Henson bankruptcy heats up

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Keith Henson

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 6:14:32 PM7/2/05
to

H. Keith Henson
176 Henry St, #45
Brantford, ON N3S 5C8
hkhe...@rogers.com
519-770-0646 (Fax by arrangement)
519-774-1620 (cell)

June 27, 2005
Sent By Fax and Email


John Wesolowski, Attorney
United States Trustee, Region 17
United States Department of Justice
280 South First Street, Room 268
San Jose, CA 95113
john.wesolowski[zot]usdoj.gov
Telephone No. (408)535-5525
Facsimile No. (408)535-5532


Dear Mr. Wesolowski:

This letter is being sent to you at the suggestion of Judge
Weissbrodt.

In a hearing June 20, 2005 I described two recent attacks by the
objecting creditor (Scientology) and asked him where I should report
these incidents. Judge Weissbrodt told me the US Trustee. He did not
indicate exactly where within the US Trustee's office I should write,
but he did mention that wherever I started my complaint could go as
high as needed for an effective response from the Justice Department.

Since you are somewhat familiar with this case, I am starting with
you. If you are the wrong person, please let me know to whom I should
address these concerns.

One of these attacks (criminal harassment and assault with a motor
vehicle) occurred on April 29, 2005. It was by Robert Del Bianco, a
private investigator. Besides calling the local police to the scene,
I reported the matter to the Canadian authorities who license private
investigators. An Ontario Provincial Police officer,
Gino.Tatascxxxx[zot]jus.gov.on.ca, (416) 236-0xxx, interviewed the
owner of the PI’s agency. Officer Tatascxxx was not satisfied that
the agency had a reason to investigate me. It turned out they were
subcontracted to another agency. So the officer talked to that
agency. The second agency was not able provide a satisfactory reason
either. So the second agency was forced to disclose who their client
was. The officer then contacted the client.

The client is in the US. When Officer Tatascxxxx talked to him he
stated they were engaged in litigation against me.

Scientology (RTC and Dezotell) in this bankruptcy case is the only
litigation in which I am involved.

There was no excuse for an investigation much less the blatant
harassment (openly videotaping me and a co-worker and then hitting me
with his rented van). However, there is a Scientology policy of
harassing people with "Noisy Investigation." This is the fourth time
I have been physically attacked by a private investigator working for
Scientology, second time with a vehicle.

The second matter I brought up to Judge Weissbrodt is that for a year
I have been subjected to libel attacks on the public news group
alt.religion.scientology. These vicious attacks were originating from
terminals in the Sinclair Library at the University of Hawaii. Some
concerned people in Hawaii identified the terminals being used and
photographed the person in the act. Eventually he was identified
from the photos.

He turned out to be Robert V. Carlson (DOB: 1/5/68), who has
identified himself in the past as a staff member of Scientology in
Hawaii, and may still hold an undercover position in Scientology's
dirty tricks department, the Office of Special Affairs (OSA). Court
records indicate that his address is the same as his brother Steve G.
Carlson (DOB: Jul 1970). Steve Carlson definitely is a staff member
for Scientology in Hawaii. (Verified by a phone call there last
week.).

Let me know if you need further information or if you want my thoughts
on how to put a stop to these extralegal attacks.

Very Truly Yours,

H. Keith Henson

cc Judge Weissbrodt
Gino.Tatasciore

PS. According to reports from last fall, one of the three people in
the Dezotell group of creditors, Ken Hoden, former manager of "Gold
base" is locked up in Scientology infamous punishment program, the
RPF. Hoden has been in the punishment program a long time, probably
even before he testified against me. If so he testified at my
criminal trial under duress.

If he could be rescued, he could certainly shed light on the murder of
Stacy Moxon Meyer. Stacy was electrocuted when she sent into a hot
transformer vault. It was murder either as a deliberate act to kill
her or as an act of "depraved indifference."

Keith Henson

unread,
Jul 2, 2005, 6:21:34 PM7/2/05
to
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:14:32 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:

snip

There was an article in the Brantford paper today about my adventures
with scientology and their PIs. I don't want to post it before I get
permission, but if you were to ask on chat or something you be able to
find a copy someone had scanned.

Sorry for not correcting the OCR errors in this legal document I
received recently. Awful busy with other projects. If someone wants
to reformat it, be my guest. I have to reply to this thing--so if
people have suggestions . . . .

I might have to ask for more time.

Keith


I DAVID J. COOK, ESQ. (State Bar # 060859)
ROBERT J. PERKISS, ESQ (State Bar # 62386)
2 EBRA D. LEW, ESQ. (State Bar # 114537)
COOK, PERKISS & LEW
3 A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
333 Pine Street, Suite 300
4 San Francisco, California 94104
Tel: (415) 989?4730
5 Fax: (415) 989?0491
ile No. 45,658
6
Attorneys for Creditors HILARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN,
7 AND BRUCE WAGONER
8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 SAN JOSE DIVISION
I I
In re: CASE NO. 98?51326 ASW?7
12
KEITH HENSON,
13
Debtor.
14
15 HILARY DEZOTELL, an individual; ADV. NO. 0351.36
KEN HODEN, an individual: and
16 IBRUCE WAGONER, an individual, DECLARATION OF DAVID J. COOK,
ESQ.
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
17 Plaintiffs, JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P.§ 56
AND BKRTCY.C. § 7056
is vs.
19 H. KEITH HENSON, an individual,
Debtor, Date: July 26, 2005
20 Time: 3:00 p.m.
Defendant. Courtroom: 3099
21 Judge: Arthur A. Weissbrodt
22 1, DAVID J. COOK, hereby declare and state as follows:
23 1. 1 am one of the attorneys of record for the Creditors in
the above?entitled action, am
24 duly authorized to practice before all courts in the State of
California, and am familiar with the
25 facts and circumstances in this action.
26 2. Plaintiffs HILARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, AND BRUCE WAGONER
27
28 1

DECLARATION OF DAVID J. COOK. ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
jUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P.§ 56 AND BKRTCY.C. § 7056 ? CASE NO. 98?51326
ASW?7 / ADV. NO. 035136

1


I ("Plaintiffs") bring this nondischargeable action by virtue of the
Amended Complaint filed on

2 pril 21, 2003. This action is brought under Bkrtcy.C. §
523(a)(6), to determine the

3 riondischargeability action of a civil judgment in the action in the
Superior Court, County of

4 Riverside, Hemet Branch, entitled Hilai:y Dezotell, Ken Hoden, and
Bruce Wagoner v. H. Keith

5 Henson, Case No. HEC 009 ("State Court Action"), on the basis that
Plaintiff engaged in conduct

6 ?onstituting a willful and malicious injury, as defined under
Bkrtcy.C. § 523(a)(6).

7 3. This is a classic nondischargeability action brought under
the court's core jurisdiction

8 of I I U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A)(K)&(O).

9 4. These Plaintiffs are entitled to the application of
collateral estoppel, in that the conduct

10 in the underlying civil action shows sufficient facts to
demonstrate that the debt would be

I I nondischargeable under Bki?tcy.C. § 523(a)(6).

12 5. Collateral estoppel applies in a Bankruptcy Court
proceeding when the State Court has

13 djudicated the claims of the parties leading to a final decision.

14 6. This case is even more straightforward in that the State
Court chronology shows active

15 litigation both in the civil and criminal courts, as follows:

16 A. On April 26, 2001, HENSON was convicted by a jury for
violating California Penal

17 Code § 422.6, for intimidating, threatening, and oppressing
DEZOTELL, HODEN and

18 WAGONER on the basis of their religious beliefs. Penal Code § 422.6
provides that:

19 "No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall be
force or threat of
force, wil~fidly injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress
or threaten any other
20 person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege secured to him or
her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the
Constitution or laws of the
21 United States because of the other person's race, color,
religion . . . " (Emphasis
21 added)
23 B. After his conviction, Debtor was released on his own
recognizance until his scheduled

24 appearance for sentencing on May 16, 2001. However, Debtor fled to
Canada, prior to his

25 sentencing date, arid on July 20, 2001, Defendant HENSON was
sentenced in absentia to a term of
26 365 days subject to probation terms which he did not accept.
Additionally, due to HENSON's
27 failure to appear, a bench warrant was issued which is still
outstanding.
28 2
DECLARATION OF DAVID J. COOK, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P.§ 56 AND BKRTCY.C. § 7056 ? CASE NO.
98?51326 ASW?7 / ADV. NO. 035136 2


I C. On July 30, 200 1, Plaintiffs filed a civil action against
HENSON for a violation of their

2 ?ivil rights pursuant to Civil Code § 52. 1, a parallel statute to
the hate crime statute under which

3 HENSON was convicted. The State Court Complaint is attached hereto
as Exhibit "A " which is

4 attached hereto and incorporated herein.

5 D. On June 14, 2002, Plaintiffs in that civil action filed a
Motion for Summary

6 Adjudication of Liability on the first cause of action for violation
of civil rights. The motion was

7 based on the adjudicated facts underlying HENSON's criminal
conviction which created a

8 collateral estoppel in the civil case. Defendant HENSON filed an
opposition, and the court

9 granted after a contested hearing on August 26, 2002.

10 E. On September 4, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
a final judgment and an

I I order: (1) for permanent injunctive relief to be entered in favor
of Plaintiffs and against Defendant

12 HENSON; (2) for statutory civil penalties in the amount of $75,000
(S25,000 per Plaintiff); and

13 (3) for reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Civil Code § 52. 1
(h), in the amount of $23,666.65.

14 That motion for final judgment was unopposed by Defendant HENSON
and was granted by the

15 Court on October 7, 2002. The final j udgment was signed on October
7, 2002 and served on

16 Defendant HENSON's then counsel on October 15, 2002 and the
permanent injunction was signed

17 on October 8, 2002 and served on Defendant HENSON's counsel on
October 9, 2002. Copies of

18 the final judgment and permanent injunction are attached hereto as
Exhibits "B " and "C" which

19 are attached hereto and incorporated herein.

20 7. The essential facts in the underlying State Court
litigation is that the Defendant engaged

21 in a course of conduct of unmitigated terror, stalking, and
harassment. The key allegations are

22 found at paragraphs 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the State Court Complaint
marked Exhibit "A " which provide

23 as follows:

24 "T From approximately May 26, 2000 through and including
approximately
September 3, 2000, Defendant engaged in anti?re!igious conduct
in violation of the
25 civil rights of Plaintiffs in repeated, planned, willful, and
malicious acts of
harassment, stalking, threatening behavior, and other acts
inspired by his hatred for
26 Scientology and Scientologists.
27
28 3
DECLARATION OF DAVID J. COOK, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P.§ 56 AND BKRTCY.C. § 7056 ? CASE NO.
98?51326 ASW?7 / ADV. NO. 035136 3


1 8. Throughout that period, on repeated occasions,
Henson followed Plaintiffs from
their homes to work and from work to their homes,
taking photographs and writing
2 down license plate numbers, lurking around their
residences and their Church
employer's facility, and taunting and harassing them
because of their religion. He
3 stalked the entrance to their Church with
anti?Scientology signs that were
derogatory, menacing, and hate?filled.
4 9. Over time, Defendant's harassment and intimidation
escalated to the point of
threats of violence such that Plaintiffs began taking
different routes from their
5 homes to their Church employer's facility and refused
to go outside their residences
and place of employment out of fear of Defendant,
while the Church had to hire
6 security professionals for the protection of its
staff.
10. Defendant's menacing and threatening conduct
culminated when he, along
7 with a cohort, used a Global Positioning System
("GPS") device to plot the satellite
coordinate of several buildings located at the
religious facility at which Plaintiff
8 work, calculating sufficient coordinate information to
launch an accurate missile
strike on those targets, and posting their coordinates
to the Internet, thereby inciting
9 others with the suggestion that just such a missile
strike might be made by using
the coordinates he calculated."
10
8. The Riverside County District Attorney's Office
charged and ultimately obtained a
11
12 ?onviction under Pen.C. § 422.6, based upon the intimidation,
threats, and oppression suffered by

13 laintiffis as a result of their religious beliefs. The ensuing
criminal conviction ultimately led to

14 the successful filing and prosecution of the civil action entitled
Dezotell v. Henson, Riverside

County Superior Court Case No. 009673, which was concluded by way of a
final judgment based 15 16 upon the same conduct and the entry of a
monetary award.

17 9. The Debtor was convicted of a crime of essential religious
persecution which was

18 followed by a civil judgment based upon the same set of facts. This
is not the type of conduct

19 which could be considered as accidental, negligent, or even
reckless. The Debtor intended to

20 ?orninit these acts for his own personal gratification and
satisfaction.

21 10. Plaintiffs relief is seeking a Judgment in this court that
the Final Judgment of October


,Y) 7, 2002 (Exhibit "B") and the Permanent Injunction of October 8,
2002 (Exhibit "C") be declared

23 nondischargeable, both 1) for the monetary relief of $75,000 for
the three Plaintiffs, plus

24 $23,666.65 for attorney's fees; and 2) any injunctive relief,
including the injunctive relief as set

25 forth specifically in the Permanent Injunction of Exhibit "C. "

26 11. Plaintiff is entitled to an order declaring that the above
State Court Judgment, both the
27 monetary and non?monetary portion, including all injunctive
relief, is nondischargeable under
28 4
DECLARATION OF DAVID J. COOK, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P.§ 56 AND BKRTCY.C. § 7056 ? CASE NO.
98?51326 ASW?7 / ADV. NO. 035136 4


I Bkr?tcy.C. § 523(a)(6).
2 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California that the
3 foregoing is true and correct.
4 Executed on June 21, 2005 at San Francisco, California
5
6 /s/ David J. Cook
DAVID J. COOK, ESQ. (SB# 060859)
7
8
F.\dje henson.sj2
9
10
17056 ? CASE NO. 98?51326 ASW?7 / ADV. NO. 035136 5


Keith Henson

unread,
Jul 13, 2005, 10:13:23 AM7/13/05
to
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:21:34 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:14:32 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
>wrote:
>
snip
>

> I have to reply to this thing--so if
>people have suggestions . . . .
>
>I might have to ask for more time.

Please take a look and either post or email me corrections or
suggestions. The URLs links will be replaced by paper documents.

For the google impaired my email is hkhenson[at.] rogers.com

Thanks for the help.

Keith Henson

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

REQUEST FOR MORE TIME TO RESPOND

REQUEST TO PROPOUND INTERAGATORIES

Time: NA
DATE: NA

David Cook, attorney for DEZOTELL, HODEN and WAGONER has
requested the court rule in summary judgment to make the claims of
these individuals non-dischargeable.

The motion has a certain superficial plausibility, but as the Court is
well aware, this is an unusual case, as were the underlying cases. I
refer the court to Exhibits A, an amicus brief I filed in a Florida
case and Exhibit B, a letter to the Justice Department requesting a
civil rights investigation.

http://www.operatingthetan.com/amicus2.html
http://www.operatingthetan.com/civil-rights-letter-redacted.htm

A detailed reply to Mr. Cook's motion is a major undertaking and will
take time to properly document. As an example, the primary witness
against me, Ken Hoden is now locked up in Scientology's notorious
punishment program (the RPF) and has been for some time--perhaps
because of his being assigned responsibility for one or both of the
women who were killed ("Depraved Indifference murder") at "Gold Base"
in the Spring of 2000. If he was locked up or being threatened with
the RPF in 2001 when he testified against me, the underlying criminal
case (and therefore the DEZOTELL case) were fraud on the courts due to
testimony given under duress.

In addition, it appears that one or more of the plaintiffs or their
agents in this case has engaged in extralegal criminal harassment
against the debtor. (Exhibit C a letter to the US trustee, Exhibit D
Brantford Expositor story.)

http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/c2306e41c40af7bd?hl=en&
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11563

An officer with the Ontario Provincial Police tracked the harassment
and assault back through two levels of PI firms to a client in the US.
The US client told him they are engaged in a lawsuit against me. I
discussed the matter last week by telephone with David Cook and
received a most evasive reply. I have attempted to discuss the matter
with Elaine Seid through email, but her email does not work at the
moment.

Since there are (in theory) multiple debtors it would be
unfair to falsely accuse one of them. I request the court permit
interrogatories to be served on the debtor parties to determine which
one of them is engaging in the extralegal criminal harassment.

Respectfully submitted,

H. Keith Henson, pro se
Dated July 12, 2005


Ted Mayett

unread,
Jul 13, 2005, 9:31:12 PM7/13/05
to
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:13:23 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:

>In addition, it appears that one or more of the plaintiffs or their


>agents in this case has engaged in extralegal criminal harassment
>against the debtor. (Exhibit C a letter to the US trustee, Exhibit D
>Brantford Expositor story.)
>

This link does not work.

>http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/c2306e41c40af7bd?hl=en&


--
Ted Mayett OT 1.1
http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/links.htm

Keith Henson

unread,
Jul 14, 2005, 2:58:48 AM7/14/05
to
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:31:12 -0700, Ted Mayett
<tedm...@despammed.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:13:23 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>In addition, it appears that one or more of the plaintiffs or their
>>agents in this case has engaged in extralegal criminal harassment
>>against the debtor. (Exhibit C a letter to the US trustee, Exhibit D
>>Brantford Expositor story.)
>>
>
>This link does not work.
>
>>http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/c2306e41c40af7bd?hl=en&

I think I know why it works for me but not you, it's the google.ca.

If you search on his name, John Wesolowski, I think that will find it.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Keith Henson

Keith Henson

unread,
Jul 14, 2005, 3:14:48 AM7/14/05
to
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:13:23 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:

>Please take a look and either post or email me corrections or


>suggestions. The URLs links will be replaced by paper documents.

Thanks for the help, you know who you are. :-)

Next and maybe final draft.

Keith Henson

H. Keith Henson
176 Henry St., #45
Brantford, Ontario N3S 5C8
Canada
Telephone: (519) 770-0646
(519) 774-1620 cell

Pro Se

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re:KEITH HENSON,DebtorHILLARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE


WAGONER, Plaintiffs, vs.H. KEITH HENSON

Defendant. )))))))))))))))))) CASE NO.: 98-51326
ASW-7ADV.NO.035136REQUEST FOR MORE TIME TO RESPONDREQUEST TO PROPOUND
INTERROGATORIES time: NADATE: NA

David Cook, attorney for DEZOTELL, HODEN and WAGONER has moved
the court to rule in summary judgment July 26, 2005, to make the


claims of these individuals non-dischargeable.

The motion has a certain superficial plausibility, but as the Court is
well aware, this is an unusual case, as were the underlying cases. I
refer the court to Exhibits A, an amicus brief I filed in a Florida

wrongful death case, and Exhibit B, a letter to the Justice Department


requesting a civil rights investigation.

A detailed reply to Mr. Cook's motion is a major undertaking and will


take time to properly document. As an example, the primary witness

against me, Ken Hoden, has been reported to be in Scientology's
notorious punishment program, the Rehabilitation Project Force(1). (A
number of these reports were publicly posted starting October 2,
2004.) Because the people involved are terrified of their names and
addresses being known to Scientology, getting reliable information
about what has happened to Ken Hoden to the Court presents a difficult
problem. I may have to ask the Court for the assistance of law
enforcement or the US Marshall's office to certify that the
declaration was signed in their presence under oath and then redact
the declarant's name from a declaration

Exactly why Ken Hoden was placed on the punishment program is not
known, but as the "base captain" an obvious candidate would be if he
were assigned responsibility for one or both of the women who died at
"Gold Base" in the Spring of 2000. (2) If Ken Hoden was in or being


threatened with the RPF in 2001 when he testified against me, the

underlying criminal case and therefore the DEZOTELL case would be


fraud on the courts due to testimony given under duress.

In addition, it appears that one or more of the plaintiffs or their
agents in this case has engaged in extralegal criminal harassment

against the debtor. (Exhibit C is a letter to the US trustee, Exhibit
D is a Brantford Expositor story from July 2, 2005)

An officer with the Ontario Provincial Police tracked the harassment

and assault back through two levels of private investigation firms to


a client in the US. The US client told him they are engaged in a
lawsuit against me. I discussed the matter last week by telephone
with David Cook and received a most evasive reply. I have attempted
to discuss the matter with Elaine Seid through email, but her email
does not work at the moment.

Since there are multiple creditors and it would be unfair to


falsely accuse one of them. I request the court permit

interrogatories to be served on the creditor parties to determine


which one of them is engaging in the extralegal criminal harassment

here in Canada.

Respectfully submitted,

H. Keith Henson, pro se

Dated July 14, 2005

(1) Volume 8, No. 1 (September 2003)
Scientology and the European Human Rights Debate:
A Reply to Leisa Goodman, J. Gordon Melton, and the European
Rehabilitation Project Force Study
Stephen A. Kent
Department of Sociology
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
T6G 2H4
http://www.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/kent3.html

(2) The circumstances of one young woman being sent into a hot
transformer vault and another dying because of unlighted construction
machines on a public road after dark would have (in my opinion)
supported charges of "depraved indifference murder." No one was
charged in the transformer vault death. While the driver in the
construction machinery death was convicted of manslaughter, the
persons who sent him out after dark were not charged.

Ed

unread,
Jul 14, 2005, 9:28:18 AM7/14/05
to

Keith Henson wrote:

[snip]

> An officer with the Ontario Provincial Police tracked the harassment
> and assault back through two levels of private investigation firms to
> a client in the US. The US client told him they are engaged in a
> lawsuit against me.

You should make clear that the officer did not/would not
reveal to you who the US client was, only that it was someone with a
lawsuit against you, and that this CoS/bankruptcy litigation against
you is the only existing litigation you are involved in, so by very
reasonable inference Scn is the PI's client.

Ed

Keith Henson

unread,
Jul 21, 2005, 2:02:02 AM7/21/05
to
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:14:32 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:


>June 27, 2005
>Sent By Fax and Email

snip


>
>John Wesolowski, Attorney
>United States Trustee, Region 17
>United States Department of Justice
>280 South First Street, Room 268
>San Jose, CA 95113
>john.wesolowski[zot]usdoj.gov
>Telephone No. (408)535-5525
>Facsimile No. (408)535-5532
>
>
>Dear Mr. Wesolowski:
>
>This letter is being sent to you at the suggestion of Judge
>Weissbrodt.
>
>In a hearing June 20, 2005 I described two recent attacks by the
>objecting creditor (Scientology) and asked him where I should report
>these incidents. Judge Weissbrodt told me the US Trustee. He did not
>indicate exactly where within the US Trustee's office I should write,
>but he did mention that wherever I started my complaint could go as
>high as needed for an effective response from the Justice Department.
>
>Since you are somewhat familiar with this case, I am starting with
>you. If you are the wrong person, please let me know to whom I should
>address these concerns.

I got a top reply:

Mr. Henson -- thanks for sending the below information to us.
Unfortunately, the US Trustee does not have jurisdiction over such
matters.

***********

An interesting speculation which is probably way over the top came up
in IRC discussions tonight. The way the OPP Officer carefully stated
the very limited information he gave out about the US client was
ambiguous enough to include the US Trustee.

Seems really unlikely to me though.

Keith Henson

Keith Henson

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 3:19:30 AM7/27/05
to
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 07:14:48 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:

snip

>A detailed reply to Mr. Cook's motion is a major undertaking and will
>take time to properly document. As an example, the primary witness
>against me, Ken Hoden, has been reported to be in Scientology's
>notorious punishment program, the Rehabilitation Project Force(1).

snip


>
>Exactly why Ken Hoden was placed on the punishment program is not
>known, but as the "base captain" an obvious candidate would be if he
>were assigned responsibility for one or both of the women who died at
>"Gold Base" in the Spring of 2000. (2) If Ken Hoden was in or being
>threatened with the RPF in 2001 when he testified against me, the
>underlying criminal case and therefore the DEZOTELL case would be
>fraud on the courts due to testimony given under duress.

In spite of various dire predictions by people who have more knowledge
about the law, the motion was granted. The judge gave a little more
than 60 days to write up a document about the criminal case in Hemet.
There are notes, but it will take a while for me to understand all the
cases he cited. But the essence is that fraud is the one situation
where a court can review the actions of another court.

I have also been given authority to send out as many interrogatories
as are justified under the circumstances.

I would appreciate suggestions as to people and questions in email.
There are some people such as Mike C, the guy in the county
administration, who will probably suggest most or all of the questions
to ask him.

It's a long list of people who should be thanked. Robert Carlson of
course, Samuel Rosen (who nearly got cited for contempt again today),
David Cook, the new attorney who filed the motion that opened this can
of worms, Robert Del Bianco, David Brewer and the rest of that chain
back to whoever it was. There is a long, long list that are not going
to be mentioned now.

Was on the phone so don't know how many cult agents were in the
courtroom. But if David Cook didn't report, someone did. A few hours
later after making many notes came here to report news. Such a mess
of attack postings against me in such a short time! DM must be
freaked to make the connection so obvious.

Keith Henson

BigBeard

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 11:45:36 AM7/27/05
to

"Keith Henson" <hkhe...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:42e82bfe...@nntp.broadband.rogers.com...

Keith,

Is there any way to use the interrogatories as a way to track
down the jurors, or at least the people who were supposedly on
the jury, to verify whether it was actually them or not??

BigBeard
Katana ko chi, SPsoo

Keith Henson

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 1:01:27 PM7/27/05
to
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:45:36 -0400, "BigBeard"
<lwni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

snip

>Keith,
>
>Is there any way to use the interrogatories as a way to track
>down the jurors, or at least the people who were supposedly on
>the jury, to verify whether it was actually them or not??
>
>BigBeard
>Katana ko chi, SPsoo

I don't know, but it is a damn good idea.

Keith Henson

anonymous...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 3:35:17 PM7/27/05
to
Keith Henson wrote:
<kook's case snipped>

In response to Keith Henson's unrelenting attacks upon
my religion and my freedom to exercise my choice and
expression of, I have claimed the right to repeatedly,
continuously and ruthlessly expose his offensive history.

Financial loser Keith Henson is a bigot, explosives
enthusiast, child sexual molestor, propagandist, and
criminal harrasser. And that's not all. He obviously
has loose screws and since he apparently supports
psychiatry, he can use the anti-spiritual pseudoscience
to try and tighten his nuts.

- Anonymous

================================================================

EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/henson1.html

Don Ocean

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 4:53:33 PM7/27/05
to
anonymous...@gmail.com wrote:
> Keith Henson wrote:
> <kook's case snipped>
>
> In response to Keith Henson's unrelenting attacks upon
> my religion and my freedom to exercise my choice and
> expression of, I have claimed the right to repeatedly,
> continuously and ruthlessly expose his offensive history.
>
> Financial loser Keith Henson is a bigot, explosives
> enthusiast, child sexual molestor, propagandist, and
> criminal harrasser. And that's not all. He obviously
> has loose screws and since he apparently supports
> psychiatry, he can use the anti-spiritual pseudoscience
> to try and tighten his nuts.
>
> - Anonymous

Probably doesn't even use the right aftershave either! ;-p

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 5:14:41 PM7/27/05
to
Keith Henson wrote:
> H. Keith Henson
> 176 Henry St, #45
> Brantford, ON N3S 5C8
> hkhe...@rogers.com
> 519-770-0646 (Fax by arrangement)
> 519-774-1620 (cell)

Hey, Keith, that could become a real cell one day!


>
> June 27, 2005
> Sent By Fax and Email

Keith Henson filed for bancruptcy? How come Barb Graham did not call
him a loser as she did with Mr. Carlson, whoever he is who did not file
for it?

Isn't that what Henson did with the person whose privacy he violated in
Hawaii? That was noisy. He ambushed him, took photographs of him and
published them with lots of noise on the web.


>
> The second matter I brought up to Judge Weissbrodt is that for a year
> I have been subjected to libel attacks on the public news group
> alt.religion.scientology.

I remember numerous postings in which Keith Henson libeled me. He also
forged me.

> These vicious attacks were originating from
> terminals in the Sinclair Library at the University of Hawaii. Some
> concerned people in Hawaii identified the terminals being used and
> photographed the person in the act. Eventually he was identified
> from the photos.

I am hang out on ARS and I have not seen any postings from Mr. Carlson
that were libelous. Henson is such a liar and a fugitive of American
justice.

>
> He turned out to be Robert V. Carlson (DOB: 1/5/68), who has
> identified himself in the past as a staff member of Scientology in
> Hawaii, and may still hold an undercover position in Scientology's
> dirty tricks department, the Office of Special Affairs (OSA). Court
> records indicate that his address is the same as his brother Steve G.
> Carlson (DOB: Jul 1970). Steve Carlson definitely is a staff member
> for Scientology in Hawaii. (Verified by a phone call there last
> week.).
>
> Let me know if you need further information or if you want my thoughts
> on how to put a stop to these extralegal attacks.

Henson posted the photos of an individual on the net and violated that
man's privacy. Keith Henson really is corrupt and confused. Wonder
where he comes up with all that stuff, perhaps from hanging out in
space, as he formed an organization to multiply himself in space,
didn't he, the delusional nut?

Wonder if Keith Henson is hypnotized?

Barbara Schwarz

=============
I can hypnotize a man without his knowledge and consent into
committing treason against the United States", boasted psychiatrist
George Estabrooks in the early 1940s.
================
To induce hypnosis in an unwilling subject, the report suggested any of

three possibilities which were then well supported by research
findings:


1. As part of a medical examination, talk relaxation to the
subject, thus disguising the hypnotic induction. For example, the
person could be given a blood pressure test, told that he must relax
completely in order to give an adequate test record, and then be given
suggestions to go to sleep which would result in a hypnotic trance.


2. Induce hypnosis while the person is actually asleep from normal

fatigue. This could be done by simply talking softly into the sleeper's

ear.


3. Use injections of drugs to induce hypnosis. The hypnotic drugs
would relax the subject and put him in a "twilight state" where the
subconscious mind is very susceptible to suggestion.


http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=hypnosis%...

====================
That is how psychiatrists make the suicide terrorists and bombers.

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 5:18:07 PM7/27/05
to

You are such a spam brother, Keith Henson. I am attacked because I
filed FOIA requests upon which the governmental offices have to act,
and he spams them with stuff they have nothing to do with it. What a
waste of tax payers money.

Barbara Schwarz

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 5:24:12 PM7/27/05
to

anonymous...@gmail.com wrote:
> Keith Henson wrote:
> <kook's case snipped>

> In response to Keith Henson's unrelenting attacks upon
> my religion and my freedom to exercise my choice and
> expression of, I have claimed the right to repeatedly,
> continuously and ruthlessly expose his offensive history.

I never saw any libelous posting from you, AI.


>
> Financial loser Keith Henson is a bigot, explosives
> enthusiast, child sexual molestor, propagandist, and
> criminal harrasser. And that's not all. He obviously
> has loose screws and since he apparently supports
> psychiatry, he can use the anti-spiritual pseudoscience
> to try and tighten his nuts.

RLOF! If he harasses you legally, contact me. I have evidence that
Keith Henson is a forger. Wonder if he is the poster who forges you,
Robert Carlson, Sunsurfer and the Spacetraveler. Law enforcement should
be able to trace those forgeries. So, if he continues to bother you or
Mr. Carlson, I hope you file complaints to the authorities.

I also wonder why he attacks a person with name Robert Carlson. The
postings that you, AI, made were backed up by the RFW.

http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/henson1.html

So, if these data about him would be false and libelous, how come he
was unable to make the RFW remove the data about him?

Barbara Schwarz

realpch

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 5:26:07 PM7/27/05
to
Barbara Schwarz wrote:
>
> Keith Henson wrote:
> > H. Keith Henson
> > 176 Henry St, #45
> > Brantford, ON N3S 5C8
> > hkhe...@rogers.com
> > 519-770-0646 (Fax by arrangement)
> > 519-774-1620 (cell)
>
> Hey, Keith, that could become a real cell one day!
> >
> > June 27, 2005
> > Sent By Fax and Email
>
> Keith Henson filed for bancruptcy? How come Barb Graham did not call
> him a loser as she did with Mr. Carlson, whoever he is who did not file
> for it?
<snip>

Yes good question, since the same agency which bankrupted Mr. Henso is
likely to be the one which has "bankrupted" Mr. Carlson. I have this to
say, I'm sure lots of Scientologists in his area have businesses, or
good business contacts, and possibly they could help the guy out. It
would be the right thing to do.

Peach

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 5:35:41 PM7/27/05
to


Keith Henson is bankrupted, Peach, Mr. Carlson is not, but if the
document is no forgery, (and we can't be sure that it is none) he seems
not too affluent at the moment.

I sure think that Scientologists in the area with businesses or
business contact should offer him a position. Scientologists should
help each other.

But things still don't add up as Keith Henson claims that Mr. Carlson
is a staffmember, in other words has a job.

Barbara Schwarz

===============


"I can hypnotize a man without his knowledge and consent into
committing treason against the United States", boasted psychiatrist
George Estabrooks in the early 1940s.
================
To induce hypnosis in an unwilling subject, the report suggested any of

three possibilities which were then well supported by research
findings:
1. As part of a medical examination, talk relaxation to the
subject, thus disguising the hypnotic induction. For example, the
person could be given a blood pressure test, told that he must relax
completely in order to give an adequate test record, and then be given
suggestions to go to sleep which would result in a hypnotic trance.
2. Induce hypnosis while the person is actually asleep from normal

fatigue. This could be done by simply talking softly into the sleeper's

ear.
3. Use injections of drugs to induce hypnosis. The hypnotic drugs
would relax the subject and put him in a "twilight state" where the
subconscious mind is very susceptible to suggestion.

http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=hypnosis%...


====================
That is how psychiatrists make the suicide terrorists and bombers.

Barbara Schwarz

realpch

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 7:37:57 PM7/27/05
to

Barbara, the Church of Scientology doesn't pay it's rank and file staff
members beans! Someone could be a full time staff member and be below
the poverty level. I think a lot of them have to have second jobs just
to eat, especially the young new ones. It's a darn shame.

Peach

Barbara schwarz

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 8:18:43 PM7/27/05
to

Peach, I was on staff myself. We had financial good times and bad
times.

Barbara Schwarz

anonymous...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 8:23:56 PM7/27/05
to
Keith Henson wrote:
> Dear Mr. Wesolowski:
<snip>

Dear Mr. Wesolowski,

Psst, did you know that Keith Henson once molested his own
two daughters? Because Keith has not come to his senses and
continues to harass Scientologists and has fled from the
country instead of taking responsibility for his actions
against the Church of Scientology, I will not lighten up
on Keith.

I just might make fliers demonstrating his unsavory background
and drop them by the millions over New York, Paris, Amsterdam,
and London on biodegradable paper.

- Anonymous

================================================================

EVIDENCE:

"$6,000 since May 1981 includes [an] operation and four-day
hospital stay [for one of his daughters]; ... psychological
counseling for [two of his daughters] as a result of father's
sexual molestation of them."
- Carolyn Meinel, signed affidavit of expenses from the Hensons'
divorce proceedings

Barbara schwarz

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 8:28:22 PM7/27/05
to

anonymous...@gmail.com wrote:
> Keith Henson wrote:
> > Dear Mr. Wesolowski:
> <snip>
>
> Dear Mr. Wesolowski,
>
> Psst, did you know that Keith Henson once molested his own
> two daughters? Because Keith has not come to his senses and
> continues to harass Scientologists and has fled from the
> country instead of taking responsibility for his actions
> against the Church of Scientology, I will not lighten up
> on Keith.
>
> I just might make fliers demonstrating his unsavory background
> and drop them by the millions over New York, Paris, Amsterdam,
> and London on biodegradable paper.
>
> - Anonymous


That is a forgery and not posted by the real
Anonymous...@gmail.com.

Barbara Schwarz

anonymous...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 8:43:52 PM7/27/05
to
Keith Henson wrote:
> I got a top reply:
>
> Mr. Henson -- thanks for sending the below information to us.
> Unfortunately, the US Trustee does not have jurisdiction over
> such matters.

LOL

> ***********
>
> An interesting speculation which is probably way over the top
> came up in IRC discussions tonight.
>
> The way the OPP Officer carefully stated the very limited
> information he gave out about the US client was ambiguous
> enough to include the US Trustee.
>
> Seems really unlikely to me though.

Keith still hasn't come to his senses.

What does it take

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

- Anonymous

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 9:06:30 PM7/27/05
to

Prison, I suppose.

Barbara Schwarz

Robert Carlson

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 9:11:00 PM7/27/05
to
Keith Henson wrote:
<kook's case snipped>

In response to Keith Henson's being a critic of Scientology,

I have claimed the right to repeatedly, continuously and

ruthlessly expose his real or imagined history.

But support my child with more than $50 a month? Get a
real job? Stop living off my brother? I'm a Scientolgist.
I don't have time for that shit!

Robert Carlson
---
Deadbeat dad working for the Church of Scientology's Office of Special
Affairs.
Also know as: Faxhor, anon...@gmail.com, SunSurfer,
classifi...@gmail.com, Jet, etc, etc, etc...

=======================================

EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE:

How goes it on the mainland? Here's what I've found on Robert Carlson so
far. I'll keep digging.

Aloha,
xxxxx

I've edited out some information on the wife Carlson has abandoned, along
with their child...

Jan Chieko Carlson, nee: Inafuku, filed complaint 1-31-2000 against Robert
Vernon Carlson.

She was a Hawaii resident from birth. He was a resident since 1987.
Highest education grade completed by both was shown as 12th grade. They
were married 6-19-94 and separated 6-30-96. Neither party was married
previously. One child, Kaitlyn Ann Carlson, was born 12-5-94. She lived
with both parents from birth to 7-96 at xxxx Kinau St., #3E, Honolulu, and
from 7-96 to 9-97 with mother at xx-xxx Aiea Kai Way, Aiea. Since 9-97,
she lived with mother at xx-xxx Kuleana Rd, Pearl City. Mother's
phone:xxx-xxxx. No phone for father was available.

Address for Robert was shown as xxxx Oio Dr., Honolulu, but this was later
shown as xxxx Oio Dr, c/o Steve Carlson.

No employment was shown for Robert, and wife Jan stated in an affidavit
that he had no employment since they were separated in 1996 - any
employment prior to then was not shown in the file. She indicated that
when separated, she had to go on welfare to support their child, and then
was able to find her present job. Robert did not contribute to the child's
support since the separation.

Jan signed an affidavit 2-3-2000 that because Robert was jobless and
homeless, they had reached an agreement for minimal child support of
$50.00, and that in the event of future income earned by father, they will
re-submit child support obligation calculations. The affidavit also stated
Robert has debts from creditors and personal loans from friends and
relatives that are due and owing.

Robert had also signed forms 2-2-2000 showing no employment, but residence
at xxxx Oio Dr, Honolulu (Aina Haina), HI 96821.

Divorce decree issued 3-22-2000. No changes shown in child support, etc.,
since that time.

Robert Carlson

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 9:16:41 PM7/27/05
to
Keith Henson wrote:
> Dear Mr. Wesolowski:
<snip>

Dear Mr. Wesolowski,

Psst, did you know I'm a deadbeat dad, don't have a job and have to live
with my brother because if I didn't, I'd be on the street?

Robert Carlson
---
Deadbeat dad working for the Church of Scientology's Office of Special
Affairs.
Also know as: Faxhor, anon...@gmail.com, SunSurfer,
classifi...@gmail.com, Jet, etc, etc, etc...

========================================

EVIDENCE:

Feisty

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 9:23:13 PM7/27/05
to

<anonymous...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122511432.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Keith Henson wrote:
> > I got a top reply:
> >
> > Mr. Henson -- thanks for sending the below information to us.
> > Unfortunately, the US Trustee does not have jurisdiction over
> > such matters.
>
> LOL
>
> > ***********
> >
> > An interesting speculation which is probably way over the top
> > came up in IRC discussions tonight.
> >
> > The way the OPP Officer carefully stated the very limited
> > information he gave out about the US client was ambiguous
> > enough to include the US Trustee.
> >
> > Seems really unlikely to me though.
>
> Keith still hasn't come to his senses.
>
> What does it take

Operative's at work ...
work operatives work!

Operative's at play
play operatives, play!

Green operatives and agents!

Are you my operative?

All my operatives

Battlefield Operative

Statue of Operative

The United Operatives

Operation Operative

You are my operative, my only operative


> - Anonymous galactic operative


Mark Thorson

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 9:23:35 PM7/27/05
to
realpch wrote:

> Someone could be a full time staff member and be below
> the poverty level. I think a lot of them have to have second jobs
> just to eat, especially the young new ones. It's a darn shame.
>
> Peach

Sure would be a shame to drop by the local org and
ask to see the orientation film -- after a large meal.

"Ohh, I just gotta sit down. Dinner was so huge and
I'm just stuffed. The gravy was so good, over baked
potatoes drowning in butter -- the ribs were slow-
smoked for hours just right -- and when I thought
I couldn't eat another bite, they bring out a dessert
cart with FIVE different kinds of chocolate decadence.
I gotta go back and have the other two!"

Robert Carlson

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 9:28:51 PM7/27/05
to
realpch wrote:
>Yes good question, since the same agency which bankrupted Mr. Henso is
>likely to be the one which has "bankrupted" Mr. Carlson. I have this to
>say, I'm sure lots of Scientologists in his area have businesses, or
>good business contacts, and possibly they could help the guy out. It
>would be the right thing to do.

Who says they aren't helping me out? Just because I don't pay taxes doesn't
mean I'm not earning money.

Robert Carlson

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 9:34:56 PM7/27/05
to
Keith Henson wrote:
> I got a top reply:
>
> Mr. Henson -- thanks for sending the below information to us.
> Unfortunately, the US Trustee does not have jurisdiction over
> such matters.

LOL

> ***********
>
> An interesting speculation which is probably way over the top
> came up in IRC discussions tonight.
>
> The way the OPP Officer carefully stated the very limited
> information he gave out about the US client was ambiguous
> enough to include the US Trustee.
>
> Seems really unlikely to me though.

Keith still hasn't come to his senses.

And I'm not even paying the $50 of child support.

What does it take

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Robert Carlson

M.C. DiPietra

unread,
Jul 27, 2005, 10:39:16 PM7/27/05
to
in article 1122511432.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com,
anonymous...@gmail.com at anonymous...@gmail.com let fly on
7/27/05 8:43 PM:


OK, is anybody else visualizing the scene from the Shining wih Jack
Nicholson on that typewriter?

--
M.C. DiPietra, mdipiet...@tampabay.rr.nospam.com SP5
"Hell, if you understood everything I say, you'd be me!" -Miles Davis


barb

unread,
Jul 28, 2005, 11:00:06 AM7/28/05
to
M.C. DiPietra wrote:

All work and no drugs make Ron a dull boy.
All work and no drugs make Ron a dull boy.
All work and no drugs make Ron a dull boy.
All work and no drugs make Ron a dull boy.
All work and no drugs make Ron a dull boy.
All work and no drugs make Ron a dull boy.
All work and no drugs make Ron a dull boy.
All work and no drugs make Ron a dull boy.
All work and no drugs make Ron a dull boy.


--
--barb
Chaplain,ARSCC

"Imagine a church so dangerous, you must sign a release
form before you can receive its "spiritual assistance."
This assistance might involve holding you against your
will for an indefinite period, isolating you from
friends and family, and denying you access to
appropriate medical care. You will of course be billed
for this treatment - assuming you survive it. If not,
the release form absolves your caretakers of all
responsibility for your suffering and death.

Welcome to the Church of Scientology."

--Dr. Dave Touretzky
Peter Alexander

Don Ocean

unread,
Jul 29, 2005, 12:13:55 AM7/29/05
to
anonymous...@gmail.com wrote:
> Keith Henson wrote:
>
>>Dear Mr. Wesolowski:
>
> <snip>
>
> Dear Mr. Wesolowski,
>
> Psst, did you know that Keith Henson once molested his own
> two daughters? Because Keith has not come to his senses and
> continues to harass Scientologists

Hell, if he is harrassing Scientologist... More power to him!
I can't think of a bunch of nuts that need harrassing more!
Well .... Maybe the Moonies or the Hari Krishnas...

Keith Henson

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 1:48:58 PM7/31/05
to
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 07:19:30 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:

snip

>I have also been given authority to send out as many interrogatories


>as are justified under the circumstances.

snip

Thanks for the help people have been giving behind the scenes. Time
has come to put these out for comments.

If you need to review the history, the places to start are here:

http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/693ce9bf2f1982c8?hl=en&

and here:

http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/a3531ca37632f623?hl=en&

I will post the forms these interrogatories go into, but here is the
content for the first of some of them.

Albert J. Wojcik was the first judge I had in Hemet. This first set
of interrogatories is directed to him. He was also the chief judge at
Hemet and had responsibility for bringing in Judge Wallerstein (now
dead).

One of the instructions will be that the yes/no questions can be
answered either with a check mark or in an expanded form as long as
desired.

********

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

During debtor's appearance before your court on September 15, 2000
debtor was handed the "Defendant's copy" of the indictment for Case
No: Hem 014371 by a female Sheriff officer. Do you recall this?

Yes_____ No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Regardless of your recall on 1, the first entry in the computer
records for this case on 9/1/00 is "Release with: LETTER FROM DA TO
APPEAR7" [sic]. The debtor understands that "Defendant's copy" *is*
the "letter to appear" and in normal court practice is mailed to the
defendant giving notice of the hearing.

Assuming debtor was given the "Defendant's copy" in court on September
15, 2000, does handing the "Defendant's copy" to the defendant on the
day of the arraignment indicate there was a failure by the court or
the DA's office to provide timely notice of the arraignment?

Yes_____ No_______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Before case Hem 014371 was assigned to Judge Walker there was a
meeting about the case in your chambers.

Do you remember this meeting?

Yes_____ No_______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

It was reported to the debtor by his lawyer after the above meeting in
chambers that you had expressed fear of Scientology and would not take
the case for that reason.

Do you remember saying this or something equivalent?

Yes____ No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

Regardless of memory, do you fear Scientology?

Yes____ No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

After Judge Walker recused himself from the case, an outside retired
municipal court judge (Wallerstein) with little experience in criminal
cases was brought in.

Was this because none of the local judges would take case Hem 014371?

Yes___ No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

If the answer to 6 was no, please state the reason?

_____________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Do you know who recommended Judge Wallerstein?

Yes___ No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

If the answer to NO. 8 is yes, who recommended Judge Wallerstein?

___________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

If the answer to NO. 8 is no, do you know who would know the answer to
NO. 8?

Yes____ No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

If the answer to NO. 10 is yes, what is the person's name and
position?

_________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

If the answer to NO. 10 is no, how was Judge Wallerstein obtained?

______________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

At the close of the trial (Hem 014371) Judge Wallerstein admitted in
front of many people remaining in the courtroom that he knew
Scientology lawyer Elliot Abelson. (Abelson, a former Gambino family
lawyer, was in obvious constant contact with DDA Robert Schwarz,
coaching him during the trial.)

Were you aware before Judge Wallerstein was brought in about his
knowing Scientology attorney Elliot Abelson?

Yes___ No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

Were you aware of Judge Wallerstein previous activities as an
arbitrator in the entertainment business?

Yes___ No____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

Was Judge Wallerstein questioned about his previous arbitration
dealings with Scientology or Scientologists before being assigned to
this trial?

Yes___ No____ Don't know______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

If the answer to NO. 15 is yes, did Judge Wallerstein say he had
previous arbitration dealings with Scientology or Scientologists?

Yes___ No____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

Are you aware that Judge Wallerstein sealed parts of the record where
he ruled (according to declarations) in conflict with a minute order
for April 19, 2001?

Yes___ No____

**********

I can go up to 35 of these questions, so if any of you can see places
where I left out good leads, please post or let me know by email to
hkhenson(at)rogers.com

Thanks!

Keith Henson

anonymous...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 31, 2005, 10:02:43 PM7/31/05
to
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/henson_cn1.html

CANADA ACTS TO DENY ANTI-RELIGIOUS TERRORIST SAFE HARBOR

An apparent scheme by anti-religious extremist Keith Henson
to avoid incarceration in the U.S. by seeking political
refugee status in Canada appears to be backfiring.

In April 2001, the California jury that convicted Henson
of a hate crime failed to reach a consensus on the
additional charge of terrorism brought against him by the
Riverside District Attorney. Evidence that Henson had
for years stalked and harassed Scientology parishioners
and made repeated threats -- all while being a self-
described explosives expert -- was, at that time, deemed
insufficient to earn Henson the label of "terrorist."
Then came September 11th and, just as the man on the
street opened his eyes to the heinous potential of
individuals consumed by hatred, so did governments
worldwide.

Henson's bid to remain in Canada, thereby avoiding a
California jail sentence, has only brought his extremist
activities under closer scrutiny -- but this time, by a
Canadian government determined to ensure that their
country can never be used as a safe harbor by terrorists
of any variety.

According to Canada Immigration documents released on
the Internet, after Henson fled to Canada in May, 2001,
he was arrested and ordered conditionally deported
due to his fugitive from justice status in the U.S.

A Toronto Immigration Review Board Adjudicator thereafter
released Henson on a $10,000 Immigration bond with
numerous conditions. One of the considerations for his
release was the UN policy on the detention of refugee
claimants. Henson had applied for refugee status under
the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees,
an agreement to which Canada is signatory. However,
subsection F(b) of Article 1 of that Convention reads:

"The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any
person with respect to whom there are serious reasons
for considering that: (b) he has committed a serious
non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior
to his admission to that country as a refugee."

It seems largely due to this glaring lack of qualification
in Henson's claim that on March 20, 2002, the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration Canada announced his intention
to intervene in the Convention refugee proceedings of the
claimant, stating:

"The nature of the offence for which Mr. Henson was convicted
is one of implied violence directed toward a particular group,
with the means to carry out the threat. The Canadian
equivalent for that offence is likely that of 'willful
promotion of hatred' at subparagraph 319(2) of the Criminal
Code or that of subparagraph 319(1), 'public incitement of
hatred.'"

However, most telling is the following statement which
indicates just how seriously such offenses, and those who
perpetrate them, are now being regarded by Canadian
officials, post-September 11th:

"Although the present Canadian legislation only provides
for a maximum term of imprisonment of two years,
the Minister will argue that it constitutes a serious
offence, when viewed within the totality of the
evidence, and in view of the proposed Anti-terrorism
Act."

With regard to the proposed Anti-terrorism Act, the Minister
specifically cited several proposed amendments to the
Criminal Code of Canada, one of which would:

"...create a new offence of mischief motivated by bias,
prejudice or hate based on race, religion, color, or
national or ethnic origin, committed against a place
of religious worship or associated religious property.
This offence would be subject to a maximum penalty of 10
years when prosecuted on indictment, or to a maximum
penalty of eighteen months on summary conviction."

The Minister urged the Panel to "take these proposed
amendments into consideration when assessing the nature
and quality of the claimants' actions in the USA in
determining whether exclusion is warranted."

The Minister's Counsel, acting on his behalf, further stated

"...there is extensive information which shows that Mr. Henson
had engaged in many activities which would comprise other
offences under the Criminal Code of Canada, namely:

81(1) using explosives;
82(1) possession of explosives without lawful excuse
176(1) obstructing or violence to clergyman
176(2) disturbing religious worship or certain meetings
181 spreading false news
264(1) criminal harassment
264.1(1)(a) utter death threats
265(1)(b) attempts/ threatens assault
318(1) advocating genocide
346(1) extortion

"The Minister's position is that the claimant's persistence,
his single-mindedness exhibited against a particular group,
the failure to cease harmful actions despite legal
prohibitions, the impact statements of the members of the
group, when viewed together, show that the claimant
committed a serious, non-political crime prior to entering
Canada.

"The Minister's position is that, the specific nature of
Mr. Henson's actions are such that they could be regarded
as offences under Canadian criminal law, and their
cumulative effect sufficiently egregious to warrant
exclusion under F(b) of Article 1 of the Convention."

In further asserting the "non-political" nature of Henson's
crime, the Minister's Counsel stated:

"Evidence exists that Mr. Henson had embarked upon a pattern
of activity designed to cease the operation of the Church
of Scientology in the USA. While he may characterize his
actions as being politically-motivated, the Minister's
evidence shows that the US criminal and judiciary systems
found no basis for his allegations against the Scientology
foundation.

"Indeed, the California court effectively found that Mr.
Henson's actions constituted a dangerous form of harassment
rather than the exercise of free speech. His actions
against the organization were legally characterised as a
common criminal offence, rather than political ones.

"Other than exercising free speech, there is no compelling
evidence that Mr. Henson attempted to use the democratic
systems in order to effect change. There is information
to indicate that his activities were a hobby, a means of
self-expression, motivated by a need for publicity and for
personal gain rather than a genuine, political aim."

The Minister also found Henson's refugee claim to lack
credibility, stating:

"Mr. Henson's Convention refugee claim is based upon
alleged harassment by the Scientology foundation in the
USA. However, the converse was found in a court of law
in the USA: that Scientology members were criminally
harassed by Mr. Henson....

"...Moreover, information in the Minister's possession
indicates that the claimant did not enter Canada with
the intention of making Convention refugee claim, but
only did so upon the advice of his friends. Mr. Henson
is attributed as saying, 'I actually came up here for a
different reason. I came up here to picket for another
cause. And there was so much trolling and so much
interest that we said, 'why not' [May 23, 2001, Internet
article by [name redacted]]."

Such scams are not new to the anti-religious extremist
movement. Honesty is not the stock-in-trade of those
who associate with racists, such as close Henson associate,
Arnaldo Lerma, who is himself allied with Neo-Nazi leader
Willis Carto, and United Anarchist Party leader, Bill White.

The Minister indicated with the following statement that
a darker motive may lie behind Henson's harassment of
Scientology:

"There is also an issue about whether the claimants'
statements and activities in relation to his stance
on Scientology is actually leverage to compel funds
from that organization."

A close associate of Henson is "deprogrammer" Rick Ross,
who has been convicted of felony Grand Theft Embezzlement.
Attempts by extremists and extremist organizations to
extort money from the Church of Scientology is covered
on the Anti-Religious Extremist section of this site
(see Gerald Armstrong, Graham Berry, Michael Pattinson,
Steven Fishman, Larry Wollersheim, most of whom are also
close Henson associates.)

But it is in recognizing Henson's actions as terrorism that
the Canadian government takes a bold, decisive step toward
ensuring both the personal safety of its citizens and their
right to freedom of worship.

In an opinion with regard to Keith Henson and the legal
definition of terrorism, Counsel for the Department of
Justice, Canada, Immigration Law Section, stated:

"Under this definition [C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act I,
Clause E] ...Henson's actions can be seen to be for a
religious or ideological purpose. The actions could
also be seen to be intentionally committed for the
purpose of intimidating a segment of the public -
the Church of Scientology. The threat to blow up the
Church of Scientology and to kill the organization may
be seen as a serious threat to cause death, bodily harm,
and a risk to health or safety, property damage and/or a
serious interference with an essential service so as to
constitute terrorist activity."

[Note: Per the prior opinion, 83.2001(1) of the Anti-
terrorism Act, which defines "terrorist activity,"
came into force on December 18, 2001.]

In summary, the Minister's Counsel stated that "It is the
Minister's position that the present claim is an effort
to elude the administration of justice in the USA and
as such may be viewed as a claim of convenience."

In acting swiftly and decisively to recommend excluding
Keith Henson from refugee status consideration, due to his
non-qualification under the Convention and with regard to
his terrorist status, the Government of Canada demonstrates
its commitment to religious freedom and sets an example for
democratic nations world-over.

http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/henson_cn1.html

Robert Carlson

unread,
Aug 1, 2005, 1:33:28 AM8/1/05
to
According to Ron of that ilk:

=====================

Hiding behind shell organizations like the Scientology Parishioners
Committee and relaypoint.com, the Church of Scientology operates a
libellous
hate site against its critics at www.religiousfreedomwatch.org aka
www.parishioners.org. (Since Scientology doesn't have parishes, the use of
the word parishioners is part of their attempts to cloak themselves in
mainsteam religious trappings.)

Normally such a site would have attracted libel lawsuits, but since
Scientology is quite willing to spend millions of dollars to harass
individual critics, that would be playing on their field, by their rules.
(As well, since Scientology uses deniable shells, a winning lawsuit might
might, after years of effort and expense, find that the shell suddenly had
only pennies of assets to seize. This has been their standard operating
procedure in many court cases around the world.)

To promote their hate site, Scientology uses individuals who are even more
deniable than their shells. These individuals either use anonymous
remailers to post pastes from the site, or are "judgement-proof" due to
their lack of assets, poor record of sanity, and abuse of free access at
public libraries, universities and schools which are hesitant to cut their
access due to free-speech issues.

So, please do read the RFW site carefully, and ask yourself what kind of
criminally-convicted religion (in Canada among other countries) desperately
needs to smear anyone critical of them as heinous and dangerous criminals,
and yet take the coward's route of hiding behind phoney fronts and dupes
rather than making their claims directly themselves.

=====================

I'll vouch for that.

ross.in...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 3, 2005, 7:02:26 AM8/3/05
to
To whom it may concern:

I have never met Mr. Henson. The claim that he is somehow a "close
associate" of mine is a false statement.

Such false statements should serve to discredit this post and the
person that posted it.

Scientologists and those sympathetic to Scientology often spam Internet
discussion groups like this with rants of one sort or another about
perceived enemies.

See http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/Scien47.html

This is my response to such often misleading information posted about
me.

Rick Ross
www.rickross.com

Boudewijn van Ingen

unread,
Aug 4, 2005, 12:46:01 AM8/4/05
to
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:48:58 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:

I would simply phrase that question "Do you or did you ever fear
$cientology?".

As phrased above, you leave too many escape routes.

IMNSHO. HTH. YMMV. ;-)

[snip]


--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.

Keith Henson

unread,
Aug 10, 2005, 2:13:57 PM8/10/05
to
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:48:58 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 07:19:30 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
>wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>I have also been given authority to send out as many interrogatories
>>as are justified under the circumstances.
>
>snip
>
>Thanks for the help people have been giving behind the scenes. Time
>has come to put these out for comments.

snip

Filed version, thanks for all the help

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
During debtor's appearance before your court on September 15, 2000
debtor was handed the "Defendant's copy" of the indictment for Case
No: Hem 014371 by a female Sheriff officer. Do you recall this?
Yes_____ No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
The first entry in the court's computer records for this case on


9/1/00 is "Release with: LETTER FROM DA TO APPEAR7" [sic]. The debtor

has been told by court personnel that "Defendant's copy" is the
"letter to appear" and in normal practice is mailed to the defendant
giving notice of the arraignment before this entry is made in the
court's computer records. Is this your understanding of normal court
practice as of September 2000?
Yes_____ No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Assuming debtor was handed the "Defendant's copy" in court on
September 15, 2000, on the day of the arraignment, would the entry
"Release with: LETTER . . . " in the court's computer records be false
information?
Yes_____ No_______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
If the debtor had failed to appear September 15, 2000 for
arraignment in your court, would that have been cause for you to issue
an arrest warrant for "failure to appear"?
Yes_____ No_______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
The indictment was signed with the initials TWG. In September 2000
would this be DDA Tom Gage?
Yes_____ No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
In the time period from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2001 did you
or anyone on your staff talk or otherwise communicate about debtor
Henson or his case outside of court sessions with any of the
following:
DA Grover Trask Yes_____ No______
Alan C. Oberstein Yes_____ No______
DDA Robert Schwarz Yes_____ No______
Elliot Abelson Yes_____ No______
Samuel Rosen Yes_____ No______
Judge Walker Yes_____ No______
Judge Wallerstein Yes_____ No______
Gerald Feffer Yes_____ No______
Tony Greer Yes_____ No______
DDA Leonard Mandel Yes_____ No______
DDA Kevin Ruddy Yes_____ No______
DDA Bernie Skiles Yes_____ No______
Jim Harr Yes_____ No______
Gilbert Nishino Yes_____ No______
Joseph M. Wojcik Yes_____ No______
Robert A. Davis, Jr.Yes_____ No______
Barry A. Reimer Yes_____ No______
Mike Rinder Yes_____ No______
Ken Hoden Yes_____ No______
Any other person not named? Yes_____ No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
For those above names checked yes, provide an approximate date
and the subject of the communication. Attach extra pages, letters or
documents if necessary.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:


