on September 15, 2000.
Based on this information, defendant has suspected for years
that there was a conspiracy between RTC's (Scientology's) lawyers and
of the Riverside DA's office (probably including the District
Attorney, Grover Trask) to entrap and arrest defendant for failure to
appear on videotape at the deposition in the Hurtado case.
Defendant _never_ expected to be handed supporting evidence
for his suspicions, appearing in this motion as Exhibit C.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/jdorsay/henson/
The fax cover page for Exhibit C lists four charges and a date
for the charges of 5/16/2001. The second sheet is an arrest warrant
(supposedly supporting the fax cover sheet), but it is dated
09/15/2000. I.e., someone pulled the wrong page from a file.
Defendant believes this is the arrest warrant that would have
been used to arrest defendant in the videotaped deposition had the
deposition gone forward on September 15, 2000. (The deposition never
happened, the Hurtado case fell apart and Wager, one of Hurtado's
lawyers, was investigated by Xxxxx Xxxxx of the Los Angeles Police
Department for soliciting perjury.)
The warrant date, 09/15/2000, was the arraignment date for the
criminal case now brought before the bankruptcy court through the
advisory motion to make a civil judgment non dischargeable. The
"crime" behind the 4th charge, 1320(a)-"failure to appear"--did not
occur that day because (by happenstance involving this court as
described above) defendant found out about the arraignment and showed
up at the court early in the morning. It is apparent that the arrest
warrant was not created on September 15, 2000. That would have been
pointless since defendant did not "fail to appear." I.e., the "crime"
of failure to appear simply didn't happen. So when was this arrest
warrant created?
The second point gleaned from Exhibit C is that the arrest
warrant had been ordered by Judge Wallerstein. Jim Harr, defendant's
lawyer in the criminal case, is extremely upset about this fact.
Neither defendant nor Mr. Harr knew that Judge Wallerstein had been
involved in the case seven months prior to his becoming the judge in
defendant's criminal trial, and Mr. Harr informs defendant that Judge
Wallerstein had an absolute legal duty to inform Mr. Harr, as
defendant's defense attorney, of his previous involvement in the case.
The third point is that this arrest warrant, Exhibit C, was
never entered into the docket of the case against defendant in Hemet,
again denying defendant and his lawyer of knowledge of Judge
Wallerstein's involvement in what defendant considered at the time a
criminal conspiracy against him.
This previously unknown court document is evidence of fraud
_by_ a Riverside County court, filling out an arrest warrant for a
crime on the assumption it would occur, perhaps 15-20 days before the
anticipated crime (i.e., the Riverside court itself was engaged in
fraud in the attempted entrapment of the defendant).
And there is the additional element of creating a signed and
sealed arrest warrant in a case and not entering it in the docket. It
is now apparent that Riverside County keeps secret documents in its
court files. Defendant does not know how Riverside County will try to
explain presenting this warrant as a legal document to a court in
Arizona when it was not included in the docket for case HEM014371.
Defendant notes that while Mr. Cook probably did not know
about what may be an intentional fraud on the federal court, there is
little doubt from the papers filed by RTC for the hearing before this
court on September 13, 2000 that the in house RTC lawyers did know.
It is possible that the court may wish to ask for an investigation to
determine if the filing of this adversary motion was an intentional
fraud on the federal bankruptcy court.
Given the above account of irregularities, defendant requests
this court approve the attached order to Amanda M. Fagan to unseal and
transcribe the parts of the record of case HEM014371 informally sealed
by the late Judge Wallerstein.
Respectfully submitted,
Keith Henson (pro se) Dated
barbz
was
> based and in turn upon which plaintiff's advisory motion to make the
> judgment non-dischargeable is based.
>
> Due to the press of business involving an attempt to collect a
> judgment from OJ Simpson, Mr. Cook has asked for and was given a
> continuance to June 21, 2007. Defendant's investigation indicates
> that Mr. Cook took no steps to implement producing the complete record
> of the criminal trial.
>
> Defendant also has an interest in the complete trial record,
> having expended considerable effort in 2001 to obtain the complete
> trial record and having failed. The late Judge Wallerstein informally
> sealed all parts of the court reporter's transcript outside of the
> presence of the jury without notice. (Exhibit A Declaration of H.
> Keith Henson dated November 27, 2001.) At that date the court
> reporter, Amanda Fagan, stated she had the tapes and could transcribe
> them given an appropriate judicial order.
>
> This motion is a request for such an order.
>
> Defendant is aware that if the court issues an order to court
> reporter Amanda Fagan unsealing the informally sealed record,
> defendant will have to pay for the record to be transcribed.
>
> Defendant believes the complete record will show
> irregularities, particularly with respect to the Frank Oliver
> exhibits. Because motions in limine
had eliminated the defendant's
> witnesses and his ability to testify on his own behalf, defendant and
> his attorney felt that making the Frank Oliver declaration and
> exhibits part of the record was essential to have appeal issues. It
> is defendant's memory and that of his attorney that the exhibits were
> admitted to the record in open court (over the strenuous objections of
> DDA Robert K Schwarz). However, the court's minutes of that day do
> not confirm the exhibits' being admitted, and the Frank Oliver
> declaration and exhibits vanished from the appellate record.
>
> The court may recall a hearing September 13, 2000, at which
> defendant was surprised by a docket sheet indicating there had been
> criminal charges against him filed in Hemet, California.
>
> Defendant has long believed that Riverside DDA Tom Gage filed
> false information with the court in an attempt to entrap defendant
> into failure to appear; specifically that Mr. Gage falsely swore he
> had mailed the indictment to the defendant. (Secor letter Exhibit B.)
Don't forget to send $$$ this time!
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
"Keep fighting for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't forget to
have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous,
ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can
produce."
--Molly Ivins
cultxpt
> On Mar 30, 9:08 am, hkhen...@rogers.com (Keith Henson) wrote:> This is draft, I intend to file it in a few days. As always,
> > editorial help is appreciated, especially if you can see weakness in
> > the arguments or if I have missed something significant.
>
>
> Keith,
>
> Read your email....
>
> They are working on it tonight.
>
> Kathleen K. will help.... if she can.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
>
> Miss Boo
Why are you conversing with Keith on ars instead of privately through
email?
Iggy
"Beckyboo" <LtcRobe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175318146....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> and via email.
>
> I've been taken to task by a few long time posters about private
> emails.
>
> So, I do both. Problem solved.
>
> I hope that answers your question.
Actually, the answer to his question is this:
LiarBoo wants to make it seem as if she is actually doing something. There
is really no other reason for her to make these announcement posts if, in
fact, she is involved with Keith's filing a motion....
Given her history.....not bloody likely. Just more fun and games from
LiarBoo.
>
> --
>
> Miss Boo
>
>
>
cultxpt
> On Mar 30, 9:07 pm, "cultxpt" <cult...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> and via email.
>
> I've been taken to task by a few long time posters about private
> emails.
>
> So, I do both. Problem solved.
>
> I hope that answers your question.
>
>
> Miss Boo- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nope.
Fredric L. Rice
>conversation between Mr. Berry and Mr. Gage at the time in an
>Internet posting September 14, 2000 on alt.religion.scientology.
An "internet posting" into "alt.religion.scientology" may not be
understood by a Judge who may be older than a certain age.
---
Insane Christofascist rightards think peanut butter debunks
science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
Fredric L. Rice
> Defendant does not know how Riverside County will try to
> explain presenting this warrant as a legal document to a
> court in Arizona when it was not included in the docket
> for case HEM014371.
The crime syndicate -- er, I mean Eliot Abelson -- er, I mean the
Rivercide DA's office will simply state that the paper was filed
incorrectly and wound up in some other folder, a "mistake" that
was later rectified.
Trying to lie their way out of charking you in advance for failure
to appear in the entrapment crime will be a bit more difficult --
but I suspect any Judge would read your motion and then stop reading
as soon as the first use of the word "conspiracy" was reached, then
I'd expect that the Judge will stop reading, stamp "KOOK!" on your
motion, and rule against.
Android Cat
>> Defendant does not know how Riverside County will try to
>> explain presenting this warrant as a legal document to a
>> court in Arizona when it was not included in the docket
>> for case HEM014371.
>
> The crime syndicate -- er, I mean Eliot Abelson -- er, I mean the
> Rivercide DA's office will simply state that the paper was filed
> incorrectly and wound up in some other folder, a "mistake" that
> was later rectified.
>
> Trying to lie their way out of charking you in advance for failure
> to appear in the entrapment crime will be a bit more difficult --
> but I suspect any Judge would read your motion and then stop reading
> as soon as the first use of the word "conspiracy" was reached, then
> I'd expect that the Judge will stop reading, stamp "KOOK!" on your
> motion, and rule against.
Don't weird legal things happen if you accuse a court of conspiracy, like
you need the court's permission?
I think it needs boiling down and the key requested actions and reasons up
at the top. Leave all the backstory, tangental theories and explainations
out or shifted down the motion.
--
Ron of that ilk.
John Dorsay
>> Defendant does not know how Riverside County will try to
>> explain presenting this warrant as a legal document to a
>> court in Arizona when it was not included in the docket
>> for case HEM014371.
>
> The crime syndicate -- er, I mean Eliot Abelson -- er, I mean the
> Rivercide DA's office will simply state that the paper was filed
> incorrectly and wound up in some other folder, a "mistake" that
> was later rectified.
>
> Trying to lie their way out of charking you in advance for failure
> to appear in the entrapment crime will be a bit more difficult --
> but I suspect any Judge would read your motion and then stop reading
> as soon as the first use of the word "conspiracy" was reached, then
> I'd expect that the Judge will stop reading, stamp "KOOK!" on your
> motion, and rule against.
I agree wholeheartedly that Keith should remove the conspiracy
speculation. The facts themselves raise sufficient questions that
anyone other than an Able grad will see the nut cult's fingers where
they don't belong.
This is not a kangaroo court. Judge Weissbrodt is not Judge
Wallaby, nor is his courtroom indulging the whims of Eliot Abelson.
His decisions suggest he is motivated by both the letter *and* the
spirit of the law, the purpose of which he evidently views as
something other than harassment. If Keith provides a brief and
factual chronology, there will be interesting times in Hemet.
Is there a version of Acrobat that will run on that CP/M box of
yours? If there is, you might enjoy reading some of the good
Judge's decisions such as these:
"Memorandum Decision Regarding Standing Of Religious Technology
Center To File This Adversary Proceeding" [1]
http://tinyurl.com/2gjtr7
"Memorandum of Decision Converting Case to Chapter 7" [2]
http://tinyurl.com/ywzz5q
"Memorandum Decision Denying Motion to Dismiss Chapter 7 Case" [3]
http://tinyurl.com/2lj8tl
"Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Chapter 7 Case" [4]
http://tinyurl.com/2sswll
"Order Approving Compensation Application of Trustee's Attorney
Judith S. Suelzle on an Interim Basis, In Part, And Overruling
Objection of Religious Technology Center, In Part" [5]
http://tinyurl.com/2bolse
You can read this one with your Mosaic beta:
"Memorandum Decision Denying Motion to Dismiss Bankruptcy Case Based
on Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine" [6] http://tinyurl.com/2fpavh
John
Ed
court has any ability whatsoever to act in a California county court.
IMHO it has no jurisdiction or standing to complain about events in
that court, unfortunately.
Ed
Keith Henson
>The obvious question occurring to me is how a US District bankruptcy
>court has any ability whatsoever to act in a California county court.
>IMHO it has no jurisdiction or standing to complain about events in
>that court, unfortunately.
The scientologists dragged it into the bankruptcy court. Cook asked
for the Dezotell, Hoden and Wagoner judgment to be made non
dischargeable because the parties had been "injured" and the
bankruptcy laws permit making judgments for injury non dischargeable.
There wasn't any testimony in the Dezotell trial so showing "injury"
depended entirely on the criminal trial. Judge Weissbrodt said they
had to produce the record of the criminal trial. I pointed out that a
bunch of the record in the criminal trail has be informally sealed by
the late Judge Wallerstein. In the last hearing David Cook said he
would produced the records. I indicated it would require an unsealing
motion.
Because the cult dragged in this case and is asking Judge Weissbrodt
to make a ruling, I am sure the judge has the authority to unseal the
record of the criminal trial.
The sealing itself was a really dicey business since it was done
without notice or any court document. Of course it was essential from
Judge Wallerstein's viewpoint because it covered up his keeping the
Frank Oliver exhibits out of the trial record.
Guess who wanted that.
Keith Henson
Fredric L. Rice
>On Mar 31, 9:38 am, "cultxpt" <cult...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 10:15 pm, "Beckyboo" <LtcRobertSH...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 30, 9:07 pm, "cultxpt" <cult...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 30, 1:25 pm, "Beckyboo" <LtcRobertSH...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 30, 9:08 am, hkhen...@rogers.com (Keith Henson) wrote:> This is draft, I intend to file it in a few days. As always,
>>>>>> editorial help is appreciated, especially if you can see weakness in
>>>>>> the arguments or if I have missed something significant.
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>> Keith,
>>>>> Read your email....
>>>>> They are working on it tonight.
>>>>> Kathleen K. will help.... if she can.
>>>>> Regards,
>>>> Why are you conversing with Keith on ars instead of privately through email?
>>> I don't understand your question.... I converse with Keith both on ars
>>> and via email.
>>> I've been taken to task by a few long time posters about private emails.
>>> So, I do both. Problem solved.
>>> I hope that answers your question.
>Then rephrase the question and I'll try again.
It's not that difficult to understand. Jeff is a professional type, not
given to dealing with idiots who either play pretend else are too dense
to honestly understand such simple matters.
If you wish, you may email me and I'll be happy to explain it to you.
---
Insane Christofascist rightards think peanut butter debunks
science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
---
"Any faith that can be destroyed by chocolate doesn't
deserve to stand." - Roger
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6513155.stm
Fredric L. Rice
>On Mar 31, 12:31 pm, f...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>>>conversation between Mr. Berry and Mr. Gage at the time in an
>>>Internet posting September 14, 2000 on alt.religion.scientology.
>> An "internet posting" into "alt.religion.scientology" may not be
>> understood by a Judge who may be older than a certain age.
>Especially to help Keith, who I see as a Father figure.
Only people who have been carefully trained by their attorney should
ever give sworn testimony, either in deposition, written affidavit,
or on the witness stand. That's one lesson that ARSCC long-time
irregulars eventually learned.
One issue that I wonder about is that Keith provides his proposed
motions here in public which allows the crime syndicate apriori time
to concoct their typically purgurous response. Keith would do far
better to solicit input from a list of email addresses of long-time,
credible, thoughtful, legitimate ARSCC members, in private, rather
than in public.
---
Insane Christofascist rightards think peanut butter debunks
science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
Fredric L. Rice
>> as soon as the first use of the word "conspiracy" was reached, then
>> I'd expect that the Judge will stop reading, stamp "KOOK!" on your
>> motion, and rule against.
>Don't weird legal things happen if you accuse a court of conspiracy, like
>you need the court's permission?
Courts are routinely accused of being involved in titanic conspiracies
against the defendant. Look for example at Psychobarb and all the
profoundly insane claims she makes in all of her insane conspiracy kook
filings. Look also at all the papers that the crime syndicate files
with various courts: filled with claims of Minton leading world-spanning
conspiracies and no end of outrageously kooky stuff.
The level of disturbed people in this country who wind up in a court room
over and over again -- and I include Helena Kobrin and Ava P. in among
the profoundly insane, not just Psychobarb -- _does_ have an effect upon
the courts, and a measure of fatigue settles in among Judges who have to
scan through the insane, meandering, outrageous claims of the mentally
unfortunate.
No Judge can read all the paper they're given so they scan, looking for
keywords and the general tone. If the document warrants actual reading,
a Judge might do so, but if it's got keywords the Judge scans for, he or
she will apriori judge the document to be a waste of time, and though
every Judge has a different set of keywords and a different _threshold_
of acceptance, emotionally loaded keywords would expect to be universally
scanned for by long-time Judges who have seen it all over and over again.
Conspiracy it probably was with the Riverside DA's office, Eliot Abelson,
and the rest of the crime syndicate, but "suborning" of the DA's office
and of the clerical staff in this one instance would be a better word
that the over-used, empathy-loaded word "conspiracy."
Keith, are you listening to this opinion, friend?
---
Insane Christofascist rightards think peanut butter debunks
science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
Fredric L. Rice
>I agree wholeheartedly that Keith should remove the conspiracy
>speculation. The facts themselves raise sufficient questions that
>anyone other than an Able grad will see the nut cult's fingers where
>they don't belong.
That's all true. Judges are able to add and subtract -- unless
they're driven by some overriding ideology, but even then such
ideologies are generally already well known (such as the Christian
extremist Judges who think violating Church and State dictates is
some "higher law" which trumps the Constitution and Bill of Rights.)
The question is, How did the crime syndicate try to charge Keith
in advance for failure to appear two weeks before he was scheduled
to appear when Keith was deliberately denied any notice that he
was scheduled to appear?
The answer is, Money changed hands at the clerical level and there
was no need to have the DA's office or a Judge involved in the crime.
>This is not a kangaroo court. Judge Weissbrodt is not Judge
>Wallaby, nor is his courtroom indulging the whims of Eliot Abelson.
> His decisions suggest he is motivated by both the letter *and* the
>spirit of the law, the purpose of which he evidently views as
>something other than harassment. If Keith provides a brief and
>factual chronology, there will be interesting times in Hemet.
I could hope so. The fact that none of Keith's witnesses were
permitted is outrageous. The fact that the very issue that Keith
wasn't picketing and protesting any "church" or "religion" never
made it into the Jury's review. Had the fact that Keith been
protesting two homicides committed by the Scientology company
been permitted, he would have been released two minutes after the
Jury deliberated.
...cuts... I'll try to read these.
---
Insane Christofascist rightards think peanut butter debunks
science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
Ed
"Fredric L. Rice" wrote:
>
> John Dorsay <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I agree wholeheartedly that Keith should remove the conspiracy
> >speculation. The facts themselves raise sufficient questions that
> >anyone other than an Able grad will see the nut cult's fingers where
> >they don't belong.
>
> That's all true. Judges are able to add and subtract -- unless
> they're driven by some overriding ideology, but even then such
> ideologies are generally already well known (such as the Christian
> extremist Judges who think violating Church and State dictates is
> some "higher law" which trumps the Constitution and Bill of Rights.)
>
> The question is, How did the crime syndicate try to charge Keith
> in advance for failure to appear two weeks before he was scheduled
> to appear when Keith was deliberately denied any notice that he
> was scheduled to appear?
>
> The answer is, Money changed hands at the clerical level and there
> was no need to have the DA's office or a Judge involved in the crime.
>
> >This is not a kangaroo court. Judge Weissbrodt is not Judge
> >Wallaby, nor is his courtroom indulging the whims of Eliot Abelson.
> > His decisions suggest he is motivated by both the letter *and* the
> >spirit of the law, the purpose of which he evidently views as
> >something other than harassment. If Keith provides a brief and
> >factual chronology, there will be interesting times in Hemet.
No one seems to have addressed my question: how does Judge
Weissbrodt of the US District Bankruptcy Court in San Jose have any
way to take actions in the Riverside County court?
Ed
Keith Henson
Fred, you forget this judge has had years of exposure to scientology.
I am making changes in the motion, but it's a different situation when
you can present court documents that back up what you say.
Keith henson
RolandRB
> "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> >> but I suspect any Judge would read your motion and then stop reading
> >> as soon as the first use of the word "conspiracy" was reached, then
> >> I'd expect that the Judge will stop reading, stamp "KOOK!" on your
> >> motion, and rule against.
> >Don't weird legal things happen if you accuse a court of conspiracy, like
> >you need the court's permission?
>
> Courts are routinely accused of being involved in titanic conspiracies
> against the defendant. Look for example at Psychobarb and all the
> profoundly insane claims she makes in all of her insane conspiracy kook
> filings. Look also at all the papers that the crime syndicate files
> with various courts: filled with claims of Minton leading world-spanning
> conspiracies and no end of outrageously kooky stuff.
>
> The level of disturbed people in this country who wind up in a court room
> over and over again -- and I include Helena Kobrin and Ava P. in among
> the profoundly insane, not just Psychobarb -- _does_ have an effect upon
> the courts, and a measure of fatigue settles in among Judges who have to
> scan through the insane, meandering, outrageous claims of the mentally
> unfortunate.
>
> No Judge can read all the paper they're given so they scan, looking for
> keywords and the general tone. If the document warrants actual reading,
In the UK they are scanned for them by a separate person whose job it
is to do just that. The judges read a written summary done by that
person.
Keith Henson
Rice) wrote:
>"Beckyboo" <LtcRobe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>On Mar 31, 12:31 pm, f...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>>>>conversation between Mr. Berry and Mr. Gage at the time in an
>>>>Internet posting September 14, 2000 on alt.religion.scientology.
>>> An "internet posting" into "alt.religion.scientology" may not be
>>> understood by a Judge who may be older than a certain age.
>>I so get this....but I would love if Moxon & Co. would depose me.
>>Especially to help Keith, who I see as a Father figure.
>
>Only people who have been carefully trained by their attorney should
>ever give sworn testimony, either in deposition, written affidavit,
>or on the witness stand. That's one lesson that ARSCC long-time
>irregulars eventually learned.
Fred is right. Even if it cost them a bail of money, you definitely
don't want to be deposed, especially by the 350 pound xxx of a lawyer,
Samuel Rosen.
Far as a father figure goes, I am probably too young for that.
>One issue that I wonder about is that Keith provides his proposed
>motions here in public which allows the crime syndicate apriori time
>to concoct their typically purgurous response. Keith would do far
>better to solicit input from a list of email addresses of long-time,
>credible, thoughtful, legitimate ARSCC members, in private, rather
>than in public.
If I have something that I had rather not give them the extra time to
concoct a reply I do mail draft documents around. But in recent times
the motions have been of such a nature that I had just as soon let
them sweat over them for a *long* time.
More than once I know they generated responses to parts of a filing I
took out before it was filed. :-)
Keith Henson
barbz
LOL...Rosen should give you a cut of his hours billed...
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
"Keep fighting for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't forget to
have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous,
ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can
produce."
--Molly Ivins
Keith Henson
wrote:
snip
>Far as a father figure goes, I am probably too young for that.
>
Typo, typo, typo. What I meant to write is that Becky is too young
for me to be a father figure. Grandfather figure more like. :-)
Keith Henson
Tom Klemesrud
H. Keith Henson
P.O. Box 12441
Prescott, Arizona 86304
Telephone: (928) 445-4412
hkhe...@rogers.com
Pro Se
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
In re:KEITH HENSON,Debtor
HILLARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER, Plaintiffs,
vs.H. KEITH HENSON Defendant. CASE NO.:
98-51326 ASW-7ADV.NO.035136
EX PARTE MOTION FOR ORDER TO UNSEAL
AND TRANSCRIBE INFORMALLY SEALED
PARTS OF HEM014371 TRIAL RECORD.
Time: TO BE SET
Date: TO BE SET
Courtroom: 3099
Judge: Arthur S. Weissbrodt
At the hearing before this court on November 7, 2006 , the
plaintiff's attorney David Cook was tasked with obtaining the entire
trial record of the criminal trial upon which the civil trail was
based and in turn upon which plaintiff's advisory motion to make the
civil judgment non-dischargeable is based.
Mr. Cook has since asked for and been given a continuance to
June 21, 2007. Because defendant is filing this motion and not Mr.
Cook that indicates Mr. Cook has not yet taken steps to produce the
complete record of the criminal trial.
Defendant's interest in the complete trial record extends back
to 2001, when his considerable efforts to obtain the complete trial
record failed because the late Judge Wallerstein had, without notice,
informally sealed all parts of the court reporter's transcript outside
of the presence of the jury (Exhibit A Declaration of H. Keith Henson
dated November 27, 2001). At that time the court reporter, Amanda
Fagan, stated that she had the tapes and could transcribe them, given
a judicial order to unseal.
This motion is a request for an unsealing order.
Defendant will bare the cost for the record to be transcribed.
There is a litany of irregularities overshadowing the record
of case HEM014371, which defendant believes the complete record of the
case will help to expose.
First, defendant believes the complete record will show
irregularities with respect to the Frank Oliver declaration and
exhibits would have been critical to defendant's criminal case on
appeal (defendant had been denied witnesses and effectively gagged at
trial by motions in limine). While defendant and his attorney
recollect that the exhibits were admitted to the record in open court
(over the strenuous objections of DDA Robert K Schwarz), the court's
minutes of that day do not confirm the exhibits' being admitted, and
the Frank Oliver declaration and exhibits vanished from the court
record.
Second, defendant has long believed that Riverside DDA Tom
Gage filed false information with the court in an attempt to entrap
defendant into failure to appear; specifically that Mr. Gage falsely
swore he had mailed the MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT AND NOTICE TO APPEAR to
the defendant (Secor letter Exhibit B, April 13, 2001).
The court may recall a hearing on September 13, 2000. At that
hearing defendant was surprised by a docket sheet introduced by RTC.
The docket sheet indicating there had been criminal charges filed
against defendant in Hemet, California.
Defendant still has the never-folded, never-mailed indictment
papers that were handed him at the arraignment hearing in Hemet early
on September 15, 2000. The papers are available for inspection by
the court.
Third, defendant was recently given Exhibit C (an arrest
warrant with its fax cover sheet) in the context of an extradition
hearing in Arizona. This arrest warrant is dated September 15, 2000,
the same day as defendant's videotaped deposition in Hurtado vs. Berry
(Case No. Bc208227 Superior Court Of California, County Of Los
Angeles). The deposition was scheduled on August 25, 2000, six days
before the September 1, 2000 filing of the MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT AND
NOTICE TO APPEAR by DDA Tom Gage.
Defendant filed for a protective order in the Hurtado case
supra on September 12, 2000 before he knew of the arraignment. There
was no reason for defendant to be deposed in Hurtado vs Berry (at a
location two hours travel time from Hemet). The protective motion
said in part:
"Mr. Berry has been my counsel in this and a number of other
matters since then, and is currently my counsel for surrender notice
from the District Attorney in Riverside County on pending criminal
charges involving purported threats of the use of chemical, biological
or nuclear weapons of mass destruction."
Mr. Berry had inquired of the DA's office in Riverside (some
30 miles from the Hemet court where the NOTICE TO APPEAR was filed) if
an arrest warrant was forthcoming. He had been asked to inquire
because defendant was aware of an investigation by Sheriff Deputy,
Tony Greer. (RTC's lawyers obviously knew of the overlapping
deposition and arraignment, the logical conclusion is they had set it
up.)
Defendant's protective motion in the Hurtado case apparently
led RTC lawyers to conclude that defendant had somehow found out about
the unnoticed arraignment. On September 12, 2000 an agent for RTC
bought a printout of the docket (evidence--the 09/12/2000 online court
docket entry in HEM014371: MISCELLANEOUS PAYMENT OF $0.50 RECEIVED
Exhibit D) that was introduced by RTC at the hearing in this
bankruptcy case the next day. This docket sheet from the previously
unknown Hemet criminal case was filed in this court in an attempt to
prejudice the court against defendant and salvage something from what
the RTC lawyers thought was a failed attempt to entrap the defendant
though overlapping deposition and arraignment dates.
As it turned out, on September 14, 2000, the court in the
Hurtado case supra considered defendant's protective motion and
required the deposition to be reset for later date with a referee to
prevent possible physical violence by RTC's attorney Kendrick Moxon
due to his threats during a three-way phone conversation with Mr.
Berry's counsel. The Hurtado deposition never materialized as the
case fell apart and Wager, one of Hurtado's lawyers, was investigated
by the Los Angeles Police Department for soliciting perjury.
Given the hint from the docket sheet defendant's council,
Graham Berry, reached DDA Tom Gage by telephone late on September 14,
2000. Mr. Gage reluctantly admitted that there was an arraignment for
defendant the next morning. Defendant reported the abusive
conversation between Mr. Berry and Mr. Gage (misspelled "Guage") at
the time in an Internet posting (Exhibit F) September 14, 2000 at 9:51
pm on alt.religion.scientology (the personal attacks by Mr. Gage
against Mr. Berry in the conversation indicated close contact between
Scientology operatives and Mr. Gage). Defendant traveled to Hemet that
night and showed up for the arraignment when the court opened on
September 15, 2000. (Exhibit E is several postings related to "Clark
Bor." This identity is thought from the knowledge displayed to be RTC
lawyer Kendrick Moxon or someone closely associated with the RTC
lawyers inside scientology.)
Defendant has long suspected (Secor letter, Exhibit B) an
entrapment had been arranged between RTC lawyers and the Riverside
DA's office (possibly including the District Attorney, Grover Trask).
Defendant believes this arrangement had as its ultimate goal arresting
defendant for failure to appear, spectacularly captured on videotape
during deposition in the Hurtado case. But defendant never expected
to be handed supporting evidence for his suspicions, appearing in this
motion as Exhibit C.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/jdorsay/henson/
While the fax cover page for Exhibit C lists four charges and
a date for the charges of 5/16/2001, the second sheet of the fax is an
arrest warrant which intends to support the fax cover sheet but it is
in fact dated 09/15/2000, eight months earlier that the date specified
on the cover page. I.e., someone in the Riverside law enforcement
pulled the wrong document. Defendant believes that page 2 of Exhibit
C is the arrest warrant intended for use in defendant's expected
arrest during the Hurtado supra videotaped deposition had the
deposition gone forward on September 15, 2000.
The warrant date, 09/15/2000, was the arraignment date for the
criminal case now brought before the bankruptcy court through the
advisory motion to make a civil judgment (entirely dependent on the
criminal case) non dischargeable.
The warrant states:
Complaint under oath or penalty of perjury having been this day laid
before me, that the crime(s) of violation of sections:
1) 422 PC-M, 2) 664/M422 PC-M, 3) 422,6 PC-M, 4) 1320(A) PC-M
Has been committed, and accusing Defendant,
KEITH HENSON
The "crime" behind the 4th charge, 1320(A)-"failure to
appear"-that the warrant states "Has been committed" did not occur
that day because (by happenstance involving this bankruptcy court as
described above) defendant found out about the arraignment and
appeared at the court early on the morning of September 15, 2000. It
is apparent that this arrest warrant "under oath or penalty of
perjury" was not created on September 15, 2000, because the defendant
did not "fail to appear." I.e., the "crime" of failure to appear
simply didn't happen so it could not have been "laid before me."
Defendant wonders when this arrest warrant was created, what other
documents are in the secret court files that Riverside County
apparently keeps and how this one came to be presented as an official
court document during Arizona extradition proceedings.
Exhibit C reveals to the defendant for the first time that
Judge Wallerstein had ordered an arrest warrant for the failure to
appear attempted entrapment. Neither defendant nor his defense
attorney, Jim Harr, knew that Judge Wallerstein had been involved in
the criminal case seven months prior to his becoming the judge in
defendant's criminal trial. Defendant has been told that Judge
Wallerstein had an absolute legal duty to disclose his previous
involvement in the case to defendant and his attorney. This arrest
warrant, Exhibit C, was never entered into the docket of the case
against defendant in Hemet thus denying defendant and his lawyer
knowledge of Judge Wallerstein's involvement in the overlapping
arraignment and deposition attempt. This is an irregularity
overshadowing the record of case and fitting a pattern of bias,
excluding defendant's witnesses, gagging defendant testimony by
motions in limine, not permitting the defense to examine the jury
questionnaires, permitting Scientology lawyer Elliot Abelson to openly
coach DDA Robert K. Schwarz in court, admitting at the end of trial he
knew Abelson and sealing part of the court record to exclude the
admitted Frank Oliver material from the court record.
This previously unknown court document is *evidence of fraud
by a Riverside County court*, filling out an arrest warrant for a set
up crime on the assumption it would occur because defendant had no
notice. This arrest warrant was generated before, perhaps 15-20 days
before, the anticipated crime (i.e., the Riverside court itself was
engaged in fraud in the attempted entrapment of the defendant). It
also presents the enigma of a signed and sealed arrest warrant that is
not entered in the docket for the case. It is now apparent that
Riverside County keeps secret documents in its court files. Defendant
does not know how Riverside County will try to explain presenting this
warrant as a legal document to a court in Arizona when it was not
included in the docket for case HEM014371.
Finally, defendant notes that while Mr. Cook probably did not
know of what appears to be intentional fraud on the federal bankruptcy
court, there is little doubt from the papers filed by RTC for the
hearing before this court on September 13, 2000 that the in house RTC
lawyers did know (and thought defendant knew). The court may wish to
ask for an investigation to determine if the filing of this adversary
motion based on an apparently corrupted trial court was an intentional
fraud by Scientology lawyers on the federal bankruptcy court.
Given the above account of irregularities, defendant requests
this court approve the attached order to unseal the record of case
HEM014371 and to direct Amanda M. Fagan to transcribe the parts of the
record of case HEM014371 informally sealed by the late Judge
Wallerstein.
Since I am not providing a declaration to accompany this
motion, any statements of facts in the contents of this motion are
true to the best of my knowledge and are made under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the United States.
Respectfully submitted,
Keith Henson (pro se) Dated
*******
(PROPOSED) ORDER TO UNSEAL AND TRANSCRIBE INFORMALLY SEALED PARTS OF
HEM014371 TRIAL RECORD.
Good cause appearing based on the underlying motion IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the parts of the court record for case HEM014371
informally sealed by Judge Wallerstein be unsealed and transcribed by
court reporter Amanda Fagan. An electronic or paper copy will be
provided by Ms. Fagan directly to this court.
Defendant H. Keith Henson is to bare the cost of transcribing.
***END OF ORDER***
rockyslammer
> Keith asked me to post this because lightlink is down:
>
> H. Keith Henson
> P.O. Box 12441
> Prescott, Arizona 86304
> Telephone: (928) 445-4412
>
> read more »
Hi,
Isn't it "bear" the costs rather than "bare" the costs?
I have always found that complicated documents like this are better
written as a time track. In the legal cases that have a long time
track I have found the best way for Judges to get the picture is to
start at the very first happening and go through date by date with
actually what did or did not happen.
Then when you get down to asking what you want from the Court it
should be by then be apparent. I haven't studied the above but I do
find that on the surface it is confusing.
Judges set great store in what happened and when. Step it out in a
list in date order.
Just my tuppence worth.
regards
Martin
RolandRB
> Keith asked me to post this because lightlink is down:
>
> H. Keith Henson
> P.O. Box 12441
> Prescott, Arizona 86304
> Telephone: (928) 445-4412
>
> read more »
"civil trail" this there. "bare the cost".
Ed
*****How can "this court" (US Bankruptcy Court) "approve" an
order to unseal an ***unrelated*** court's record of a case, or order
that unrelated court's reporter to do anything??
Maybe there are ways that unrelated courts can respectfully ask each
other to do things. I think you need to find out how this works and
how you ask a court to do that for you.
> Defendant will bare the cost for the record to be transcribed.
bear
Ed
Keith Henson
As filed. Keith
*******
Pro Se
In re:
KEITH HENSON,
Debtor
Plaintiffs,
vs.
H. KEITH HENSON
Courtroom: 3099
Judge: Arthur S. Weissbrodt
At the hearing before this court on November 7, 2006[1], the
plaintiff's attorney David Cook was tasked with obtaining the entire
trial record of the criminal trial upon which the civil trial was
based and in turn upon which plaintiff's advisory motion to make the
civil judgment non-dischargeable is based.
Mr. Cook has since asked for and been given a continuance to June 21,
2007. The fact defendant is filing this motion rather than Mr. Cook
indicates Mr. Cook has not yet taken steps to produce the complete
record of the criminal trial.
Defendantç—´ interest in the complete trial record extends back
to 2001, when his considerable efforts to obtain the complete trial
record for an appeal failed because the late Judge Wallerstein had,
without notice, informally sealed all parts of the court reporter's
transcript outside of the presence of the jury (Exhibit A Declaration
of H. Keith Henson dated November 27, 2001)
http://www.keithhenson.org/misin3.htm. At that time the court
reporter, Amanda Fagan, stated that she had the tapes and could
transcribe them, given a judicial order to unseal.
This motion is a request for an unsealing order.
Defendant will bear the cost for the record to be transcribed.
There is a litany of irregularities overshadowing the record of
case HEM014371, which defendant believes the complete record of the
case will help to expose.
First, defendant believes the complete record will show
irregularities with respect to the Frank Oliver declaration and
exhibits would have been critical to defendantç—´ criminal case on
appeal (defendant had been denied witnesses and effectively gagged at
trial by motions in limine). While defendant and his attorney
recollect that the exhibits were admitted to the record in open court
(over the strenuous objections of DDA Robert K. Schwarz), the court's
minutes of that day do not confirm the exhibits' being admitted, and
the Frank Oliver declaration and exhibits vanished from the court
record.
Second, defendant has long believed that Riverside DDA Tom Gage
filed false information with the court in an attempt to entrap
defendant into failure to appear; specifically that Mr. Gage falsely
swore he had mailed the MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT AND NOTICE TO APPEAR to
the defendant (Secor letter Exhibit B, April 13, 2001).
http://www.skeptictank.org/gen3/gen02169.htm
The court may recall a hearing on September 13, 2000. At that
hearing defendant was surprised by a docket sheet introduced by RTC.
The docket sheet indicated there had been criminal charges filed
against defendant in Hemet, California.
Defendant still has the never-folded, never-mailed indictment
papers that were handed him at the arraignment hearing in Hemet early
on September 15, 2000. The papers are available for inspection by
the court.
Third, defendant was recently given Exhibit C
http://www3.sympatico.ca/jdorsay/henson/
(an arrest warrant with its fax cover sheet) in the context of an
extradition hearing in Arizona. This arrest warrant is dated
September 15, 2000, the same day set for defendant's videotaped
deposition in Hurtado vs. Berry (Case No. Bc208227 Superior Court Of
California, County Of Los Angeles). The deposition was scheduled on
August 25, 2000, six days before the September 1, 2000 filing of the
MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT AND NOTICE TO APPEAR by DDA Tom Gage.
Defendant filed for a protective order in the Hurtado case supra
on September 12, 2000, before he knew of the arraignment. There was
no reason for defendant to be deposed in Hurtado vs Berry (at a
location two hours travel time from Hemet). The protective motion
said in part:
"Mr. Berry has been my counsel in this and a number of other
matters since then, and is currently my counsel for surrender notice
from the District Attorney in Riverside County on pending criminal
charges involving purported threats of the use of chemical, biological
or nuclear weapons of mass destruction."
Mr. Berry had inquired of the DA's office in Riverside (some 30
miles from the Hemet court where the NOTICE TO APPEAR was filed) if an
arrest warrant was forthcoming. He had been asked to inquire because
defendant was aware of an investigation by Sheriff Deputy Tony Greer.
(RTC's lawyers obviously knew of the overlapping deposition and
arraignment; the logical conclusion is they had set it up.)
Defendant's protective motion in the Hurtado case apparently led
RTC lawyers to conclude that defendant had somehow found out about the
unnoticed arraignment. On September 12, 2000, an agent for RTC bought
a printout of the docket (evidence--the 09/12/2000 online court docket
entry in HEM014371: MISCELLANEOUS PAYMENT OF $0.50 RECEIVED Exhibit D
http://www3.sympatico.ca/jdorsay/henson/ [bottom of page])
that was introduced by RTC at the hearing in this bankruptcy case the
next day. This one page docket sheet from the previously unknown
Hemet criminal case was filed in this court in an attempt to prejudice
the court against defendant and salvage something from an attempt to
entrap the defendant though overlapping deposition and arraignment
dates.
As it turned out, on September 14, 2000, the court in the Hurtado
case supra considered defendant's protective motion and required the
deposition to be reset for later date with a referee to prevent
possible physical violence by RTC's attorney Kendrick Moxon due to his
threats during a three-way phone conversation with Mr. Berry's counsel
in Hurtado. The Hurtado deposition never materialized, since the case
fell apart and Wager, one of Hurtado's lawyers, was investigated by
the Los Angeles Police Department for soliciting perjury. (The Los
Angeles DA庸or "political reasons"妖id not accept the complaint filed
by the LAPD.)
Given the hint from the docket sheet, defendant's council, Graham
Berry, reached DDA Tom Gage by telephone late on September 14, 2000.
Mr. Gage reluctantly admitted that there was an arraignment for
defendant the next morning. Defendant reported the abusive
conversation between Mr. Berry and Mr. Gage (misspelled "Guage") at
the time in an Internet posting (Exhibit F)
http://www.skeptictank.org/gen1/gen00387.htm
September 14, 2000 at 9:51 pm on alt.religion.scientology. (The
personal attacks by Mr. Gage against Mr. Berry in the conversation
indicated close contact between Scientology operatives and Mr. Gage.)
Defendant traveled to Hemet that night and showed up for the
arraignment when the court opened on September 15, 2000. (Exhibit E,
spanning Internet postings from September 13
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/5ceaf1e220a732f3?hl=en&
[September 17]
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/ecc1c1d977f74d75?hl=en&
[September 18]
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/74b1e41caed4b971?hl=en&
to December 22
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/22d09645cddac711?hl=en&
related to "Clark Bor," shows that an agent of Scientology believed
that defendant knew about the arraignment by September 12. Analysis
on the later dates shows that "Bor" was most likely RTC lawyer
Kendrick Moxon or someone closely associated with the RTC lawyers
inside scientology.)
Defendant has long suspected (Secor letter, Exhibit B) an
entrapment had been arranged between RTC lawyers and the Riverside
DA's office (possibly including the District Attorney, Grover Trask).
Defendant believes this arrangement had as its ultimate goal arresting
defendant for failure to appear, dramatically captured on videotape
during deposition in the Hurtado case. But defendant never expected
to be handed supporting evidence for his suspicions, appearing in this
motion as Exhibit C.
While the fax cover page for Exhibit C lists four charges and a
date for the charges of 5/16/2001, the second sheet of the fax is an
arrest warrant which was intended to support the fax cover sheet but
it is in fact dated 09/15/2000, eight months earlier than the date
specified on the cover page. I.e., someone in the Riverside Sheriff
Department pulled the wrong document. Defendant believes that page 2
of Exhibit C is the arrest warrant intended for use in defendantç—´
expected arrest during the Hurtado (supra) videotaped deposition had
the deposition gone forward on September 15, 2000.
The warrant date, 09/15/2000, was the arraignment date for the
criminal case now brought before the bankruptcy court through the
advisory motion to make a civil judgment (entirely dependent on the
criminal case) non dischargeable.
The warrant states:
Complaint under oath or penalty of perjury having been this day laid
before me, that the crime(s) of violation of sections:
1) 422 PC-M, 2) 664/M422 PC-M, 3) 422,6 PC-M, 4) 1320(A) PC-M
Has been committed, and accusing Defendant,
KEITH HENSON
The "crime" behind the 4th charge, 1320(A)-"failure to
appear"葉hat the warrant states "Has been committed" did not occur
that day because (by happenstance involving this bankruptcy court as
described above) defendant found out about the arraignment and
appeared at the court early on the morning of September 15, 2000. It
is apparent that this arrest warrant "under oath or penalty of
perjury" was not created on September 15, 2000, because the defendant
not only did not "fail to appear" but was present when the court
opened. I.e., the "crime" of failure to appear simply didn't happen
so it could not have been "laid before me." Defendant wonders when
this arrest warrant was created, what other documents are in the
secret court files that Riverside County apparently keeps and how this
one came to be presented as an official court document during Arizona
extradition proceedings.
Exhibit C reveals to the defendant for the first time that Judge
Wallerstein had ordered an arrest warrant for the failure-to-appear
attempted entrapment. Neither defendant nor his defense attorney, Jim
Harr, knew that Judge Wallerstein had been involved in the criminal
case seven months prior to his becoming the judge in defendant's
criminal trial. Defendant has been told that Judge Wallerstein had an
absolute legal duty to disclose his previous involvement in the case
to defendant and his attorney. This arrest warrant, Exhibit C, was
never entered into the docket of the case against defendant in Hemet
(q.v.), further denying defendant and his lawyer knowledge of Judge
Wallerstein's involvement in the overlapping arraignment and
deposition attempt. This is an irregularity overshadowing the record
of the case and fitting a pattern of bias on the part of Judge
Wallerstein that was manifested by excluding defendant's witnesses,
gagging defendant's testimony by motions in limine, not permitting the
defense to examine the jury questionnaires, permitting Scientology
lawyer Elliot Abelson to openly coach DDA Robert K. Schwarz in court,
admitting at the end of trial he knew former Mafia lawyer Abelson, and
"sealing" part of the court record to exclude the admitted Frank
Oliver material from the court record.
This previously unknown court document is evidence of fraud by a
Riverside County court, filling out an arrest warrant for a set-up
"crime" on the assumption it would occur because defendant had no
notice. This arrest warrant was generated before, perhaps 15-20 days
before, the anticipated crime (i.e., the Riverside court itself was
engaged in fraud in the attempted entrapment of the defendant). It
also presents the enigma of a signed and sealed arrest warrant that is
not entered in the docket for the case. It is now apparent that
Riverside County keeps secret documents in its court files. Defendant
does not know how Riverside County will try to explain presenting this
warrant as a legal document to a court in Arizona when it was not
included in the docket for case HEM014371.
Finally, defendant notes that while Mr. Cook probably did not
know of what appears to be intentional fraud on the federal bankruptcy
court, there is little doubt from the papers filed by RTC for the
hearing before this court on September 13, 2000, that the in-house RTC
lawyers did know. The court may wish to ask for an investigation to
determine if the filing of this adversary motion based on an
apparently corrupted trial court was an intentional fraud by
Scientology lawyers on the federal bankruptcy court.
Given the above account of irregularities, defendant requests
this court approve the attached order to unseal the record of case
HEM014371 and to direct Amanda M. Fagan to transcribe the parts of the
record of case HEM014371 heretofor informally sealed by the late Judge
Wallerstein.
Since I am not providing a declaration to accompany this motion,
I hereby declare that any statements of facts in the contents of this
motion are true to the best of my knowledge and are made under penalty
of perjury under the laws of the United States.
Respectfully submitted,
H. Keith Henson (pro se)
Dated April 6, 2007
[1] At the hearing, Neil Levin was referred to as "staff" for the Mr.
Cook's clients. He stated he worked for CSI, Church of Scientology
International. In the Hoden reply to interrogatories, CSI supplied
the legal funding for the Dezotell parties. CSI is so closely
associated with RTC as to constitute one organization.
Android Cat
> [1] At the hearing, Neil Levin was referred to as "staff" for the Mr.
> Cook's clients. He stated he worked for CSI, Church of Scientology
> International. In the Hoden reply to interrogatories, CSI supplied
> the legal funding for the Dezotell parties. CSI is so closely
> associated with RTC as to constitute one organization.
RTC's address of record, 1710 Ivar Ave, is the same building as CSI's 6331
Hollywood Blvd.
They're certainly doing it to mislead everyone, but I wonder if it could be
called fraudulant? (Is that side entrance to 6331 Hollywood Blvd *legally*
1710 Ivar Ave, and what's on rental or purchase agreements for that
property?)
http://tinyurl.com/2294jg
Click on Religious Technology Center on the left, then zoom in.
Feisty
"Keith Henson" <hkhe...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:46228ab7....@news2.lightlink.com...
> to 2001, when his considerable efforts to obtain the complete trial
> record for an appeal failed because the late Judge Wallerstein had,
> without notice, informally sealed all parts of the court reporter's
> transcript outside of the presence of the jury (Exhibit A Declaration
> of H. Keith Henson dated November 27, 2001)
> http://www.keithhenson.org/misin3.htm. At that time the court
> reporter, Amanda Fagan, stated that she had the tapes and could
> transcribe them, given a judicial order to unseal.
>
> This motion is a request for an unsealing order.
>
> Defendant will bear the cost for the record to be transcribed.
>
> There is a litany of irregularities overshadowing the record of
> case HEM014371, which defendant believes the complete record of the
> case will help to expose.
>
> First, defendant believes the complete record will show
> irregularities with respect to the Frank Oliver declaration and
> expected arrest during the Hurtado (supra) videotaped deposition had
> the deposition gone forward on September 15, 2000.
>
> The warrant date, 09/15/2000, was the arraignment date for the
> criminal case now brought before the bankruptcy court through the
> advisory motion to make a civil judgment (entirely dependent on the
> criminal case) non dischargeable.
>
> The warrant states:
>
> Complaint under oath or penalty of perjury having been this day laid
> before me, that the crime(s) of violation of sections:
>
> 1) 422 PC-M, 2) 664/M422 PC-M, 3) 422,6 PC-M, 4) 1320(A) PC-M
>
> Has been committed, and accusing Defendant,
>
> KEITH HENSON
>
> The "crime" behind the 4th charge, 1320(A)-"failure to
What an interesting happening. The latest "warrant discovery" ties into events happening
in the previous years. Part of ongoing tactics as you described are "Evidence not
admitted; vanishing court records." This warrant document appears to have motivated action
against you. This is very interesting, because this says that Mr. Cook did not act on your
behalf originally, and his connections to the cult.
The Hurtado case brought hysterical terrorist claims about you, to get you in for
deposition, and these things begin to look like using the courts to interrogate. Even
though it never happened, $cientology likes to tie one law case to the other and associate
everyone, as if to make a legal logjam. What confusion.
This was an understandable account of the events that makes a nasty show of the cults
tactics over the years. When will someone make them accountable for these actions?
"intentional fraud on the federal bankruptcy court"
The cult seems to have entrapped themself. Wow.
Maureen