Letter to Serg. Secor

Skip to first unread message

Keith Henson

Apr 13, 2001, 12:11:56 PM4/13/01
H. Keith Henson
Box 60012 (302 College Ave.)
Palo Alto, CA 94306

April 13, 2001

Sergeant Secor
Deputy Judge
Hemet Station, Riverside Sheriff Dept.

By Fax (909) 791-3410

Dear Sergeant Secor and Deputy Judge:

This is a follow-up to the interesting conversation we had at the
Hemet Station last Monday regarding my trying to report criminal
conduct on the part of certain members of the District Attorney’s
office. I don’t expect an answer, but note the cc list.

Your arguments against taking a complaint fell into three areas.

First, the attempt to get me arrested for failure to appear failed due
to me accidentally finding out about the arraignment. Thus no harm
was done and therefore there was no crime.

This makes no sense to me. Attempted bank robbery and attempted
murder are crimes, even if no harm has been done. Further, Section
622 of the Penal code specifies that perpetrators are to be sentenced
to one half of the sentence for the crime if they try and fail to
commit some crime. I am, for example, charged with 422/622 in the
case against me. Also note, I was reporting a crime under Section 132
of the Penal Code, which states that providing false information to a
court is a felony and does not require that any harm to come from it.

Second, that the “Release with: LETTER TO APPEAR” which is on the
court’s computer record of my case has no significance because it
might refer to “some packet of documents being released.”

Monday afternoon I went into the computer records of the court to see
what was said in other cases. Within the next ten ascending case
numbers from my case I found other examples and variations such as
“Release with: BAIL.” I asked the court clerk what this notation
meant and she stated that it was the status of the person against whom
the complaint was lodged, and further explained that the “LETTER” is
always the defendant’s copy of the four-part carbonless complaint
form. She made the point that the legal effect of this notation was
the same as a *sworn statement under oath* that the defendant had
notice either by being handed the complaint form in person or it being
mailed. On questioning she said the defendant’s copies (LETTER) went
out by regular mail.

This verifies the opinion of several lawyers I have consulted that
this notation in the computer records would have been ample cause for
any judge to issue an arrest warrant had I not shown up for
arraignment September 15, 2000. As I attempted to show you (and was
rebuffed) I *have* the “defendant’s copy.” It was (in error to be
sure) handed to me in the court the day I was arraigned. It has no
fold creases which is physical evidence that it was never mailed.
Between the note in the court’s record, and the unfolded and never
mailed “defendant’s copy,” I have *physical evidence* that false
information was introduced to the court in violation of Section 132 of
the Penal code. Also, this was done under color of law which enhances
the crime, and could make it into a Federal case.

Further, I claim at least one Deputy DA conspired with Scientology
lawyers Moxon and Paquette who had set up a bogus *videotaped*
deposition several days before the complaint issued. The arraignment
was set for the same date as the deposition in a case called Hurtado
v. Berry. Even though there was no reason for me to be deposed in
that case, I had agreed to the deposition date of September 15, 2000
on August 25, 2000, six days before the complaint was issued. It was
my trying to get a protective order in the Hurtado deposition which
caused this scheme, and in fact the entire Hurtado case, to go off the

Conspiracy is covered in Section 182, which reads in part:

182. (a) If two or more persons conspire: (1) To commit any crime. (2)
Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime, *or to
procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime.*

Normally, a scheme--failed or not--to get someone arrested for failure
to appear would be far fetched to the point of laughter. However, it
is a *religious precept* of Scientology that all their critics are
criminals, no matter how hard the Scientologists have to work to make
them criminals. There are at least a dozen exposed examples, the most
spectacular one being the author of “The Scandal of Scientology,”
Paulette Cooper. Scientology agents stole letterhead paper with Ms.
Cooper’s fingerprints on it, sent themselves a bomb threat, and turned
the bomb threat letter over to the FBI. Ms Cooper was indicted by a
grand jury on the basis of this faked evidence. Eventually she was
exonerated when an FBI raid on Scientology in the late 70s turned up
extensive files on this and similar planned operations against Ms
Cooper. Other and more recent examples are listed in the attached
letter to the FBI.

Your third reason for not taking a complaint, that the Sheriff’s
office is forbidden by law from taking complaints about criminal
conduct on the part of the district attorney, is one which--if
true--brooks no argument.

Please let me know if this protection extends to the Sheriff’s office
taking a complaint under Section 182 against Moxon and Paquette. They
attempted to require me to be in a far away deposition at the same
time as the arraignment.