Before case Hem 014371 was assigned to Judge Walker there was a
meeting about the case in your chambers. Do you remember this
meeting?
Yes_____ No_______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:


It was reported to the debtor by his lawyer after the above meeting in
chambers that you had expressed "fear of Scientology" and would not
take the case for that reason. Do you remember saying this or

something essentially equivalent?
Yes____ No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
What experience caused you to express the above fear?
________________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:


After Judge Walker recused himself from the case, an outside retired
municipal court judge (Wallerstein) with little experience in criminal

cases was brought in. Was this because none of the local judges,
including you, would take case Hem 014371?
Yes____ No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
If the answer to the above question is no, what is you understanding
of the reason at the time?
_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Do you consider the above reason valid today?
Yes___ No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:


Do you know who recommended Judge Wallerstein?
Yes___ No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
If the answer to the above question is yes, who recommended Judge
Wallerstein?
___________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
If you do not know who recommended Judge Wallerstein, do you know who
would know who recommended Judge Wallerstein?
Yes____ No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
If the answer to the above is yes, what is the person's name and
position?
_________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
How were the services of Judge Wallerstein obtained?
_________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:


At the close of the trial (Hem 014371) Judge Wallerstein admitted in
front of many people remaining in the courtroom that he knew
Scientology lawyer Elliot Abelson. (Abelson, a former Gambino family
lawyer, was in obvious constant contact with DDA Robert Schwarz,

coaching him during the trial as he did in the Mark Bunker's case in
Chicago.).
Were you aware, before Judge Wallerstein was brought in, that he knew


Scientology attorney Elliot Abelson?
Yes___ No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
Were you aware of Judge Wallerstein's previous activities as an


arbitrator in the entertainment business?
Yes___ No____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
Before being assigned to the Henson trial, was Judge Wallerstein


questioned about his previous arbitration dealings with Scientology or

Scientologists?


Yes___ No____ Don't know______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
If the answer to the above is yes, did Judge Wallerstein say he had


previous arbitration dealings with Scientology or Scientologists?
Yes___ No____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
Are you aware that Judge Wallerstein sealed parts of the record that
were in conflict with his minute order of April 19,2001 where he ruled
on a defense motion introducing evidence the same day?
Yes___ No____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
Were you aware in the year 2000 of communication(s) from Alan
C. Oberstein or Gerald Feffer or other attorneys representing any
aspect of Scientology to Grover Trask or members of the DA's office:
Yes___ No____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
If yes on the above question, state particulars.
___________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
What information have you learned about Henson or the Henson case that
is not covered in any of the above interrogatory questions?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

Keith Henson

unread,
Aug 10, 2005, 2:18:00 PM8/10/05
to
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:48:58 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 07:19:30 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
>wrote:
>
snip

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re:KEITH HENSON,DebtorHILLARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE
WAGONER, Plaintiffs,
vs.H. KEITH HENSON Defendant.

CASE NO.: 98-51326 ASW-7ADV.NO.035136SPECIAL

INTERROGATORIES RELATED TO EXTRINSIC FRAUD IN THE UNDERLYING CASES

By the order of Judge WeissbrodtJuly 26, 2005

PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEBTOR H. KEITH HENSON
RESPONDING PARTY: Judge Albert Wojcik of the Hemet Court, 880 N.
State Street, Hemet, Ca. 92543
SET NO: ONE (NUMBERS 1-26)

INTRODUCTION

In his reply to creditor's (HILLARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE
WAGONER) Motion for Summary Judgment, Debtor Henson asked the court
for more time to respond, one particular being that one creditor and
witness, Ken Hoden, may have been under duress when he testified at
the debtor's criminal trial. (Mr. Hoden was reliably reported in the
Fall of 2004 to be in Scientology's notorious punishment program known
as the "Rehabilitation Project Force" or RPF.) The court gave debtor
additional time and permitted debtor to attack the underlying cases to
his bankruptcy on the basis of extrinsic fraud.

So that debtor could attempt to show that the underlying criminal
judgment was obtained through extrinsic fraud debtor was permitted
discovery:

JUDGE WEISSBRODT: You're welcome to send out interrogatories, Mr.
Henson. . . . . you're not restricted in whom you can send an
interrogatory to.

It is unusual for a court to grant such powers. But in this case, the
creditors are a corporate front (RTC) for Scientology or
interchangeable penurious members of an organization that exercises
total control over their lives.

Further, Scientology has a well-established record of framing critics
such as Paulette Cooper. The sentencing memorandum (UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA v. MARY SUE HUBBARD, et al. Criminal Case No. 78-401) dated
Dec. 3, 1979 includes this description:

" . . . [They] considered themselves above the law. They believed that
they had carte blanche to violate the rights of others, frame critics
in order to destroy them, burglarize private and public offices and
steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and
organizations that the Church had sued. These suits were filed by the
Church for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting its critics and
in order to create an atmosphere of fear so that critics would shy
away from exercising the First Amendment rights secured them by the
Constitution."

Both "bankrupting" and "First Amendment rights" are common to the
debtor's case and the events that led up to the above case where 11
high-level Scientologists were sentenced to prison. The above case
was also rife with attempts to corrupt the judicial process. It might
be noted that Scientology has not changed the "scriptures" such as
"fair game" or "training routine lying" that "justified" such behavior
in the years since that sentencing memorandum.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
TO: The Party named above named and party's attorney of record, if
any.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that defendant and debtor above named requests
that party answer the following interrogatories under oath within 30
days from the date of service, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Bankruptcy Rules 9014 and 7033. Return
this interrogatory to the above captioned address in Hemet.

Snip (common legal language for these things)

Keith Henson

gizmo99

unread,
Aug 10, 2005, 6:41:38 PM8/10/05
to

Keith Henson wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:48:58 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
> wrote:
>
[...]

Keith, I hope you will be writing a book about your adventures.

How is it that this judge is not pressured to revoke your special
powers?
(How is it that this judge can stay "clean"???)

Press on and good luck.

Keith Henson

unread,
Aug 10, 2005, 10:02:37 PM8/10/05
to
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:13:57 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:48:58 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 07:19:30 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
>>wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>
>>>I have also been given authority to send out as many interrogatories
>>>as are justified under the circumstances.
>>
>>snip
>>
>>Thanks for the help people have been giving behind the scenes. Time
>>has come to put these out for comments.
>
>snip
>
>Filed version, thanks for all the help
>
>SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
>During debtor's appearance before your court on September 15, 2000
>debtor was handed the "Defendant's copy" of the indictment for Case
>No: Hem 014371 by a female Sheriff officer. Do you recall this?
>Yes_____ No______

Interesting development.

Today Ida printed out this and took it over to deliver it to the Hemet
court.

A court clerk after showing it to a bunch of others flat out refused
to accept an interrogatory for the judge in a federal bankruptcy case.

Outright refusal to accept service of an interrogatory in a Federal
case by a county *judge* is something I never imagined.

Maybe Ida will post her account.

Keith Henson

ida...@aol.com

unread,
Aug 11, 2005, 12:20:54 AM8/11/05
to
Today at l0:AM I went to the Hemet Court House to deliver the
Interrogatory papers . The clerk looked at them and said they were not
acceptable. The case number was wrong. She
then looked up Keith's case number (very concerned that it might not be
Howard Keith Henson (Born July l942 ) that I was referring to> I asked
if she thought there would be
two with a similar case tried in Hemet. She just shook her head. She
then took the papers
and while I waited about twenty five minutes they were reviewed by her
superiors and one
other she mentioned. She then said if she would receive such papers
they would just be
filed and that was it. She then gave me instructions on how to go to
the Criminal Court in Murrieta, Ca. She told me this type case was no
longer heard in Hemet.
In that these papers were meant for her and the other one for the Judge
who are both here in Hemet I felt they should not have been refused. So
tomorrow I shall mail them with signed receipt requested on delivery.

Ida J. Camburn

"You must have crossed the river to tell the crocodile he has bad
breath"
Chinese Proverb

John Dorsay

unread,
Aug 11, 2005, 12:14:15 AM8/11/05
to

What constitutes "service"? Does it make a difference that the
court house is not a place of residence?

Whether or not the clerk agreed to accept it may not be relevant.
The clerk clearly touched the document. That document may have been
served.

Interesting times...

John

Larry T.

unread,
Aug 11, 2005, 12:33:14 AM8/11/05
to

"John Dorsay" <restim...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qgAKe.8807$6d4.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...


Is it any wonder then that Arel Lucas was recently in Los Angeles on
business?

--
Larry T. @ http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeoqz2m/scientology/


Mike O'Connor

unread,
Aug 11, 2005, 10:02:06 AM8/11/05
to
In article <1123713698.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"gizmo99" <giz...@valise.com> wrote:

> Keith Henson wrote:
> > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:48:58 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
> > wrote:
> >
> [...]
>
> Keith, I hope you will be writing a book about your adventures.

Hear! Hear!

--
LYING IS A SCIENTOLOGY SACRAMENT
ASK THEM ABOUT XENU
Remember Lisa McPherson

WCB

unread,
Aug 11, 2005, 2:51:36 PM8/11/05
to
John Dorsay wrote:

No. I have some acquaintances who served papers. Each state has
its own little rules to begin with, or interpretation of rules.
In Texas, you can serve somebody at home, work, or anywhere
you can get them, a lot of people dodge. It can be a bitch to catch
up with them.
People have been known to get tagged at a parking garage where
they park when they go to work, and at gyms.
Sometimes people refuse to accept a summons, writ or some such.
But having informed them thay have been served, you leave it
with them, at least here in Texas. So if you go to a front
door and they refuse to open and take it, you tell them that hey have
been legally served, warn them of consequences of failing to comply, leave
it at the door, and they are served. Here in Texas for hardcore cases like
this, often two people will go so the nature of the servance is witnessed.
I have heard of people so being legally served in a drive way who
had the papers left on the windshield of a car.

If it gets to be a problem with the judge, here in Texas, once simply has to
march in to his office, say the ritual words, and leave it at his secretary
or clerk's desk. He ignores it at his own risk. He is served.

Again, each state has its own way of dealing with resistant
persons who do not want to be served. I understand this is VERY
common in nasty divorce situations. One has to make look up
the rules for dealing with resistant persons dodging being served
and to it the prescribed way.

Mailing it as suggested probably is legal and workable, but check
the rules. Its best if you can find somebody who has served
notices for a living. They can tell what the court accepts locally.

>
> Whether or not the clerk agreed to accept it may not be relevant.
> The clerk clearly touched the document. That document may have been
> served.
>
> Interesting times...
>
> John
>
>> Outright refusal to accept service of an interrogatory in a Federal
>> case by a county *judge* is something I never imagined.
>>
>> Maybe Ida will post her account.
>>
>> Keith Henson

--

Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!

Cheerful Charlie

Keith Henson

unread,
Aug 11, 2005, 9:31:02 PM8/11/05
to
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:51:36 -0500, WCB
<wbar...@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:

>John Dorsay wrote:
>
>> Keith Henson wrote:

snip

>>> Interesting development.
>>>
>>> Today Ida printed out this and took it over to deliver it to the Hemet
>>> court.
>>>
>>> A court clerk after showing it to a bunch of others flat out refused
>>> to accept an interrogatory for the judge in a federal bankruptcy case.
>>
>> What constitutes "service"? Does it make a difference that the
>> court house is not a place of residence?
>
>No. I have some acquaintances who served papers. Each state has
>its own little rules to begin with, or interpretation of rules.
>In Texas, you can serve somebody at home, work, or anywhere
>you can get them, a lot of people dodge. It can be a bitch to catch
>up with them.

I am sure that handing the paper to the clerk of the court where the
judge sits is effective service. I am going to take yesterday as
notice of service even though Ida put the papers in the mail today and
that adds 3 days under the federal rules.

If he didn't run off a copy while they had the papers in his office,
he can go on the net to see what is in them.

snip

>Mailing it as suggested probably is legal and workable, but check
>the rules. Its best if you can find somebody who has served
>notices for a living. They can tell what the court accepts locally.

It is a federal case, so federal rules apply.

It just astonishes me that a *judge* would refuse service of papers.
Good grief, refusing service of papers done under the authority of a
federal judge just looks awful. It makes a statement I am not sure he
would want to make if he had thought about it a little.

Other than being scared of the cult (no law against *that*) I didn't
think judge Wojcik did anything way out of line. Now I have to
wonder.

Keith Henson


Mike O'Connor

unread,
Aug 11, 2005, 11:44:37 PM8/11/05
to
In article <42fcd6c5...@nntp.broadband.rogers.com>,
hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson) wrote:

> It is a federal case, so federal rules apply.
>
> It just astonishes me that a *judge* would refuse service of papers.
> Good grief, refusing service of papers done under the authority of a
> federal judge just looks awful. It makes a statement I am not sure he
> would want to make if he had thought about it a little.

Do such papers have to be served by a lawyer, officer of the court,
licensed server guy or some such? Or assuming the papers themselves are
proper, can anyone you authorize serve them? I guess my question is, was
the service technically proper?

Ted Mayett

unread,
Aug 12, 2005, 12:13:24 AM8/12/05
to
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:31:02 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:


>It just astonishes me that a *judge* would refuse service of papers.
>Good grief, refusing service of papers done under the authority of a
>federal judge just looks awful. It makes a statement I am not sure he
>would want to make if he had thought about it a little.
>

I hadn't thought much on this Keith, but a friend and I were
discussing this. Well he thought that the Canadian Judge was giving
you permission to put together some questions and that the Court would
then forward the questions to the parties concerned.

Ida downloading and printing out stuff taken off the internet doesn't
quite sound like 'under the authority of a federal judge'.

Heck I could walk into a court tomorrow and make any claim I desire,
that does not make it a fact. I could even claim that a federal judge
told me blah blah blah, and it still would not be a fact.

Perhaps you were supposed to formulate the questions and then turn
them into the court. And now the court would forward them to the
parties involved using official channels. ?

--
Ted Mayett OT 1.1
http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/links.htm

ida...@aol.com

unread,
Aug 12, 2005, 12:18:32 AM8/12/05
to
Today August 11,2005 at 1:45 pm I mailed two envelopes with HK Henson
deroggatories to the Clerk at Hemet Court and to Hon. Judge Albert
Wojeik of the Hemet Court.
Mailed regular post.

Ida Camburn

WCB

unread,
Aug 12, 2005, 1:56:42 AM8/12/05
to
Mike O'Connor wrote:

> In article <42fcd6c5...@nntp.broadband.rogers.com>,
> hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
>
>> It is a federal case, so federal rules apply.
>>
>> It just astonishes me that a *judge* would refuse service of papers.
>> Good grief, refusing service of papers done under the authority of a
>> federal judge just looks awful. It makes a statement I am not sure he
>> would want to make if he had thought about it a little.
>
> Do such papers have to be served by a lawyer, officer of the court,
> licensed server guy or some such? Or assuming the papers themselves are
> proper, can anyone you authorize serve them? I guess my question is, was
> the service technically proper?
>

Anybody authorized can do so. My acquaintances that did this
were usually paid to do so by lawyers who needed people served.
Generally speaking, the courts leave this up to the lawyers.
The courts won't do it for you. In a few really tough cases, an
off duty police officer may be hired to accompany those serving
the papers.

Sometimes it is easy, if you are suing a company with
a known legal officer, you can use the mails. Sometimes its hard, like
serving papers on a amphetamine crazed biker who is trying very
hard to avoid being served.

A prosecutor trying to serve somebody is another situation
all together. They get marshals to do it for them.

Keith Henson

unread,
Aug 12, 2005, 5:49:33 AM8/12/05
to
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:13:24 -0700, Ted Mayett
<tedm...@despammed.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:31:02 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
>wrote:
>
>
>>It just astonishes me that a *judge* would refuse service of papers.
>>Good grief, refusing service of papers done under the authority of a
>>federal judge just looks awful. It makes a statement I am not sure he
>>would want to make if he had thought about it a little.
>>
>
>I hadn't thought much on this Keith, but a friend and I were
>discussing this. Well he thought that the Canadian Judge was giving
>you permission to put together some questions and that the Court would
>then forward the questions to the parties concerned.

Not Canadian. Other than being a complaining witness in the Del
Bianco assault business, I am not involved with the Canadian courts.

>Ida downloading and printing out stuff taken off the internet doesn't
>quite sound like 'under the authority of a federal judge'.

It went by email to Ida, but was like a fax pleading paper from me
except for being higher quality. Ida was just acting as a process
server for me. I could have mailed them from Canada, but I wanted to
give them time to answer and the mail can take ten days or more at
times.

>Heck I could walk into a court tomorrow and make any claim I desire,
>that does not make it a fact. I could even claim that a federal judge
>told me blah blah blah, and it still would not be a fact.

Did you read one of them? There is a direct quote of what the judge
said in his order. Misquoting a judge would be very bad juju.

>Perhaps you were supposed to formulate the questions and then turn
>them into the court. And now the court would forward them to the
>parties involved using official channels. ?

It is not done that way.

Look Ted, the fact that I am doing this pro se does not imply I am
doing it without informal advice from real lawyers--several of them.
For good reasons (Graham Berry being a prime example) lawyers won't
get directly involved in legal actions against scientology.

But the cult pisses them off to the point a number of them will help
where they can.

Keith Henson

Keith Henson

unread,
Aug 12, 2005, 5:59:57 AM8/12/05
to
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:44:37 -0400, Mike O'Connor
<mi...@leptonicsystems.com> wrote:

>In article <42fcd6c5...@nntp.broadband.rogers.com>,
> hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
>
>> It is a federal case, so federal rules apply.
>>
>> It just astonishes me that a *judge* would refuse service of papers.
>> Good grief, refusing service of papers done under the authority of a
>> federal judge just looks awful. It makes a statement I am not sure he
>> would want to make if he had thought about it a little.
>
>Do such papers have to be served by a lawyer, officer of the court,
>licensed server guy or some such? Or assuming the papers themselves are
>proper, can anyone you authorize serve them? I guess my question is, was
>the service technically proper?

The rules differ depending on the court. But for federal courts you
can mail interrogatories and it is assumed they get there in 3
days--added to the 30 days they have to answer. If you hand deliver
them, the clock starts right then.

Keith Henson

Keith Henson

unread,
Aug 12, 2005, 11:35:33 AM8/12/05
to
This is *draft*

I may need to stick in explanations as to why the questions about the
two women killed at scientology's operation that year are relevant to
the criminal trial, which underlies the civil trial, which David Cook
brought into the bankruptcy case provided this amazing opportunity.

I would like to get this out in the next day or two, so please post or
email the comments as soon as you can.

And a very public thanks for the help both public and private I have
been getting.

Keith Henson

PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEBTOR H. KEITH HENSON

RESPONDING PARTY: Ken Hoden, served through his attorney DAVID J.
COOK, ESQ. (State Bar # 060859), COOK, PERKISS & LEW, A PROFESSIONAL
LAW CORPORATION 333 Pine Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California
94104

snip boilerplate

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
List your education starting with High School, years, include
institutions and whether applicable majors and degree(s) were
granted.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
List the titles you have held in Scientology and the approximate dates
you held these positions.

_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
List the training courses you have taken in Scientology.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
[NOTE. Is there a list I can stick in here with check boxes?]

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
When did you first become aware of debtor?
_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Debtor picketed Scientology's operation at Gilman Springs in
the spring of 1998. Describe that picket from your viewpoint.


_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
In 1998 you sued debtor. Why did you sue debtor and in what court?
_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
What was the outcome of the suit?
_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
On May 17, 2000, construction machinery (a paver with no lights) was
moved off the property at Gilman Springs on a public road after dark,
accompanied by a front loader. Ashlee Shaner's car ran into the blade
of the front loader about 9:15 pm, decapitating her almost in front of
her mother. Were you involved at all in the decision to move this
equipment after dark?
Yes_____ No_______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
The next day, May 18, 2000, was a Thursda