Because of the dates, they could not have set it up after the
arraignment date was fixed. Thus the information flow had to be from
Moxon and Paquette to Deputy DA Tom Gage in order for him to sign and
file the complaint September 1, 2000 which resulted in overlapping
arraignment and deposition dates for September 15, 2000.


H. Keith Henson

cc FBI
Attorney General
News media

Dave Bird

Apr 13, 2001, 8:11:02 PM4/13/01
In article<6t8edtk170n5v64v9...@4ax.com>, Keith Henson

<hkhe...@pacbell.net> writes:
>H. Keith Henson
>Box 60012 (302 College Ave.)
>Palo Alto, CA 94306

This apparent criminal behaviour by the DA's office deserves
a bit of crossposting. More fun about this case on:

So it goes to Federal Level (and/or to the State Attorney General) ?

>Please let me know if this protection extends to the Sheriff’s office
>taking a complaint under Section 182 against Moxon and Paquette. They
>attempted to require me to be in a far away deposition at the same
>time as the arraignment.
>Because of the dates, they could not have set it up after the
>arraignment date was fixed. Thus the information flow had to be from
>Moxon and Paquette to Deputy DA Tom Gage in order for him to sign and
>file the complaint September 1, 2000 which resulted in overlapping
>arraignment and deposition dates for September 15, 2000.
>H. Keith Henson
>cc FBI
>Attorney General
>News media


State of California,
Office of the Attorney General,
Department of Justice,
P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento,
CA 94244-2550, U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

I am not a U.S. citizen but I want to draw your attention to
an abuse of the courts which makes the justice system of
the State of California, and the United States generally,
a laughingstock abroad.

I refer to the case against Howard Keith Henson of Hemet CA,
which is to be heard shortly in Riverside CA. Mister Henson
is accused of "making terrorist threats" (California Penal
Code S.422) against the Golden Era Studios installation of
the 'Church' of Scientology; specifically of threatening to
aim cruise missiles at it. This, in itself, is pretty
ludicrous. In addition, the Riverside DA's office has
[1] refused to take action over actual violence by CofS officials
against Mr Henson e.g. driving a car directly at him, but
[2] chosen to proceed with this even though the investigating
officer said there was no real evidence of credible threat.
More details are given in <URL: http://freehenson.da.ru/ >.
The District Attorney is supposed to act for "The People"
against a defendant who has offended public order or the
public good, and act for the public rather than simply as
an attorney instructed by the particular complainant ---
who may have different and conflicting interests. In Britain
complainants, misunderstanding this, are unhappy that the
equivalent "Crown Prosecution Service" does not inform or
consult them at every stage, as if it were their personal
representative. But the Riverside DA's office has gone
to the opposite extreme: the have CofS lawyers sat at
the prosecutors table, and blindly follow CofS instructions
and issue motions drafted by CofS, even though CofS'
interests are not those of "the People" generally.

In particular, the DA has issued motions asking for
virtually every relevant element of the defence to be
excluded, such as other witnesses to picketing at the
studio or the investigating officer's recommendation that
there was no case worth bringing. These go well beyond
normal justice, and seem to be based on the dictum
of Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard that the law
can "easily be used to harass and bankrupt an opponent."
Indeed they seem remarkably like motion put by CofS
itself in a case against Robert Minton in Florida.
There have been many problems with this DA to judge from the
material at <URL: http://districtattorney.virtualave.net> though
I have not had time to check & verify everything said there.
I understand from the RIVERSIDE PRESS ENTERPRISE <URL: http://
www.inlandempireonline.com/news/stories/040601/dasuit06.shtml >
by Diane Harrison.#############################################

Further more, I have been following the stories of pressure
and harassment of witnesses in the case. Normally the DA
would be representing ordinary people against gangsters,
and they would harass prosecution witnesses. In this case
the DA is working hand in glove with gangsters and sitting
at the same court table with them, against ordinary people.
When the gangsters harass defence witnesses, what help can
those witnesses expect from the DA? they have little choice
except to approach the federal authorities for protection.

I enclose the full text of Henson's motion to recuse that DA's
office from putting the prosecution case at trial, because their
behaviour is inimical to fair and impartial justice. My own view
is that California law empowers the California attorney general
to step in if a D.A. has abused his discretion, and that there
are good grounds for you to do so in this particular case.

Yours Sincerely

|~/ |~/
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages