I've got mine...
NJWoods
I'll will post her pack of lies, harassment and threatening
posturing later today.
According to a high ranking member of the ARSCC, I am now to
be recognized as an SP4...
Now to work out my snappy retort to the 'ho's missive.
Neil Woods
I'm Woodsy...
Still actively soliciting a 'Legally' obtained copy of NOTs.
Acting in concert with nobody.
Steve A
njw...@erie.net (NJWoods) wrote:
>..Did you get your official 'Ho Gram?
>
>I'll will post her pack of lies, harassment and threatening
>posturing later today.
>
>According to a high ranking member of the ARSCC, I am now to
>be recognized as an SP4...
>
>Now to work out my snappy retort to the 'ho's missive.
"Rearrange these words to form a well-known saying: OFF, FUCK."
Should cover it.
- --
Steve: SP4 and Clam Cluster, KoX, KOh
Minister in the First Electronic Church of SCAMIZDAT,
High Grand Pappadum of the Church of the SubGenius.
I thought...Bob had fallen and he couldn't get up? [on Bob Penny, MS victim]
-- "Vera Wallace", official CoS stooge showing Scientology's caring side.
A good home awaits a NOTS pack available for legal adoption. Apply by email...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQCVAwUBMVyIf2K4mshjLd+dAQH7mAP/QUXux0hyh7PDIP+BQaGZJQ5R6Sxb1pQY
LezGMYZHSozmcrAeAEEp7uHmmcnoaLGb761etSDFpv5oKTqinif4l4EH0FroC+Xk
2UyRS2Fixpufltz2e1Ik4XXTFtjiwfXMdLV0Ka7G6v8y/fKJW7yoe616M1Hu4mr4
B5El0UyCPvI=
=3zVg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
henry
[posted and emailed to the lying ho' of babble-on the
fraud who exists at h...@netcom.com even though it's been
proven that more than one person uses that account, thus
by simple logic, at least one of those people is NOT
helena kobrin, and email is still NOT a legal method to
serve notice.]
In article <4jecjl$be4...@news.erie.net>, NJWoods <njw...@erie.net> wrote:
>..Did you get your official 'Ho Gram?
>I'll will post her pack of lies, harassment and threatening
>posturing later today.
this really pisses me off. not only did i post a request
for a NUTS pack, but i even emailed it to the lying ho'
of babble-on, a barrator fined $20,000 for filing a frivolous
RICO suit against david mayo. i've seen nothing from this
proven liar. no threats, no nothing. perhaps she's too
much of a cowardly slut to do it, or maybe she's too busy
auditing gene engram's 'body thetan.'
i'll email her THIS message, too, because i feel snubbed.
why no threats, ho'?
>According to a high ranking member of the ARSCC, I am now to
>be recognized as an SP4...
i'm ALREADY SP5. i just want to collect more of these things
than anyone else. so far i think i've gotten at least three
and maybe four of them. it depends on whether you count
threats to ISPs as actual ho' notes.
>Now to work out my snappy retort to the 'ho's missive.
>Neil Woods
>I'm Woodsy...
>Still actively soliciting a 'Legally' obtained copy of NOTs.
>Acting in concert with nobody.
apparently, according to an actual lawyer, an order like
this basically means that if you even KNOW about it you're
liable. so basically, since you've seen the order, you're
ORDERED to DESTROY ANY COPIES OF NUTS materials you see.
of course, you're ALSO ordered NOT to destroy any NUTS
materials you see.
this is in judge whyte's fantasy-land of lunacy, of course,
which ought to be in NUTS itself:
Destroy a NUTS pack.
Do not destroy a NUTS pack.
Create a NUTS pack.
Do not create a NUTS pack.
h
- --
fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck
f f
u "When you can't say 'fuck,' you can't say u
c 'FUCK THE CDA!' -- Lenny Bruce rephrased c
k k
fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck
ObURL: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/erlich/defense-fund
[ For Public Key: finger he...@netcom.com ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQCVAgUBMVzgem130hVrA/MJAQGR+QP6A3MlINrj7Uyqh15xG1epeXLh2ng//f5i
cMdDe9wOnwZAwjsWoO3eN8trf2TYs10Ld0z3cvgALRofZCn/4tqxTVMx22Yz5Qig
80ip8c9O3cC5D0KDoEJnOcg8Pd8dX/+nN8KEvSyG7cJ8x2aF8TgX53wMGMaBhzYP
WMpC5/6gKW0=
=OsZc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Pat Braden
>..Did you get your official 'Ho Gram?
>
>I'll will post her pack of lies, harassment and threatening
>posturing later today.
>
>According to a high ranking member of the ARSCC, I am now to
>be recognized as an SP4...
>
>Now to work out my snappy retort to the 'ho's missive.
>
>Neil Woods
>I'm Woodsy...
>Still actively soliciting a 'Legally' obtained copy of NOTs.
>Acting in concert with nobody.
Ditto. I got mine too. Does this make me a SP2, 3, or 4?
To: bra...@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Your solicitation
From: Helena Kobrin <h...@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 21:38:48 -0800 (PST)
Dear Mr. Braden,
I represent Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner
of the confidential Advanced Technology of the religion of
Scientology, and the holder of exclusive rights under the
copyrights applicable to the Advanced Technology materials.
Among these copyrighted, confidential, unpublished materials are
the Advanced Technology materials of the works included in a
level known as "NED for OTs Series" or "NOTs".
I have seen your posting soliciting copies of the NOTs pack
to be sent to you. You are apparently under the mistaken
impression that it is possible to obtain a "legal" copy of these
materials. This is false. The only way that these materials
have *ever* left the custody of the few advanced Scientology
churches which are licensed to have them is through outright
*theft* for which the thief was arrested, convicted, and served
time in jail in Denmark.
In suits brought subsequent to that theft, courts ordered
all copies of those materials to be turned in to the courts. If
anyone still has a copy of those materials, it is the fruit of
that theft and in violation of those court orders. There is no
*legal* copy of these materials in existence.
You are hereby put on notice that because these materials
are protected not only under copyright, but also trade secret
law, your *solicitation* of these materials is in violation of
the law, as would be your disclosure of them to others by
whatever means. By your solicitation, you are also inducing
violation of the law by others.
I am including at the end of this message the notice that I
posted to several newsgroups on March 22, 1996, containing the
TRO that was issued by the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on March 21, 1996 against Grady
Ward and those acting in concert with him. I repeat here that
you are on notice of this TRO. If you engage in actions
prohibited by this TRO, you do so at your peril. While we would
rather not have to litigate, we will take all necessary legal
actions to protect these intellectual properties.
Sincerely,
Helena Kobrin
NJWoods
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>[posted and emailed to the lying ho' of babble-on the
>fraud who exists at h...@netcom.com even though it's been
>proven that more than one person uses that account, thus
>by simple logic, at least one of those people is NOT
>helena kobrin, and email is still NOT a legal method to
>serve notice.]
>
>
>>..Did you get your official 'Ho Gram?
>
>>I'll will post her pack of lies, harassment and threatening
>>posturing later today.
>
>for a NUTS pack, but i even emailed it to the lying ho'
>of babble-on, a barrator fined $20,000 for filing a frivolous
>RICO suit against david mayo. i've seen nothing from this
>proven liar. no threats, no nothing. perhaps she's too
>much of a cowardly slut to do it, or maybe she's too busy
>auditing gene engram's 'body thetan.'
>
>i'll email her THIS message, too, because i feel snubbed.
>
>why no threats, ho'?
>
henri...
Maybe it's the way you asked?
I've always believed that you could attract more flies with honey than you
could with vinegar. You know, it worked too...
Now I've got this fuckin' big, fat, ugly, shit eating fly buzzing around here
waitin' to get swatted...
Neil
1
I'm Woodsy...
Still actively soliciting legal copies of NOTs.
Acting in concert with no one but myself.
Keith Henson
: On Thu, 28 Mar 96 15:52:21 GMT, njw...@erie.net (NJWoods) wrote:
: >..Did you get your official 'Ho Gram?
: >
Yo folks! Another letter from Helena showed up in my mailbox.
[posted and mailed, cc to Judge Whyte]
>Dear Mr. Henson,
>
> I represent Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner
>of the confidential Advanced Technology of the religion of
>Scientology, and the holder of exclusive rights under the
>copyrights applicable to the Advanced Technology materials.
>Among these copyrighted and confidential materials are the
>Advanced Technology materials of certain levels known as "NED for
>OTs Series."
Boilerplate. Do you have a macro programmed with this introduction?
> I have been informed that you have posted NOTs Series 34 to
>the Internet without the authorization of my client, who, of
>course, would not have given such authorization had it been
>requested.
That I did. In particular the HCOB of Nov. 14, 1978. I presume by
your complaining that RTC acknowledges this material to be an official
copyrighted, trade secret, instruction manual for criminal activities?
No wonder you want to keep it from being discussed!
> I also see that you are claiming that you have talked
>to the court and that this justifies your posting.
You would have to be exceptionally dense to avoid noticing that the
quoted document was right in the middle of a letter to Judge Whyte.
> I am hereby placing you on notice that NOTs Series 34 is a
>copyrighted, unpublished work.
And I am hereby placing RTC on notice that the HCOB of Nov. 14, 1978
contains claims and instructions which seem to me to be both criminal
in nature and in violation of certain court orders against the
"Church" of Scientology.
> Not only is it subject to the TRO
>issued by Judge Whyte against Grady Ward (and will be subject to
>the preliminary injunction once issued), it is also subject to a
>preliminary injunction issued by Judge Whyte in Religious
>Technology Center v. Netcom On-line Communications, Inc. against
>Dennis Erlich. In both instances, the injunction is against Ward
>or Erlich and their "agents, servants, and employees, and all
>persons acting or purporting to act under his authority,
>direction or control, and all persons anyone acting in concert or
>in participation with any of them who receive notice of this
>Order." These injunctions were issued on the basis that RTC was
>likely to succeed on the merits of its claims.
Well, lets see. I am certainly not any kind of "agent, servant or
employee" of either Dennis Erlich or Grady Ward, nor do I act under
any kind of direction or control. Now, you can go argue with Judge
Whyte that all persons who happen to read a.r.s, agree with Grady or
Dennis that CoS is a scam of a cult, and take independent action are
"acting in concert or in participation." Lots of luck.
>
> You have also included in your notice a request for people
>to send you the NOTs materials.
I am not interested in just *any* old NOTs materials. I asked for
NOTs materials which amounts to instructions for criminal acts, such
as those found in the HCOB of Nov. 14, 1978, or fraud. I believe
discussion of this subset(?) of these materials is in the public
interest. I am prepared to go to court to defend my right to quote
from and discuss the criminal acts and policies of the "Church" of
Scientology.
> Please be informed that the
>California Uniform Trade Secrets Act prohibits even the
>*acquisition* of materials containing trade secrets.
I simply do not believe that anything which can be found by a few
seconds of searching on any one of a hundred thousand computers all
over the world can be considered a "trade secret." What is a
non-profit *Church* doing with trade secrets anyway? Trade secrets
are for *profit* making commercial companies. Or perhaps fraudulent
scams.
> It is for
>this reason that Mr. Ward was enjoined under trade secret law.
>Your solicitation of these materials is a violation of that law
>and an inducement to others to do so.
As I pointed out above, I asked for material which amount to criminal
instruction manuals or material which shows evidence of fraud on the
part of Scientology. It will be very interesting to be enjoined in a
First Amendment pursuit which is so clearly in the public interest.
You really should try.
You don't even have to hire a process server. Give me a call, beeper
# 408-521-0614, and I will come down to Mr. Hogan's office and pick up
my papers.
> I am setting forth below the TRO issued by Judge Whyte and
>the notice which I posted after the TRO was issued. I hereby
>demand that you cease and desist from any and all further
>posting, reproduction, display, distribution, solicitation or
>acquisition of NOTs Series 34 or any of the Advanced Technology
>works of the Scientology religion.
>
> Sincerely,
> Helena K. Kobrin
Well, Helena, I am going to put it a little nicer than Grady would,
but you can take your demand, fold it till it is all corners, and
stick it where "the Sun don't shine." And, just to show I mean it, I
am *again* asking for NOTs or any other Scientology "AT" materials,
acquired by legal, or *illegal* means which describe criminal acts,
amount to criminal instruction manuals, or show the fraudulent bait
and switch nature of Scientology. It is my intent to comment on and
post this material in the public interest. I do not believe that
either copyright law or trademark law will prevent the publication of
information relating to unlawful acts. If you think otherwise, I
suggest you check with a couple of tobacco companies.
> NOTICE TO READERS:
>
> On March 6, 1996, Grady Ward posted a message to the
>Internet soliciting a NOTs pack. In a later posting, Ward
[snip for bandwidth]
Keith Henson
SP 4, bucking for SP 6
Taneli Huuskonen
[posted and mailed]
In <315f0260...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> bra...@ix.netcom.com
(Pat Braden) writes:
[snip]
>Ditto. I got mine too. Does this make me a SP2, 3, or 4?
It makes you an SP4. Look at the very end:
[snap]
>prohibited by this TRO, you do so at your peril. While we would
>rather not have to litigate, we will take all necessary legal
>actions to protect these intellectual properties.
> Sincerely,
> Helena Kobrin
This is pretty obviously a threat, which is the requirement for SP Level
Four. In fact, there's a formal ARSCC decision on that (see ARS CCB
#96-23a). Congratulations on your new suppressive level!
Taneli, aka spud-tane
ARS CSCI Eur
Disclaimer: The rules of the ARS Central Committee require me to deny
its existence. In fact, there is no such thing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQB1AwUBMWCOGgUw3ir1nvhZAQH7GQL/YjEhPXjQ4JRa30uLaD8OlQxHz5I5VR0X
eadKkjzzltpNV0n+n6uEbWPr6w8EorMfixbFj4ORrxzOc+UZWfW+hR/1MfCGbx4T
zNUXVvqYwJjDFItmp0kUxzRWyTLwMuQK
=2m1Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
T. Huuskonen | All messages will be PGP signed, | L Ron Hubbard started the
----------- | encrypted mail preferred. Keys: | most pernicious cult I know.
3863@twwells | finger huus...@karhu.helsinki.fi | Form your own opinion, read
134839@penet | http://www.helsinki.fi/~huuskone/ | alt.religion.scientology.
Brad Wallace
>>..Did you get your official 'Ho Gram?
>this really pisses me off. not only did i post a request
>for a NUTS pack, but i even emailed it to the lying ho'
>of babble-on, a barrator fined $20,000 for filing a frivolous
>RICO suit against david mayo. i've seen nothing from this
>proven liar. no threats, no nothing.
Shit henry - take a valium. She's simply trying to enturbulate you.
Don't let her get you down.
If you *really* want to get another Ho' Gram the way to do it is to
*not* ask for it. Make it clear that you would rather undergo a root-canal
than get a Ho' Gram. *THEN* you'll get one. Proof? Well, the other day
hkk@netcom pissed me off enough that I wrote some gibberish which
included a bit about "I wasn't going to do this, but now you've done it. Send
me NOTS." And lo' and behold - I received my Ho' Gram this morning.
545 fuckin' lines of it. What a waste of bandwidth.
BTW Helena - why do you figure that Judge Whyte's order applies to
Canadians?
-BRAD-
--
Brad Wallace, SP4, KoX, br...@ras.ucalgary.ca - Read alt.religion.scientology
"You have the right to free speech, as long as | FUCK!
you are not dumb enough to actually try it" | the
- "The Clash," paraphrasing Church of $cientology doctrine | CDA
The Centurion
>rather not have to litigate, we will take all necessary legal
>actions to protect these intellectual properties.
>
> Sincerely,
> Helena Kobrin
"Rather not have to litigate!!?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That's like Hitler saying, "Gee, I'd rather NOT have to kill Jews...."
Look lady, the horse is LONG gone out of the barn and has reproduced himself a
thousand times OVER! Give it UP! Anybody with the slightest curiosity can
find out ALL your deep dark "secrets." (Silly and BORING as they may be).
Why not spend your money trying to do some GOOD and rehabilitate your
"church's" reputation as a psuedo-Nazi-like CULT!! If you don't you'll drown
in your own venom.
What am I saying, you're a LAWYER! You have no interest whatsoever in any of
this being settled because then the money STOPS, doesn't it! Evil pays well,
always has.
--
AVE ATQVE VALE
CENT...@hooked.net
Steven J. Tella
Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Yo folks! Another letter from Helena showed up in my mailbox.
How NICE for you.
>That I did. In particular the HCOB of Nov. 14, 1978. I presume by
>your complaining that RTC acknowledges this material to be an official
>copyrighted, trade secret, instruction manual for criminal activities?
>No wonder you want to keep it from being discussed!
Indeed.
>You would have to be exceptionally dense to avoid noticing that the
>quoted document was right in the middle of a letter to Judge Whyte.
Well, yes. But....
>And I am hereby placing RTC on notice that the HCOB of Nov. 14, 1978
>contains claims and instructions which seem to me to be both criminal
>in nature and in violation of certain court orders against the
>"Church" of Scientology.
I doubt it's the only one, too. Gotten any more goodies?
>I am not interested in just *any* old NOTs materials. I asked for
>NOTs materials which amounts to instructions for criminal acts, such
>as those found in the HCOB of Nov. 14, 1978, or fraud. I believe
>discussion of this subset(?) of these materials is in the public
>interest. I am prepared to go to court to defend my right to quote
>from and discuss the criminal acts and policies of the "Church" of
>Scientology.
If you get raided, go buy a new toothbrush! I'm sure I can find
someone who wants your old one. A friend in Berkeley told me, by the
way, that sie saw, at a rave, someone selling "scientology
toothbrushes". Even far from the net, the degraded joke-cult of
scientology is providing amusement for those fortunate enough to be
outside its clutches.
>As I pointed out above, I asked for material which amount to criminal
>instruction manuals or material which shows evidence of fraud on the
>part of Scientology. It will be very interesting to be enjoined in a
>First Amendment pursuit which is so clearly in the public interest.
>You really should try.
YESSSSS!
Do it, Helena! Sic 'im!
<Helena squawks>
>> I am setting forth below the TRO issued by Judge Whyte and
>>the notice which I posted after the TRO was issued. I hereby
>>demand
My daddy, before he went there for personal experience with the place,
was fond of saying, when people expressed wants, that "People in hell
want ice water." Helena, the toothpaste is out of the tube, the genie
out of the bottle. The scam and coverup of your corrupt cult is
unravelling as inexorably as Watergate. Blow the scamcult, blow Gene,
or blow the case.... You don't get to close your mouth, but you might
still be able to choose the flavor. Do you like the taste in your
mouth when you wake up? Only you can change it.
>Well, Helena, I am going to put it a little nicer than Grady would,
>but you can take your demand, fold it till it is all corners, and
>stick it where "the Sun don't shine." And, just to show I mean it, I
Is Helena responsive, Keith? Or is she just shifting tenderly from
cheek to cheek, uncomfortable at the position she's in and unable to
see a way out?
>am *again* asking for NOTs or any other Scientology "AT" materials,
>acquired by legal, or *illegal* means which describe criminal acts,
>amount to criminal instruction manuals, or show the fraudulent bait
>and switch nature of Scientology. It is my intent to comment on and
>post this material in the public interest. I do not believe that
>either copyright law or trademark law will prevent the publication of
>information relating to unlawful acts. If you think otherwise, I
>suggest you check with a couple of tobacco companies.
Good luck, Keith! I'm watching with great (and public) interest.
The degraded joke-cult of scientology reminds me of nothing more than a
puppy that tipped over the trash, tried to lick out a can, and got its
head caught. In panic flight, it charges around, bashing into things,
and creating for itself consequences it can neither see nor
understand. Blind agitation and some yelping....
How degrading, and what a joke....
SP7-48
1. Find some Scientologists and communicate to them
individually until you know they received your communication.
2. Go to a newsgroup or a place with many types of kooks and communicate
with each of them until you know the communication is received
and, if possible, returned.
-- jeff_...@rbcbbs.win.net
Keith Henson
: In <315f0260...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> bra...@ix.netcom.com
: (Pat Braden) writes:
: [snip]
: >Ditto. I got mine too. Does this make me a SP2, 3, or 4?
: It makes you an SP4. Look at the very end:
: [snap]
: This is pretty obviously a threat, which is the requirement for SP Level
: Four. In fact, there's a formal ARSCC decision on that (see ARS CCB
: #96-23a). Congratulations on your new suppressive level!
^^
I looked it up, it is #95-23a. Keith Henson
: Taneli, aka spud-tane
: ARS CSCI Eur
Keith Henson
: As of Tue, April 2, 1996, the first of these letters has been canceled
: twice. Is CoS going to do something more effective? I doubt it. In
: the mode of Grady Ward I proclaim the "Church" of Scientology to be
: degraded and criminal, a nearly helpless cult of fools. I invite their
: lawyers to get an injunction to prevent me from posting their criminal
: instruction manuals which are also violations of court orders.
: Will Judge Whyte prevent quoting and discussion of materials showing
: contempt and illegal intent?
He did.
(as you might have noted on other threads and in **BJ**)
If this sticks (and it might) then copyright/trade secret can be used
to prevent disclosure of illegal acts and to cover up contempt of court
acts, a situation worth noting, and a clear case of commercial interest
being found to be more important than the public interest. (This *has*
been a trend lately.)
: Stay tuned, and watch the criminal cult crumble
: before the distributed corrosive power of the Net.
The "Church" of Scientology is hosed even if I go down in flames.
: And, yes, I am still looking for NOTs or AT materials which show the
: criminal or fraudulent nature of Scientology.
Not until the TRO is lifted. Even if someone sent me an official CoS
manual on how to murder (with case examples) I could not disclose it.
Keith Henson SP5
Keith Henson
I forgot to add the pointers:
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/henson/home.html
Where you can read about my case, and
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/grady/home.html
where you can read about Grady Ward's case.
Keith Henson
Keith Henson
: H Keith Henson (hkhe...@shell.portal.com) wrote:
[snip]
: : Will Judge Whyte prevent quoting and discussion of materials showing
: : contempt and illegal intent?
: He did.
Folks, this is fun! Finally found a good use for my new Xerox
WorkCenter.
To bring you up to date, I filed a letter Monday with the Court
asking Judge Whyte to recuse himself because he or his clerk are
likely to be called as witnesses. Judge Whyte could have acted on
that letter and recused himself on his own motion, but he decided it
would be better to have me make the motion, and kindly pointed me to
the correct section of the United States Code. His clerk informed me
late Tuesday afternoon. So here it is Wed. morning, and I have these
printed up on the *nicest* crisp legal paper you can imagine.
Hacking the legal system is *fun*, much like finding bugs in software.
Keith Henson
PS, I would have called it a motion to recuse, but hey, who am I to
argue with *Benders Federal Forms*? They call it a motion to dismiss.
---------
Thomas R. Hogan, SBN 042048
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN
60 South Market Street, Suite 1125
San Jose, CA 95113-2332
(408) 292-7600
Roger M. Migrim
William M. Hart
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER
399 Park Avenue Thirty-first floor
New York, New York 10022-4697
(212) 318-6000
Helena K. Kobrin, SBN 152546
7629 Fulton Avenue
North Hollywood, CA 91605
(213) 960-1933
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
H. Keith Henson
799 Coffey Ct.
San Jose, CA 95123
(408) 521-0614
pro se
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) Case No. C-96-20271RMW
California non-profit corporation, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) MOTION TO
) DISMISS
H. KEITH HENSON, an individual, )
Defendant. )
)
____________________________________
Defendant shows that the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
is disqualified from presiding as judge at the trial of the
above numbered and entitled cause under the provisions of
Title 28, United State Code, Section 455, due to his
knowledge that he or his clerk are likely to be called as a
material witness in the proceeding, as more fully set forth
in the affidavit attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Wherefore, Defendant moves that the Honorable Ronald
M. Whyte declare himself disqualified to sit on the hearing
of this cause and that another judge be assigned to hear
this action.
Dated April 9, 1996
H. Keith Henson
799 Coffey Ct.
San Jose, CA 95123
[boilerplate parties copy cut]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) Case No. C-96-20271RMW
California non-profit corporation, )
Plaintiff, )
) AFFIDAVIT--IN SUPPORT
) OF MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
v. ) JUDGE [28 USCS SECTION
) 455(a)]
H. KEITH HENSON, an individual, )
Defendant. )
)
____________________________________
I am the Defendant in the above numbered and
entitled cause.
Judge Ronald M. Whyte or his clerk are likely to be
called as material witnesses in the above numbered and
entitled cause and is therefore disqualified to act in the
above numbered and entitled cause under the provisions of
Title 28, United Stated Code, Section 455(a)(iv).
Plaintiffs filings in this case makes note of events
involving Judge Whyte or his court throughout.
Judge Whyte is known to have been aware of the only
substantive matter Plaintiffs raise (the letter to Judge
Whyte of March 26, 1996 posted to the Internet on March 30,
1996). Judge Whyte did not object to letter when defendant
presented himself to Judge Whyte's clerk after the TRO
hearing for Grady Ward (C-96 20207 RMW) on March 29, 1996.
This may not imply approval, but it certainly is a material
fact in determining Defendants state of mind and motive at
the point Defendant posted letter.
Additionally, Defendant would like to bring up the
point that while Defendant could not show Judge Whyte to be
biased toward Plaintiffs in his rulings, Judge Whyte has not
been effective in enforcing Court orders of many months
standing for the Plaintiffs to relinquish the fruits of the
writ of seizure Judge Whyte later decided was an
unconstitutional violation of Mr. Erlich's rights in case
C95-20091 RMW.
Unfortunately, Judge Whyte is far from being the
only Judge who has had great problems in bringing Church of
Scientology Plaintiffs into line.
Dated April 9, 1996
H. Keith Henson
799 Coffey Ct.
San Jose, CA 95123
Sent by email to
h...@netcom.com
Steve A
hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
>H Keith Henson (hkhe...@shell.portal.com) wrote:
>
>: And, yes, I am still looking for NOTs or AT materials which show the
>: criminal or fraudulent nature of Scientology.
>
>Not until the TRO is lifted. Even if someone sent me an official CoS
>manual on how to murder (with case examples) I could not disclose it.
I am not (AFAIK) subject to the terms of any such TRO. If anyone wants
to supply me with Scientology documents which advocate criminal acts,
I will do what I can to publicise them, subject to the appropriate
copyright laws, but bearing in mind that, in the UK at least, public
interest considerations can override such things.
Legitimately obtained NOTs materials will, of course, still be equally
welcome.
- --
Steve: SP4 and Clam Cluster with Bar, KoX, KOh, Institutional Case #364
Minister in the First Electronic Church of SCAMIZDAT,
High Grand Pappadum of the Church of the SubGenius.
I thought...Bob had fallen and he couldn't get up? [on Bob Penny, MS victim]
-- "Vera Wallace", official CoS stooge showing Scientology's caring side.
A good home awaits a NOTS pack available for legal adoption. Apply by email...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQCVAwUBMW1W9GK4mshjLd+dAQGNLgP/Tu9HoKfTUITjDR6USM6jwAljIwRtz8XT
s6CcdZIyrLZ5bWlC0MuDOwRcvwL066ZVjXKjsZvIRF/kDdis3kLbw03ixqm5iF7U
CTEccGKKI40LolTwxBqNxaSgHl+yYm4aAXjGKKgjggEjaNg0ljeM16Wh2y7ciIVn
AtsEmFweLkY=
=g3fL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Drake
> hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
>
> >H Keith Henson (hkhe...@shell.portal.com) wrote:
> >
> >: And, yes, I am still looking for NOTs or AT materials which show the
> >: criminal or fraudulent nature of Scientology.
> >
> >Not until the TRO is lifted. Even if someone sent me an official CoS
> >manual on how to murder (with case examples) I could not disclose it.
>
I thought the TRO only concerned AT and NOT stuff. If documents detailing
criminal actions came out of the law office of Scientology, would the TRO
cover that? Assuming it was not labeled part of NOTs. What if you got
a memo detailing the actions that Ingram should take when he visits the
home of Grady's mother?
--
John "don't send me NOTs, send the juicy stuff" Drake
Keith Henson
[snip]
: PS, I would have called it a motion to recuse, but hey, who am I to
: argue with *Benders Federal Forms*? They call it a motion to dismiss.
[snap]
To keep you up on the saga, I got the expected reply to my motion to
recuse Judge Whyte. So, I responded at length. Here it is for your
enjoyment. If the scanner works smoothly, I might be able to post
what I was responding to. Otherwise, I am off to bed, let you know
how things go tomarrow. Keith Henson
[snipped boilerplate]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) Case No. C-96-20271RMW
California non-profit corporation, )
Plaintiff, )
) REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S
) OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
) RECUSE (WAS "DISMISS")
v. )
)
H. KEITH HENSON, an individual, )
Defendant. )
)
____________________________________
Defendant apologies for the inaccurately titled
"Motion to Dismiss," and attaches a copy of page 222 in
*Benders Federal Forms* on which may be found what defendant
suspected was a typographical error.
Defendant agrees in part with Plaintiff's council.
Per the claim by plaintiffs that "the court itself
apparently did not speak with Henson," defendant concurs.
However, the court's clerk did indicate before witnesses
that Judge Whyte had read defendant's letter of March 26,
and accepted the letter from Arnie Lerma which was promised
in the next to last paragraph of the "Open Letter" as if it
were expected.
The clerk took the Lerma letter to Judge Whyte, and
returned after five to ten minutes.
Defendant understands the reluctance of the Court to
provide guidance to those who seek it, since Courts would be
overwhelmed with such requests. This is, however, an
unusual case, as the Court must know by now, and in that
letter, defendant raised serious constitutional issues.
Defendant, and thousands of others on the Internet,
would have been very interested in either a "Yes copyright
or trade secret law can be used" or "No such laws cannot be
used," answer to the question implied at the end of the
second paragraph after defendant's fair use quoting of NOTs
34:
"Forbidding discussion of this particular document,
including quoting it entirely, is clearly against the
public interest, as well a violation of my First
Amendment rights. Unless, of course, copyright law can
be used to prevent disclosure of instructions for
criminal activity."
Defendant will again seek the guidance of the court
in open hearing because Defendant and many others are
confused and in need an answer to the above question.
However, the clerk of the court answered to
defendant's satisfaction by declaring that defendant (at
that time) was emphatically *not* a defendant, and therefore
not covered by the TRO issued against Grady Ward. Defendant
therefore made the assumption that defendant could post NOTs
34 which amounts to criminal instructions, *and* is a clear
violation of Judge Gesell's order from 1971 (333 F. Supp
357), and seek similar material, if any exists, as an
exercise of defendant's rights under the First Amendment.
It was, therefore, a considerable surprise for
defendant to be served by plaintiffs for activities which
were sincerely believe by defendant to be protected under
the provisions of the First Amendment.
What defendant is alleged to have done is entirely
contained within the pages of the pleadings, attached to the
declaration of Warren McShane as Exhibits 1 and 3. In
addition, exhibit 1 was hand delivered to the court four
days before being posted, and exhibit 2 was copied to the
court on the day it was posted. Plaintiff's pleadings are
*quite* at odds with what is contained in exhibits supplied
by Plaintiffs.
For example, Warren McShane's declaration, page 2
lines 11 and 12 quote defendant as "publicly seeking more
NOTs material, *stolen or not*" while leaving off the rest
of the sentence "which describe criminal activities."
Compare line 24 of page 2 and line 1 of page 3, with
the edited deposition "to show that plaintiffs is 'criminal'
. . 'overrides commercial copyright considerations'" with
what defendant wrote:
"It is my intent to POST and discuss any part of NOTs
which amount to manuals for criminal activities. Such
discussions are in the public interest, which overrides
commercial copyright considerations."
The other substantive accusations are of the same
caliber. Defendant has been posting on the internet for
some years and knows that selectively cut, out-of-context
quoting of others writing such as has been done in pleadings
would cause the perpetrator to be "flamed."
(Defendant wonders if plaintiff's strategy of
burying defendants words in a two inch stack of paper was
designed to discourage the court from comparing defendants
Internet postings with plaintiff's accusations?)
Plaintiff claims that defendant has solicited the
remaining 49 (or 47) NOTs. Plaintiff may be correct, since
plaintiff knows the contents of this material and defendant
does not, but it should be noted that defendant is not even
slightly interested in receiving, posting, or commenting on
NOTs or other "AT" materials which are non-criminal in
nature.
It should not take a Supreme Court appeal to decide
that First Amendment exercise of free speech, and free
press, explicitly for the exposure of criminal activities
such as those described in NOTs 34, takes precedence over
copyright and trade secret laws.
In spite of Plaintiff's effort to make this a
copyright/trade secret case, it is *not* one.
With respect to defendants claim this Court "has not
been effective in enforcing court orders to return materials
to Dennis Erlich," defendant suggest the court ask Mr.
Erlich or his attorneys what has yet to be returned to him.
Mr. Erlich thinks he is entitled to the return of notes
taken during the seizure, video tape of the seizure, a tape
of a KFI debate, his January 1995 bank statement, an
original disk and hard copy of "Class A Assist," and about
half dozen other items. Mr. Erlich did not ask for the
return of hair taken from his hairbrush.
It is worth noting that plaintiff's council makes no
comment about the problems Judges have in bringing Church of
Scientology plaintiffs into compliance with their orders.
If the Court needs an additional reason to recuse
under the provisions of Title 28, USC Section 455(b), the
Court could consider the potential consequences of Title 42
Sections 1983, 1985, and related civil rights laws. This is
a difficult area of the law, certainly beyond defendant's
competence, but judicial immunity under such statues may not
be absolute when it involves deprivation of a
constitutionally protected interest.
Finally, a "Church" which is reputed to spend over
$10,000,000 a year in court fights has a lot of gall
claiming that *defendant* is imposing on judicial resources.
The motion to recuse should be approved.
DATED: April 12, 1996
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
>Not until the TRO is lifted. Even if someone sent me an official CoS
>manual on how to murder (with case examples) I could not disclose it.
If you have a copy of El Cagon's "How to murder" pamphlet, or know
where I can get my hands on one, please rush the info to me.
Other wierdo's hate materials not desired.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>
Kelly Stanonik
> Helena K. Kobrin, SBN 152546
> 7629 Fulton Avenue
> North Hollywood, CA 91605
> (213) 960-1933
>
That's her office address and phone? I hope no one decides to abuse that information. I don't
know if filling out those response cards in the back of magazines in order to send a ton of junk
mail (which I read about on S. Fishman's "real" home page) but it certainly is harassment and
I would hope no one on this group would sink to that level.
Steve A
John Drake <j...@pell.interpath.com> wrote:
>
>
>> hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
>>
>> >H Keith Henson (hkhe...@shell.portal.com) wrote:
>> >
>> >: And, yes, I am still looking for NOTs or AT materials which show the
>> >: criminal or fraudulent nature of Scientology.
>> >
>> >Not until the TRO is lifted. Even if someone sent me an official CoS
>> >manual on how to murder (with case examples) I could not disclose it.
>>
>
>I thought the TRO only concerned AT and NOT stuff. If documents detailing
>criminal actions came out of the law office of Scientology, would the TRO
>cover that? Assuming it was not labeled part of NOTs. What if you got
>a memo detailing the actions that Ingram should take when he visits the
>home of Grady's mother?
Well, since a) I'm not subject to the TRO, and b) (as you say) not all
incitements to commit criminal acts are necessarily contained within
the NOTS materials, I can't see a problem.
Although IANAL (how could I be, between representing the cabal of
Black Lesbian Jewish Psychs, ARSCC, and Suppressives Anonymous), it is
my belief that in the UK, such incitements would be themselves
criminal acts, defined as procuring or inciting an offence to be
committed. I suspect the English courts would be less than sympathetic
to an organisation which attempted to use them to cover up evidence of
such criminal intent.
- --
Steve: SP4 and Clam Cluster with Bar, KoX, KOh, Institutional Case, Member
of the Golden Gate Bridge Club #6, Minister in the First Electronic Church
of SCAMIZDAT, High Grand Pappadum of the Church of the SubGenius.
I thought...Bob had fallen and he couldn't get up? [on Bob Penny, MS victim]
-- "Vera Wallace", official CoS stooge showing Scientology's caring side.
A good home awaits a NOTS pack available for legal adoption. Apply by email...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQCVAwUBMW/iFmK4mshjLd+dAQGc0QP9GMQLUDUimRAi/KxQ8ImpD7FgRxqbf+k6
hBi8hLyS3Fm1E+txXT3HdHQOpGe2H0Ioi1LrGB8tmgs7shHjfLZPCKVtygF3cP7H
Mll7U0MKv1+YVRrjrhmOwQJT8G92evVjfqXHAadFUc9Fw/AHjVHly1MeNX+PewW3
Cj4xrwsBKCA=
=jCGS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
H Keith Henson
scanner. Keith
Thomas R. Hogan, SBN 042048
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN
60 South Market Street, Suite 1125
San Jose, California 95113-2332
(408) 292-7600
Roger M. Mugrim
William M. Hart
PAUL, HA~NGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER
399 Park Avenue Thirty-first floor
New York, New York 10022-4697
(212) 318-6000
Helena K. Kobrin, SBN 152546
7629 Fulton Avenue
North Hollywood, California 91605
(213) 960-1933
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) CASE NO. C96-20271 RMW
California non-profit corporation, )
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S )
Plaintiff, )
) "MOTION TO DISMISS"
) (IN REALITY,
) MOTION TO RECUSE)
H.KEITH HENSON, an individual,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Religious Technology Center opposes defendant
Henson's motion to recuse, inaccurately denominated a "Motion to
Dismiss." Mr. Henson fails to state a colorable ground for recusal of
the Court, and his motion should be rejected.
Mr. Henson bases his motion on his conclusory, and seemingly
wholly erroneous, claim that the Court or the Court's clerk are likely
to be called as a material witness in this proceeding because the
subject matter of this case involves, inter alia a posting to the
Internet of one of RTC's unpublished copyrighted works in the context
of what Henson denominated an "open letter to Judge Whyte." Henson
also states that "he presented himself to Judge Whyte's clerk after
the TRO hearing" on March 29, 1996 in the pending case of RTC V. Grady
Ward, Case No. C96-20207 RMW EAI, and that "Judge Whyte did not object
to letter [sic]." The court itself apparently did not speak with
Henson or accept the letter. Henson's attempt to bootstrap his effort
to file a non-party communication to the Court in the War a
basis for recusal in the case against him is frivolous. All the more
so where it is based on the premise that Mr. Henson could lawfully
subpena the Court or that testimony other than Mr. Henson's as to his
own conduct and state of mind is needed.
This case, of course, has nothing to do with Henson's
"presentation" of himself to the Court's clerk, nor with the
Henson chose to denominate his posting as an "open letter to Judge
Whyte." Rather, the case concerns Henson's actual posting
proprietary materials to the Internet and with his open solicitation
on the Internet of additional RTC trade secret and copyright
materials, coupled with his threat to post them to the Internet.
Neither the Court nor the Court's clerk are potential witnesses to the
act of which RTC complains.
Mr. Henson also claims that this Court "has not been effective
in enforcing court orders" requiring RTC to return materials to Dennis
Erlich in RTC v. Erlich, Case No. C 95-20091 RMW EAI. His claim is
both irrelevant and incorrect. RTC has, in accordanceourt's
order, returned all required materials to Erlich's cou
Exhibit A, letter of transmittal.
This Court is familiar with the issues in this case precisely
because they are similar to those in the Ward and Erlich cases. Mr.
Henson's effort to recuse the Court is an obvious effort to impose on
judicial resources.
The motion to recuse should be denied.
DATED: April 11, 1996 Thomas R. Hogan
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN
Roger M. Mugrim
William M. Hart
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY
& WALKER
-and-
Helena K. Kobrin
Jeffrey L. Bell
as sating
> Mr. Henson also claims that this Court "has not been effective
>in enforcing court orders" requiring RTC to return materials to Dennis
>Erlich in RTC v. Erlich, Case No. C 95-20091 RMW EAI. His claim is
>both irrelevant and incorrect. RTC has, in accordanceourt's
>order, returned all required materials to Erlich's cou
>Exhibit A, letter of transmittal.
Dennis, is this true?
Has it been returned?
-Jeff Bell
Steve A
hkhe...@shell.portal.com (H Keith Henson) wrote:
>This is being posted out of order. Sorry, I am still getting used to this
>scanner. Keith
>
[snip]
>
>UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
>NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
>RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) CASE NO. C96-20271 RMW
> California non-profit corporation, )
>OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S )
>Plaintiff, )
> ) "MOTION TO DISMISS"
> ) (IN REALITY,
> ) MOTION TO RECUSE)
[and then]
> Plaintiff Religious Technology Center opposes defendant
>Henson's motion to recuse, inaccurately denominated a "Motion to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Dismiss." Mr. Henson fails to state a colorable ground for recusal of
>the Court, and his motion should be rejected.
What sort of "religion" is it whose dupes and lawyers have to stoop to
cheap shots like this? H Keith may possibly, in someones opinion at
least, have been foolhardy to face the legal steamroller of
Scientology, but one cannot but admire the moral purpose of one who
makes such a stand.
- --
Steve: SP4 and Clam Cluster with Bar, KoX, KOh, Institutional Case, Member
of the Golden Gate Bridge Club #6, Minister in the First Electronic Church
of SCAMIZDAT, High Grand Pappadum of the Church of the SubGenius.
"I thought...Bob had fallen and he couldn't get up?"
[on Bob Penny, MS victim]
-- "Vera Wallace", CoS stooge, showing Scientology's caring side.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQCVAwUBMXSjvWK4mshjLd+dAQH4+AP/bqErMIaCIKhLVH10LOTdbby6UBlf9Z6i
aX1WUHuMgHM0MgL7NFdSDMLF31dkE+vAuZ80E/kktfozA8wT/z55oKF8Pv5Ue5Up
AO0CyvXvsnGOq/0C37OPzjPR7ghOrH32EZQv3+U6wOH1lGqWpIVU9mYuxpI6f6Xz
DuRELzYCgD8=
=mSU3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Keith Henson
[snip boiler plate]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) Case No. C-96-20271RMW
California non-profit corporation, )
Plaintiff, ) AFFIDAVIT IN
) SUPPORT OF
) REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S
) OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
) RECUSE (WAS "DISMISS")
v. )
)
H. KEITH HENSON, an individual, )
Defendant. )
)
____________________________________
1. Defendant incorporates defendant's filing
of April 12 as if April 12 filing were fully set forth
herein.
2. Defendant places objection on the record to
Plaintiff's failure to notify re related cases. Had
defendant known the location and time of Grady Ward
deposition in a case Plaintiff related, defendant would have
attended as pro se for defendant's related case.
3. Defendant calls the Court's and council's
attention to an error in plaintiff's motion to relate. The
motion has an incorrect party named in case C-96-20291 RMW.
4. Defendant further calls the Court's and
council's attention to the postmark time and date of the
notification by mail of related cases sent by plaintiff.
5. Defendant requests that Grady Ward be
notified as to time and place of defendant's deposition.
Mr. Ward's attendance at that deposition (if Mr. Ward
chooses to attend) will not be considered to be the person
of defendant's choice whom the court has permitted to attend
defendant's deposition.
6. Defendant seeks the Court's indulgence to
call the Court's attention to the words RTC President Warren
McShane spoke before witnesses, including plaintiff's
council Thomas Hogan after April 12 hearing. Defendant
spoke at April 12 hearing of deposing person defendant
believes to be the *real* head of RTC, David Miscavage. Mr.
McShane approached defendant at the point defendant and
plaintiff's council Thomas Hogan had agreed upon a time for
defendant's deposition stating: "You're dreaming if you
think you will depose Miscavage!" Defendant immediately had
Mr. McShane confirm these words before witnesses, including
a journalist and a law student. Affidavits will be obtained
from these persons if the Court finds these affidavits are
required to establish this event on the record.
7. Defendant's ex-wife reports contact with
plaintiff's investigative operatives who were attempting to
obtain "dirt" on defendant. An affidavit will be obtained
from defendant's ex-wife if the court finds an affidavit is
required to establish this event on the record.
8. Plaintiff's family of organizations is well
known for attacking defendants outside the legal system, a
policy of unknown name, formerly known as "fair game." That
this policy exists or has existed in the past is a fact well
established in a long list of court cases. Defendant would
quote from court documents the copyrighted policy letters of
plaintiff on plaintiff's "fair game" policy within this
affidavit if defendant were not concerned about possible
violations of the preliminary injunction issued against
defendant by this Court.
Defendant feels the need to request a protective
order from this Court that plaintiff, and those acting in
concert with plaintiff, particularly Gene M. Ingram and
those under his control, refrain from harassing defendant,
organizations profit and non-profit in which defendant is an
officer or board member, defendant's friends, defendant's
neighbors, defendant's clients, defendant's family members,
including but not limited to parents, children minor and
adult, and former wife, and from engaging in character
assassination of defendant during the pendency of this case.
Defendant is confused by the bewildering array of
legal forms and does not wish to make legal errors. Thus
defendant seeks the indulgence of the Court as to the name
of the appropriate form recognized by this Court for this
purpose which defendant should file to obtain such a
protective order.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this 16th day of April, 1996 at San Jose,
California.
H. Keith Henson
Keith Henson
[from scientology motion]
: > Plaintiff Religious Technology Center opposes defendant
: >Henson's motion to recuse, inaccurately denominated a "Motion to
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >Dismiss." Mr. Henson fails to state a colorable ground for recusal of
: >the Court, and his motion should be rejected.
: What sort of "religion" is it whose dupes and lawyers have to stoop to
: cheap shots like this?
Not just the cult, legalesse is just like this. The amusing thing is that
I was nearly certain it should have been "recuse," and that it was a typo
in *Benders Federal Forms.* When I replied, I stuck on a copy of the page.
H Keith may possibly, in someones opinion at
: least, have been foolhardy to face the legal steamroller of
: Scientology, but one cannot but admire the moral purpose of one who
: makes such a stand.
Don't make that big a deal out of it. Defending Constitutional rights
may be a high moral purpose, but it is also a lot of fun. Compared to
my other past and present hobbies, it fits right in. Keith Henson
H Keith Henson
In the grand and glorious net tradition of posting abusive mail (and
mail from opposing lawyers is often abusive) try this on for size.
Keith Henson
>LAW OFFICES OF
>Thomas R. Hogan
>60 SOUTH MARKET STREET, SUITE 1125
>SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-2332
>
>April 17, 1996
>
>Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail
>
>Randoif J. Rice, Fsq.
>The Genesis Law Group, LLP
>160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1300
>San Jose, California 95113
>
>Re:
>Religious Technolo~v Center, et al., V. Netcom, et al.
>
>Dear Randy:
>
> This responds to your letter of April 9, 1996, addressed to Judge
>Whyte. Although we did supply you with copies of the moving papers in
>both the Ward and Henson cases, we acknowledge that service of the
>Notice Of Related Case upon all parties may not have been as prompt as
>contemplated by Rule 3-12, with proper service effected on all parties
>on April 11, 1996.
That's interesting. My copy of the notice is dated Friday, April 12,
and postmarked the afternoon after the morning where I brought up the
matter of notice up in front of the Judge Whyte. Looks like Tom's
office staff is unwilling to backdate legal notices. I am more than a
little amazed that Hogan would put the 11th in writing after I asked
the Judge Whyte to make note of the date on the form, and gave Judge
Whyte the envelope with the postmark on it. Is there a limit on how
far a lawyer can abuse his good relations with a judge?
By the way, Hogan really should correct the parties on the notice.
RTC is not suing Bridge Publication, at least not yet.
Notice Of Related Case was filed in Ward on
>March 21, and in Henson, on April 4, 1996.
>
> With respect to discovery in these related cases, we have begun
>the deposition of Grady Ward on April 8 and 9, with the expectation
>that an additional day may be required. As you know, we expect the
>deposition of Mr. Henson will be ordered on a date in early May, 1996.
What kind of a game is Mr. Hogan playing here? He has known since a
few minutes after the hearing that the date for my deposition is set
for May 8, at his office. He sent me a copy of the page we signed
with this date on it several days ago. It make me wonder if he is
trying to give so little notice that the other interested parties
cannot clear the time to come.
>We will certainly supply you with the names of the reporting services
>should you wish to obtain copies of the transcripts.
>
> In the future, as we have advised Judge Whyte at the hearing in
>the Henson matter on Friday, we will provide notice to all parties of
>any notices, motions or discovery requests that may be filed in these
>related cases.
Right. Hogan could see me leading into the question of why if *I* had
to notify the other related parties, why had RTC and their pack of
lawyers not notified the other parties as the rules of the court
require?
If Hogan were not being such a weasel with this letter, I would not
bring up his giving Judge Whyte a letter at the hearing explaining why
NOTs 34 is not a criminal instruction document, and not providing *me*
a copy. Well, I asked for it yesterday, Mr. Hogan said he would put
it in the mail that day, and *this* letter from him *did* get here.
Guess I will have to stop in at his office and get a copy tomorrow.
I am *sure* the ars folks will find this document of considerable
interest.
>Very truly yours,
>
>Thomas R. Hogan
>cc:
>
>Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
>Daniel A. Leipold
>Carla B. Oakley
>Melissa A. Burke
>Grady Ward
>H.Keith Henson
Tom Klemesrud
Distribution: world
H Keith Henson (hkhe...@shell.portal.com) wrote:
[...]
:
: Notice Of Related Case was filed in Ward on
And Hon. Ron Whyte accepted evidence relating to the prosecution of you,
and allowed the plaintiff not to provide you with it? Is this not
judicial misconduct?
I think--as the 9th Circuit Court of Federal Appeals wrote "[the Church
of Scientology has been playing] fast and loose with the judicial system."
The scary part is that Hon. Ron Whyte is sitting back letting it all
happen.
Keith, I think you should appeal the restraining order, and possible
courtroom misconduct to the 9th Circuit.
Tom Klemesrud SP5
KoX
Keith Henson
: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
: Distribution: world
: H Keith Henson (hkhe...@shell.portal.com) wrote:
: [...]
[snip]
: : If Hogan were not being such a weasel with this letter, I would not
: : bring up his giving Judge Whyte a letter at the hearing explaining why
: : NOTs 34 is not a criminal instruction document, and not providing *me*
: : a copy. Well, I asked for it yesterday, Mr. Hogan said he would put
: : it in the mail that day, and *this* letter from him *did* get here.
: : Guess I will have to stop in at his office and get a copy tomorrow.
: : I am *sure* the ars folks will find this document of considerable
: : interest.
: And Hon. Ron Whyte accepted evidence relating to the prosecution of you,
: and allowed the plaintiff not to provide you with it? Is this not
: judicial misconduct?
: I think--as the 9th Circuit Court of Federal Appeals wrote "[the Church
: of Scientology has been playing] fast and loose with the judicial system."
: The scary part is that Hon. Ron Whyte is sitting back letting it all
: happen.
: Keith, I think you should appeal the restraining order, and possible
: courtroom misconduct to the 9th Circuit.
Tom, I think you put your finger on the proper course for me to try.
I dug up the forms involved, and it doesn't look all that complicated.
I suspect that the 9th Circuit is a bit more familiar with the CoS
having just issed the Mayo decision. If any of you net.lawyers have
a sample appeal of an injunction, let me know and I will give you
my fax machine #. Also, I am going to file a motion to suspend part
of the Rule 30 conditions to take into account the barbaric behavior
of CoS investigators such as Gene Ingram. I will post a draft for
comment before I file it, but I know I am going to need hardcopy
signed affidavits from people who have been hasseled by the likes
of Gene Ingram.
Final point, is there any way I can use the judicial discovery
process to find out about the missing people in Scn? I suspect I
can tie it into my defense. I am aledging criminal behavior on the
part of CoS, so I should be able to investigate through discovery
and deposition the fate of Annie and Pat, not to mention -AB-. It
also seems like anything I find out this way should go directly to
a grand jury. Keith Henson
Steve A
hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
>Steve A (ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> H Keith may possibly, in someones opinion at
>: least, have been foolhardy to face the legal steamroller of
>: Scientology, but one cannot but admire the moral purpose of one who
>: makes such a stand.
>
>Don't make that big a deal out of it. Defending Constitutional rights
>may be a high moral purpose, but it is also a lot of fun. Compared to
>my other past and present hobbies, it fits right in. Keith Henson
Never said you didn't have to enjoy it :-) Congratulations on
enturbulations so far completed. and remember - the ARSCC is paying
you on piece rates, so no slacking!!
- --
Steve: SP4 and Clam Cluster with Bar, KoX, KOh, Institutional Case, Member
of the Golden Gate Bridge Club #6, Minister in the First Electronic Church
of SCAMIZDAT, High Grand Pappadum of the Church of the SubGenius, DNRC
Member. If I join many more, I won't be able to post in demon.local :-(
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQCVAwUBMXjctWK4mshjLd+dAQFJeAP+N+eojNzjYRYDxwCO+49GleBU2YxX3Nwg
EFYTnhTp2MT700eGFuG1ksxpS5wGHWyhJdySs0sU+fQr/2h3JVyvelg04wlPm6nI
/UsK/lbJvOXqHCqEK4Rtx0xRlcP6btaSbUplAgqeB/i1RP7d9KPPhyszmXZjHcHi
p+Td+pF0MRY=
=nTOL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Keith Henson
document he had handed Judge Whyte at the hearing last Friday.
To give Mr. Hogan his due, there was a copy in the mail when I got
home this evening, postmarked the 17th. So the failure of it to show
up in my mail along with other letter mailed the same day was due to
the post office, and *not* Mr. Hogan. He still should have given me a
copy at the hearing though.
[Condense boiler plate]
Thomas R. Hogan, SBN 042048
Roger M. Migrim
William M. Hart
Helena K. Kobrin, SBN 152546
Eric M. Lieberman
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN,
STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, P.C.
740 Broadway - Fifth Floor
New York, New York 10003
(212) 254-1111
[New listing. Ah, the joys of being the focus of attention of no less
than 5 lawyers]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a)
California non-profit corporation,)
Plaintiff, )
V.
H.KEITH HENSON, an individual,
Defendant. )
I, WARREN L. MCSHANE, hereby declare and state:
No. C-96 20271 RMW
SECOND DECLARATION OF WARREN
L. MCSHANE IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR [the scanner scrambles the line order]
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1. I submit this declaration in further support of RTC's
motion for a preliminary injunction and to briefly respond to an
allegation raised by defendant H. Keith Henson My credentials are set
forth in my original moving declaration filed in connection with RTC's
Ex Injunction, and Order for Expedited Discovery filed on April 4,
1996. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if
called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto.
2. Before any person is permitted to proceed with any
Scientology auditing or other services, including New Era Dianetics
for Operating Thetans (NOTs), he or she is required to read and sign
an enrollment application agreement. A copy of the enrollment
application agreement currently in use is attached hereto as Exhibit A
[Ah, the famous "regigious service agreement" is attached. Should
we scan it in and comment. Gads, it is in small type, edge to edge
on the paper, and 4 pages!]
The agreement emphasizes that Scientology services are offered on a
wholly religious basis, and are not a substitute for medical care for
physical ailments or illnesses.
3. A person must execute a new enrollment application
agreement each time he or she begins a new level of services.
4. Enrollment application agreements containing similar
provisions have been continuously required and used at all Scientology
churches and missions for at least twenty-five years.
5. I attach hereto as Exhibit B true and correct copies of
certain pages from What is Scientology?, the definitive reference book
on Scientology, which has been widely distributed worldwide in several
languages. The excerpts show clearly that Scientology does not attempt
to supplant traditional medical treatment, but rather Scientology
attempts to address spiritual causes of illness in a way that
complements traditional medicine.
[I might comment on WIS, but *not* tonight!]
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed this 11th day of April 1996 at San Jose, California.
Warren L. McShane
Keith Henson
attached to Warren McShane's declaration to show that Scientology
was *not* a criminal and fraudulent operation. Amazing, absolutely
amazing.
I've written a first pass reply to the release, but if anyone out
there in ars land wants to help with the facts, wording, or *spelling*
please do, there are a mess of places where I did my best, but I am
far from certain. I may not use all I get, but where editors mark my
copy, I almost alway rewrite it. Post or reply be email, either way
is fine by me.
I happen to be one of the point people, but *every one of you* is
making a significant contribution to controlling Hubbard's infectious
insanity, even if you just read ars and talk to friends. And to all
of you who have written fan notes, I *really* appreciate them. I
would answer all of them, but I suspect you would rather I spent the
time knocking to these legal papers back over the net. I will ack
more of you when I things slow down.
Thanks very much for the help,
Keith Henson
****************DRAFT REPLY FOR COMMENTS******************
Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Exhibit A of the above declaration
will be in "Usenet style." Lines of original text from Exhibit A are
prefixed by the character ">". Defendant will print a double spaced
version if Court desires same. Defendant notes that plaintiff's
contract for religious "services" is 8 pages single spaced of normal
typing.
>Church of Scientology Western United States Advanced Organization of
>Los Angeles (hereafter referred to as "the Church") Religious Services
>Enrollment Application/Agreement and General Release
>
>I______________________ HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE that I am voluntarily
>applying to participate in the RELIGIOUS SERVICE(S) known as
>
>__________________________________________
>
>(hereinafter referred to as the "Service"), in exchange for being
>permitted to participate in the Service, I acknowledge and agree as
>follows:
>
>1. Scientology has been represented to me as an applied religious
>philosophy and as a religion
[snip definition]
>2. The American author and philosopher L. Ron Hubbard ("LRH"
>hereinafter) is the founder of the Scientology religion. His writings
[snip LRH intro]
>practicing medical arts or sciences. If you have come here to be
>cured of a physical illness, see the registrar and so inform her so
>that she can arrange for a competent medical examination and
>treatment. When you are physically well, you can begin Scientology
>training and processing on your road to total freedom.
The above is disclaimer #1.
>3. The writings of LRH are presented as a part of the record of
>his research and should be construed only as a written report of such
>research and not as a statement of claims by the Church or by LRH.
Disclaimer #2
>None of the organizations which espouse, present, propagate or
>practice the Scientology religion makes any claim that the nature or
>purpose of Scientology, or of Dianetics, or the writings of LRH, is
>contrary to this description or that the application of this or any
>other Scientology practices will have any particular effect on any
>particular person.
Disclaimer #3
> Thus the Church makes no claims as to the results
>which may be forthcoming from the Service scientology Policy Directive
>13 March 1996, Statements by Staff Members, (which is available upon
>request) makes it clear that claims about the religion by staff
>members are not valid.
Pointer to yet more disclaimers, #4. Defendant will request a copy of
this document in discovery.
>4. Scientology applied religious philosophy contains pastoral
>counseling procedures intended to assist an individual to gain greater
>knowledge of self. The Scientology religion is all-denominational and
>welcomes members of all faiths to participate in its services.
If this were a full media document defendant would insert a recording
of the words of LRH saying that there never was a Christ at this
point. This widely available recording is expected to be introduced
at trial.
[snip]
Accordingly, the Church makes no claims
>as to the potential benefits which may be experienced by an individual
>from participation in the Service.
Disclaimer #5
>5. I have seen the film "Orientation" and I am now informed and
>aware that Scientology is a religion, its teachings are religious and
>its claims are religious in nature. I further understand that if I
>desire to participate in Scientology services, I do so being fully
>aware that these are religious services and that I am participating in
>them under the ecclesiastical principles of the Scientology religion.
Legal lead in to what comes below.
>6. The many Scientology Churches, Missions and organizations all
>over the world are each totally and legally independent from one
>another, connected only by ecclesiastical bonds. Accordingly, the
>Service is being offered under the exclusive supervision and control
>of the above-named Church.
Attempt to compartmentalize potential legal losses to one of the
corporate shells. Plaintiff's group of corporations is believed to
have bankrupted one such corporate shell by asset transfers to avoid
paying a 5 million dollar judgment which has exhausted all appeals.
David Miscavige, if he can be located or served through his lawyers,
will be asked questions about this in discovery. (Wollershime case.)
>7. The Service may include the use of a religious artifact known
>as the "E-Meter," for the primary purpose of locating and resolving
>problems and difficulties which are spiritual in nature. I understand
>that by itself the E-Meter does nothing, but serves only as a guide to
>ministers of the Church to assist parishioners in locating areas of
>spiritual distress or travail, and that it is not intended or
>effective for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease,
>or for the improvement of health or any bodily function.
Required by Judge Gesell's order (333 F. Supp. 357).
>8. In connection with the Service, the Church may compile a
>folder containing its notations of my spiritual progress, known as a
>"Preclear Folder" (PC Folder), as well as other ecclesiastical files
>containing notations regarding my spiritual progress. The contents of
>the folders are kept confidential from persons who lack the
>ecclesiastical authority to gain access to such documents, including
>the person whom the files concern, and are subject to the
>priest-penitent privilege. I understand that as a condition of being
>accepted for participation in the Service, I am giving up any and all
>rights of ownership, possession and control, copying and viewing of
>the PC Folder and other files concerning myself, both with respect to
>the files themselves and the information contained therein.
Defendant notes that in the above, a person gives up their right to
recover confessions of crimes and other embarrassing matters from
Scientology. Defendant is aware of many cases on the Internet where
the material from these folders seems to have been used to "dead
agent" or character assassinate former Scientologists. Defendant
cites Steve Fishman as an extreme example. The threat of using this
material is enough to keep a lot of former Scientologists from
speaking out about extremely abusive experiences within the "Church"
of Scientology. See Defendant's attached Exhibit A, "The Road to
Xenu" by Marjorie Wakefield.
>9. I understand and acknowledge that because of constitutional
>prohibitions which forbid governmental interference with religious
>services or dispute resolution procedures, that in the event I have
>any dispute, claim or controversy with the Church including, but not
>limited to any dispute, claim or controversy arising under this
>Application/Agreement or in connection with my participation in the
>Service, which cannot be resolved informally by direct communication,
>resolution of that dispute, claim or controversy may be pursued solely
>through the internal procedures of the Church's Ethics, Justice and
>Binding Religious Arbitration system.
Defendant believes the above sentence to be a blatant criminal attempt
to mislead the gullible. No such "constitutional prohibitions" exist
or there would not be regularly reported stories in the news media
about Roman Catholic priests who have been both prosecuted criminally
and sued in the courts for sexual abuse. Defendant believes the Court
can reject such a claim on common sense grounds rather than case
cites.
> Moreover, I hereby expressly
>agree that any controversy arising under this Application/Agreement or
>in connection with my participation in the Service shall be resolved
>by such Binding Religious Arbitration.
And, if Court reads further, Court will find that the so called
"arbitration" process is hopelessly stacked in favor of the
Scientology "org."
> I understand and acknowledge
>that the Church's religious dispute resolution procedure includes
>application to senior ecclesiastical bodies, including, as necessary,
>final submission of the dispute to the International Justice Chief of
>the Mother Church - Church of Scientology International - ("IJC") or
>his designate.
>
>Any dispute, claim or controversy which still remains unresolved after
>submission to the IJC shall be submitted to Binding Religious
>Arbitration in accordance with the published arbitration procedures of
>Church of Scientology International, which provide that:
>
>a. I shall submit a request for arbitration to the IJC with a
>copy to the Church, and shall designate one arbitrator with my
>request:
>
>b. Within fifteen (15) days after receiving the request for
>arbitration, the Church shall designate an arbitrator. If the Church
>has not designated an arbitrator within fifteen (15) days, then the
>IJC shall designate the second arbitrator.
>
>c. The two arbitrators so designated shall select a third
>arbitrator within fifteen (15) days after the designation of the
>second arbitrator. If the arbitrators are unable to designate a third
>arbitrator within the fifteen (15) day period, then the IJC shall
>choose such arbitrator. Consistent with the intent that the
>arbitration be conducted in accordance with Scientology principles of
>justice and fairness, and consistent with the ecclesiastical nature of
>the procedures and the dispute, claim or controversy to which such
>procedures relate, all arbitrators shall be Scientologists in good
>standing with the Mother Church.
>
>IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELIGIOUS NATURE OF THE SERVICES TO BE
>PROVIDED, I ACKNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT IN NO EVENT SHALL
>ANY DISPUTE, CLAIM OR CONTROVERSY ARISING OUT OF MY PARTICIPATION IN
>THE SERVICE BE SUBMITTED TO A COURT FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.
>MOREOVER, I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT BY SIGNING AND SUBMITTING THIS
>APPLICATION/AGREEMENT, I AM WAIVING ANY RIGHT WHICH I MAY HAVE TO HAVE
>SUCH DISPUTES, CLAIMS OR CONTROVERSIES DECIDED IN A COURT OF LAW,
>BEFORE A JUDGE OR A JUDGE AND JURY
Defendant notes that the above is a further attempt to defraud the
gullible into giving up the rights they have before the courts which
they cannot, defendant believes, sign away by contract.
>10. I further understand, acknowledge and agree that the Church is
>under no duty whatsoever to return any portion of any religious
>donation received from me. However, I further understand and
>acknowledge that under certain circumstances provided for in the
>published ecclesiastical policies specifically including Scientology
>Policy Directive 13 March 1996, Return of Donations, (which is
>available upon request) and procedures of the Claims Verification
>Board, a return of donations may be obtained through my strict
>compliance with those published policies and procedures.
Defendant will request a copy of this referenced document in
discovery.
> I further
>acknowledge and agree that such procedures require my direct
>participation to the exclusion of any third parties, including, but
>not limited to, attorneys, and that such returns of donations are
>exclusively within the ecclesiastical authority of the Claims
>Verification Board and at the sole discretion of the Church.
Defendant believes this to be an attempt to subvert the legal right to
counsel.
> I
>further understand, acknowledge and agree that any violation of or
>deviation from such published policies or this paragraph by me voids
>any possibility of my receiving a return of donation.
A further attempt to subvert the right to counsel. In cases where
people who sign this contract for "services," later decide they are
being bilked and try to get some of their money back, plaintiff's
corporate organizations stall and throw up one block after another.
From defendant's reading of stories posted to the Internet over the
last year, the only way which actually seems to get money returned is
to picket.
>11. I understand, acknowledge and agree that I am applying for the
>Service with the intention of self-improvement and spiritual
>advancement. Accordingly, before I go on to a further service, it is
>essential that I am completely satisfied with the results I obtained
>from my prior service.
Defendant is informed and believes that even if the person signing
this contract has had a miserable time they are *required* to put in
writing that they were satisfied *as part of the "service."* Further
more, these "services" are by the hour, and "passing" one is at the
discretion of the "auditor." A person may be coerced in to additional
payments, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars to meet the above
condition.
> I further understand and acknowledge (I) that
>while the Church holds out the possibility of a better life through
>adherence to its beliefs and practices, individual spiritual
>advancement is not always an easy or comfortable task, and (ii) that
>my success in Scientology ultimately depends on my own ability,
>strength and determination to overcome the shortcomings and harmful
>patterns of my past.
Disclaimer #7 and (possibly) a reference to the "past lives" members
are required to confabulate under induced hypnotic states.
>12. I understand, acknowledge and agree that the Service is
>designed to give spiritual aid, is not medical treatment, nor is it
>designed to provide any physical gains.
Disclaimer #8
I am also aware that I should
>not participate in the Service if I have a physical or emotional
>condition which would be aggravated by participation in the Service or
>make the Service activities particularly uncomfortable or distressful
>to me.
A significant fraction of the people who take the upper division
"services" such as OT3 go "PTS 3," or in the vernacular, barking mad.
Such people are then confined by Scientology staff without treatment
or human contact and their account may be docked for the
"Introspection" rundown.
> Knowing this, I am voluntarily participating in the Service
>with knowledge of the general activities involved and I HEREBY AGREE
>TO ACCEPT ANY AND ALL KNOWN OR UNKNOWN RISKS OF INJURY, LOSS, OR
>DAMAGE.
Defendant believes a concession selling trips over Niagara Falls in
barrel would have no more disclaimers. This is #9.
>13. I acknowledge that I am making this application to be permitted
>to participate in the Service on my own determinism, recognizing that
>I am personally responsible for my present and future condition in
>life, and attest that I have no record of being committed in an
>institution for mental or emotional disorders, nor do I have a
>criminal record for a felony offense.
If the mark has money they will waive this clause. They did for Steven
Fishman. Defendant is inclined to call Steven Fishman as a witness.
> I am not connected with any
>person (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to
>spiritual treatment or Scientology, nor have I or any member of my
>immediate family ever threatened to sue, embarrass or attack
>Scientology, nor have I or any of my immediate family ever been a
>party to such an attack.
If the person *is* connected to such a family member, they are
required to "disconnect" from that person and have no further contact.
See details of this process in "Road to Xenu."
> I further attest that I am not attempting to
>investigate Scientology as a representative of the news media, a
>government body or other organization, entity or person.
Attempt to prevent lawful investigations.
> Rather, I am
>applying to participate in the Service to achieve spiritual
>betterment, and I truly believe that persons can be helped to gain
>greater understanding and happiness in life, and I am applying
>honestly and in good faith to derive all possible personal gain from
>the Service.
>14. This application for permission to participate in the Service
>will become a legally binding agreement between myself and the Church
>only upon its acceptance by the Church. In determining whether to
>accept this application, the Church will rely on the representations
>and promises which I have made herein.
>
>AS FURTHER CONSIDERATION for being permitted by the Church to
>participate in the Service and use its facilities and other facilities
>provided for such purpose:
>
>I. I, ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND ON BEHALF OF MY HEIRS,
>DISTRIBUTEES, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ASSIGNS, AGREE NOT TO MAKE
>CLAIMS AGAINST, SUE, ATTACH THE PROPERTY OF OR PROSECUTE the Church,
>the successors and assignees of L. Ron Hubbard, Religious Technology
>Center and its principals, the Church of Scientology International,
>and any affiliated Churches, Missions, corporations, associations,
>partnerships or organizations, and/or their officers, directors.
>trustees, agents, servants, successors, heirs, executors or
>representatives, and/or the owners, managers, employees, agents or
>representatives of, or associated with, any facilities conducting the
>Service (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Releasees") for
>physical, mental or emotional injury or property damage resulting from
"Property damage"? Defendant contends that this paragraph might be
appropriate for to concessionaires offering skydiving with Kleenex (R)
parachutes, or bungee jumping on old rubber bands.
>the negligence or other acts, howsoever caused, of any Releasee or of
>any employee, agent or contractor of the Church, its affiliates, or
>other Releasee, in any way relating to my participation in the
>Service.
Disclaimer #10
>II. IN ADDITION, I HEREBY RELEASE AND DISCHARGE THE RELEASEES from
>all actions, claims or demands I, my heirs, distributees, guardians,
>legal representatives or assigns now have or may hereafter have for
>physical, mental or emotional injury or property damage resulting in
>any way from my participation in the Service.
Defendant believe on the basis of a year of reading the Usenet group
alt.religion.scientology that Scientology has a serious problem with
"service takers" becoming psychotic and/or commit suicide from the
internal mental stresses resulting from having paid $50-100,000 *and*
invested a substantial number of years to learn the space opera "Xenu"
story.
>III. I FURTHER AGREE TO INDEMNIFY AND SAVE AND HOLD HARMLESS THE
>RELEASEES and each of them from any loss, liability, damage or cost
>they may incur due to my participation in the Service and/or due to my
>presence or action in or about the Church premises or the facilities
>provided for the Service.
Defendant contends Plaintiff's family of shell corporations is trying
in this paragraph to evade responsible for the medical bills a
"service taker" runs up while confined to a mental ward. A
substantial fraction of victums in such a situation have given all
their resources to Scientology and become indegent problems for the
government.
>IV. [snip--severability]
>V. I further understand, acknowledge and agree that this
>Application/Agreement contains everything that the Church or Church
>representative and I have addressed or discussed with respect to the
>religious services set forth in this Application/Agreement. It is our
>only agreement about those religious services, and exclusively sets
>forth the obligations of the Church and me with respect to such
>religious services.
Defendant interprets this paragraph to quietly slip the verbal sales
pitch on which the mark was sold under the table.
>I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THIS APPLICATION/AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE
>AND FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS CONTENTS AND CONSEQUENCES. I AM AWARE THAT
>BY SIGNING BELOW, I AM FOREVER GIVING UP MY RIGHT TO SUE THE CHURCH,
>ITS STAFF AND/OR OTHER SCIENTOLOGY-RELATED ORGANIZATIONS FOR ANY
>INJURY OR DAMAGE SUFFERED IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE SERVICE
>ACTIVITIES.
As above, this clause is designed to control people who become
troublesome, and is of entirely fraudulent intent.
[snip remainder]
Defendant cannot imagine why plaintiff presented defendant with the
chance to show the fraudulent and criminal nature of plaintiff, except
perhaps that plaintiffs as well as plaintiff's victums have lost
connection with reality. The abusive nature of this "contract" is so
obvious that defendant will introduces plaintiffs exhibit at trial as
an example of defendant's contention that plaintiff is a member of a
criminal and fraudulent family of organizations.
[remember Helena and Warren, this is draft, as unciteable as any
lawyers half done "work product." Hasta la vista.]
Bart Simpson
wrote:
>Steve A (ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>[from scientology motion]
>
>: > Plaintiff Religious Technology Center opposes defendant
>: >Henson's motion to recuse, inaccurately denominated a "Motion to
>: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>: >Dismiss." Mr. Henson fails to state a colorable ground for recusal of
>: >the Court, and his motion should be rejected.
>
>: What sort of "religion" is it whose dupes and lawyers have to stoop to
>: cheap shots like this?
>
>Not just the cult, legalesse is just like this. The amusing thing is that
>I was nearly certain it should have been "recuse," and that it was a typo
>in *Benders Federal Forms.* When I replied, I stuck on a copy of the page.
>
> H Keith may possibly, in someones opinion at
>: least, have been foolhardy to face the legal steamroller of
>: Scientology, but one cannot but admire the moral purpose of one who
>: makes such a stand.
>
>Don't make that big a deal out of it. Defending Constitutional rights
>may be a high moral purpose, but it is also a lot of fun. Compared to
>my other past and present hobbies, it fits right in. Keith Henson
None the less, you've got a lot of balls and I salute you.
David Mayo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
>I went by Mr. Hogan's office today and picked up a copy of the
>document he had handed Judge Whyte at the hearing last Friday.
[...]
>Attorneys for Plaintiff
>RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
>FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
>
>RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a)
>California non-profit corporation,)
>Plaintiff, )
>
>V.
>
>H.KEITH HENSON, an individual,
>Defendant. )
>No. C-96 20271 RMW
>I, WARREN L. MCSHANE, hereby declare and state:
>
>SECOND DECLARATION OF WARREN
>L. MCSHANE IN SUPPORT OF
>PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR [the scanner scrambles the line order]
>PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
>
> 1. I submit this declaration in further support of RTC's
>motion for a preliminary injunction and to briefly respond to an
>allegation raised by defendant H. Keith Henson My credentials are set
>forth in my original moving declaration filed in connection with RTC's
>Ex Injunction, and Order for Expedited Discovery filed on April 4,
>1996. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if
>called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto.
>
> 2. Before any person is permitted to proceed with any
>Scientology auditing or other services, including New Era Dianetics
>for Operating Thetans (NOTs), he or she is required to read and sign
>an enrollment application agreement. A copy of the enrollment
>application agreement currently in use is attached hereto as Exhibit A
It would be interesting to discover WHEN that "agreement" (Exhibit A)
was first put into use. Probably at some point later than when NOTs(tm)
was first released, possibly years later. I know that there have been
several different versions of Scientology's "enrollment application
agreement" over the years that I was was involved in Scientology(tm)
(from 1958 to 1983). Earlier versions of these agreements, varied
considerably in content and wording.
>
[...]
>
> 3. A person must execute a new enrollment application
>agreement each time he or she begins a new level of services.
That has not always been so.
>
> 4. Enrollment application agreements containing similar
>provisions have been continuously required and used at all Scientology
>churches and missions for at least twenty-five years.
Absolutely not. For at least a portion of those years, there was NONE.
Even when there was an "agreement" in existence, the use of such
"agreements" was often sporadic. For long periods of time staff
were not required nor asked to sign them, even when paying customers
were asked to sign them. To my knowledge, the practice of having
employees of Scientology(tm) corpns. sign "enrollment agreements"
began to be enforced after the introduction of "freeloader debts".
If there are ex-scientologists who read this post who have signed an
"application agreement", perhaps they could post whether or not
they received a copy of that "agreement" -- I think it probable that
applicants for Scientology services were NOT given a copy. For
certain they would not be permitted to consult a lawyer about the
"agreement" before signing it as a Scientology(tm) policy that was
the subject of a recent post to this n.g. forbade Scientologists from
seeking legal assistance on matters related to Scientology(tm).
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that one should, or at least should be
permitted, to obtain legal advice before entering into or signing a
legal contract. Of course these "agreements" might not be legal
contracts anyway ...
>
> 5. I attach hereto as Exhibit B true and correct copies of
>certain pages from What is Scientology?, the definitive reference book
>on Scientology, which has been widely distributed worldwide in several
>languages. The excerpts show clearly that Scientology does not attempt
>to supplant traditional medical treatment, but rather Scientology
>attempts to address spiritual causes of illness in a way that
>complements traditional medicine.
Is that the "What is Scientology" book of which I wrote a chapter? How
many WIS books could there be? I have not been paid any royalty on
that book and I do not recall authorizing its use in this fashion. If it
is not the same WIS book that I co-authored, then perhaps it is an
unauthorized derivative work and worse yet, I suspect that the
dreaded WHOLESALE COPYING has been committed by certain
individuals and entities who have been accusing others of being
"copyright terrorists"!
Unclean, unclean, unclean are thine hands!
>
> [I might comment on WIS, but *not* tonight!]
Excuse me, I think i just did, but i couldn't resist that one.
>
>I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
>correct. Executed this 11th day of April 1996 at San Jose, California.
>
>Warren L. McShane
Time for the penalty, I'd say.
Codicil:
I can't help but notice what an auspicious day that was:
the day a Ninth Circuit ruling was filed. As a religious and
spiritual man, the portent of this date co-incidence, evoked
in me a vision of a cinder blazing unseen into a black hole
and a postulate of evil being sucked down a vortex(tm). I
saw a Great Shame appear before The People sounding a trumpet
and suddenly it was gone -- into the blackness of its warren.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMXlrz+mCyCdNXuVZAQHWhQQAgM7h/tUa6KVvk5xvxYqP5Euw6yGoNNPB
4CrMWviriGl/XEGs/UmzKW75lBHh0TH4xbZDrhwWtKo7C0/+xYtQtTiHYCV8xGlg
hBFVglXvzXXm323uL6pWDB2feWkeP02ixuLCsRyeggPi02Eg460sAO5O3aPz91UQ
b2/fy7TKcT4=
=b+VF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rev. David Mayo <ma...@lightlink.com> (finger for key)
PGP ID: 1024/4D5EE559 1996/01/04 David Mayo <ma...@lightlink.com>
PGP Fingerprint: 0D 69 92 87 79 2F 38 72 FE 03 CE 51 31 D5 6D E9
"So many have fallen; so far yet to go."
*****************************************************************
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>
My disclaimer: IANAL. I am making suggestions on a commonsense basis,
but it is for you to determine their worth and your responsibility
if you choose to take them up.
>Ok, folks, take a gander at my interlining of a "Release" the RTC
>attached to Warren McShane's declaration to show that Scientology
>was *not* a criminal and fraudulent operation. Amazing, absolutely
>amazing.
>
I think the plaintiff is very foolish to bring this document into
contention. If you can make sure parts of it ARE MADE RELEVANT TO
THE MATTERS AT ISSUE & THEREFORE SUBJECT TO JUDGEMENT then
you can do some real damage to it.
> I would answer all [correspondence],
>but I suspect you would rather I spent the time
>[winning the case].
Correct
>
>
>****************DRAFT REPLY FOR COMMENTS******************
>
>
>
>>4. Scientology applied religious philosophy contains pastoral
>>counseling procedures intended to assist an individual to gain greater
>>knowledge of self. The Scientology religion is all-denominational and
>>welcomes members of all faiths to participate in its services.
>
>If this were a full media document defendant would insert a recording
>of the words of LRH saying that there never was a Christ at this
>point. This widely available recording is expected to be introduced
>at trial.
>
Well, that's the way to argue in an article to us. But to the court
you introduce entire articles, and you introduce the entire document
from tape 10 of the class VIII auditor course which has been posted
and widley copied. Could someone post the whole of this transcript
for Keith's refernce, perhaps?
And/or call for ''all successive revisions since issue'' of Tape#10
in tape and transcript form on discovery.
Possible point. I don't know whteher this is the SOP,
but I would be inclined when introducing a large document
into evidence to stick on a preface: ''defendant is bringing
this whole document into evidence wherever it might be relevant
to the case but, without limiting the ways in which is may be used,
draws the courts attention in patiacular to point X on page Y
which relates the the argument of Z; point A on page B which
relates to the argument over C; etcetera.''
>
>
>Attempt to compartmentalize potential legal losses to one of the
>corporate shells. Plaintiff's group of corporations is believed to
>have bankrupted one such corporate shell by asset transfers to avoid
>paying a 5 million dollar judgment which has exhausted all appeals.
>David Miscavige, if he can be located or served through his lawyers,
>will be asked questions about this in discovery. (Wollershime case.)
'Wollersheim'
You have some hook to make this relevant to the current case??
> The threat of using this
>material is enough to keep a lot of former Scientologists from
>speaking out about extremely abusive experiences within the "Church"
>of Scientology. See Defendant's attached Exhibit A, "The Road to
>Xenu" by Marjorie Wakefield.
>
'particularly pp M-N in chapter P'.
Bring Moinca Pignotti's story into evidence on this point?
Any others yoiu can bring in?
Sheesh, even call dennis as a witness re _his_ P/C folder.
**IF** plaintiffs have given you a peg to make this issue
a relevant and triable part of your case, they have been
very silly. If.
>>9. I understand and acknowledge that because of constitutional
>>prohibitions
>
>Defendant believes the above sentence to be a blatant criminal attempt
>to mislead the gullible. No such "constitutional prohibitions" exist
>or there would not be regularly reported stories in the news media
>about Roman Catholic priests who have been both prosecuted criminally
>and sued in the courts for sexual abuse. Defendant believes the Court
>can reject such a claim on common sense grounds rather than case
>cites.
>
If plaintiffs have made the issue relevant and triable,
the court's comments on these 'prohibitions' shd prove interseting.
>
>>IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELIGIOUS NATURE OF THE SERVICES TO BE
>>PROVIDED, I ACKNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT IN NO EVENT SHALL
>>ANY DISPUTE, CLAIM OR CONTROVERSY ARISING OUT OF MY PARTICIPATION IN
>>THE SERVICE BE SUBMITTED TO A COURT FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.
>>MOREOVER, I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT BY SIGNING AND SUBMITTING THIS
>>APPLICATION/AGREEMENT, I AM WAIVING ANY RIGHT WHICH I MAY HAVE TO HAVE
>>SUCH DISPUTES, CLAIMS OR CONTROVERSIES DECIDED IN A COURT OF LAW,
>>BEFORE A JUDGE OR A JUDGE AND JURY
>
>Defendant notes that the above is a further attempt to defraud the
>gullible into giving up the rights they have before the courts which
>they cannot, defendant believes, sign away by contract.
>
Wd be nice if this part of the contract were ruled unenforceable
or improper to issue, but is it relevant to their practising medicine?
>
>
>> I further
>>acknowledge and agree that such procedures require my direct
>>participation to the exclusion of any third parties, including, but
>>not limited to, attorneys, and that such returns of donations are
>>exclusively within the ecclesiastical authority of the Claims
>>Verification Board and at the sole discretion of the Church.
>
>Defendant believes this to be an attempt to subvert the legal right to
>counsel.
>
Actually, try to hook this in: is it relevant that, as well as
practicing medicine, they are trying to subvert rights
on malpractice suits?
>> I
>>further understand, acknowledge and agree that any violation of or
>>deviation from such published policies or this paragraph by me voids
>>any possibility of my receiving a return of donation.
>
>A further attempt to subvert the right to counsel.
Ditto.
> In cases where
>people who sign this contract for "services," later decide they are
>being bilked and try to get some of their money back, plaintiff's
>corporate organizations stall and throw up one block after another.
>From defendant's reading of stories posted to the Internet over the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>last year, the only way which actually seems to get money returned is
>to picket.
>
No, this is hopelessly done: bring actual accounts into
evidence and, if necessary, be prepared to call Ted Mayett
or whoever as witness. What you've read proves nothing except
you read it. If you find you have legitimate grounds
to bring such things in, post the actual accounts and be
prepared to bring the person or affidavit [extracts from
affidavits or, better, judgements in earlier Scieno cases
are extremely handy...].
>
>
>A significant fraction of the people who take the upper division
>"services" such as OT3 go "PTS 3," or in the vernacular, barking mad.
>Such people are then confined by Scientology staff without treatment
>or human contact and their account may be docked for the
>"Introspection" rundown.
>
BRING INTO EVIDENCE ACTUAL DOCUMENTS OR ACCOUNTS -- at least
mention the title date and reference of a usenet article or HCOB.
In the case of HCOBs [introspection rundown!] request
*** on discovery *** ''all successive revisions'' of the docmt.
Could someone post up the introspection rundown?
>
>
>Defendant believes a concession selling trips over Niagara Falls in
>barrel would have no more disclaimers. This is #9.
>
>>13. I acknowledge that I am making this application to be permitted
>>to participate in the Service on my own determinism, recognizing that
>>I am personally responsible for my present and future condition in
>>life, and attest that I have no record of being committed in an
>>institution for mental or emotional disorders, nor do I have a
>>criminal record for a felony offense.
>
>If the mark has money they will waive this clause. They did for Steven
>Fishman. Defendant is inclined to call Steven Fishman as a witness.
>
Nice one :-)
>
>>
>>I. I, ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND ON BEHALF OF MY HEIRS,
>>DISTRIBUTEES, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ASSIGNS, AGREE NOT TO MAKE
>>CLAIMS AGAINST, SUE, ATTACH THE PROPERTY OF OR PROSECUTE the Church,
>>the successors and assignees of L. Ron Hubbard, Religious Technology
>>Center and its principals, the Church of Scientology International,
>>and any affiliated Churches, Missions, corporations, associations,
>>partnerships or organizations, and/or their officers, directors.
>>trustees, agents, servants, successors, heirs, executors or
>>representatives, and/or the owners, managers, employees, agents or
>>representatives of, or associated with, any facilities conducting the
>>Service (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Releasees") for
>>physical, mental or emotional injury or property damage resulting from
>
Can you make it a relevant issue as to whether such a disclaimer
is either unforceable or even lawful to issue? would be fun!
>
>
>Defendant believe on the basis of a year of reading the Usenet group
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
no no no No NO !!!! Actual documents.
The FACT-NET file on suicides & breakdowns,
recently posted. Let them chew on that one.....
>alt.religion.scientology that Scientology has a serious problem with
>"service takers" becoming psychotic and/or commit suicide from the
>internal mental stresses resulting from having paid $50-100,000 *and*
>invested a substantial number of years to learn the space opera "Xenu"
>story.
>
>>III. I FURTHER AGREE TO INDEMNIFY AND SAVE AND HOLD HARMLESS THE
>>RELEASEES and each of them from any loss, liability, damage or cost
>>they may incur due to my participation in the Service and/or due to my
>>presence or action in or about the Church premises or the facilities
>>provided for the Service.
>
>Defendant contends Plaintiff's family of shell corporations is trying
>in this paragraph to evade responsible for the medical bills a
>"service taker" runs up while confined to a mental ward. A
>substantial fraction of victums in such a situation have given all
>their resources to Scientology and become indegent problems for the
>government.
>
I would love it if you COULD make this a relevant issue requiring
judgement :-)
>
>
>>I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THIS APPLICATION/AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE
>>AND FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS CONTENTS AND CONSEQUENCES. I AM AWARE THAT
>>BY SIGNING BELOW, I AM FOREVER GIVING UP MY RIGHT TO SUE THE CHURCH,
>>ITS STAFF AND/OR OTHER SCIENTOLOGY-RELATED ORGANIZATIONS FOR ANY
>>INJURY OR DAMAGE SUFFERED IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE SERVICE
>>ACTIVITIES.
>
>As above, this clause is designed to control people who become
>troublesome, and is of entirely fraudulent intent.
>
>[snip remainder]
>
>Defendant cannot imagine why plaintiff presented defendant with the
>chance to show the fraudulent and criminal nature of plaintiff, except
>perhaps that plaintiffs as well as plaintiff's victums have lost
'VICTIMS'
>connection with reality. The abusive nature of this "contract" is so
>obvious that defendant will introduces plaintiffs exhibit at trial as
>an example of defendant's contention that plaintiff is a member of a
>criminal and fraudulent family of organizations.
>[remember Helena and Warren, this is draft, as unciteable as any
>lawyers half done "work product." Hasta la vista.]
>
SUMMARY: where you can make it central, relevant, and requiring
judgement, bring ACTUAL DOCUMENTS, judgements, affidavits, etc,
with a possibility of bringing the person as witness. the Pignotti
account and others on disclosure of PC folders. The FACT-NET list
of suicides. Try to get ''all revisions of''(*) relevant HCOBs/PLs
on discovery, e.g. introspection rundown. ((*) i.e. on penelty
of perjury if they bring only later, doctored, versions).
If you can bring the in-equity of this document into issue, go for it.
I think the plaintiffs have given you a golden opportunity...
--Regards, Woof Woof, glug glug--
X E M U * who drowned judge Swearinger's dog?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on alt.religion.scientology!
/~~~~~~~ @----,Golden Gate Bridge Club member#017
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Award of$2.9M against clams in RTC v Scott upheld on appeal 15/4/96
see article author Maureen Garde, title *BIG WIN* for David Mayo
<a href="http://superlink.net/mgarde/scott5.txt"></a>
Kelly Stanonik
> Don't make that big a deal out of it. Defending Constitutional rights
> may be a high moral purpose, but it is also a lot of fun. Compared to
> my other past and present hobbies, it fits right in. Keith Henson
Ah ha, so you're really just trying to get out the defend-your-
constitutional-rights meme out into the usenet where it will infect
everyone and sooner or later everyone's gonna be defending their
rights. It's such an insidious plan it just may work.
Kelly
Keith Henson
Arrgh! You figured it out. Well, we will just keep it a copyrighted
trade secret. Keith Henson
H Keith Henson
Netcom seems to be dropping net postings on the floor tonight, so will try
again from portal. If two of these get in the news spool, sorry.
Keith Henson
1 Pages 1-25
2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4 BEFORE THE HONORABLE RONALD M. WHYTE, JUDGE
5
6 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, )
a California non-profit )
7 organization, )
)
8 Plaintiff, ) Case No. C-96-20207 RMW
)
9 vs. )
)
10 H. KEITH HENSEN, )
)
11 Defendant. )
_____________________________)
12
Friday, April 12, 1996
13 San Jose, California
14
Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings
15
APPEARANCES
16
For the Plaintiff Law Offices of Thomas R. Hogan
17 Thomas R. Hogan, Attorney at Law
60 South Market Street, Suite 1125
18 San Jose, California 95113
19
For the Defendant H. Keith Hensen, In Propria Persona
20 799 Coffey Court
San Jose, California 95123
21
22
23 Reported By Lee-Anne Shortridge
Official Court Reporter #9595
24
25 Computerized Transcription by StenoCat
2
1 Friday, April 12, 1996
2 THE CLERK: Calling case C-96-20261, Religious
3 Technology Center versus Keith Hensen, on for order to show
4 cause re preliminary injunction.
5 MR. HOGAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Thomas R.
6 Hogan for the plaintiffs, Religious Technology Center. And with
7 me, Your Honor, this morning, if I may, are three lawyers that I
8 would like to move for their admission pro hoc vice. Mr. Roger
9 Milgrim and Mr. Bill Hart are both partners in the Paul,
10 Hastings firm in New York. Mr. Eric Lieberman is a partner in
11 the Rabinowitz law firm in New York.
12 THE COURT: Have you filed applications?
13 MR. HOGAN: I have, Your Honor, with respect to all
14 three of those individuals.
15 THE COURT: All right.
16 MR. HENSEN: Keith Hensen, pro per.
17 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hensen.
18 MR. HOGAN: The only other thing I would like to
19 address to the Court very briefly, Your Honor, before we start,
20 is that Mr. Hensen came to my office on Wednesday of this past
21 week and delivered his motion. I asked him who would be
22 representing him this morning and he advised me that four
23 separate lawyers had offered their services pro bono. He
24 believed, however, he was going to represent himself. I asked
25 him to let me know if any of those lawyers where chosen by him
3
1 to represent him in this matter, and I have not heard.
2 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hensen, let me take up two
3 preliminary matters with you. One is you filed what you labeled
4 as a motion to dismiss asking me to disqualify myself under 28
5 U.S.C. Section 455(a).
6 Frankly, I know of no reason that I should
7 disqualify myself. The papers that you filed do not suggest to
8 me any basis, so at this point, I'm going to deny your motion.
9 With respect to your appearance in this matter, is
10 it your intent to have counsel, or what is the story on that?
11 MR. HENSEN: Not at this time.
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 MR. HENSEN: By the way, I would mention that there
14 were four law firms who might be interested, and it's not that
15 any of them have agreed to do it.
16 THE COURT: I understand. What I wanted to just
17 find out is whether you want to be represented, because that is
18 important to me for me to know for a variety of reasons,
19 including scheduling.
20 MR. HENSEN: At this point, I simply don't know.
21 THE COURT: All right. Are you prepared -- oh, with
22 respect to the applications pro hoc vice, I will grant those.
23 MR. HOGAN: Thank you.
24 THE COURT: Are you prepared to proceed?
25 MR. HOGAN: Yes, Your Honor.
4
1 MR. HENSEN: Yes.
2 THE COURT: All right. I've read the application.
3 I'm not aware of anything further having been filed by either
4 side other than, Mr. Hensen, you filed the motion.
5 MR. HENSEN: I filed an additional response this
6 morning, Your Honor, it should be in the file by now, and I just
7 served the opposition.
8 THE COURT: I have not -- who did you file that
9 with?
10 MR. HENSEN: I filed it at 9:00 o'clock this
11 morning.
12 THE COURT: Downstairs?
13 MR. HENSEN: Yeah.
14 THE COURT: Okay. I have not seen it. Do you have
15 a copy?
16 MR. HENSEN: I have one additional copy, unless I
17 can borrow one from the three that I gave them.
18 Your Honor, are any of these carafes full of water?
19 THE CLERK: That has water in it.
20 MR. HENSEN: Thank you.
21 THE COURT: All right. Let me make a couple of
22 comments to you Mr. Hensen. Number one, you indicate that the
23 Clerk of the Court told you that you were not covered by the
24 T.R.O. issued against Grady Ward.
25 MR. HENSEN: The words exactly were that I was not
5
1 a defendant in the case.
2 THE COURT: That's a big difference. And
3 furthermore, you cannot rely on what a Court Clerk says, if they
4 say anything, and I think mine is very careful not to give legal
5 advice and undoubtedly told you, as she usually does if somebody
6 asks a question about an order, she indicates that they should
7 get legal advice. So I just caution you about that.
8 MR. HENSEN: I much appreciate --
9 THE COURT: That doesn't make any sense to suggest
10 that the Clerk authorized something. What she said is that you
11 weren't a defendant. You're not. You weren't a defendant in
12 that case. You weren't named as a defendant. That order said
13 people -- I've forgotten the exact wording of it --
14 MR. HENSEN: Acting in concert.
15 THE COURT: In concert, and whether you were or were
16 not, certainly the Clerk has no knowledge. Frankly, I have no
17 knowledge, and that's something that you have to decide for
18 yourself or get, or get representation on. So I just want to
19 make clear that that purported conversation carries no weight.
20 MR. HENSEN: I understand.
21 THE COURT: But what you also need to know is that
22 in this reply, and I can't be a lawyer for you, but I can tell
23 you that you've said a lot of things in this reply, but it's
24 just in a brief. If you want to present evidence to the Court,
25 you've got to do it in the form of a declaration or an affidavit
6
1 from someone who has personal knowledge of the facts contained
2 in the declaration.
3 Now, you may have that personal information
4 yourself, and if so, you can put it in a declaration form or in
5 an affidavit form, and then the Court can consider it as
6 evidence.
7 If you want to offer evidence from somebody else who
8 has the personal knowledge and all you know is what they've told
9 you, then you have to get a declaration or an affidavit from
10 that person.
11 But I can't -- there's a lot in this case and other
12 cases that I have that involve Religious Technology Center.
13 There are some strong accusations made on both sides of the
14 cases, and I have to limit my consideration to that which is
15 admissible evidence. I can't make decisions based on rumor or
16 hearsay or someone's unsworn statement. That's not saying that
17 those things aren't true, but they are not evidence that I can
18 consider.
19 MR. HENSEN: Your Honor, I could swear to that at
20 this point and sign it under the direction of the Court here if
21 you would like and turn it into an affidavit. But the material
22 to which I am referring in there is entirely contained within
23 the pleadings of the plaintiff.
24 THE COURT: Some of this I'm having trouble
25 following to be honest with you.
7
1 MR. HENSEN: It was done rather quickly, Your Honor.
2 THE COURT: I didn't bring one file in with me.
3 I'll go get it and be right back.
4 (Recess.)
5 THE COURT: Mr. Hensen, let me just make sure you
6 understand what the current temporary restraining order prevents
7 you from doing, and what a proposed preliminary injunction would
8 prevent you from doing.
9 It would prevent you from publishing, putting on the
10 Internet or downloading the documents that are listed in Exhibit
11 B. It would not prevent you from making fair comment or fair
12 use on documents 1, 24, 34, 35, 36 and 42. It's a quite narrow
13 order. What is it that you feel is a problem with that order?
14 MR. HENSEN: I think the whole case against me is
15 silly, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: All right. It may be. It may prove to
17 be. But what is it that concerns you about the proposed order
18 and the current order, pending a determination after a hearing
19 as to whether or not there is a trade secret in the documents,
20 and whether or not the documents are in fact protected by
21 copyright?
22 MR. HENSEN: I have no problem with being restrained
23 by the T.R.O. as it's stated, except, of course, my objection
24 that I feel it's an unconstitutional interference with my rights
25 of free speech.
8
1 THE COURT: What -- free speech involves some
2 balancing.
3 MR. HENSEN: I'm only putting this on the record as
4 an objection. I will be glad to accept the T.R.O. as it is.
5 I'll abide by it, but I am objecting to it under those grounds.
6 THE COURT: Okay. You realize there will be a
7 hearing later to determine whether or not R.T.C. has a
8 protectable interest in these documents? Do you understand
9 that?
10 MR. HENSEN: I understand that.
11 THE COURT: And do you contest that these documents,
12 the ones that are named in this order, are subject to copyright?
13 MR. HENSEN: Not in the slightest, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MR. HENSEN: Furthermore, I'm not even, even
16 slightly interested in receiving or seeing or commenting on or
17 posting any of those documents, any documents of R.T.C., which
18 are non -- which are examples of noncriminal sort of behavior.
19 THE COURT: And for the documents other than --
20 well, have you seen any portion of any of the documents other
21 than 1, 24, 34, 35, 36 and 42?
22 MR. HENSEN: In fact, Your Honor, the only one I've
23 really looked at in any depth is 34. I started to look at 35,
24 but I actually didn't get very far with it.
25 THE COURT: So you have no idea as to whether those
9
1 other documents have anything in them that are, in your view,
2 criminal; correct?
3 MR. HENSEN: No, Your Honor.
4 THE COURT: And with respect to 34 and 35, which you
5 have seen, you're entitled to make fair use of those documents;
6 correct?
7 MR. HENSEN: That's, Your Honor, what I think I did.
8 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hogan, anything further on
9 the injunction request?
10 MR. HOGAN: Very briefly, Your Honor.
11 I do want the Court to understand, and Mr. Hensen to
12 understand, that what brings us here is not the fact that Mr.
13 Hensen, for well over a year, has been posting to the Alt
14 Religious Scientology Newsgroup. Indeed, those postings are
15 probably a foot in height if you stacked them on counsel table.
16 Most of the postings, if not all of them, demonstrate his animus
17 towards the Church of Scientology and its officers and its
18 lawyers and its principals. We have no quarrel with that.
19 What happened and what is put forth in the
20 declaration of Warren McShane is, of course, first he posted the
21 entirety of NOTs series 34. Then he said directly in these
22 postings that he was soliciting, whether legal or illegal, NOTs
23 postings because he wanted to post them, or all the NOTs
24 issues.
25 MR. HENSEN: No.
10
1 MR. HOGAN: That's what brought us here.
2 MR. HENSEN: I object, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Let him finish.
4 MR. HOGAN: That's what he said in his postings, and
5 those are Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 of the McShane declaration.
6 That's why we had to bring this lawsuit.
7 Mr. Hensen claims to be surprised in one of those
8 postings, which again is part of the exhibits I just referenced.
9 Mr. Hensen said, "I'm going to do this. I have a right to do
10 this. I'm the one who decides whether this is criminal or not.
11 I'm going to put this out there. If you want to sue me, I'll
12 accept service. Call me and I'll come to your office."
13 So I can't understand why he would be surprised.
14 This is his statement that he is challenging the authority of
15 this Court to give us what we've sought, namely a protective
16 order or injunction with respect to these copyrighted and trade
17 secret proprietary material.
18 THE COURT: I understood your request, and that's
19 why I was trying to ask him were the problem was.
20 Because you did post 34, right?
21 MR. HENSEN: Absolutely, Your Honor. And I
22 represent that that is not only criminal in nature, but a direct
23 violation of the court order which I have a copy of, I believe.
24 THE COURT: Well, again, it's not my court order.
25 MR. HENSEN: No. It's Judge Gesell's.
11
1 THE COURT: I have not seen that court order.
2 MR. HENSEN: I will be glad to either point you to
3 it, or I think I have a copy with me.
4 THE COURT: If you have a copy, I'd be curious to
5 see it. But what I hear, frankly, is there doesn't appear to be
6 any disagreement. The reason that you're here is because I did
7 view, based on the showing made by R.T.C., what you said as a
8 threat to post.
9 MR. HENSEN: Specifically, Your Honor --
10 THE COURT: These documents --
11 MR. HENSEN: Specifically, Your Honor, only
12 documents showing criminal intent or fraud in them.
13 THE COURT: But that was going to be on, at least
14 the way I read it, some unilateral decision by you, and you've
15 admitted to me this morning that these other documents, you
16 never even have seen them.
17 MR. HENSEN: Absolutely, Your Honor. I'm not saying
18 that I want any of them --
19 THE COURT: Okay.
20 MR. HENSEN: -- that are noncriminal in nature. If
21 somebody has one that they view as being criminal in nature and
22 they send it to me and I decide that it's criminal in nature,
23 I'll take the risk of posting it.
24 THE COURT: And if you post it in violation of this
25 order, you're going to be in big trouble.
12
1 MR. HENSEN: I understand that, Your Honor. That is
2 what I would have done before this order. Obviously I'm not
3 going to post any of them now, even if they discuss murder.
4 THE COURT: Okay. All right. If you want to submit
5 that order, Mr. Hensen, I will certainly look at it. But I
6 think it's clear that I will enter the, as a preliminary
7 injunction, the order that I have entered as a T.R.O. on the
8 conditions of a bond as required.
9 So that there's no misunderstanding, I do want,
10 obviously, a bond posted.
11 All right. You have a request for early discovery,
12 right?
13 MR. HOGAN: We do, Your Honor. This is a request
14 that we be allowed to take Mr. Hensen's deposition some time
15 between now and May 15. I would speak to Mr. Hensen, or if he
16 gets counsel, his counsel, to work out a convenient time for him
17 to do that. Mr. Hensen, of course, lives here in San Jose.
18 THE COURT: Mr. Hensen, do you know what a
19 deposition is?
20 MR. HENSEN: Yes, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: All right. Normally in a case when a
22 lawsuit has been filed, depositions, or what is called
23 discovery, which is depositions or what are called
24 interrogatories, sending written questions to the other side,
25 there's also a right to request documents from each other that
13
1 are relevant to the lawsuit, normally that does not occur until
2 the first, what's called case management conference, and I don't
3 know what date one was set in your case.
4 What R.T.C. is requesting is that before that they
5 be allowed to question you under oath pertaining to the issues
6 that are raised by this lawsuit. What I need to know is, one,
7 whether you have objection to that, and if you do, what it is;
8 and two, whether or not there's any request for discovery you
9 want to take of them before the case management conference.
10 Also, I would suggest to you that representation
11 might be in your best interest, but that's a call for you to
12 make.
13 MR. HENSEN: Your Honor, I might well get
14 representation, but it is not my opinion that a, than an
15 articulate person should be required to get representation for
16 something which is a clear violation of the constitutional
17 rights.
18 THE COURT: What's a violation of your
19 constitutional rights?
20 MR. HENSEN: I'm under, essentially, a restraint
21 where I don't dare, because of the chilling effect of this
22 order, quote any NOTs documents that anybody sends me, whether
23 they are criminal or not.
24 THE COURT: Well, that's a call you've got to make.
25 MR. HENSEN: I agree with Your Honor. Could I ask a
14
1 few procedural questions?
2 THE COURT: Quickly. But again, I can't act as your
3 lawyer.
4 MR. HENSEN: I'm not. This is not lawyer kind of
5 questions.
6 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
7 MR. HENSEN: If I file in response to a suit against
8 the R.T.C. and relate it to the Erlich and Ward cases, am I
9 required to give notice to the related parties in the related
10 cases?
11 THE COURT: You asked the question, and that's a
12 good one, and I have not double checked. It may be that the
13 notice of related case that was filed by the R.T.C. was not
14 served on all the parties it should have been.
15 Did you, in the notice of related case, serve all
16 the parties in the Erlich-Netcom case?
17 MR. HOGAN: We just did that yesterday, Your Honor,
18 so we're late. Absolutely.
19 THE COURT: Okay. What the procedure is on that is
20 that whether the cases are related, after they file the proper
21 notice with notice to the parties, any parties can file an
22 objection. I believe under the Local Rules it's ten days
23 thereafter, and then since I have the lowest numbered case, I'll
24 make a decision as to whether the cases are related.
25 All related means is that they're assigned to the
15
1 same judge, and the purpose for that is so that not more than
2 one judge has to relearn the same facts and issues.
3 That's a different thing than the cases being
4 consolidated. If they're consolidated, they're all made as one
5 and the whole, and they proceed as one case. There has been no
6 request to consolidate this case with the Ward case or with,
7 I'll call it the Netcom case. They are not consolidated. There
8 will have to be a determination by me after I hear from the
9 others, or any parties that choose to respond to the notice, as
10 to whether or not the cases will be related.
11 MR. HENSEN: So there's some chance you won't be the
12 judge in this case after all?
13 THE COURT: There's some chance, but I, you know, I
14 haven't seen anything. I don't know who will file what.
15 MR. HENSEN: Okay.
16 THE COURT: I will say, just so you're clear, that I
17 initially I believe I did sign an order indicating that I
18 thought the cases should be related. However, I realized after
19 that that proper notice may not have been given, and I will -- I
20 was going to make sure that notice was given.
21 When Mr. Hogan raised it, he answered the question.
22 He's checked something I hadn't, and that is whether there was
23 proper notice sent. So there does need to be proper notice
24 sent, and it's been sent. I will check.
25 And then, as I say, the parties have ten days after
16
1 that to file an objection to the cases being related. Then
2 since I have, of the three cases that, at least I'm aware of,
3 since I have the lowest number in the district, the lowest case
4 number, I'm the one that makes the determination as to whether
5 the cases will be related, and I will make that determination.
6 MR. HENSEN: Okay. Second question is, assuming
7 that I'm deposed on this, do I get to depose the R.T.C.?
8 THE COURT: You have the same rights they do.
9 MR. HENSEN: If I claim that I'm too busy or some
10 similar excuse to show up, and if I refuse to show up at the
11 deposition, what would happen to me?
12 THE COURT: Well, now you're asking me to give you
13 legal advice, but basically each side has a right to take
14 depositions. If somebody doesn't show up for a deposition, they
15 can be sanctioned.
16 The way people professionally work is that
17 depositions are hopefully scheduled at a time when each side can
18 reasonably fit it in. That doesn't mean you can delay something
19 for days or weeks -- well, weeks or even days, but it does,
20 usually, mean that things can be scheduled to get around
21 problems. And I would expect Mr. Hogan, as he has in other
22 cases that I've had with him, to be willing to cooperate in that
23 type of activity.
24 MR. HOGAN: I'll represent to Mr. Hensen and the
25 Court that what the proposed order says is that once you and I
17
1 try to schedule a date, if we are unable to for any reason, or
2 if any dispute arises concerning any discovery, we then present
3 it to Magistrate Judge Infante and he resolves it.
4 And I should also mention, Your Honor, we've been
5 talking about the deposition. We also are going to request some
6 documents of Mr. Hensen prior to the deposition about that, and
7 I just wanted to be sure that was on the record. It's in the
8 proposed order.
9 MR. HENSEN: I have no problem with that. The
10 reason I'm actually asking this question is that the Scientology
11 group of people is rather known for it's, for certain David
12 Miscavige, for not showing up at all for depositions, and I was
13 wondering if I was going to be sanctioned, what sanctions I
14 would get. I was wondering if the same sort of laws apply to
15 them and they would get sanctioned if I can establish a reason
16 to --
17 THE COURT: I think you know the answer to that.
18 MR. HENSEN: I would hope so.
19 THE COURT: And I will also say, to my knowledge, in
20 none of the cases in front of me has anybody brought to my
21 attention a claim that somebody that was associated with R.T.C.
22 failed to appear for a deposition. At least, as I sit here now,
23 I don't recall any such allegation being made, and I believe in
24 Mr. Erlich's case, and I don't know if Mr. Hogan knows or not,
25 but I think some depositions have been taken.
18
1 MR. HOGAN: Yes.
2 MR. HENSEN: Your Honor, can I get accelerated
3 depositions as well?
4 THE COURT: Who do you want to take the deposition
5 of and why?
6 MR. HENSEN: Well, I'm not exactly sure. I want to
7 be sure that I depose the right person, and for just the
8 procedural reasons here, could I get you to ask the R.T.C.
9 lawyers to provide me with a comprehensive list of the persons
10 who were on the other end of the faxes and phone calls for Mr.
11 Ward's deposition? In particular, I'd like to know if David
12 Miscavige was among that group of people.
13 THE COURT: Well, you can talk to Mr. Hogan, but I'm
14 not going to get into ordering either side to provide any
15 particular information right now.
16 If you want to take somebody's deposition, or you
17 want a request for -- it sounds like what you want to do is have
18 the right to send out some written questions to the R.T.C. that
19 they have to answer under oath, and if you want permission to do
20 that, I might well give you that permission.
21 MR. HENSEN: Since Mr. Miscavige seems particularly
22 difficult to serve, he's in fact managed to evade service for
23 more than a year, can I have the Court's permission to serve him
24 through his lawyers, through these lawyers?
25 THE COURT: I don't even know who he is.
19
1 MR. HENSEN: He's the power behind R.T.C., Your
2 Honor.
3 THE COURT: Well --
4 MR. HENSEN: Or at least so is my informed belief.
5 THE COURT: But there's no claim against him. I
6 don't even know who you're talking about as far as why you want
7 him or who he is.
8 If you're telling me you want to file a lawsuit
9 against him and you have a basis for doing so, then do it.
10 If you're saying that you want to take his
11 deposition, then you can ask me to allow you to notice his
12 deposition.
13 If you want to do something else, I'm not going to
14 make orders here that I don't understand what's even being
15 requested.
16 MR. HENSEN: Okay. Thank you very much. That's the
17 only thing I have on the procedures, but would you be willing
18 perhaps to clear up a couple of points about this which I find
19 very confusing?
20 THE COURT: Again, I can't give you legal advice,
21 but what do you want?
22 MR. HENSEN: Did Your Honor read my letter of March
23 26th before the T.R.O. to Mr. Ward was issued?
24 THE COURT: I'm not going to sit here and answer
25 your questions about what I've done and not done. I try and do
20
1 a conscientious job. I think I do a conscientious job. I
2 generally read all papers that are submitted to me in legal
3 pleadings and letters that are addressed to me. Outside
4 pleadings, frankly, I generally do not read. So --
5 MR. HENSEN: But you have read it by this point, I
6 guess, since it was part of the exhibits within the pleadings?
7 THE COURT: Mr. Hensen, I read the papers that are
8 submitted. I try to be conscientious. I believe I have read
9 that, but -- I don't know what more I can tell you.
10 MR. HENSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: All right. So what is there -- all
12 right. As I understand it, Mr. Hensen does not object to his
13 deposition and a records request provided there's a means where
14 he can object to the records that are being requested. And if
15 you can't work it out between the two parties, then it can go to
16 Magistrate Judge Infante for determination.
17 MR. HENSEN: Your Honor, could I also get a limit on
18 that?
19 THE COURT: Okay.
20 MR. HENSEN: And as well as the same stipulations
21 that you made in the Grady Ward case, no abuse?
22 THE COURT: That goes to both sides without saying.
23 MR. HENSEN: Thank you.
24 THE COURT: By what date -- when do you want your
25 deposition taken by, Mr. Hensen?
21
1 MR. HENSEN: I, frankly, don't care.
2 MR. HOGAN: We simply ask for it between now and the
3 15th of May.
4 THE COURT: Is that agreeable?
5 MR. HENSEN: I would prefer that it be done sooner
6 than later. I'll work out a date with them, but within the next
7 five or ten days would be fine by me.
8 THE COURT: All right. And I'm going to do the same
9 thing I did with Mr. Ward, and that is limit it to one day
10 absent an application for addition time.
11 When can you get the document request that you want
12 from Mr. Hensen to Mr. Hensen?
13 MR. HOGAN: We'll certainly do it as promptly as
14 possible, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Let's do the same thing we did last
16 time. Why don't the two of you step out? What I want is a date
17 by which you're going to request the documents, a date by when
18 you have a right to object, a date by which you can go to
19 Magistrate Judge Infante for resolution, and a date by which the
20 deposition will be taken. The deposition will be limited to a
21 day absent a court order allowing a longer time, and I will send
22 out an order consistent with that.
23 MR. HENSEN: Okay. Your Honor, this will be
24 particularly easy for me to respond to because I have never even
25 seen a piece of this material in hard copy, and anything that I
22
1 have seen on it has been stuff which crossed the Internet.
2 THE COURT: You go talk to Mr. Hogan and work it out
3 and I will sign an order to that effect and everybody will be
4 clear.
5 MR. HENSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
6 MR. HOGAN: Your Honor, before we conclude, I would
7 like to submit to Your Honor a second declaration of Mr.
8 McShane. Mr. Hensen mentioned the Gesell opinion or whatever it
9 is. I haven't seen it, and I would appreciate it if Mr. Hensen
10 would send me or provide me copies, whatever he's providing to
11 the Court.
12 THE COURT: That's one thing. Anything you send to
13 me --
14 MR. HENSEN: It's in the Federal Supplement.
15 THE COURT: Excuse me?
16 MR. HENSEN: It's in the Federal Supplement.
17 THE COURT: Do you have a cite?
18 MR. HENSEN: Yes. It's cited in there, in that
19 thing I gave you. I believe Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Yeah, 333 FSup 357.
21 MR. HENSEN: Yes.
22 MR. HOGAN: And then I have a proposed order and a
23 disc to give to your clerk, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: The disc being?
25 MR. HOGAN: For the preliminary injunction if that
23
1 would be helpful.
2 THE COURT: Okay. Yeah, you can hand it in.
3 What I'm going to do is, because Mr. Hensen knows
4 basically what it is, it's essentially the same order as with
5 respect to the Mr. Ward exhibits. The exhibit numbers are
6 different.
7 MR. HOGAN: Exactly.
8 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
9 MR. HOGAN: Thank you Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Thank you.
11 MS. BURKE: My name is Melissa Burke. I'm from
12 Pillsbury and we represent Netcom. I wanted to seek
13 clarification on whether R.T.C. should be giving notice to the
14 other parties regarding discovery. It sounds like the Hensen
15 deposition may take place prior to the time that the related
16 case order is ruled upon.
17 THE COURT: I don't think, and you can correct me if
18 I'm wrong, there's anything in the related case rules that
19 suggests that a party in a related case gets noticings of
20 discovery. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think
21 that's the case.
22 MS. BURKE: I guess our concern --
23 THE COURT: If you want to have notice, I will ask
24 R.T.C. to give you notice. Now, that does not necessarily mean
25 you have any right to appear.
24
1 MS. BURKE: I understand that, Your Honor.
2 THE COURT: But if you want to know --
3 You don't have any problem with that?
4 MR. HOGAN: None whatsoever, Your Honor, as long as
5 it's understood --
6 THE COURT: If you look, maybe I should look right
7 now, but I don't think there's anything in the related case
8 rules that suggests that the fact that a case is related means
9 everybody in the related cases gets notice of everything.
10 MS. BURKE: I agree it's not clear on that. I
11 guess our concern is if at a later date these cases are
12 consolidated, we would like to be aware of what discovery --
13 THE COURT: It can't be consolidated without a
14 motion to you.
15 MS. BURKE: At that point, the discovery may have
16 long since been conducted, and so if we could just have notice
17 of what's going on, we'd appreciate that.
18 MR. HOGAN: I have not talked to Melissa Burke
19 before this morning actually except on the phone yesterday, and
20 we have talked about this subject, but I have talked to at least
21 one of defense counsel and have said that I will put them on
22 notice of discovery that's going forward, and I will do that,
23 Your Honor.
24 MR. HENSEN: Your Honor, I'm going to be in a room
25 with six hostile lawyers having listened to somewhat of the
25
1 Grady Ward deposition. Does Your Honor have any problem with my
2 having someone of my choosing there with me?
3 THE COURT: They can't represent you unless they're
4 a lawyer. I mean, this is a public meeting.
5 MR. HENSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
6 MR. HOGAN: One last thing, Your Honor, just so you
7 know. That declaration that I submitted this morning does deal
8 with the issue that Mr. Hensen raised about the criminal
9 activities or his assertions in the earlier postings about
10 criminal activities. I just wanted Your Honor to have that in
11 the file.
12 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
13 MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
14 MR. HENSEN: Here's a copy of that.
15 THE COURT: Thank you.
16 MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
17 (Proceedings concluded.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
2 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA )
3
4 I, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of
5 the State of California, hereby certify that the above
6 proceedings were held at the time and place herein stated; that
7 the statements by Counsel, The Court and other parties were
8 reported by me, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and disinterested
9 person, and were thereafter transcribed under my direction into
10 typewriting, and that the foregoing is a full, complete and true
11 record of said proceedings.
12
13 I further certify that I am not of counsel or attorney
14 for either or any of the parties in the foregoing proceedings
15 and caption named, nor am I in any way interested in the outcome
16 of the cause named in said caption.
17
18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
19 26th day of April 1996.
20
21
22 ______________________________
LEE-ANNE SHORTRIDGE, CSR #9595
23
24
25
H Keith Henson
Sorry for the extra copy, I should not have been in such a hurry to
post. This one has the anoying extra line feeds removed.
Commented version, with a fix. The woman who transcribed this asked
me how to spell David Miscavige's name, but she got mine spelled
wrong! :-) Keith HensOn
1 Pages 1-25
2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4 BEFORE THE HONORABLE RONALD M. WHYTE, JUDGE
6 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, )
a California non-profit )
7 organization, )
)
8 Plaintiff, ) Case No. C-96-20207 RMW
)
9 vs. )
)
10 H. KEITH HENSON, )
)
11 Defendant. )
_____________________________)
12
Friday, April 12, 1996
13 San Jose, California
14
Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings
15
APPEARANCES
16
For the Plaintiff Law Offices of Thomas R. Hogan
17 Thomas R. Hogan, Attorney at Law
60 South Market Street, Suite 1125
18 San Jose, California 95113
For the Defendant H. Keith Henson, In Propria Persona
20 799 Coffey Court
San Jose, California 95123
23 Reported By Lee-Anne Shortridge
Official Court Reporter #9595
24
25 Computerized Transcription by StenoCat
2
1 Friday, April 12, 1996
2 THE CLERK: Calling case C-96-20261, Religious
3 Technology Center versus Keith Henson, on for order to show
4 cause re preliminary injunction.
5 MR. HOGAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Thomas R.
6 Hogan for the plaintiffs, Religious Technology Center. And with
7 me, Your Honor, this morning, if I may, are three lawyers that I
8 would like to move for their admission pro hoc vice. Mr. Roger
9 Milgrim and Mr. Bill Hart are both partners in the Paul,
10 Hastings firm in New York. Mr. Eric Lieberman is a partner in
11 the Rabinowitz law firm in New York.
12 THE COURT: Have you filed applications?
13 MR. HOGAN: I have, Your Honor, with respect to all
14 three of those individuals.
15 THE COURT: All right.
16 MR. HENSON: Keith Henson, pro per.
17 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Henson.
18 MR. HOGAN: The only other thing I would like to
19 address to the Court very briefly, Your Honor, before we start,
20 is that Mr. Henson came to my office on Wednesday of this past
21 week and delivered his motion. I asked him who would be
22 representing him this morning and he advised me that four
23 separate lawyers had offered their services pro bono. He
24 believed, however, he was going to represent himself. I asked
25 him to let me know if any of those lawyers where chosen by him
3
1 to represent him in this matter, and I have not heard.
2 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Henson, let me take up two
3 preliminary matters with you. One is you filed what you labeled
4 as a motion to dismiss asking me to disqualify myself under 28
5 U.S.C. Section 455(a).
6 Frankly, I know of no reason that I should
7 disqualify myself. The papers that you filed do not suggest to
8 me any basis, so at this point, I'm going to deny your motion.
9 With respect to your appearance in this matter, is
10 it your intent to have counsel, or what is the story on that?
11 MR. HENSON: Not at this time.
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 MR. HENSON: By the way, I would mention that there
14 were four law firms who might be interested, and it's not that
15 any of them have agreed to do it.
16 THE COURT: I understand. What I wanted to just
17 find out is whether you want to be represented, because that is
18 important to me for me to know for a variety of reasons,
19 including scheduling.
20 MR. HENSON: At this point, I simply don't know.
21 THE COURT: All right. Are you prepared -- oh, with
22 respect to the applications pro hoc vice, I will grant those.
23 MR. HOGAN: Thank you.
24 THE COURT: Are you prepared to proceed?
25 MR. HOGAN: Yes, Your Honor.
4
1 MR. HENSON: Yes.
2 THE COURT: All right. I've read the application.
3 I'm not aware of anything further having been filed by either
4 side other than, Mr. Henson, you filed the motion.
5 MR. HENSON: I filed an additional response this
6 morning, Your Honor, it should be in the file by now, and I just
7 served the opposition.
8 THE COURT: I have not -- who did you file that
9 with?
10 MR. HENSON: I filed it at 9:00 o'clock this
11 morning.
12 THE COURT: Downstairs?
13 MR. HENSON: Yeah.
14 THE COURT: Okay. I have not seen it. Do you have
15 a copy?
16 MR. HENSON: I have one additional copy, unless I
17 can borrow one from the three that I gave them.
18 Your Honor, are any of these carafes full of water?
19 THE CLERK: That has water in it.
20 MR. HENSON: Thank you.
[There was a considerable delay while the judge read my response to
the RTC's response to my original motion.]
21 THE COURT: All right. Let me make a couple of
22 comments to you Mr. Henson. Number one, you indicate that the
23 Clerk of the Court told you that you were not covered by the
24 T.R.O. issued against Grady Ward.
25 MR. HENSON: The words exactly were that I was not
5
1 a defendant in the case.
2 THE COURT: That's a big difference. And
3 furthermore, you cannot rely on what a Court Clerk says, if they
4 say anything, and I think mine is very careful not to give legal
5 advice and undoubtedly told you, as she usually does if somebody
6 asks a question about an order, she indicates that they should
7 get legal advice. So I just caution you about that.
8 MR. HENSON: I much appreciate --
9 THE COURT: That doesn't make any sense to suggest
10 that the Clerk authorized something. What she said is that you
11 weren't a defendant. You're not. You weren't a defendant in
12 that case. You weren't named as a defendant. That order said
13 people -- I've forgotten the exact wording of it --
14 MR. HENSON: Acting in concert.
15 THE COURT: In concert, and whether you were or were
16 not, certainly the Clerk has no knowledge. Frankly, I have no
17 knowledge, and that's something that you have to decide for
18 yourself or get, or get representation on. So I just want to
19 make clear that that purported conversation carries no weight.
20 MR. HENSON: I understand.
21 THE COURT: But what you also need to know is that
22 in this reply, and I can't be a lawyer for you, but I can tell
23 you that you've said a lot of things in this reply, but it's
24 just in a brief. If you want to present evidence to the Court,
25 you've got to do it in the form of a declaration or an affidavit
6
1 from someone who has personal knowledge of the facts contained
2 in the declaration.
3 Now, you may have that personal information
4 yourself, and if so, you can put it in a declaration form or in
5 an affidavit form, and then the Court can consider it as
6 evidence.
7 If you want to offer evidence from somebody else who
8 has the personal knowledge and all you know is what they've told
9 you, then you have to get a declaration or an affidavit from
10 that person.
11 But I can't -- there's a lot in this case and other
12 cases that I have that involve Religious Technology Center.
13 There are some strong accusations made on both sides of the
14 cases, and I have to limit my consideration to that which is
15 admissible evidence. I can't make decisions based on rumor or
16 hearsay or someone's unsworn statement. That's not saying that
17 those things aren't true, but they are not evidence that I can
18 consider.
19 MR. HENSON: Your Honor, I could swear to that at
20 this point and sign it under the direction of the Court here if
21 you would like and turn it into an affidavit. But the material
22 to which I am referring in there is entirely contained within
23 the pleadings of the plaintiff.
24 THE COURT: Some of this I'm having trouble
25 following to be honest with you.
7
1 MR. HENSON: It was done rather quickly, Your Honor.
2 THE COURT: I didn't bring one file in with me.
3 I'll go get it and be right back.
4 (Recess.)
5 THE COURT: Mr. Henson, let me just make sure you
6 understand what the current temporary restraining order prevents
7 you from doing, and what a proposed preliminary injunction would
8 prevent you from doing.
9 It would prevent you from publishing, putting on the
10 Internet or downloading the documents that are listed in Exhibit
11 B. It would not prevent you from making fair comment or fair
12 use on documents 1, 24, 34, 35, 36 and 42. It's a quite narrow
13 order. What is it that you feel is a problem with that order?
14 MR. HENSON: I think the whole case against me is
15 silly, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: All right. It may be. It may prove to
17 be. But what is it that concerns you about the proposed order
18 and the current order, pending a determination after a hearing
19 as to whether or not there is a trade secret in the documents,
20 and whether or not the documents are in fact protected by
21 copyright?
22 MR. HENSON: I have no problem with being restrained
23 by the T.R.O. as it's stated, except, of course, my objection
24 that I feel it's an unconstitutional interference with my rights
25 of free speech.
8
1 THE COURT: What -- free speech involves some
2 balancing.
3 MR. HENSON: I'm only putting this on the record as
4 an objection. I will be glad to accept the T.R.O. as it is.
5 I'll abide by it, but I am objecting to it under those grounds.
6 THE COURT: Okay. You realize there will be a
7 hearing later to determine whether or not R.T.C. has a
8 protectable interest in these documents? Do you understand
9 that?
10 MR. HENSON: I understand that.
11 THE COURT: And do you contest that these documents,
12 the ones that are named in this order, are subject to copyright?
13 MR. HENSON: Not in the slightest, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MR. HENSON: Furthermore, I'm not even, even
16 slightly interested in receiving or seeing or commenting on or
17 posting any of those documents, any documents of R.T.C., which
18 are non -- which are examples of noncriminal sort of behavior.
19 THE COURT: And for the documents other than --
20 well, have you seen any portion of any of the documents other
21 than 1, 24, 34, 35, 36 and 42?
22 MR. HENSON: In fact, Your Honor, the only one I've
23 really looked at in any depth is 34. I started to look at 35,
24 but I actually didn't get very far with it.
25 THE COURT: So you have no idea as to whether those
9
1 other documents have anything in them that are, in your view,
2 criminal; correct?
3 MR. HENSON: No, Your Honor.
4 THE COURT: And with respect to 34 and 35, which you
5 have seen, you're entitled to make fair use of those documents;
6 correct?
7 MR. HENSON: That's, Your Honor, what I think I did.
8 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hogan, anything further on
9 the injunction request?
10 MR. HOGAN: Very briefly, Your Honor.
11 I do want the Court to understand, and Mr. Henson to
12 understand, that what brings us here is not the fact that Mr.
13 Henson, for well over a year, has been posting to the Alt
14 Religious Scientology Newsgroup. Indeed, those postings are
15 probably a foot in height if you stacked them on counsel table.
16 Most of the postings, if not all of them, demonstrate his animus
17 towards the Church of Scientology and its officers and its
18 lawyers and its principals. We have no quarrel with that.
19 What happened and what is put forth in the
20 declaration of Warren McShane is, of course, first he posted the
21 entirety of NOTs series 34. Then he said directly in these
22 postings that he was soliciting, whether legal or illegal, NOTs
23 postings because he wanted to post them, or all the NOTs
24 issues.
25 MR. HENSON: No.
10
1 MR. HOGAN: That's what brought us here.
2 MR. HENSON: I object, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Let him finish.
4 MR. HOGAN: That's what he said in his postings, and
5 those are Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 of the McShane declaration.
6 That's why we had to bring this lawsuit.
7 Mr. Henson claims to be surprised in one of those
8 postings, which again is part of the exhibits I just referenced.
9 Mr. Henson said, "I'm going to do this. I have a right to do
10 this. I'm the one who decides whether this is criminal or not.
11 I'm going to put this out there. If you want to sue me, I'll
12 accept service. Call me and I'll come to your office."
13 So I can't understand why he would be surprised.
14 This is his statement that he is challenging the authority of
15 this Court to give us what we've sought, namely a protective
16 order or injunction with respect to these copyrighted and trade
17 secret proprietary material.
18 THE COURT: I understood your request, and that's
19 why I was trying to ask him were the problem was.
20 Because you did post 34, right?
21 MR. HENSON: Absolutely, Your Honor. And I
22 represent that that is not only criminal in nature, but a direct
23 violation of the court order which I have a copy of, I believe.
24 THE COURT: Well, again, it's not my court order.
25 MR. HENSON: No. It's Judge Gesell's.
11
1 THE COURT: I have not seen that court order.
2 MR. HENSON: I will be glad to either point you to
3 it, or I think I have a copy with me.
4 THE COURT: If you have a copy, I'd be curious to
5 see it. But what I hear, frankly, is there doesn't appear to be
6 any disagreement. The reason that you're here is because I did
7 view, based on the showing made by R.T.C., what you said as a
8 threat to post.
9 MR. HENSON: Specifically, Your Honor --
10 THE COURT: These documents --
11 MR. HENSON: Specifically, Your Honor, only
12 documents showing criminal intent or fraud in them.
13 THE COURT: But that was going to be on, at least
14 the way I read it, some unilateral decision by you, and you've
15 admitted to me this morning that these other documents, you
16 never even have seen them.
17 MR. HENSON: Absolutely, Your Honor. I'm not saying
18 that I want any of them --
19 THE COURT: Okay.
20 MR. HENSON: -- that are noncriminal in nature. If
21 somebody has one that they view as being criminal in nature and
22 they send it to me and I decide that it's criminal in nature,
23 I'll take the risk of posting it.
24 THE COURT: And if you post it in violation of this
25 order, you're going to be in big trouble.
12
1 MR. HENSON: I understand that, Your Honor. That is
2 what I would have done before this order. Obviously I'm not
3 going to post any of them now, even if they discuss murder.
4 THE COURT: Okay. All right. If you want to submit
5 that order, Mr. Henson, I will certainly look at it. But I
6 think it's clear that I will enter the, as a preliminary
7 injunction, the order that I have entered as a T.R.O. on the
8 conditions of a bond as required.
9 So that there's no misunderstanding, I do want,
10 obviously, a bond posted.
11 All right. You have a request for early discovery,
12 right?
13 MR. HOGAN: We do, Your Honor. This is a request
14 that we be allowed to take Mr. Henson's deposition some time
15 between now and May 15. I would speak to Mr. Henson, or if he
16 gets counsel, his counsel, to work out a convenient time for him
17 to do that. Mr. Henson, of course, lives here in San Jose.
18 THE COURT: Mr. Henson, do you know what a
19 deposition is?
20 MR. HENSON: Yes, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: All right. Normally in a case when a
22 lawsuit has been filed, depositions, or what is called
23 discovery, which is depositions or what are called
24 interrogatories, sending written questions to the other side,
25 there's also a right to request documents from each other that
13
1 are relevant to the lawsuit, normally that does not occur until
2 the first, what's called case management conference, and I don't
3 know what date one was set in your case.
4 What R.T.C. is requesting is that before that they
5 be allowed to question you under oath pertaining to the issues
6 that are raised by this lawsuit. What I need to know is, one,
7 whether you have objection to that, and if you do, what it is;
8 and two, whether or not there's any request for discovery you
9 want to take of them before the case management conference.
10 Also, I would suggest to you that representation
11 might be in your best interest, but that's a call for you to
12 make.
13 MR. HENSON: Your Honor, I might well get
14 representation, but it is not my opinion that a, than an
15 articulate person should be required to get representation for
16 something which is a clear violation of the constitutional
17 rights.
18 THE COURT: What's a violation of your
19 constitutional rights?
20 MR. HENSON: I'm under, essentially, a restraint
21 where I don't dare, because of the chilling effect of this
22 order, quote any NOTs documents that anybody sends me, whether
23 they are criminal or not.
24 THE COURT: Well, that's a call you've got to make.
25 MR. HENSON: I agree with Your Honor. Could I ask a
14
1 few procedural questions?
2 THE COURT: Quickly. But again, I can't act as your
3 lawyer.
4 MR. HENSON: I'm not. This is not lawyer kind of
5 questions.
6 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
7 MR. HENSON: If I file in response to a suit against
8 the R.T.C. and relate it to the Erlich and Ward cases, am I
9 required to give notice to the related parties in the related
10 cases?
11 THE COURT: You asked the question, and that's a
12 good one, and I have not double checked. It may be that the
13 notice of related case that was filed by the R.T.C. was not
14 served on all the parties it should have been.
15 Did you, in the notice of related case, serve all
16 the parties in the Erlich-Netcom case?
17 MR. HOGAN: We just did that yesterday, Your Honor,
18 so we're late. Absolutely.
[Hogan seems to have flat out lied here. This was on the 12th, so
"yesterday" would have been the 11th. The notice of related case was
filed the 12th, and the copy sent to *me* was postmarked PM on the
12th. The envelope is in the court file, I checked on it yesterday.
I have to hand it to Hogan that he saw this sandbag coming as I was
speaking. But he should have just owned up to the error and not tried
to cover it up. But he was about to be shown to have screwed up by a
non-lawyer in front of a judge he seems to know well.]
19 THE COURT: Okay. What the procedure is on that is
20 that whether the cases are related, after they file the proper
21 notice with notice to the parties, any parties can file an
22 objection. I believe under the Local Rules it's ten days
23 thereafter, and then since I have the lowest numbered case, I'll
24 make a decision as to whether the cases are related.
25 All related means is that they're assigned to the
15
1 same judge, and the purpose for that is so that not more than
2 one judge has to relearn the same facts and issues.
3 That's a different thing than the cases being
4 consolidated. If they're consolidated, they're all made as one
5 and the whole, and they proceed as one case. There has been no
6 request to consolidate this case with the Ward case or with,
7 I'll call it the Netcom case. They are not consolidated. There
8 will have to be a determination by me after I hear from the
9 others, or any parties that choose to respond to the notice, as
10 to whether or not the cases will be related.
11 MR. HENSON: So there's some chance you won't be the
12 judge in this case after all?
13 THE COURT: There's some chance, but I, you know, I
14 haven't seen anything. I don't know who will file what.
15 MR. HENSON: Okay.
16 THE COURT: I will say, just so you're clear, that I
17 initially I believe I did sign an order indicating that I
18 thought the cases should be related. However, I realized after
19 that that proper notice may not have been given, and I will -- I
20 was going to make sure that notice was given.
21 When Mr. Hogan raised it, he answered the question.
22 He's checked something I hadn't, and that is whether there was
23 proper notice sent. So there does need to be proper notice
24 sent, and it's been sent. I will check.
25 And then, as I say, the parties have ten days after
16
1 that to file an objection to the cases being related. Then
2 since I have, of the three cases that, at least I'm aware of,
3 since I have the lowest number in the district, the lowest case
4 number, I'm the one that makes the determination as to whether
5 the cases will be related, and I will make that determination.
6 MR. HENSON: Okay. Second question is, assuming
7 that I'm deposed on this, do I get to depose the R.T.C.?
8 THE COURT: You have the same rights they do.
9 MR. HENSON: If I claim that I'm too busy or some
10 similar excuse to show up, and if I refuse to show up at the
11 deposition, what would happen to me?
12 THE COURT: Well, now you're asking me to give you
13 legal advice, but basically each side has a right to take
14 depositions. If somebody doesn't show up for a deposition, they
15 can be sanctioned.
16 The way people professionally work is that
17 depositions are hopefully scheduled at a time when each side can
18 reasonably fit it in. That doesn't mean you can delay something
19 for days or weeks -- well, weeks or even days, but it does,
20 usually, mean that things can be scheduled to get around
21 problems. And I would expect Mr. Hogan, as he has in other
22 cases that I've had with him, to be willing to cooperate in that
23 type of activity.
24 MR. HOGAN: I'll represent to Mr. Henson and the
25 Court that what the proposed order says is that once you and I
17
1 try to schedule a date, if we are unable to for any reason, or
2 if any dispute arises concerning any discovery, we then present
3 it to Magistrate Judge Infante and he resolves it.
4 And I should also mention, Your Honor, we've been
5 talking about the deposition. We also are going to request some
6 documents of Mr. Henson prior to the deposition about that, and
7 I just wanted to be sure that was on the record. It's in the
8 proposed order.
9 MR. HENSON: I have no problem with that. The
10 reason I'm actually asking this question is that the Scientology
11 group of people is rather known for it's, for certain David
12 Miscavige, for not showing up at all for depositions, and I was
13 wondering if I was going to be sanctioned, what sanctions I
14 would get. I was wondering if the same sort of laws apply to
15 them and they would get sanctioned if I can establish a reason
16 to --
17 THE COURT: I think you know the answer to that.
18 MR. HENSON: I would hope so.
19 THE COURT: And I will also say, to my knowledge, in
20 none of the cases in front of me has anybody brought to my
21 attention a claim that somebody that was associated with R.T.C.
22 failed to appear for a deposition. At least, as I sit here now,
23 I don't recall any such allegation being made, and I believe in
24 Mr. Erlich's case, and I don't know if Mr. Hogan knows or not,
25 but I think some depositions have been taken.
18
1 MR. HOGAN: Yes.
2 MR. HENSON: Your Honor, can I get accelerated
3 depositions as well?
4 THE COURT: Who do you want to take the deposition
5 of and why?
6 MR. HENSON: Well, I'm not exactly sure. I want to
7 be sure that I depose the right person, and for just the
8 procedural reasons here, could I get you to ask the R.T.C.
9 lawyers to provide me with a comprehensive list of the persons
10 who were on the other end of the faxes and phone calls for Mr.
11 Ward's deposition? In particular, I'd like to know if David
12 Miscavige was among that group of people.
13 THE COURT: Well, you can talk to Mr. Hogan, but I'm
14 not going to get into ordering either side to provide any
15 particular information right now.
16 If you want to take somebody's deposition, or you
17 want a request for -- it sounds like what you want to do is have
18 the right to send out some written questions to the R.T.C. that
19 they have to answer under oath, and if you want permission to do
20 that, I might well give you that permission.
21 MR. HENSON: Since Mr. Miscavige seems particularly
22 difficult to serve, he's in fact managed to evade service for
23 more than a year, can I have the Court's permission to serve him
24 through his lawyers, through these lawyers?
25 THE COURT: I don't even know who he is.
[About this point there was a major stir amoung the scientologists and
the scientologist lawyers. One of the observers (who I would name,
except I don't know if he wants to be named) said that the non-scn
lawyers did not react, but that the rest of them jumped like they had
been shocked by a cattle prod. I wonder if David Miscavige knows of
this, and sent a mess of them off to the RPF, or if they just did not
tell him? Warren McShane's outburst in the hallway outside the court
room has been reported in ***Biased Journalism***.
19
1 MR. HENSON: He's the power behind R.T.C., Your
2 Honor.
3 THE COURT: Well --
4 MR. HENSON: Or at least so is my informed belief.
5 THE COURT: But there's no claim against him. I
6 don't even know who you're talking about as far as why you want
7 him or who he is.
8 If you're telling me you want to file a lawsuit
9 against him and you have a basis for doing so, then do it.
10 If you're saying that you want to take his
11 deposition, then you can ask me to allow you to notice his
12 deposition.
13 If you want to do something else, I'm not going to
14 make orders here that I don't understand what's even being
15 requested.
16 MR. HENSON: Okay. Thank you very much. That's the
17 only thing I have on the procedures, but would you be willing
18 perhaps to clear up a couple of points about this which I find
19 very confusing?
20 THE COURT: Again, I can't give you legal advice,
21 but what do you want?
22 MR. HENSON: Did Your Honor read my letter of March
23 26th before the T.R.O. to Mr. Ward was issued?
24 THE COURT: I'm not going to sit here and answer
25 your questions about what I've done and not done. I try and do
20
1 a conscientious job. I think I do a conscientious job. I
2 generally read all papers that are submitted to me in legal
3 pleadings and letters that are addressed to me. Outside
4 pleadings, frankly, I generally do not read. So --
5 MR. HENSON: But you have read it by this point, I
6 guess, since it was part of the exhibits within the pleadings?
7 THE COURT: Mr. Henson, I read the papers that are
8 submitted. I try to be conscientious. I believe I have read
9 that, but -- I don't know what more I can tell you.
10 MR. HENSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: All right. So what is there -- all
12 right. As I understand it, Mr. Henson does not object to his
13 deposition and a records request provided there's a means where
14 he can object to the records that are being requested. And if
15 you can't work it out between the two parties, then it can go to
16 Magistrate Judge Infante for determination.
17 MR. HENSON: Your Honor, could I also get a limit on
18 that?
19 THE COURT: Okay.
20 MR. HENSON: And as well as the same stipulations
21 that you made in the Grady Ward case, no abuse?
22 THE COURT: That goes to both sides without saying.
23 MR. HENSON: Thank you.
24 THE COURT: By what date -- when do you want your
25 deposition taken by, Mr. Henson?
21
1 MR. HENSON: I, frankly, don't care.
2 MR. HOGAN: We simply ask for it between now and the
3 15th of May.
4 THE COURT: Is that agreeable?
5 MR. HENSON: I would prefer that it be done sooner
6 than later. I'll work out a date with them, but within the next
7 five or ten days would be fine by me.
8 THE COURT: All right. And I'm going to do the same
9 thing I did with Mr. Ward, and that is limit it to one day
10 absent an application for addition time.
[Mr. Hogan, please make a note of this point.]
11 When can you get the document request that you want
12 from Mr. Henson to Mr. Henson?
13 MR. HOGAN: We'll certainly do it as promptly as
14 possible, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Let's do the same thing we did last
16 time. Why don't the two of you step out? What I want is a date
17 by which you're going to request the documents, a date by when
18 you have a right to object, a date by which you can go to
19 Magistrate Judge Infante for resolution, and a date by which the
20 deposition will be taken. The deposition will be limited to a
21 day absent a court order allowing a longer time, and I will send
22 out an order consistent with that.
23 MR. HENSON: Okay. Your Honor, this will be
24 particularly easy for me to respond to because I have never even
25 seen a piece of this material in hard copy, and anything that I
22
1 have seen on it has been stuff which crossed the Internet.
2 THE COURT: You go talk to Mr. Hogan and work it out
3 and I will sign an order to that effect and everybody will be
4 clear.
5 MR. HENSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
6 MR. HOGAN: Your Honor, before we conclude, I would
7 like to submit to Your Honor a second declaration of Mr.
8 McShane. Mr. Henson mentioned the Gesell opinion or whatever it
9 is. I haven't seen it, and I would appreciate it if Mr. Henson
10 would send me or provide me copies, whatever he's providing to
11 the Court.
12 THE COURT: That's one thing. Anything you send to
13 me --
14 MR. HENSON: It's in the Federal Supplement.
15 THE COURT: Excuse me?
16 MR. HENSON: It's in the Federal Supplement.
17 THE COURT: Do you have a cite?
18 MR. HENSON: Yes. It's cited in there, in that
19 thing I gave you. I believe Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Yeah, 333 FSup 357.
21 MR. HENSON: Yes.
22 MR. HOGAN: And then I have a proposed order and a
23 disc to give to your clerk, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: The disc being?
25 MR. HOGAN: For the preliminary injunction if that
23
1 would be helpful.
2 THE COURT: Okay. Yeah, you can hand it in.
3 What I'm going to do is, because Mr. Henson knows
4 basically what it is, it's essentially the same order as with
5 respect to the Mr. Ward exhibits. The exhibit numbers are
6 different.
7 MR. HOGAN: Exactly.
8 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
9 MR. HOGAN: Thank you Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Thank you.
11 MS. BURKE: My name is Melissa Burke. I'm from
12 Pillsbury and we represent Netcom. I wanted to seek
13 clarification on whether R.T.C. should be giving notice to the
14 other parties regarding discovery. It sounds like the Henson
24 MR. HENSON: Your Honor, I'm going to be in a room
25 with six hostile lawyers having listened to somewhat of the
25
1 Grady Ward deposition. Does Your Honor have any problem with my
2 having someone of my choosing there with me?
3 THE COURT: They can't represent you unless they're
4 a lawyer. I mean, this is a public meeting.
[I didn't notice this at the time. The meeting is *public*? Hmm.
Any reporters want to come? Shelley?]
5 MR. HENSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
6 MR. HOGAN: One last thing, Your Honor, just so you
7 know. That declaration that I submitted this morning does deal
8 with the issue that Mr. Henson raised about the criminal
9 activities or his assertions in the earlier postings about
10 criminal activities. I just wanted Your Honor to have that in
11 the file.
[It took me a week to realize that I should have been handed a copy of
Warren McShane's second declaration, and get a copy. That is the one
with the monster release form in it. I could not have *asked* for a
better way to show criminal intent on the part of CoS!]
12 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
13 MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
14 MR. HENSON: Here's a copy of that.
[I handed the judge a copy of the Judge Gesell order, the one which
forbids CoS to claim healing with the E-meter, which happens to be the
topic of NOTs 34.]
Paul Rubin
In article <4lu1e8$o...@news1.shell>,
H Keith Henson <hkhe...@shell.portal.com> wrote:
> 11 THE COURT: You asked the question, and that's a
> 12 good one, and I have not double checked. It may be that the
> 13 notice of related case that was filed by the R.T.C. was not
> 14 served on all the parties it should have been.
> 15 Did you, in the notice of related case, serve all
> 16 the parties in the Erlich-Netcom case?
> 17 MR. HOGAN: We just did that yesterday, Your Honor,
> 18 so we're late. Absolutely.
>
>[Hogan seems to have flat out lied here. This was on the 12th, so
>"yesterday" would have been the 11th. The notice of related case was
>filed the 12th, and the copy sent to *me* was postmarked PM on the
>12th. The envelope is in the court file, I checked on it yesterday.
>I have to hand it to Hogan that he saw this sandbag coming as I was
>speaking. But he should have just owned up to the error and not tried
>to cover it up. But he was about to be shown to have screwed up by a
>non-lawyer in front of a judge he seems to know well.]
Maybe they mailed it after the mailbox was emptied on the 11th.
If I mail something from here after 11 am or so, it doens't get
picked up and postmarked til the next day.
Keith Henson
Paul Rubin (p...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <4lu1e8$o...@news1.shell>,: > 11 THE COURT: You asked the question, and that's a
: > 13 notice of related case that was filed by the R.T.C. was not
: > 14 served on all the parties it should have been.
: > 15 Did you, in the notice of related case, serve all
: > 16 the parties in the Erlich-Netcom case?
: > 17 MR. HOGAN: We just did that yesterday, Your Honor,
: > 18 so we're late. Absolutely.
: >
: >[Hogan seems to have flat out lied here. This was on the 12th, so
: >"yesterday" would have been the 11th. The notice of related case was
: >filed the 12th, and the copy sent to *me* was postmarked PM on the
: >12th. The envelope is in the court file, I checked on it yesterday.
: >I have to hand it to Hogan that he saw this sandbag coming as I was
: >speaking. But he should have just owned up to the error and not tried
: >to cover it up. But he was about to be shown to have screwed up by a
: >non-lawyer in front of a judge he seems to know well.]
: Maybe they mailed it after the mailbox was emptied on the 11th.
: If I mail something from here after 11 am or so, it doens't get
: picked up and postmarked til the next day.
Good thought, but the postmark on the letter was put on by Hogan's
postage meter. Not to mention the more important fact that the
notice was *filed* with the court on the 12th. But that gives me
something to check, I think the original is also *time stamped*.
What do you want to bet it is the afternoon of the 12th?
Keith Henson
Keith Henson
Keith Henson (hkhe...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Paul Rubin (p...@netcom.com) wrote:
[snip]
: : Maybe they mailed it after the mailbox was emptied on the 11th.
: : If I mail something from here after 11 am or so, it doens't get
: : picked up and postmarked til the next day.
: Good thought, but the postmark on the letter was put on by Hogan's
: postage meter. Not to mention the more important fact that the
: notice was *filed* with the court on the 12th. But that gives me
: something to check, I think the original is also *time stamped*.
: What do you want to bet it is the afternoon of the 12th?
I checked, and this notice does not seem to be in any of the case
files for the three related cases. Keith Henson
Keith Henson
Thomas R. Hogan, SBN 042048
(408) 292-7600
Roger M. Migrim
William M. Hart
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER
399 Park Avenue Thirty-first floor
New York, New York 10022-4697
(212) 318-6000
Helena K. Kobrin, SBN 152546
7629 Fulton Avenue
North Hollywood, CA 91605
(213) 960-1933
Eric M. Lieberman
RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD
KRINSKV & LIEBERMAN, P.C.
740 Broadway - Fifth Floor
New York, New York 10003
(212) 254-1111
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
H. Keith Henson
799 Coffey Ct.
San Jose, CA 95123
pro se
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) Case No. C-96-20271RMW
California non-profit corporation, )
Plaintiff, ) REPLY TO SECOND
) DECLARATION OF WARREN
v. ) L. MCSHANE
)
H. KEITH HENSON, an individual, )
Defendant. )
)
-----------------------------------
By filing the SECOND DECLARATION OF WARREN L. MCSHANE
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,
plaintiff has provided defendant with an opportunity to
discuss criminal and fraudulent aspects exposed in plaintiff's
declaration, Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Defendant will show
that plaintiff's declaration and Exhibits provide a very thin
cover for an institution pervasively corrupt. This showing
provides strong support for defendant's arguments of fair use
and free speech/free press--in the service of exposing what
defendant believes to be pervasive criminal and fraudulent
activities by plaintiff and associated corporations.
Defendant believes that Exhibit A does not at all
release plaintiff from charges of practicing medicine without
a license. And even if the current version of Exhibit A is
ruled to accomplish this task, earlier versions may not have.
Defendant believes plaintiff should be ordered to introduced
all versions of Exhibit A used by all branches of Scientology
since NOTs 34 was produced. Defendant is informed and
believes that Exhibit A was put into force some time after
NOTs was introduced and has not been consistently required.
In response to point 4 of the declaration, defendant
is informed and believed that for at least a portion of the 25
years mentioned there was *no* such "release" agreement in
use. This point could be supported by expert witnesses.
In response to point 5 of the declaration, defendant
quotes L. Ron Hubbard HCO PL 4 December 1966, Admin Know-How
Series 9, EXPANSION, THEORY OF POLICY, as covered in volume 0
of the *1991* OEC volumes edition, page 126:
----begin quote----
INTERPRETATION OF POLICY
The organization then has all its policy rigged to
expand.
It makes [sic?] many things to ensure expansion.
Thus when you are interpreting policy it should be
interpreted only against EXPANSION as the single factor
governing it.
This can serve to clarify questions about policy. The
correct interpretation always leads to expansion, not holding
a level or contradiction.
For example, policy bars the entrance of the healing
field. This is solely because there is too much trouble with
the occupants of that field and only outright war (with no
demand) could solve them. This seems to be a brake on
expansion. It is only a brake on expanding by war in the
absence of demand. Therefore the right way to expand is to
gradually build up general public demand, let experience by
the public see that we heal and when the demand is there and
howling for us, reinterpret the policy or abolish it as a
brake to expansion. As one can only expand by external demand
for the product, if one seeks to expand in absence of a
specific demand for the product, one has a war; and war
doesn't lead to expansion any more than burning heretics and
other brutalities expanded the Catholic movement. So one
interprets policy against *proper expansion* that is proper.
---end of quote ---
. . . let experience by the public see that we heal . . . .
The above, widely available policy clearly indicates
that (a) Scientology claims and believes to heal (though sort
of "undercover") and (b) the only reason they officially
promote themselves as NOT being active in the healing
profession is the law which forbids them to make these claims
unless they are duly qualified. The above policy can also be
found in the earlier OEC volumes and in Staff Status 1 "hat
packs."
Defendant will be very interested in the *next*
signed under oath declaration of Mr. McShane.
Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Exhibit A of
the above declaration will use "Usenet style" quoting. Lines
of original text from Exhibit A are prefixed by the character
">". Defendant notes that plaintiff's "Release" to take
*religious services* is 8 single spaced pages.
>Church of Scientology Western United States Advanced
>Organization of Los Angeles (hereafter referred to as "the
>Church") Religious Services Enrollment Application/Agreement
>and General Release I______________________ HEREBY
>ACKNOWLEDGE that I am voluntarily applying to participate in
>the RELIGIOUS SERVICE(S) known
>as__________________________________________(hereinafter
>referred to as the "Service"), in exchange for being
>permitted to participate in the Service, I acknowledge and
>agree as follows:
> 1. Scientology has been represented to me as an
>applied religious philosophy and as a religion . . . .
[snip definition]
> 2. The American author and philosopher L. Ron
>Hubbard ("LRH" hereinafter) is the founder of the Scientology
>religion. His writings . . . .
[snip LRH intro]
Disclaimer #2
Disclaimer #4 and a pointer to yet more disclaimers.
Defendant will request a copy of this document as well
as all previous versions in discovery.
> 4. Scientology applied religious philosophy
>contains pastoral counseling procedures intended to assist
>an individual to gain greater knowledge of self. The
>Scientology religion is all-denominational and welcomes
>members of all faiths to participate in its services.
The statement "all-denominational" is provably
fraudulent. At the upper levels, Scientology is incompatible
with Christian and Islam sects. Defendant cites three
sources: a transcription of a tape by Hubbard, a short clip
from *Road to Xenu* by Margery Wakefield, and a section from a
book by Jon Atack.
In addition, there is a widely available audio tape of
Hubbard's statement on the topic in his own voice.
In draft defendant had this evidence of fraud inserted
at this point. Defendant removed material supporting
defendant's claims of fraud by plaintiff for fear of citing
forbidden "AT" material. Defendant knows "fair use" of NOTs
and other AT material is permitted, but given defendants
evident disagreement with the Court, is reluctant to use this
material even in defendant's defense. The statement from
*Road to Xenu* "There was no Christ" can be found on page 117.
[snip]
> Accordingly, the Church makes no claims as to the
>potential benefits which may be experienced by an individual
>from participation in the Service.
Disclaimer #5
> 5. I have seen the film "Orientation" and I am
>now informed and aware that Scientology is a religion, its
>teachings are religious and its claims are religious in
>nature. I further understand that if I desire to
>participate in Scientology services, I do so being fully
>aware that these are religious services and that I am
>participating in Them under the ecclesiastical principles of
>the Scientology religion.
Defendant will ask for copy of "Orientation" on tape
or film.
Legal lead in to what comes below.
> 6. The many Scientology Churches, Missions and
>organizations all over the world are each totally and legally
>independent from one another, connected only by
>ecclesiastical bonds. Accordingly, the Service is being
>offered under the exclusive supervision and control of the
>above-named Church.
This is an attempt to compartmentalize potential legal
losses to one of the corporate shells, while money flows from
non-profit units to the profit making ones. Money and use of
property is believed by defendant to inure to the benefit of a
small group at the top.
Defendant's argument that Scientology is a criminal
enterprise would be confirmed by showing that plaintiff's
group of corporations bankrupted one such corporate shell by
asset transfers to avoid paying a 5 million dollar judgment
which has exhausted all appeals. The real head of all
Scientology enterprises, David Miscavige (if he can be located
or served through his lawyers) will be deposed about the
criminal and fraudulent activities involved in asset stripping
to avoid payment of a judicially determined debt. (Wollersheim
case.)
> 7. The Service may include the use of a
>religious artifact known as the "E-Meter," for the primary
>purpose of locating and resolving problems and difficulties
>which are spiritual in nature. I understand that by itself
>the E-Meter does nothing, but serves only as a guide to
>ministers of the Church to assist parishioners in locating
>areas of spiritual distress or travail, and that it is not
>intended or effective for the diagnosis, treatment or
>prevention of any disease, or for the improvement of health
>or any bodily function.
Required by Judge Gesell's order (333 F. Supp. 357).
(But see the section below from plaintiff's Exhibit B.)
> 8. In connection with the Service, the Church
>may compile a folder containing its notations of my
>spiritual progress, known as a "Preclear Folder" (PC
>Folder), as well as other ecclesiastical files containing
>notations regarding my spiritual progress. The contents of
>the folders are kept confidential from persons who lack the
>ecclesiastical authority to gain access to such documents,
>including the person whom the files concern, and are subject
>to the priest-penitent privilege. I understand that as a
>condition of being accepted for participation in the Service,
>I am giving up any and all rights of ownership, possession
>and control, copying and viewing of the PC Folder and other
>files concerning myself, both with respect to the files
>themselves and the information contained therein.
Defendant notes that in the above, a person gives up
their right to recover notes about confessions of crimes in
this and "past lives" and other embarrassing matters from
Scientology. Defendant is aware of many cases on the Internet
where the material from these folders seems to have been used
to "dead agent" or character assassinate former
Scientologists. Defendant cites Steve Fishman as an extreme
example. The threat of using this material is enough to keep
many former Scientologists from speaking out about extremely
abusive experiences within the "Church" of Scientology. See
also defendant's attached Exhibit A, "The Road to Xenu" by
Margery Wakefield starting on page 156. If the Court and
counsel permit, defendant will supply one copy to the Court on
paper, and the remaining copies on diskette. (Defendant is
reluctant to introduce this document. Reading it, even in
small pieces, has been a wrenching experience.)
> 9. I understand and acknowledge that because of
>constitutional prohibitions which forbid governmental
>interference with religious services or dispute resolution
>procedures, that in the event I have any dispute, claim or
>controversy with the Church including, but not limited to
>any dispute, claim or controversy arising under this
>Application/Agreement or in connection with my participation
>in the Service, which cannot be resolved informally by
>direct communication, resolution of that dispute, claim or
>controversy may be pursued solely through the internal
>procedures of the Church's Ethics, Justice and Binding
>Religious Arbitration system.
Defendant believes the above sentence to be a blatant
*criminal* attempt to mislead gullible victims of fraud, and
thus it is an issue made relevant and triable in this case.
Defendant will be very interested the Court's comments on
these "constitutional prohibitions."
It is defendant's belief that no such "constitutional
prohibitions" exist or there would not be regularly reported
stories in the news media about Roman Catholic priests who
have been both prosecuted criminally and sued in the courts
for sexual abuse. But defendant is not well versed in the law
and concedes that plaintiff might prevail on this triable
issue.
> Moreover, I hereby expressly
>agree that any controversy arising under this
>Application/Agreement or in connection with my participation
>in the Service shall be resolved by such Binding Religious
>Arbitration.
And, if the Court reads further, the Court will find
that the so called "arbitration" process is fraudulent scam,
full of delays and criminally stacked against the person
seeking "services" in favor of the Scientology "org."
> IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELIGIOUS NATURE OF THE
>SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED, I ACKNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTAND AND AGREE
>THAT IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY DISPUTE, CLAIM OR CONTROVERSY
>ARISING OUT OF MY PARTICIPATION IN THE SERVICE BE SUBMITTED
>TO A COURT FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION. MOREOVER, I UNDERSTAND
>AND AGREE THAT BY SIGNING AND SUBMITTING THIS
>APPLICATION/AGREEMENT, I AM WAIVING ANY RIGHT WHICH I MAY
>HAVE TO HAVE SUCH DISPUTES, CLAIMS OR CONTROVERSIES DECIDED
>IN A COURT OF LAW, BEFORE A JUDGE OR A JUDGE AND JURY
Defendant claims before this Court that the above
statement submitted into evidence by the plaintiff is further
evidence of criminal intent to defraud the person signing this
release into thinking they have given up their right to seek
redress from the courts. To the considerable extent that
Scientology practices medicine, they are also trying to
subvert the signer's rights to file a malpractice suit.
> 10. I further understand, acknowledge and agree
>that the Church is under no duty whatsoever to return any
>portion of any religious donation received from me.
>However, I further understand and acknowledge that under
>certain circumstances provided for in the published
>ecclesiastical policies specifically including Scientology
>Policy Directive 13 March 1996, Return of Donations, (which
>is available upon request) and procedures of the Claims
>Verification Board, a return of donations may be obtained
>through my strict compliance with those published policies
>and procedures.
Defendant will request a copy of this referenced
document as well as all previous versions in discovery. It is
defendant's expectation that this document will show the same
fraudulent and criminal intent.
> I further acknowledge and agree that such
>procedures require my direct participation to the exclusion
>of any third parties, including, but not limited to,
>attorneys, and that such returns of donations are exclusively
>within the ecclesiastical authority of the Claims
>Verification Board and at the sole discretion of the Church.
Defendant believes this to be evidence of a fraudulent
and criminal attempt to subvert the legal right of the person
signing the release to be represented by counsel.
> I further understand, acknowledge and agree that any
>violation of or deviation from such published policies or
>this paragraph by me voids any possibility of my receiving a
>return of donation.
A *further* attempt to subvert the right to counsel.
In cases where people who sign this contract for "services,"
later decide they are being bilked and try to get some of
their money back, plaintiff's corporate organizations stall
and throw up one block after another.
Defendant knows of only one case reported on the
Internet where a person was successful in getting money for
unused "services" returned. The person was Ted Mayet of Las
Vegas. It took him weeks of threats, regularly reported on
alt.religion.scientology, and finally picketing before his
money was returned. An affidavit will be filed to verify his
account.
> 11. I understand, acknowledge and agree that I
>am applying for the Service with the intention of
>self-improvement and spiritual advancement. Accordingly,
>before I go on to a further service, it is essential that I
>am completely satisfied with the results I obtained from my
>prior service.
Defendant is informed and believes that even if the
person signing this contract has had a miserable time they are
*required* to put in writing that they were satisfied *as part
of the "service."* Further more, these "services" are by the
hour, and "passing" one is at the discretion of the "auditor."
A person may be coerced into additional payments, sometimes
tens of thousands of dollars to meet the above condition.
> I further understand and acknowledge (I) that while
>the Church holds out the possibility of a better life through
>adherence to its beliefs and practices, individual spiritual
>advancement is not always an easy or comfortable task, and
>(ii) that my success in Scientology ultimately depends on my
>own ability, strength and determination to overcome the
>shortcomings and harmful patterns of my past.
Disclaimer #7--and (possibly) a reference to the "past lives"
members are required to confabulate under induced hypnotic
states.
> 12. I understand, acknowledge and agree that the
>Service is designed to give spiritual aid, is not medical
>treatment, nor is it designed to provide any physical gains.
Disclaimer #8
> I am also aware that I should not participate in
>the Service if I have a physical or emotional condition which
>would be aggravated by participation in the Service or make
>the Service activities particularly uncomfortable or
>distressful to me.
A significant fraction of the people who take the
upper division "services" such as OT3 become "Potential
Trouble Sources type 3," or, in the vernacular, barking mad.
(See page 174 and following in *Road to Xenu*.) Such people
are then subjected to illegal confinement by Scientology staff
*without proper medical treatment* or human contact and their
account may be docked for the "Introspection" rundown
(lockup).
Defendant will take the risk that this document may
"AT" and introduce a shortened version of HCO BULLETIN OF 23
JANUARY 1974RB REVISED 25 APRIL 1991 as defendant's Exhibit B.
Exhibit B clearly describes how Scientology *practices
medicine* on those unfortunate enough to go psychotic while
taking "service." The "treatment" described on the bottom of
page 3 and the top of page 4 consists of isolation and giving
vitamins and minerals. See also page 7 and 11 under the
heading ISOLATION. Defendant will request copies of this
document in all historical versions from plaintiff during
discovery to be introduced as evidence of plaintiff's abusive
"medical" practice at trial.
Defendant also introduces Exhibit C, an incomplete,
unfinished draft version of a report in process created by
FactNet. It is introduced as draft because the plaintiff
disrupted work on it in violation of USC 42 section 2000aa.
This report lists the unfortunate outcomes of a sample of
those who were taking the "services" for which the plaintiff's
exhibit A is a "release."
> Knowing this, I am voluntarily participating in the
>Service with knowledge of the general activities involved and
>I HEREBY AGREE TO ACCEPT ANY AND ALL KNOWN OR UNKNOWN RISKS
>OF INJURY, LOSS, OR DAMAGE.
Disclaimer #9.
Defendant is informed and believes that those signing
this "release" often *do not* have "knowledge of the general
activities involved."
Defendant makes note in passing that "taking religious
services" from Scientology requires a level of disclaimers
more in line with what a concessionaire might require to go
over Niagara Falls in a barrel.
> 13. I acknowledge that I am making this
>application to be permitted to participate in the Service on
>my own determinism, recognizing that I am personally
>responsible for my present and future condition in life, and
>attest that I have no record of being committed in an
>institution for mental or emotional disorders, nor do I have
>a criminal record for a felony offense.
If the person purchasing the service has money they
will waive this clause. They did for Steven Fishman.
Defendant may call Steven Fishman as a witness at trial and
will provide an affidavit supporting defendant's contention
that Scientology will wave this clause.
> I am not connected with any person (such as
>marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to spiritual
>treatment or Scientology, nor have I or any member of my
>immediate family ever threatened to sue, embarrass or attack
>Scientology, nor have I or any of my immediate family ever
>been a party to such an attack.
If the person *is* connected to such a family member,
they are required to "disconnect" from that person and have no
further contact. (See details of this process in *Road to
Xenu,* starting at the end of page 92 where Margery was forced
to sever contact with her family.) Defendant concedes that
breaking up families is not criminal, just one of the most
disgusting things Scientology does.
> I further attest that I am not attempting to
>investigate Scientology as a representative of the news
>media, a government body or other organization, entity or
>person.
This is an attempt to prevent lawful and badly needed
investigations by law enforcement agencies and reporters.
Defendant is not sure if such provisions are criminal, but
they certainly show intent to prevent criminal activity from
being exposed.
> Rather, I am applying to participate in the
>Service to achieve spiritual betterment, and I truly believe
>that persons can be helped to gain greater understanding and
>happiness in life, and I am applying honestly and in good
>faith to derive all possible personal gain from the Service.
> 14. This application for permission to
>participate in the Service will become a legally binding
>agreement between myself and the Church only upon its
>acceptance by the Church. In determining whether to accept
>this application, the Church will rely on the
>representations and promises which I have made herein. AS
>FURTHER CONSIDERATION for being permitted by the Church to
>participate in the Service and use its facilities and other
>facilities provided for such purpose:
> I. I, ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND ON BEHALF OF MY
>HEIRS, DISTRIBUTEES, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ASSIGNS, AGREE
>NOT TO MAKE CLAIMS AGAINST, SUE, ATTACH THE PROPERTY OF OR
>PROSECUTE the Church, the successors and assignees of L. Ron
>Hubbard, Religious Technology Center and its principals, the
>Church of Scientology International, and any affiliated
>Churches, Missions, corporations, associations, partnerships
>or organizations, and/or their officers, directors. trustees,
>agents, servants, successors, heirs, executors or
>representatives, and/or the owners, managers, employees,
>agents or representatives of, or associated with, any
>facilities conducting the Service (hereinafter collectively
>referred to as "the Releasees") for physical, mental or
>emotional injury or property damage resulting from the
>negligence or other acts, howsoever caused, of any Releasee
>or of any employee, agent or contractor of the Church, its
>affiliates, or other Releasee, in any way relating to my
>participation in the Service.
Disclaimer #10
Defendant believes that this disclaimer is
unenforceable, and it may even be unlawful to issue. With
respect to determining the criminality of plaintiff, the
legality of this paragraph is a relevant triable issue.
> II. IN ADDITION, I HEREBY RELEASE AND DISCHARGE
>THE RELEASEES from all actions, claims or demands I, my
>heirs, distributees, guardians, legal representatives or
>assigns now have or may hereafter have for physical, mental
>or emotional injury or property damage resulting in any way
>from my participation in the Service.
Defendant believe that Scientology has a serious
problem with "service takers" becoming psychotic and/or
committing suicide from the internal mental stresses resulting
from having paid tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars
*and* invested a substantial number of years to learn the
space opera "Xenu" story. (Already cited page 174 in *Road to
Xenu*.) Defendant's Exhibit C, 6 pages cut from an
anonymously published document "Hollywood, Scientology,
Satanism Suicide" contains a partial list of known suicides
and psychotic breakdowns.
> III. I FURTHER AGREE TO INDEMNIFY AND SAVE AND
>HOLD HARMLESS THE RELEASEES and each of them from any loss,
>liability, damage or cost they may incur due to my
>participation in the Service and/or due to my presence or
>action in or about the Church premises or the facilities
>provided for the Service.
Defendant contends Plaintiff's family of shell
corporations is trying in this paragraph to evade criminal
responsibility for the medical bills a "service taker" runs up
while confined to a mental ward. A substantial fraction of
victims in such a situation will have transferred all of their
assets--tax free--to Scientology and thus become indigent
problems for the state.
> IV. [snip--severability]
> V. I further understand, acknowledge and agree
>that this Application/Agreement contains everything that the
>Church or Church representative and I have addressed or
>discussed with respect to the religious services set forth
>in this Application/Agreement. It is our only agreement
>about those religious services, and exclusively sets forth
>the obligations of the Church and me with respect to such
>religious services.
Defendant interprets this paragraph as showing
fraudulent intent to quietly slip the verbal sales pitch--on
which the person purchasing the service was sold--under the
table. The Court may be interested to know that internal
"Church" of Scientology terminology for such persons "taking
service" is "bodies in the shop."
> I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THIS APPLICATION/AGREEMENT AND
>GENERAL RELEASE AND FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS CONTENTS AND
>CONSEQUENCES. I AM AWARE THAT BY SIGNING BELOW, I AM FOREVER
>GIVING UP MY RIGHT TO SUE THE CHURCH, ITS STAFF AND/OR OTHER
>SCIENTOLOGY-RELATED ORGANIZATIONS FOR ANY INJURY OR DAMAGE
>SUFFERED IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE SERVICE ACTIVITIES.
As above, this clause is designed to control people
who become troublesome, and is of entirely fraudulent intent.
[snip remainder]
Defendant is delighted that plaintiff presented
defendant with the opportunity to show the fraudulent and
criminal nature of plaintiff and associated corporations.
The criminal and abusive nature of this "release" is
so obvious that defendant will introduce plaintiff's Exhibit A
at trial as support for defendant's contention that plaintiff
is a member of a criminal and fraudulent family of
organizations.
Defendant will cite only one item from "What is
Scientology" to support defendant's position about the
criminal nature of Scientology, particularly as it relates to
medical claims. From the bottom of the left column and the
top of the right column on page 550 will be found.
"Scientologist do use prescribed drugs as part of
medical programs from competent physicians, but have
found that as a result of auditing, they need to take
medical drugs much less frequently and also that
medications such as antibiotics seem to work much more
rapidly when being audited."
Perhaps plaintiff's attorneys have found some way for
this *not* to be a medical claim, but to defendant it, "walks
like a duck and quacks like a duck." Defendant looks forward
to a jury considering such claims.
NOTs 34 is far from the only place where Scientology
claims to cure illness. Exhibit D is a posting by Scientology
representatives on America OnLine where it is claimed that 25
hours of auditing cured an AIDS case.
It is impossible to legally practice medicine
without a license.
Signed releases such as Exhibit A provided by
plaintiff do not make practicing medicine without a license
legal. The "Church" can assert that its services such as NOTs
34 or the "Introspection Rundown" are of a purely religious
nature, but the "Church" doesn't get to make this
determination all by itself any more than it could in 1971.
Ultimately, it becomes an issue which the Court must
decide.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to
the best of my knowledge.
H. Keith Henson
[Defendant would like to dedicate this filing to the
inspiration of "Ed McCloskey, <edmcc...@earthlink.net>."]
Keith Henson
Thomas R. Hogan,
Helena K. Kobrin, SBN 152546
Eric M. Lieberman
[boilerplate cut]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
H. Keith Henson
pro se
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) Case No. C-96-20271RMW
California non-profit corporation, )
Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF MOTIONS AND
) MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY OR
) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON
v. ) "CRIMINALITY" AND
) VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER
) RE NOTS 34, MOTION TO
H. KEITH HENSON, an individual, ) MODIFY PRELIMINARY
Defendant. ) INJUNCTION, MOTION FOR
) EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
-----------------------------------
Date_______Time_____
The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
Defendant respectfully seeks the judgment of the court
in two matters, and the issuance of orders on two motions.
I.
Defendant requests a hearing and a ruling or
preliminary ruling on the substance of "NOTs 34" as quoted
within defendant's letter of March 26, 1996 to the Court.
For purposes of planing defendant's case, defendant
needs a judgment by the Court on the substance of the contents
of NOTs 34. Defendant contends that the contents of NOTs 34
clearly contains instructions for the illegal practice of
medicine, but defendant concedes that the court may read NOTs
34 in some other way.
Defendant respectfully requests that the Court consider
NOTs 34 in the context of *plaintiff's* 1991 policy manual
referenced at line 23 on page 2 of defendant's REPLY TO SECOND
DECLARATION OF WARREN L. MCSHANE filed May 2, 1996 and fully
set forth over the next two pages of that filing.
II.
Defendant seeks a ruling or preliminary ruling on
defendant's contention that because of the claims made in NOTs
34, NOTs 34 is a violation of Judge Gesell's order reported at
333 FSup 357.
Defendant believes that Judge Gasell's order forbids
the Church of Scientology and all related organizations from
claiming to heal using an "E-meter." Defendant is informed
and believes that "healing with an E-meter" is the topic of
NOTs 34. But defendant is not well versed in the law, and the
Court may read NOTs 34 in the context of Judge Gasell's order
to have another meaning. Defendant will be most interested
in the Court's reading of NOTs 34.
III.
Defendant seeks a modification of the preliminary
injunction to permit defendant to responsibly exercise his
First Amendment rights and to better defend himself in the
pendant case. The Court is correctly concerned with the
rights of the plaintiff, see Page 8 of the transcript of the
Preliminary Injunction hearing April 12:
1 THE COURT: What -- free speech involves some
2 balancing.
and page 11/12
9 MR. HENSON: Specifically, Your Honor --
10 THE COURT: These documents --
11 MR. HENSON: Specifically, Your Honor, only
12 documents showing criminal intent or fraud in them.
13 THE COURT: But that was going to be on, at least
14 the way I read it, some unilateral decision by you,
********** ********
Defendant would prefer *not* to make "unilateral
decisions." It should be noted that defendant *tried* to
obtain the guidance of the Court before posting NOTs 34 in the
context of defendant's commentary on its nature.
Defendant proposes that the Preliminary Injunction be
modified so that defendant can access (download) and store,
but not distribute, publicly available NOTs or other "AT"
material both in the context of preparing defendant's case,
and for fair use commentary. It should be brought to the
Court's attention that persons unknown to defendant posted to
the Internet what purports to be all or most of the NOTs
material on, or about, May 6, and that these documents, in
spite of RTC's best efforts to get them removed, are widely
available with little effort.
Defendant proposes to use the following procedure
before posting fair use commentary on NOTs or "AT" material.
1. Defendant will provide the Court and plaintiff's
counsel with copies of what defendant considers to be fair use
at least 10 days in advance of defendant posting such fair use
commentary. The copy for the case file will be in a sealed
envelope.
2. If plaintiff does not respond by the end of that
time, defendant will be free to post.
3. If plaintiff responds, defendant will abide by
the opinion expressed by the Court as to defendant's use of
plaintiff's materials being "fair use" or not. Defendant
would appreciate a timely response in such cases by the Court.
4. Defendant will submit no more than three
postings per calendar month to this process.
IV.
Defendant requests an order for expedited discovery.
Defendant's case depends to a considerable extent on
showing that plaintiff and plaintiff's related organizations
are pervasively involved in criminal activity.
Some of the records defendant will be seeking,
particularly certain computer records, may expire and become
non-available if defendant is not permitted expedited
discovery in advance of the case management conference.
Dated May 10, 1996 Respectfully submitted,
H. Keith Henson
pro se
[the date set for hearing this motion is 35 days out, or
June 14 at 9 am. I filed it this afternoon just before
the clerk's office closed. KH]
Keith Henson
0001
This is cleaned up some--I put in all the fixes I hand corrected on
copy before I signed it plus a few. Mostly they are spelling or typos,
I left the original in and put the corrections in [].
What strikes me on the second reading of this transcript is how
clueless poor Mr. Lieberman was. I realize that a substantial part
of this deposition is me educating him on the basics of Internet
culture and inferstructure. Well, I guess someone had to do it
<grin>. From all I can tell, Eric Lieberman is actually a reasonable
person, he just has a client hell bent on looking foolish. Eric
and Tomas Hogan, and all the rest of the outside lawyers are doing
their part in bringing down CoS by draining its coffers. Don't
underbill guys.
Keith Henson
PS, Shelley reports and comments on the deposition in **Biased
Journalism** Vol 2, No 10.
01
02
03 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
04 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
05
05
06
06
07 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a )
07 California non-profit )
08 corporation, )
08 )
09 Plaintiff, )
09 )
10 vs. ) No. C-96 20271 RMW
10 )
11 H. KEITH HENSON, an individual, )
11 )
12 Defendant. )
12 ________________________________)
13
13
14
15
16 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF H. KEITH HENSON
17
18
19 Date: Wednesday, May 8, 1996
19
20 Time: 9:22 a.m.
20
21 Location: LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN
21 60 South Market Street, Suite 1125
22 San Jose, California 95113-2332
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
0002
01 A P P E A R A N C E S:
01
02
02
03 For the Plaintiff: LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN
03 BY: THOMAS R. HOGAN, ESQ.
04 60 South Market Street
04 Suite 1125
05 San Jose, California 95113-2332
05 (408) 292-7600
06
06 and RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD,
07 KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN
07 BY: ERIC M. LIEBERMAN, ESQ.
08 740 Broadway
08 Fifth Floor
09 New York, New York, 10003
09 (212) 254-1111
10
10 and BOWLES & MOXIN
11 BY: HELENA K. KOBRIN, ESQ.
11 7629 Fulton Avenue
12 North Hollywood, California
12 91605
13 (213) 960-1933
13
14 For the Defendant: H. KEITH HENSON, pro per
14 799 Coffey Court
15 San Jose, California 95123
15
16 Videotaped by: REIZNER & REIZNER
16 BY: SUSAN REIZNER
17 7179 Via Maria
17 San Jose, California 95139
18 (408) 226-6339
18
19 Also present: Grady Ward, Shelley Thomson,
19 Warren McShane
20
20 Reported by: WEBER & VOLZING, INC.
21 BY: CAROL WIBLE TORRES,
21 CSR #3391
22 60 South Market Street
22 Suite 770
23 San Jose, California 95113
23 (408) 292-2573
24
24
25
25
26
26
0003
01 INDEX OF EXAMINATIONS
02 Page:
03 BY MR. LIEBERMAN.......................8
04 BY MR. HENSON..........................196
05 FURTHER BY MR. LIEBERMAN...............202
06
07 INDEX OF EXHIBITS
08 Plaintiff's Exhibits: Page:
09 1 Multi-page document, first page
10 entitled "Complaint for Declaratory
11 Judgement" in the matter Henson vs.
12 Federal Bureau of Investigation...........18
13 2 Two-page posting dated 21 Feb 1995
14 stating "List of Published Literary
15 Works"....................................19
16 3 Two-page posting dated 23 Feb 1995........24
17 4 One-page posting dated 2 Mar 1995.........32
18 5 One-page posting dated 14 Mar 1995........34
19 6 One-page posting dated 5 Apr 1995.........54
20 7 One-page posting dated 6 Apr 1995.........60
21 8 One-page posting dated 7 Apr 1995.........66
22 9 Two-page posting dated 9 Apr 1995.........75
23 10 One-page posting dated 21 Jul 1995........80
24 11 One-page posting dated 26 Jul 1995........84
25 12 Two-page document to Mr. Henson from
26 Helena K. Kobrin dated 27 Jul 1995........88
0004
01 13 Five-page posting dated 18 Apr 1996.......92
02 14 One-page postiing dated 13 Aug 1995.......104
03 15 One-page posting dated 12 Aug 1995........112
04 16 One-page posting dated 19 Sep 1995........120
05 17 One-page posting dated 26 Sep 1995........122
06 18 Four-page posting dated 30 Mar 1996.......138
07 19 Three-page posting dated 31 Mar 1996......144
08 20 Four-page posting dated 3 Apr 1996........148
09 21 One-page posting dated 16 Apr 1996........156
10 22 One-page posting dated 17 Apr 1996........157
11 23 Multi-page document, first page entitled
12 "Objections and Responses to Request for
13 Production of Documents" in the matter
14 Religious Technology Center vs. H. Keith
15 Henson....................................159
16 24 Multi-page document, first page entitled
17 "Answer and Counterclaims; Demand for
18 Jury Trial" in the matter Religious
19 Technology Center vs. H. Keith Henson.....171
20 25 14-page document entitled "HCO Bulletin
21 of 23 April 1991".........................192
22
23 Defendant's Exhibits: Page:
24 A Page from June 1996 Playboy stating at
25 the top "Dear Playboy"....................197
26 B One-page document, undated, stating at
0005
01 the top "However, it is possible to get
02 the "secret" scientology documents from
03 altavista and dejanews"...................198
04 C Seven-page document, undated, stating
05 at the top "Part 4: The Trap Slams
06 Shut".....................................199
07 D 12-page document filed April 11, 1996,
08 United States Court of Appeals for the
09 Ninth Circuit.............................200
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
0006
01 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the
02 record. Today is May 8th, 1996. The time is 9:22
03 a.m.. This is Volume I of the deposition of Mr. Keith
04 Henson in the matter of RTC versus Henson conducted at
05 the offices of Tom Hogan, 60 South Market, San Jose,
06 California. It is being videotaped on behalf of the
07 plaintiff by Susan Reizner, a certified legal video
08 specialist and notary from Reizner & Reizner Film &
09 Video, 7179 Via Maria in San Jose, California. I
10 certify that I am not financially interested in this
11 action and am neither a relative nor an employee of
12 any of the parties.
13 Will all counsel please identify
14 yourselves and your clients.
15 MR. HOGAN: I'm Thomas R. Hogan. I
16 represent the plaintiff, Religious Technology Center.
17 MR. LIEBERMAN: Eric Lieberman. I also
18 represent the plaintiff and I will be doing the
19 questioning today.
20 MS. KOBRIN: Helena Kobrin. I also
21 represent the plaintiff.
22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Would the court
23 reporter please identify yourself and swear in the
24 wintess.
25 THE REPORTER: Carol Wible Torres, Weber &
26 Volzing.
0007
01 H. KEITH HENSON,
02 being first duly sworn by the Certified Shorthand
03 Reporter to tell the truth, the whole truth and
04 nothing but the truth, testified as follows:
05 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Also present here
06 today is Mr. Grady Ward pursuant to a ruling by
07 Magistrate Judge Invante yesterday. Mr. Ward is
08 permitted to be present at the deposition, but no
09 statements may be made by Mr. Ward. There will be no
10 interference by Mr. Ward with the proceedings. There
11 shall be no communication between Mr. Ward and
12 Mr. Henson during the deposition and there shall be no
13 communication between Mr. Ward and Mr. Henson at
14 breaks in the deposition until Mr. Henson's
15 deposition is concluded.
16 There is also present somebody -- can you
17 state your name? I don't know what your name is.
18 MS. THOMSON: My name is Shelley Thomson.
19 MR. LIEBERMAN: Somebody named Shelley
20 Thomson who is an observer apparently.
21 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Okay.
22 Mr. Henson --
23 A You may as well identify the remaining party.
24 Aren't they all supposed to be identified?
25 MR. LIEBERMAN: If you want them
26 identified. Mr. McShane is also here on behalf of the
0008
01 plaintiff.
02 EXAMINATION BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
03 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Mr. Henson, you
04 are the defendant in this action; is that right?
05 A That's what I understand.
06 Q Yes. Have you ever been deposed before in any
07 legal action?
08 A Yes.
09 Q How many times?
10 A I don't remember.
11 Q More than once?
12 A Yes.
13 Q More than two or three?
14 A I don't remember how long that went. I don't
15 remember how many episodes.
16 Q Are you familiar with the procedure in a
17 deposition?
18 A Approximately. It's been a long time.
19 Q Okay. To review with you, I will ask you a
20 series of questions. You are to restrict your
21 responses to answers to those questions. If you have
22 objections to the form of the question, you may state
23 those. I can either choose to rephrase the question
24 or to ask you nevertheless to respond to it. Your
25 objection will then be noted for the record.
26 Objections on the basis of any other matter, such as
0009
01 relevance, et cetera, under the federal rules are
02 reserved until further proceedings. If you have
03 objections based upon privilege, you also may state
04 those. Do you understand that?
05 A Yes, I do. I also understand that I, being my
06 own -- representing myself in this matter, that I can
07 ask myself questions and introduce exhibits.
08 Q Well, I've never seen anybody ask themselves
09 questions except in comedies and I --
10 A Well, that's a good description of what we're
11 doing.
12 Q Mr. Henson, one thing you're going to have to do
13 is wait until I finish. You should understand that
14 right now. If there are statements you wish to make
15 at the end of my questioning, you may make them
16 provided that they are pertinent to the proceedings.
17 I then get the opportunity to further cross-examine
18 you about those. Okay.
19 Now, can you briefly -- when were you
20 born?
21 A July 12th, 1942.
22 Q Okay. Briefly tell me what your educational
23 background was.
24 A BSEE.
25 Q Where?
26 A University of Arizona.
0010
01 Q When did you graduate there?
02 A '69.
03 Q Any further education?
04 A No.
05 Q Okay. What was your employment after you
06 graduated?
07 A Engineering, programming jobs.
08 Q Where?
09 A Long list. Heinrich Geoexploration Company,
10 Burr-Brown Research --
11 Q Give me a time period for each of these.
12 A Without reference to stuff, it would -- to
13 things, it would only be very approximate.
14 Q I'm just looking for approximations.
15 A Early '70's.
16 Q Yes.
17 A Analog Precision. After that, essentially I
18 worked as a consultant.
19 Q Was this -- where were you living at the time?
20 A Tucson. Most of it.
21 Q Until when did you live in Tucson?
22 A 1985.
23 Q Then you moved up here to San Jose?
24 A That's correct.
25 Q And what's your present employment?
26 A Consultant, self-employed.
0011
01 Q Consultant to whom, to what?
02 A I work for a variety of companies. Some years
03 it's been as many as six companies, some years it's
04 been as few as two.
05 Q And on what matters do you consult?
06 A Systems analysis, hardware design, programming.
07 Variety of things. Mixed hardware, software
08 primarily.
09 Q Uh-huh. Okay. Are you married?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Do you have children?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Okay. This is your second marriage?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Okay. Are you a regular participant on news
16 groups on the internet?
17 A Yes.
18 Q For how long have you participated in various
19 news groups?
20 A I'm not exactly certain. Perhaps as much as
21 eight years.
22 Q Okay. What news groups do you regularly
23 participate in?
24 A There's a list of them in my responses. I think
25 I mentioned Libertarian, Space, certain political
26 kinds of things, Cypherpunks, EFF, the various groups
0012
01 on that one. Nanotechnology, Cryonics --
02 Q Is it fair to say -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to
03 interrupt. I thought you finished your answer.
04 A That's not exclusive. I -- I occasionally jump
05 into other kinds of news groups. For example, I'm
06 currently signed onto alt.sovereign something, I
07 forget what it is, alt.activism.sovereignty or
08 something like that.
09 Q Okay. You also participate in
10 alt.religion.scientology, do you not?
11 A Yes, I certainly do. I can even give you a
12 rough -- rough count of how many postings I've made to
13 that in the past 14 months.
14 Q Okay. I may ask you for that. Now, it's fair
15 to say you spend a fair amount of time each week on
16 the internet participating in these numerous news
17 groups; is that right?
18 A Far less time than most people spend watching
19 television.
20 Q That wasn't my question.
21 A I spend maybe 45 minutes a day on it.
22 Q Okay, thanks. About how much time do you spend
23 on a.r.s., a.r.s. meaning alt.religion.scientology?
24 A Most of that.
25 Q Most of the time on a.r.s.?
26 A Most of the time that I'm on the net in recent
0013
01 months I've been on there. In recent -- in about the
02 last month or so, because I've been so busy with other
03 things, I probably have spent less than -- less than
04 20 minutes a day on it.
05 Q Okay.
06 A It varies.
07 Q Now, when did you first start participating on
08 a.r.s.?
09 A I don't have a precise time on that. I could
10 not be exactly certain what day it was, but it was
11 very early -- it was early January something, maybe
12 the 10th or the 11th or sometime around that time. I
13 actually looked to see if I could find out what that
14 was and I wasn't able to find it because I hadn't --
15 at that point I was still using a different news
16 reader which
17 didn't log any postings at all, and I don't know how
18 long I read it before I posted either. There are full
19 archives of it that are maintained by several people,
20 and if you really care about this you can probably
21 find out just by posting this as a question on a.r.s.
22 Q Okay. But when you say January 10th or 11th,
23 you're referring to 1995; is that right?
24 A Yes, yes. It was the time at which the first
25 remove group hit and, of course, that splashed across
26 many other groups. I was not reading a.r.s. at that
0014
01 time and it splashed into comp.org.eff.talk.
02 Q Is that what caused you to start participating
03 in a.r.s.?
04 A Yes.
05 Q Okay.
06 A It was --
07 Q There's no question pending.
08 A I can still make a statement.
09 Q No, not --
10 A A lot of people did it.
11 Q Mr. Henson, just so you understand, you're here
12 to answer questions, not to just make statements.
13 When I'm through, if you want to add anything to the
14 record, you're free to. Those are the ground rules.
15 Okay?
16 Now, you're proceeding on this without a
17 lawyer; is that right?
18 A At the moment, yes.
19 Q In this case. Have you been involved previously
20 in other litigation?
21 A Yes.
22 Q As a plaintiff?
23 A Yes.
24 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
26 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): And how many such
0015
01 cases were you previously involved in?
02 A One.
03 Q And what case was that?
04 A I don't even know what it would have been named.
05 Q Just tell us generally what it was about.
06 A I sued somebody for nonpayment of a contractual
07 obligation.
08 Q Okay. This was a business-related issue?
09 A Right.
10 Q Okay. That's the only lawsuit you ever brought?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Didn't you bring a lawsuit against the FBI at
13 one point?
14 A Ahh. Yes, indeed. I'd forgotten about that
15 one.
16 Q Okay.
17 A And I was -- and come to think of it, I was a --
18 I was a -- one of the plaintiffs on an electronic
19 communications privacy act, a case that was brought
20 against the County of Riverside.
21 Q Okay. Now, in the FBI case, did you proceed on
22 that -- in that case on a pro se or pro per basis?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And what about the case against Riverside
25 County?
26 A That was done by -- oh, I'm sorry, I can't pick
0016
01 his name up at the moment. Ashworth, Chris Ashworth.
02 Q He was your attorney?
03 A Yes.
04 Q And the FBI, case you drafted the papers?
05 A Yes, I did. It was -- the two cases were highly
06 related in that the FBI case, I wound up essentially
07 forcing the FBI to do enough investigation that it
08 supported the ECPA case. It was highly successful in
09 my view.
10 Q Okay. The FBI case was dismissed, was it not?
11 A Oh, yes. But the responses were extremely
12 useful.
13 Q Okay. Now, in your case, your contract case,
14 did you proceed -- did you have a lawyer in that case?
15 A Yes. I don't honestly remember what the guy's
16 name was. It's been at least 15 years ago.
17 TIME: 9:36
18 Q Okay. When you first began to participate in
19 a.r.s., had you previously had any knowledge about the
20 Church of Scientology?
21 A Only the kind of general knowledge that you
22 would get from such things as reading -- skimming
23 actually, the Time magazine article.
24 Q You had never been a member of the Church of
25 Scientology; is that correct?
26 A No. In fact, I had never even met anybody
0017
01 except one guy who came to the door that I knew was a
02 Scientologist.
03 Q So you'd never participated in any Scientology
04 services or courses or anything like that?
05 A None at all.
06 Q Okay. And you never have to this date; is that
07 right?
08 A No.
09 Q Okay. Prior to your first involvement in
10 a.r.s., had you ever read any books by L. Ron Hubbard?
11 A Oh, yes.
12 Q Okay. Which books had you read?
13 A I -- I really can't tell you which ones they
14 were, but I think I still even have one of his science
15 fiction novels from the late 40's or early '50's.
16 Q Okay. What you had read, was that exclusively
17 in the realm of his science fiction works or was it
18 also in some of his Scientology work?
19 A No, I had never read any of his Scientology
20 stuff.
21 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
22 Kobrin.)
23 MR. LIEBERMAN: I'm just going to show
24 this to you. Ask the reporter to mark it as
25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.
26 Just take a look at that. I'm just going
0018
01 to ask you to identify it if you can.
02 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1 was
03 marked for identification by the
04 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
05 THE WITNESS: Yes.
06 MR. LIEBERMAN: Let's just wait until the
07 reporter's ready.
08 Let me know when you're through looking at
09 it.
10 THE WITNESS: Okay. Looked at it.
11 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Do you recognize
12 that document?
13 A It looks like something that I produced.
14 Q Okay. Is this a copy of the Complaint you filed
15 against the FBI about which we were just speaking?
16 A That's what it seems to be.
17 Q Okay. And correct me if I'm wrong, I believe
18 you said you basically were the person responsible for
19 drafting this Complaint; is that right?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And who was Thomas K. Donaldson?
22 A Thomas K. Donaldson is a mathematician who at
23 that point was working for -- oh, I'm sorry, I can't
24 remember the company. One of the parallel
25 processing --
26 Q Okay. He was one of the co-plaintiffs in the
0019
01 case?
02 A Yes.
03 Q And same with Roger Gregory; is that right?
04 A Roger Gregory at that time was chief scientist
05 for a company that is involved with hypertext.
06 Q And they participated with you in this lawsuit?
07 A Yes.
08 Q Were they also involved in the lawsuit against
09 Riverside County?
10 A I believe they were.
11 Q Okay. All right.
12 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
13 Kobrin.)
14 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Now, I believe
15 you said you don't recall exactly when you first
16 posted to a.r.s.; is that right?
17 A That's true. It probably was fairly early in --
18 well, say mid-January or late January. That would be
19 my guess on it, but I certainly couldn't swear to it.
20 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Could you mark that
21 as Number 2.
22 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 2 was
23 marked for identification by the
24 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
25 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): And this -- take
26 a look at that, sir, and after you've taken a look at
0020
01 it, I'll just have one or two questions for you.
02 A Oh, yes. What date is this? February 22nd.
03 Q This is a document, a copy of a posting to
04 alt.religion.scientology and several other news
05 groups. I'll refer to alt.religion.scientology as
06 a.r.s. at various times and you'll know what that
07 means, correct? Yes?
08 A Sure.
09 Q Okay. It says from H.K. Henson, "Subject: Re:
10 Writ of Seizure against Erlich," that's E-R-L-I-C-H.
11 The date stated is 21 Feb 1995. Do you recognize this
12 posting, sir?
13 A It looks like something that I probably put out,
14 but I certainly couldn't tell you for sure.
15 Q It does have your name on it, correct?
16 A Yes, it does have my name on it, but that's no
17 problem. I can put anybody's name on something.
18 Q There's nothing on the face of this document
19 that suggests that it's anything other than something
20 that -- copy of something you posted, is it?
21 A Well, you handed it to me.
22 Q That's not my question, sir.
23 A I can't tell. I posted thousands -- about 1,200
24 of these things. I can't tell if this is -- whether
25 this is something I posted or not. I do remember -- I
26 mean, this -- the kind of stuff which is on here, what
0021
01 this is is a list of stuff that was found in the
02 paperwork that was filed in the Erlich case, and I
03 will definitely admit to having gone down to the
04 courthouse, copied a bunch of that paperwork and typed
05 some of it in. Whether this is the one that I did or
06 not is anybody's guess.
07 Q Well, it does have your name on it and it was
08 posted to a.r.s.; is that right?
09 A That's what it says on the face of it, but
10 whether it means that or not, there's no way I could
11 tell.
12 Q You have no memory whatsoever of whether or not
13 you posted this; is that your -- is that your
14 statement?
15 A I don't know whether this is the actual thing
16 that I posted or not.
17 Q When I first showed this to you you said, "Oh,
18 yes," did you not?
19 A Oh, I was referring to the date on it as to
20 that, and it's consistent with the dates that would
21 have been involved.
22 Q When you said, "Oh, yes," did that suggest some
23 recognition of you that you'd seen this document
24 before, sir?
25 A This particular one?
26 Q Yes.
0022
01 A I don't know.
02 Q Why did you say, "Oh, yes"?
03 A Because I was referring to the date on it.
04 Q What was it about the date that was --
05 A Because we'd just been talking about when it was
06 that I first posted to a.r.s.
07 Q Okay. So you think this is the first time that
08 you posted to a.r.s.?
09 A This is consistent with about the time frame
10 that I posted to a.r.s. Whether this is what I posted
11 to a.r.s. is anybody's guess. However, the contents
12 of it is quite obvious. It's -- it looks like -- it
13 looks like stuff -- it's consistent with stuff that I
14 typed in that I got out of the Erlich case. I was
15 acting essentially as a reporter for the net on this.
16 Q Okay. It says here, "PS, I saw the tail end of
17 the hearing today." Did you see the tail end of a
18 hearing in Erlich on or about February 21st, 1995?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And you wrote, "I sort of got the impression the
21 judge realized he might be in over his head." Did you
22 get that impression?
23 A Well, if this is really a posting of mine, I
24 apparently thought that at this time.
25 Q You remember thinking that, sir?
26 A No, I said if this is a posting of mine, if this
0023
01 really is a posting of mine, I apparently thought that
02 at this time.
03 Q Okay. Did you obtain a list of the published
04 literary works which were at issue in the Erlich case
05 from the court?
06 A I remember having done that.
07 Q Okay.
08 A It's a public document.
09 Q Yes, I understand that. Do you remember posting
10 that to the internet?
11 A Yes, I do remember posting it to the internet.
12 Q Thank you.
13 A And this may well be that post, but I couldn't
14 swear to it.
15 MR. LIEBERMAN: Where's my list here?
16 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
17 Kobrin.)
18 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Okay. Now, when
19 you went to the court to view the proceedings in the
20 Erlich case, had you had any communications with
21 Mr. Erlich about his case up to that time?
22 A I don't know. I simply don't remember.
23 Q Okay. Have you ever had any communications with
24 Mr. Erlich about his case?
25 A Certainly. I met him there at that -- at that
26 hearing.
0024
01 Q Yes. Did you have any conversations with him at
02 that time?
03 A Quite a bit, yes.
04 Q Okay. And what did you speak -- what did you
05 talk to him about?
06 A I -- you're asking something which is what,
07 February some odd of --
08 Q I'm just asking you for your best memory.
09 A Best memory, I just don't remember what we
10 talked about. It was mostly a matter of supportive.
11 I don't believe there was any sub -- substantive
12 detail to it.
13 Q Did you discuss with him at that time the idea
14 of either he or you posting additional Scientology
15 materials to the internet?
16 A No, never have discussed that with Mr. Erlich.
17 Q Never discussed that.
18 A (Witness shakes head from side to side.)
19 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Number 21. Mark
20 that.
21 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3 was
22 marked for identification by the
23 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
24 MR. LIEBERMAN: Take a look at that.
25 THE WITNESS: Well, again, I can't be sure
26 that this is something which I posted.
0025
01 MR. LIEBERMAN: Go on.
02 THE WITNESS: But I think it's rather
03 funny. It's certainly characteristic of the kind of
04 thing I post.
05 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): In what way is it
06 characteristic?
07 A It has a sense of humor in it.
08 Q All right. And --
09 A If this was what I posted, this would have
10 been -- what's the date on this? February 24. This
11 was before I figured out what Koos was.
12 Q Okay. Now, this document, for the record, is a
13 posting to a.r.s., it states from
14 "hkhe...@cup.portal.com." Is that the access
15 provider you use, by the way?
16 A One of them.
17 Q Okay. It's -- subject is called "The Right to
18 be Evil" and the date is 23 Feb 1995. Then says,
19 "Organization: The Portal System." What does -- what
20 does that signify, sir, on a header like that?
21 A It's just the name of an internet service
22 provider.
23 Q Okay. Is that the internet service provider you
24 would have used or --
25 A It's one of the ones I use.
26 Q You made a lot of postings of the same nature as
0026
01 this, didn't you?
02 A Yes. After I --
03 Q Just yes or no is fine.
04 A Okay.
05 Q And by that, I mean to say that you made a
06 number of postings which are critical or taunting of
07 the church; is that right?
08 A Oh, sure.
09 Q Yeah. How many do you think you made like that?
10 Ballpark. 50, a hundred, 300?
11 A After -- after I changed to -- you have to
12 understand, when I posted this, I was still using a
13 news reader which did not permit a killfile. Are you
14 familiar with some of these concepts?
15 Q No.
16 A Should I explain it?
17 Q Why don't you answer the question first.
18 A What was the question?
19 Q You made -- how about ballpark, how many
20 postings of this nature did you make? 50, a hundred,
21 200? What would be your best estimate?
22 A 1,228.
23 Q That's your best estimate as how many of them
24 you made?
25 A Yeah.
26 Q You said awhile ago that you had an estimate as
0027
01 to the total number of postings made to a.r.s. What
02 was that?
03 A 1,228.
04 Q Okay. All of them weren't of this nature
05 though, were they?
06 A I -- you asked me how many I posted. That
07 actually is a -- that actually -- that number comes
08 from a counter which I reset awhile back, but when I
09 reset it after -- that started after this action
10 started. I reset that counter 'cause I wondered how
11 many I had made, and that is not a completely accurate
12 number because it -- that counts all the postings I
13 made other places, but -- which is probably about 80
14 percent -- 20 percent of that could have been other
15 places, and it also doesn't count the fact that I --
16 it was about a month after this before I switched
17 to -- or not a month, but it was a couple of weeks
18 after that, after this posting, that I switched to a
19 news reader with a killfile on it.
20 Q Okay. Now, for all of these postings with the
21 exceptions of the ones where you actually posted
22 verbatim materials from RTC, no one sued you for
23 those, did they?
24 A I'm sorry, would you repeat the question?
25 Q You've testified that you made over 1,200
26 postings to a.r.s.
0028
01 A Yes. Well, I made over 1,200 postings using
02 tin, which counts them, and most of those were to
03 a.r.s., right.
04 Q And most of those were critical or derogatory of
05 the Church of Scientology or Religious Technology
06 Center; is that right?
07 A I suppose so, by their definition.
08 Q Right. You were never sued for making
09 derogatory comments about the Church of Scientology,
10 were you?
11 A I was threatened once.
12 Q You were threatened once. By whom?
13 A Helena.
14 Q And how did Helena threaten you?
15 A She wrote me a letter.
16 Q Didn't she write you a letter about your posting
17 of NOTs materials?
18 A I don't think it was NOTs. In fact, exactly, it
19 was OT VII 48.
20 Q Okay. I stand corrected. OT VII. But she
21 never sent you a letter threatening you with a lawsuit
22 for making fun of the Church of Scientology or making
23 derogatory comments about it, did she, sir?
24 A My estimation is that -- is that posting those
25 six lines was in fair use, and certainly that was --
26 Q That's not my question, sir. Did she ever write
0029
01 you a letter threatening you with a lawsuit for
02 posting -- postings such as this which were derogatory
03 or critical of the Church of Scientology, but which
04 did not contain OT-level materials? Yes or no.
05 A I certainly got threats by Milne, Vera Wallace
06 and a couple of other people who are church members.
07 Q Did Helena Kobrin ever send you such a letter,
08 sir?
09 A No.
10 Q Did the Religious Technology Center ever send
11 you such a letter?
12 A Did Scientology ever send me such a letter?
13 Q My question was did Religious Technology Center
14 ever send you such a letter.
15 A I'm sorry, I can't manage to distinguish between
16 Religious Technology Center and the rest --
17 Q Did you ever receive such a letter from anybody?
18 A Oh, yes. Yeah. Several things. Postings.
19 Postings in particular. I think some of them were
20 private -- were e-mail directed to me as well.
21 Q Do you have copies of those?
22 A No, but they will be in the archives of a.r.s.
23 Q Now, who sent you these letters?
24 A Vera Wallace.
25 Q And what did it say?
26 A I don't remember except it was quite derogatory
0030
01 to me.
02 Q I didn't ask you whether it was derogatory of
03 you.
04 A Was it threats for legal action or physical
05 damage or things like that?
06 Q Yeah.
07 A Yeah. If I remember correctly.
08 Q Well, what did it say?
09 A I don't remember. God sakes, do you remember
10 crap that you read a year ago?
11 Q Well, if somebody threatened me with a lawsuit,
12 I might remember it, sir. If you don't remember being
13 threatened with a lawsuit, say so. If you do, then
14 tell me who threatened you and what they said.
15 A I'd have to dig it up. I really would. I can
16 get some people to do that.
17 Q I don't -- I'm not asking you to get some people
18 to do that, I'm asking you what your memory is.
19 A My memory is that I was -- is that I was
20 threatened more than once by representatives of the
21 Church of Scientology, people who were recognized
22 members of the Church of Scientology on the net.
23 Andrew Milne was probably one of the people who was
24 involved. Vera Wallace certainly did that. Chris
25 Miller went after me once.
26 Q What did -- what did they say?
0031
01 A I don't remember.
02 Q What do you mean by you were threatened?
03 What -- you were threatened with what?
04 A I'd have to look it up. I certainly felt
05 threatened.
06 Q But speaking here today, you can't tell me what
07 the threat was; is that right?
08 A Good lord, there's been threats by
09 Scientologists on the net so many times you can't
10 count them. Like the one -- Ron ArtistR or whatever
11 his name was that was threatening to kill people.
12 That one I know I can find. That wasn't to me, but it
13 was to somebody else. I think it was to Tarla.
14 Q I'm talking about any threats to you. Are you
15 able to tell me today what they were and when they
16 were made.
17 A No, I cannot tell you today what those threats
18 were. However, I will make a point of finding out
19 what they were and send them to you.
20 MR. LIEBERMAN: Number 23.
21 THE WITNESS: Since there's a dead spot
22 here, why don't I introduce --
23 MR. LIEBERMAN: No, you're not free to
24 introduce anything right now.
25 THE WITNESS: She's got a tag -- a bunch
26 of tags there. Can't use them up?
0032
01 MR. LIEBERMAN: No. When I am through, if
02 you want to introduce something, you can introduce
03 something, but right now you are not permitted to do
04 that.
05 Mark that.
06 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4 was
07 marked for identification by the
08 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
09 TIME: 10:00
10 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): This is a --
11 A Oh.
12 Q -- posting, states from H.K. Henson to a.r.s.
13 and to other news groups, "Subject: Re: No more
14 "Secret Scriptures."" Mr. Henson, you've indicated
15 some recognition of this document.
16 A I certainly can't swear to it and I can't
17 identify it to you -- for you as being my material.
18 Q You --
19 A But it looks like a good posting.
20 Q You said, "Oh" when you saw it.
21 A I recognize Standup. He was one -- he was one
22 of the Church of Scientology's people. He's probably
23 one of the people that was involved in either
24 insulting me or --
25 Q Well, you insulted a lot of people in the
26 church, didn't you? All the time.
0033
01 A Oh, absolutely.
02 Q And you did so in this posting, too, right?
03 A Well, assuming that this is my posting, which
04 I'm not -- certainly am not going to admit that, but
05 assuming it's my posting, that's a pretty good
06 posting.
07 Q But you did make numerous postings of the same
08 tenor as this; is that correct?
09 A I would say probably you would consider that.
10 Q And your view, of course, is that you have the
11 First Amendment right to make such postings, insulting
12 or making derogatory comments about the Church of
13 Scientology or anybody else; isn't that right?
14 A Oh, by internet standards, you can't -- you
15 can't believe how mild this is.
16 Q Now you can answer my question.
17 A What? Can you repeat the question?
18 Q Your view is that under the First Amendment you
19 have the right to make such comments about the Church
20 of Scientology or people involved with it; is that
21 right?
22 A I have the right to make comments like this
23 about anybody.
24 Q Right. And people have the right to make
25 insulting comments about you back, right?
26 A It depends on how far they go in the threats.
0034
01 Q How about how far you go, sir? Does that depend
02 on that, too?
03 A I don't believe I've ever stepped over the line.
04 It's a fairly well understood usenet culture phenomena
05 as to how far you can go without getting in trouble.
06 Q Now, did you make this posting, sir?
07 A This one?
08 Q Yeah.
09 A I can't swear to it.
10 Q Does it seem familiar to you?
11 A Not particularly.
12 Q Okay.
13 A I do, however, recognize Standup.
14 Q There's no question pending about Standup, sir.
15 A What a character.
16 MR. LIEBERMAN: Let's see number 42.
17 Mark that.
18 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 5 was
19 marked for identification by the
20 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
21 (Discussion held off the record.)
22 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Plaintiff's
23 Number 5 is a copy of a posting to a.r.s. from H.K.
24 Henson dated March 14th, 1995. Subject, it says, "Re:
25 Just the facts, ma'am."
26 A Just a point of information. Re: is short for
0035
01 reference or referring to.
02 Q Yes, I understand. Thank you though.
03 And it begins with a statement that David
04 Talbot had written to a.r.s. quoting something that
05 Grady Ward had stated to a.r.s. in fairly graphic
06 terms, and follows with a comment from Mr. Henson
07 which states, "David, I don't expect to believe this"
08 --
09 A I --
10 Q -- "but Grady Ward is a respected person, not
11 just here, but over a considerable stretch of the
12 net." Did you make this posting, sir?
13 A I could not at all swear to having made this
14 posting. However, the material that is in the posting
15 is certainly consistent with what I -- with what I
16 would have believed at March 15th.
17 Q Right. And everything on the header indicates
18 that this was a posting of yours, does it not?
19 A I can't tell. Honest to goodness, when you're
20 dealing with something like this which is so easy to
21 change, there is no way. I can't swear to any of this
22 being actually mine.
23 Q Is there anything on the face of this document
24 that suggests that this is anything other than what it
25 purports to be, sir?
26 A I can't tell you that.
0036
01 Q In other words, you can't point to anything on
02 here --
03 A I can't point to anything on here which
04 authenticates this or -- or -- I just can't make an
05 opinion on it. I'm sorry, you know, there is just no
06 way.
07 Q Do you remember thinking that Grady Ward is a
08 respected person over a considerable stretch of the
09 net?
10 A Oh, yeah.
11 Q Did you believe "He happens to be a little more
12 outspoken than the rest of us"?
13 A Yes, in an under -- understated sort of a way.
14 Q Do you remember thinking that "you," meaning
15 Mr. Talbot, "and the other" Scientology "types, with a
16 few exceptions, have no credibility here at all"?
17 A That doesn't look right. Well, yeah, at that
18 time -- yeah, at that time I'm -- if this is indeed is
19 something that I wrote, which I can't swear to, but if
20 it is something I wrote, I guess at that time there
21 was a couple of Scientologists on the net who actually
22 had some degree of respect. In particular,
23 Ken Long and -- oh, boy. I wish I could -- Elizabeth
24 McCoy. They long ago left, and there certainly -- a
25 month or two later they -- there would have been no
26 exceptions.
0037
01 Q And you remember thinking that you must play by
02 the rules if you come on to the net; is that right?
03 A That's --
04 Q Our rules.
05 A That's a -- that's obvious.
06 Q Right. Now, by the way, don't the rules of most
07 access providers include rules against copyright
08 infringement?
09 A I wouldn't know.
10 Q You've Never read those rules?
11 A I probably have read those rules, but I
12 certainly don't remember anything from it.
13 Q Those rules you don't remember. What rules do
14 you remember?
15 A I'm sorry, I -- you know, asking me to remember
16 something which I -- which I read from an access
17 provider at least three or four years ago is well
18 beyond anything that you could expect from me.
19 Q Right. But you -- you expected others to
20 abide -- play by the rules, but you don't remember
21 this particular rule; is that right?
22 A The rule -- now, understand that there's a
23 difference between legalized rules and customs. I
24 mean, for example, there's no law against pissing in
25 the potted plant out in the lobby, but it's definitely
26 against custom.
0038
01 Q Right. You talk here about rules though. There
02 are rules that almost every access provider has about
03 copyright infringement; isn't that right?
04 A I frankly don't know. I would bet that there's
05 lots of -- of internet providers who don't have any
06 rules whatsoever on that.
07 Q Right. Do you think the Portal system does?
08 A I don't know.
09 Q Do you think Netcom does?
10 A I wouldn't have the slightest notion.
11 Q It wasn't something that you were ever
12 interested in finding out.
13 A I haven't looked. I know what is permitted by
14 custom.
15 Q Is copyright infringement permitted by customs?
16 A If there's a sufficient motivation to do it,
17 yes.
18 Q I see. And whose custom is that?
19 A Netiquette.
20 Q So according to the custom of netiquette, if
21 you're sufficiently motivated --
22 A No, if there is sufficiently good reason --
23 Q You can violate somebody's copyrights?
24 A Happens every day.
25 Q And is the same thing true with misappropriating
26 their trade secrets? If you have a sufficient
0039
01 motivation, then it's okay to do that.
02 A Not motivation. If there is sufficient -- like
03 public interest and so forth.
04 Q And who determines this?
05 A You take the risk yourself.
06 Q Okay. And if you're wrong, you get sued, right?
07 A It looks that way.
08 Q If the Court thinks you're wrong, you're found
09 liable; isn't that right?
10 A That may well be.
11 Q But you think that under the rules of netiquette
12 it's up to each individual to make that determination
13 for themselves in the first instance; is that right?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And that's what you've done, isn't it?
16 A Repeat that.
17 Q And that's what you've done; isn't it?
18 A I don't exactly understand why you're asking --
19 or even what the question is exactly here.
20 Q You made the determination that there's
21 sufficient reason to infringe on RTC's copyrights by
22 posting its materials on the net, haven't you?
23 A No.
24 Q You haven't made that determination.
25 A No. I don't consider that infringement on their
26 copyrights at all.
[correct to . . . consider that I have infringed on . . .]
0040
01 Q You consider that there is sufficient reason to
02 misappropriate their trade secrets and put them on the
03 net, haven't you?
04 A No. Anything that I may have done, I think I
05 have a perfectly decent defense on the thing of it
06 being a fair use. [^^^^^^^^^^^^^ delete]
07 Q I see. And -- all right. Did you --
08 A I mean, for example, the six lines.
09 Q We'll get to the six lines. But when you posted
10 the six lines, did you consult with anyone as to
11 whether or not it was proper to put that on the net?
12 A Six lines?
13 Q Yes, that's my question. Yes or no.
14 A No.
15 Q And when you posted the NOTs issue, did you
16 consult with anyone as to whether or not it was
17 appropriate or permissible to post that on the net?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Who'd you consult with?
20 A Judge Whyte. I tried to.
21 Q Judge Whyte doesn't think you've consulted with
22 him, sir. I was in court. Other than Judge Whyte,
23 did you consult with anyone else?
24 A I don't remember.
25 Q You don't remember? It wasn't that long ago.
26 A I don't -- I don't remember whether I consulted
0041
01 with anybody else or not on that one.
02 Q Did you consult with a lawyer?
03 A No.
04 Q Did you consult with Mr. Ward?
05 A No.
06 Q Did you consult with Mr. Erlich?
07 A No.
08 Q This was a few weeks ago, but you don't remember
09 now whether you consulted with anybody else?
10 A I don't remember whether I -- whether I -- I
11 certainly didn't do a formal consult with -- like
12 paying a lawyer on it and going in and talking to
13 them.
14 Q Uh-huh. Basically you came to your own
15 determination that this was a permissible --
16 permissible use of the NOTs materials; is that right?
17 A NOTs 34 is criminal on the face of it. Not only
18 that, it's a violation of Judge Giselle's order.
[Gesell's]
19 Q My question is you decided -- you came to this
20 conclusion on your own; is that right? Yes or no.
21 A I said yeah. It doesn't take a lot of
22 conclusion to come to the conclusion of what's in that
23 thing.
24 Q I'd ask that you restrict yourself to the
25 questions I'm asking you.
26 You actually posted that twice, didn't
0042
01 you? NOTs 34?
02 A Actually, I thought I only posted it once. It
03 disappeared and I couldn't figure out -- I figured
04 "Well, I must have failed to post it correctly."
05 Q So then you reposted it?
06 A I repost it, yeah.
07 Q Then it shows up twice, right?
08 A No, it only showed up once. Church of
09 Scientology cancelled it once, I found out later.
10 That, by the way, is a violation of federal law.
11 Q Well, if they cancelled it, they must have known
12 that it was there, didn't they? So it must have shown
13 up, isn't that right?
14 A Say that again?
15 Q If they cancelled it the first time, how did
16 they know it was there?
17 A Well, presumably they're able to read.
18 Q Then that means it showed up, doesn't it?
19 A I don't know. I thought it was lost at the
20 time.
21 Q But if your view is that they cancelled it, then
22 it must be your view that it showed up; isn't it?
23 A There was a cancel message which accounted for
24 the fact that it disappeared. Are they --
25 Q Sir, I --
26 A Are they permitted to have done that?
0043
01 Q Sir, if it disappeared, it would have had to
02 appear; is that right? As a matter of basic logic,
03 isn't that right?
04 A Well, how would I know?
05 Q Okay.
06 A I went looking for it the next day and it wasn't
07 there.
08 Q So you put it back. You reposted --
09 A I put it back. That was long before I heard
10 from them. Days before I heard from them. Or at
11 least a couple of days.
12 TIME: 10:15
13 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
14 Kobrin.)
15 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): And what basis do
16 you have for asserting that the Church of Scientology
17 cancelled it?
18 A That's a good point. I don't. I think I need
19 to investigate that point as part of this lawsuit.
20 Q You have no basis for making that allegation as
21 we sit here today; is that right?
22 A Well, I think that -- you're right, I don't have
23 an allegation. I don't have any basis for that
24 allegation. It's an assumption based on longstanding
25 pattern of behavior, but you're right. I need to
26 investigate that. Thank you for suggesting that.
0044
01 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
02 Kobrin.)
03 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Do you have any
04 information that the Church of Scientology ever
05 cancelled any posting? Any facts to support that kind
06 of allegation?
07 A Facts that could be presented in a court of law
08 that I have personal knowledge of? No.
09 Q Okay. That's the question.
10 A But I'll go to the trouble to get it.
11 MR. LIEBERMAN: Let me see number 74.
12 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): By the way, when
13 you did post NOTs 34, you knew that it was
14 copyrighted, right?
15 A By somebody, yes. Stuff is born copyrighted.
16 Q You knew that RTC claimed the copyright to
17 NOTs 34, didn't you? Yes or no.
18 A Try that again.
19 Q You knew that the Church of Scientology through
20 RTC claimed the copyright, asserted a copyright, in
21 NOTs 34. Yes or no.
22 A It was on the list of material that was in the
23 TRO that was issued against Grady Ward. That's the
24 best I can do. I don't know whether they assert --
25 what they assert on it or how well it would hold up in
26 court.
0045
01 Q But you knew that it was asserted, right? In
02 fact, you also knew that it was part of the Erlich
03 case, didn't you?
04 A No.
05 Q You didn't?
06 A Nope.
07 Q Didn't you go and obtain a whole list of
08 materials that were at issue in the Erlich case and
09 didn't you post those to the internet?
10 A You think that I could remember that list of
11 numbers? No way.
12 Q I see. You didn't bother to check that what you
13 were posting was part of the injunction in the Erlich
14 case?
15 A No.
16 Q You didn't --
17 A I knew it was part of the injunction in the --
18 in the Ward case because that's how I found it. In
19 fact, would you like a description of how I found it?
20 Q No, I'll get to that. But you didn't bother to
21 check whether it was part of the injunction in the
22 Erlich case; is that your testimony?
23 A That's my testimony. Was it?
24 Q Yes.
25 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
26 Kobrin.)
0046
01 TIME: 10:20.
02 MR. LIEBERMAN: Number 78.
03 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Have you ever
04 used anonymous remailers?
05 A No.
06 Q You've never posted anything through an
07 anonymous remailer.
08 A No.
09 Q Okay. Do you know people who have?
10 A Probably.
11 Q Do you know whether Mr. Ward has?
12 A Wouldn't have the slightest idea.
13 Q Are you aware that people have used anonymous
14 remailers to post Scientology-copyrighted materials to
15 the internet?
16 A That's obvious.
17 Q Okay. And do you know why they would use an
18 anonymous remailer?
19 A Yeah, they want to avoid the kind of trouble
20 that I'm in.
21 Q Right. But you've never decided to use that
22 route to avoid that kind of trouble?
23 A If I did, I wouldn't be here today.
24 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
25 Kobrin.)
26 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Did you ever give
0047
01 any advice to people as to how to use anonymous
02 remailers to avoid detection by the Church of
03 Scientology?
04 A No. Not that I can remember. I may have done
05 so, but -- I may have mentioned that you should do it.
06 It's possible I even pointed people to where -- to
07 where you can find that information, but I can't
08 recall having done so.
09 Q Did you ever post any -- make any postings to
10 the internet describing to people how to do that or
11 giving them advice how to do it?
12 A I'm not an expert in that particular field. I
13 know only the rawest outlines of how you go about
14 doing that. I could probably describe it fairly well,
15 but I would be much more likely just to point people
16 to some of the web sites which have a great deal --
17 web sites or ftp sites that have the full details on
18 it.
19 Q Did anyone ever ask you for such advice or
20 information?
21 A I can't recall that.
22 Q Did anyone ever tell you that they were doing
23 that with respect to Church of Scientology materials?
24 A No.
25 Q Did you ever tell any people that those using
26 anonymous remailers should never use the same one
0048
01 twice as the final link?
02 A I might have.
03 Q Why would -- why would that be useful
04 information to know?
05 A Well, the obvious is that the final remailer in
06 the thing where the stuff is finally encrypted up to
[decrypted]
07 where you can actually see it and goes out at that
08 point, there's always a chance that the final
09 remailer -- and it could be compromised or subjected
10 to legal coercion to trap the stuff going through it.
11 Q So the idea would be if the final remailer only
12 knew the name of an intermediate remailer it would
13 give you another level of protection; is that the
14 idea?
15 A Oh, the general rule is that you never send
16 stuff through less than three or four remailers.
17 Q And that's precisely for the purpose of --
18 A If you're going to --
19 Q -- maintaining the secrecy?
20 A Right. If you're going to do that kind of
21 thing, you want to do a good job of it.
22 Q Is there a list of remailers that one can
23 obtain?
24 A Yes. I don't remember where you obtain it at
25 the moment.
26 Q Is there something called Cypherpunks?
0049
01 A Yes.
02 Q Is that where you obtain it?
03 A Let's see if I have it here. (Indicating).
04 Q What is Cypherpunk?
05 A Cypherpunk is a -- well, it's a really hard
06 thing to describe. It's obviously a play on
07 cyberpunks, and cypher, of course, which is to encrypt
08 things, and it's a shame you guys had to identify
09 everybody here today because I would have brought
10 somebody from that realm of the world. I know a
11 number of the people who are -- I can't say members --
12 subscribers to the Cypherpunks list is about as close
13 as I can come.
14 Q I see. So there's something called a
15 Cypherpunks list?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Who maintains that?
18 A Major Domo.
[majordomo]
19 Q Major Domo is an individual?
20 A No, no. Major Domo is a bot.
21 Q A what?
22 A A bot.
23 Q What's a bot?
24 A A robot like. It's short for robot.
25 Q Uh-huh. And this robot is obviously maintained
26 by somebody, right?
0050
01 A Not very much. In fact, it's hardly ever
02 touched.
03 Q Where does it sit?
04 A I don't know at this point. It was a year ago,
05 which was about the last time I was reading the
06 Cypherpunks list, it was on Hoptoad.
07 Q How would one go about getting the Cypherpunks
08 list?
09 A Subscribe Cypherpunks.
10 Q How do you do that?
11 A You send subscribe.cypherpunks to
12 cypherpunks.com or cyphe...@hoptoad.com.
13 Q Who are the individuals involved in Cypherpunks?
14 A Gee, I -- there's a list on -- of them that were
15 the prominent people that -- it's more exclusive than
16 any list I could come -- more extensive than any list
17 I could come up that was in Wired magazine.
18 Q Well, you must know some of the people involved,
19 sir, because you were going to bring some of them here
20 today, you just said so.
21 A One of them.
22 Q Who was that?
23 A Well, I never got any of them to agree.
24 Q Who was the person you were going to bring?
25 A I put a message on the Cypherpunks list saying
26 that -- if anybody'd want to come.
0051
01 Q You spoke to some people about it, right?
02 A No. Strictly e-mail.
03 Q Okay. Who did you communicate with through
04 e-mail?
05 A 700 people. I can't list them.
06 Q You don't know the identity --
07 A Actualy, I don't -- I got one back from -- oh,
08 man. Doughboy. I don't know when -- I had -- there
09 were several of them that were -- that -- you know,
10 that had names like that that I -- that were
11 interested, but when I posted back to the -- you know,
12 it was -- they had to be identified. Nobody was
13 interested.
14 Q But you knew their identity?
15 A Me?
16 Q Yes, you. You knew the identity of the people
17 you wanted to bring with you here today.
18 A (Witness shakes head from side to side.)
19 Q You're under oath, sir.
20 A I -- there's 700 people.
21 Q You wanted to bring not 700 people to this
22 deposition, but one or two. Who were they?
23 A Do I have to answer that question?
24 Q Yes.
25 A Let's take that up with Judge Invante this
[Infante]
26 afternoon.
0052
01 Q Okay. So you're refusing to answer that
02 question; is that right?
03 A I don't believe that it's -- that I'm required
04 to answer the question about hypothetical people that
05 I might have brought to this.
06 Q Is there anybody else connected with Cypherpunks
07 whom you can identify?
08 A Sure. Phil Zimmerman.
09 Q Yes? Who else?
10 A Eric Hughes. Two or three people in the East
11 Coast that post out of Panix. That's P-A-N-I-X.
12 Q What are their names?
13 A Oh, jeez. I'm not sure I know any of those guys
14 by name. There's a guy by the name of Hal, but I
15 cannot bring up his name, his last name.
16 Q Anyone else involved with Cypherpunks?
17 A It's been a year since I've been on Cypherpunks
18 steadily. It's too big a list. It was running more
19 than 50 megabytes a month and I can't handle that.
20 Q But the people who you are refusing to
21 identify are identified or connected with Cypherpunks?
22 A They're on the list of somewhere between 700 and
23 a thousand people.
24 Q You understand the reason I am asking you for
25 the identity is not because they would or would not
26 come to this deposition, but because they are
0053
01 connected with Cypherpunks. That's the reason for the
02 question.
03 A Well, if you want a list of Cypherpunk people
04 just --
05 Q Do you still refuse to --
06 A If you want a list of Cypherpunks, just ask for
07 it.
08 Q I'm asking, do you still refuse to identify the
09 names of those people, given what I just stated to
10 you?
11 A I had some people in mind that I would have
12 asked, but on the basis of having to be identified I
13 know none of them would be interested in coming.
14 Q Okay. And you're refusing to state who they
15 are?
16 A Well, you can get the whole list if you want.
17 Q That's not my question.
18 A Yeah, I refuse to state it. I mean, this is
19 highly hypothetical, but, I mean, the Cypherpunks
20 people would obviously be interested in this kind of
21 things. It's sort of like an arms manufacturer being
22 interested in reports from the battle front.
23 Q Okay.
24 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
25 Kobrin.)
26 MR. LIEBERMAN: Let me see number 83.
0054
01 TIME: 10:32.
02 MR. LIEBERMAN: Can you mark that as
03 whatever we're up to.
04 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 6 was
05 marked for identification by the
06 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
07 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): This is a posting
08 to a.r.s. from H.K. Henson dated 5th of April '95 "Re:
09 Gerald Armstrong message to a.r.s." Do you know who
10 Gerald Armstrong is?
11 A Only by having read that he's been silenced by
12 the Church of Scientology.
13 Q Do you recall that he sent a message to a.r.s.
14 about a year ago?
15 A I seem to remember that he did something like
16 that.
17 Q And did you try to make it to a court hearing in
18 a case involving Gerald Armstrong?
19 A No. It got rescheduled, if I remember.
20 Q But before it was rescheduled, you intended to
21 try to make it to it; is that right?
22 A I thought about it.
23 Q Did you ever go to a hearing, a court hearing
24 involving Gerald Armstrong?
25 A No.
26 Q Okay.
0055
01 A As they say, I have a life.
02 Q Glad to hear it. Did you make this posting?
03 A I can't say. There's not enough context to
04 figure out what it was about, and I can't -- I can't
05 swear to anything that is on paper like this.
06 Q There's nothing in the content of this that
07 suggests that this is anything other than a posting by
08 you as it purports to be?
09 A There's nothing in it that says it is a posting
10 by me either.
11 Q Well, yeah, there is. It says from Keith
12 Henson. Does it not?
13 A It states that, but I can type anybody's name in
14 there. Do you want me to generate you one with your
15 name in it? It's simple to do.
16 Q Not my question, sir. You see PS, it says, "By
17 the way, CoS, attacking people like Grady who have
18 never been involved with CoS is a very, very bad
19 move." Did you think a year ago the church was
20 attacking Grady Ward?
21 A Oh, definitely.
22 Q They hadn't brought any lawsuit against him, had
23 they?
24 A You don't need to bring lawsuits against
25 somebody to attack them. I mean, doing things like
26 stealing pictures of his children from his mother is
0056
01 what I would consider to be a serious level attack.
02 Q Is that something they did in April of '95?
03 A I don't remember when they did it.
04 Q Grady was attacking the church pretty heavily on
05 a.r.s., too, wasn't he?
06 A I don't remember.
07 Q You don't?
08 A No. The reason of it is that Grady's -- I
09 really didn't find Grady's posts to be usually all
10 that interesting. I usually skipped them.
11 Q I see. You made numerous references to Grady in
12 your own postings, didn't you?
13 A Well, Grady was obviously under a serious attack
14 by the church.
15 Q What kind of communication -- did you have
16 communications with Grady?
17 A I actually never spoke to Grady before --
18 whatever date it was that that first picket was
19 held up -- that the picket was held this year up at
20 San Francisco, and I sent maybe three or four e-mail
21 messages to him altogether. Short things, you know,
22 like "way to go" or something like that.
23 Q Did you ever discuss with him posting
24 Scientology materials to the internet?
25 A Never have.
26 Q Ever communicate with him by e-mail or by
0057
01 regular mail concerning that subject?
02 A Never by regular mail. I haven't written a
03 letter by regular mail for years hardly. Very few of
04 them.
05 Q How about by e-mail? By e-mail, did you discuss
06 with Grady Ward posting Scientology materials to the
07 internet?
08 A Absolutely not.
09 Q Did you ever discuss with Grady Ward the
10 identity of SCAMIZDAT?
11 A Nope.
12 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry?
13 MR. LIEBERMAN: SCAMIZDAT,
14 S-C-A-M-I-Z-D-A-T.
15 THE WITNESS: And if you want to do it by
16 the -- the a.r.s. standard, it should all be in
17 capitals.
18 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
19 Kobrin.)
20 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Did you ever
21 discuss either electronically or by spoken word with
22 anybody the question of the identity of SCAMIZDAT?
23 A I don't believe I have ever done that.
24 Q Are you SCAMIZDAT?
25 A No.
26 Q Do you know who SCAMIZDAT is?
0058
01 A No. However, I can do some speculation on that,
02 if you'd like.
03 Q I'm not interested in speculation. I'm
04 interested in --
05 A Well, if you don't want information that would
06 help you figure out who SCAMIZDAT is, that's okay by
07 me.
08 Q I want to know if you have any information. I
09 want to know that. If you are merely speculating,
10 your speculation is no better than anybody else's.
11 A Well, you have the same information I have.
12 Q Okay. Do you know who SCAMIZDAT is or do you
13 think you know who it is?
14 A Haven't a clue.
15 Q Okay. And you quite definitely are not.
16 A The presumption with SCAMIZDAT is that SCAMIZDAT
17 is a person who's actually had some of the hard copied
18 materials of the Church of Scientology in
19 their possession to type them in or scan them in.
20 I've never seen a piece of hard copy of any of the OT
21 or NOTs material or any of the other stuff that they
22 keep secret.
23 Q Okay.
24 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
25 Kobrin.)
26 TIME: 10:39.
0059
01 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Do you know who
02 Patrick Volk is?
03 A Who?
04 Q Patrick J. Volk, V-O-L-K.
05 A Not a clue. At least I can't think -- does he
06 go by any other name on the net?
07 Q I don't know.
08 A To the best of my knowledge I've never heard
09 of this person. Did he send me mail --
10 Q Could he be possibly -- if I said that he was
11 connected with some educational institution in
12 Pittsburgh, does that refresh your recollection at
13 all?
14 A It's entirely possible that I did something like
15 respond to some posting of his, if this person posts
16 on the internet, but the name is not immediately
17 familiar to me.
18 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Let me see number
19 94.
20 THE WITNESS: If you give me a little more
21 background, maybe I can --
22 MR. LIEBERMAN: I'll try and do that.
23 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
24 Kobrin.)
25 MR. LIEBERMAN: If you need to take a
26 break at any point, all you need to do is say so. I
0060
01 should have said that at the beginning of the
02 deposition as part of the general instructions.
03 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 7 was
04 marked for identification by the
05 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
06 THE WITNESS: (Laughter). I'm sorry.
07 This is a great troll.
08 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Okay. You find
09 this amusing?
10 A Yes. It's an in-joke.
11 Q Now, this is --
12 A Please just read it into the record.
13 Q This is a posting dated April 6, 1995 to a.r.s.
14 from Keith Henson. It quotes a posting by Patrick,
15 with the T left out by mistake, I assume, Volk,
16 V-O-L-K, which states, among other things, "Screw the
17 courts" and also says that he has an ftp site for all
18 the OT materials. Mr. Henson --
19 A I'm sorry, I just lost it.
20 Q Mr. Henson is laughing hysterically about this
21 posting for reasons that I suppose he understands.
22 And obviously -- well, let me ask you this, sir --
23 A Why do I find this humorous?
24 Q No, that's not my question. What's an ftp site?
25 A ftp stands for file transfer protocol.
26 Q Right. And describe what that -- what an ftp
0061
01 site is.
02 A It is -- it is a place on the internet where you
03 can use almost any machine on the internet to access
04 the files that have been placed in what's called an
05 ftp directory anywhere else on the internet. For
06 example, pheta.com has a file -- has an ftp, bunch of
[theta.com]
07 ftp directories in there. And you can use a program
08 called ftp or ncftp or some of the browsers also
09 support this through URL's and it provides you a way
10 to link up with that machine, remote machine, and by
11 using commands -- there's a whole lot of commands you
12 can use, but there's only a few I use called get and
13 put that allows us to transfer files from the
14 directory that you're in on the remote machine into
15 your own directory.
16 Q Okay. So when he said, "I have an ftp site for
17 all the OT materials," he is saying he has all the OT
18 materials available on an ftp site which people can
19 access; is that right?
20 A That's right.
21 Q Okay. Were you aware of Patrick Volk's ftp
22 site; does this refresh your recollection?
23 A Well, you see right after the colon, it says,
24 "ftp:127.0.0.1"?
25 Q Yes.
26 A That's a loopback address.
0062
01 Q That's a what?
02 A Loopback.
03 Q What does that mean?
04 A You don't actually go out of your own machine at
05 all, it loops right back into your own machine. This
06 is what's known as a troll in the internet.
07 Q I see. And what's a troll, sir?
08 A Oh, it comes from the fishing where you troll a
09 bait along in the water and a fish will jump and bite
10 the thing, and the idea of it is that the internet is
11 a very humorous place and it's especially good to
12 troll people who don't have any sense of humor at all,
13 and this is a troll because an ftp site of 127.0.0.1
14 doesn't go anywhere. It loops right back around into
15 your own machine.
16 Q So the idea here was to make the church think
17 that this person had an ftp site and to take action
18 against him and, in fact, he didn't have it; is that
19 your point?
20 A Oh, it's really humorous, and I picked up on it
21 and instantly -- instantly added something to extend
22 the troll. Extending the trolls like this is an art
23 form of the highest order.
24 Q I see. So this is part of your art form where
25 you say, "don't you expect the 'ho to blow a gasket?"
26 A Yes.
0063
01 Q So you do remember this posting apparently?
02 A Well, I don't remember whether I did this one or
03 not, but --
04 Q You just said you did, sir.
05 A I don't remember for certain that I did this
06 one, and certainly I could not swear to any of the
07 material on here being letter perfect on it, but even
08 if I didn't do this one, I think I would want to
09 claim -- it's -- I would certainly claim this one.
10 This was -- even if I didn't do this one, this is is a
11 good one.
12 Q Uh-huh.
13 A And PS --
14 Q You find this whole thing kind of amusing, don't
15 you?
16 A Oh, this is screamingly funny.
17 Q You find it amusing to make Helena Kobrin and
18 the church go after you or other people for this sort
19 of thing, whether you have the materials or not; is
20 that right?
21 A It's a great game.
22 Q It is a great game. You really find it amusing,
23 don't you?
24 A It's an extremely amusing thing.
25 Q All right. You find it amusing when you receive
26 these letters from Ms. Kobrin, the cease and desist
0064
01 letters? It's part of the game; isn't it?
02 A Well, we'll get to that later.
03 Q No, this is the question now.
04 A Well, if you figure -- if you find in that pile
05 of stuff the SP levels, we can discuss that at this
06 point. It's a matter of status --
07 Q Sir, I ask the questions, you answer them. You
08 find the whole thing an amusing game, right?
09 A I can only answer that question in the context
10 of the SP levels.
11 Q You find it an amusing part of the game when you
12 receive these cease and desist letters, right?
13 A No, no. It's not amusing, it's a major
14 increment in status.
15 Q I see. You feel this increases your status,
16 right?
17 A Oh, absolutely.
18 Q On the internet, on a.r.s.
19 A Yes.
20 Q All right. And it's all part of this game,
21 right?
22 A Absolutely.
23 Q It's all part of the troll, right?
24 A This is a great troll (indicating).
25 Q Thank you.
26 A I mean, anybody in the computer business
0065
01 instantly would have spotted this, ftp:127. In fact,
02 it even says trolls in here (indicating). In fact,
03 this was cross-posted from --
04 Q There is no question pending. You can hold your
05 comments.
06 MR. LIEBERMAN: Let me see number 96.
07 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, this is just too
08 funny.
09 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Why did you think
10 this would cause Ms. Kobrin to blow a gasket?
11 A Actually, if she had access to anybody who knew
12 anything whatsoever about computers and ftp and stuff
13 like that, she would never even -- never even consider
14 it to be anything whatsoever.
15 Q Yes, but you assumed she didn't, right?
16 A This wasn't addressed to Helena.
17 Q But you thought that this might cause her to
18 blow a gasket?
19 A No, I figured -- this was a joke.
20 Q But you figured that if she, in fact, did think
21 that Mr. Volk had the OT materials on an ftp site she
22 would blow a gasket, right?
23 A Not likely.
24 Q You don't think she would be upset by that?
25 A Well --
26 Q If it were a real ftp site?
0066
01 A The assumption is that somebody would actually
02 try this and see, and the fact of it is that there
03 was -- it was a loopback to your own local -- if it
04 worked at all, it would be a loopback to your own
05 local machine. Only one machine in a thousand or less
06 than that would have this particular address or
07 directory structure in it which would get this. So
08 anybody who attempted to actually look and see the
09 thing would instantly discover that it was -- that it
10 was a troll, but, I mean, you can see it's a troll
11 from the 127 in there. That's the loopback address.
12 These four digits that are in here separated by
13 periods are the IP addresses.
14 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Can you mark that.
15 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 8 was
16 marked for identification by the
17 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
18 THE WITNESS: Yes?
19 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Okay. Do you
20 know who L. Sobocinski is?
21 A No. No idea. I think this particular person is
22 a Scientologist. If it's important for the case, I
23 can have CompuServe tell me who his real name is.
24 Q I just asked you whether you know who he is, he
25 or she. You don't?
26 A No.
0067
01 Q Okay. This is a -- this exhibit is a posting
02 dated April 7, '95 from Keith Henson to a.r.s. "Re:
03 Good stuff from one that's been there" and which
04 begins with quoting a posting from somebody named L.
05 Sobocinski, S-O-B-O-C-I-N-S-K-I, in which -- which
06 states that "You really shouldn't publish stuff that
07 purports to be confidential" and you shouldn't fill up
08 Scientologist's e-mail with obscene and threatening
09 messages, "but you do." And there's a response
10 from -- purports to be from Mr. Henson which says,
11 "Mr. Sobocinski, it is within the bounds of acceptable
12 net behavior to post obscene and threatening e-mail
13 without warning." Is that true?
14 A Absolutely.
15 Q Really. That's considered acceptable net
16 behavior?
17 A Absolutely. If you get a threatening e-mail, it
18 is threatening e-mail letter or obscene material that
19 you don't want to have seen, it is absolutely
20 considered that you don't -- it's not welcome to you,
21 it is considered to be absolutely within the bounds of
22 behavior to post private mail to you instantly on
23 those kind of conditions. Again, I cannot swear to
24 this being actually a letter-perfect copy of my
25 posting, but certainly the stuff that is -- purports
26 to be by me is utterly consistent. I said in here he
0068
01 was saying that -- he was saying anti-Scientologists
02 were engaging in behavior of filling up their e-mail
03 with obscene and threatening messages, and I said
04 please post this stuff, which is the normal behavior.
05 Q Okay.
06 A He didn't. Or whatever is behind this -- this
07 account didn't. If I remember correctly.
08 Q So you do remember this communication?
09 A This is consistent with what I would have done,
10 but, like I say, I cannot swear that this is letter
11 perfect for what I -- for an actual real posting of
12 mine.
13 Q All right.
14 MR. LIEBERMAN: I need to take a
15 five-minute break, so we can go off the record.
16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. Thank you.
17 Hearing no objection, the time now is 10:54. We're
18 going off the record. Clear to talk.
19 (Recess taken.)
20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the
21 record. The time now is 11:08. Go ahead, please.
22 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. I think you said,
23 correct me if I'm wrong, that there are a.r.s.
24 archives maintained somewhere?
25 A Yes. There are -- I've forgotten who the
26 person's name is that maintains it, but there's at
0069
01 least one person that tries to download everything
02 that's on a.r.s. Well, so does the Church of
03 Scientology. As far as I know they get everything.
04 Q But other than the Church of Scientology, do you
05 know who it would be?
06 A I can't remember her name now.
07 Q Is this something somebody -- anybody can access
08 from the internet or do you have to contact the person
09 independently?
10 A No, you'd have to post a message asking to have
11 somebody send it to you if you have something specific
12 that you want.
13 Q Do you know the internet address of that person?
14 A No. I can't remember what it is.
15 Q Would you have it back home or something like
16 that?
17 A No, but if I wanted it -- wanted it I could
18 certainly find -- I'd just post a message and ask
19 who's got them. It's a woman who might be a lawyer,
20 if I remember correctly, and her first name starts
21 with a D, but I'm not sure.
22 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
23 Kobrin.)
24 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Deanna Holmes?
25 A That sounds right. Maybe.
26 Q And your understanding is this person, whether
0070
01 it's Deanna Holmes or somebody else, has maintained a
02 complete archive from the creation, so to speak?
03 A I don't think so. There might have been some
04 other people who have some material back from last
05 year, but I -- or sorry, '94, but I believe that
06 there's some stuff which is lost because nobody --
07 nobody kept it.
08 Q Okay. And how were you able to determine
09 that -- your number of postings? At least the ones
10 that you could calculate were 1,200.
11 A I looked at the counter.
12 Q Where do you look at the counter? Where --
13 A In tine there's -- unless you go to some trouble
[tin]
14 to shut it off, tin keeps a count of your postings.
15 And I actually -- of the 1,228 that were counted, that
16 I counted in the tin file on both Portal and Netcom,
17 my guess is that around 80 percent, maybe even 90
18 percent of that would have been a.r.s. postings.
19 a.r.s. has been a very interesting place in the last
20 year. It has a lot of the characteristics of a soap
21 opera.
22 Q Okay. Do you know who Homer is?
23 A Yes. Or -- I've never met him or talked to him
24 on the phone or -- it's possible that I've exchanged
25 one or two e-mails with him, but I know -- I know who
26 he is. He's the creator of alt.clearing.technology.
0071
01 Q What's alt.clearing.technology?
02 A It's the place where the free-zoners hang out.
03 Q Okay. Now, who are the free-zoners?
04 A Free-zoners are the people that said goodbye to
05 the Church of Scientology but are still practicing
06 that particular auditing and other kind of practices
07 that the Scientologists do.
08 Q I see. So they -- they do things like NOTs and
09 they do things like the OT levels?
10 A I don't know. I don't -- I don't know any of
11 them, you know, except a little bit through the net.
12 They've struck me -- people like -- oh, Ken Long, for
13 example, argued incessantly that body thetans have
14 mass or ingrams have mass. I forget which one it was.
[engrams]
15 Q Right. Was Ken Long a free-zoner?
16 A I don't know actually whether he had actually
17 been active with the free-zone or not. The church
18 certainly threw him out after what he thinks is
19 ripping him of for a couple of hundred thousand.
[off]
20 Q I see. But the free-zoners believe in the text,
21 so to speak, of Scientology as far as you know?
22 A Yeah, they -- as the Scientologists refer to it,
23 they squirrel it a lot, which means they change it.
24 Q All right.
25 A I don't know much about it. The ones that post
26 to the net seem to be kind of looney for the most
0072
01 part.
02 Q Now, Homer is one of the free-zoners?
03 A Yeah.
04 Q And he posts to both a.r.s. and also to
05 alt.clearing.technology?
06 A Right.
07 Q All right.
08 A I don't know what he says 'cause I killfiled him
09 a long time ago.
10 Q Explain to the record for us on the record what
11 killfiled means.
12 A alt.religion.scientology has as many as 5- or
13 600 postings to it a day. That's far too many to
14 read, and a lot of them are seriously off topic or
15 they're by people that just write stuff that is so
16 weird it's incomprehensible. Koos, for example, or
17 Koos, I guess, is how it's actually pronounced. So
18 what you can do with a lot of news readers is you can
19 hit control K and then go through a little menu and it
20 will produce as a file called killfile and the
21 killfile then essentially just -- when you sign in to
22 read the group, it just goes through and just deletes
23 all of -- just takes out of your view all the authors
24 or the topics that you've killfiled.
25 Q I see.
26 A My killfile is about somewhere between 15- and
0073
01 20,000 bytes. It's a big killfile.
02 Q And is Homer one of the people who you've put in
03 your killfile or not?
04 A I -- well, my killfiles are not consistent
05 between Portal and Netcom, and so I'm not actually
06 sure whether I got him killfiled in both places or
07 not. If he isn't posting very much I couldn't really
08 tell. I don't know when -- I don't really know
09 whether he's killfiled or not, but I could find out if
10 it was important.
11 Q Okay.
12 MR. LIEBERMAN: Done with this. Okay.
13 Let me have number 107.
14 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Did you ever meet
15 with somebody named Aron Mason?
16 A Yes. Very early in this business.
17 Q Yes.
18 A It was right after the Computers, Privacy and
19 Freedom Conference, I think, CPF, whenever it stood
20 for.
21 Q That's sponsered by EFF?
22 A Yeah. I didn't go to the conference, but I did
23 go to a rump session that was held afterwards that
24 was -- I think Leipold spoke there and John Perry
25 Barlow and I think Mason -- in fact, I'm sure Mason
26 was one of the people, Mason and Jeff Quiros were the
0074
01 people that showed up there at that.
02 Q And what was -- what was the circumstances of
03 your meeting with them?
04 A Well, it was after all this hoorah had broken
05 loose on the net and I -- I decided I wanted to see
06 what -- see what -- there's -- the session was
07 specifically on the Scientologists and the net, and so
08 I wanted to go see what it was about. And I met Aron
09 and Jeff, and I think they were the only two
10 Scientologists who were there. I do remember in the
11 meeting, at the question and answer part after that,
12 of making sure that they had a chance to speak.
13 Q Okay. What was your impression of them when you
14 met them?
15 A Weird people.
16 Q Uh-huh. Did they say anything to you --
17 A Yes.
18 Q -- that you remember?
19 A That was one of my first experiences with TRL,
20 people who'd been heavily trained in lying, and it was
21 most amusing because at that point I had just read
22 Andre Tobayion's affidavit.
23 Q Okay.
24 A And, of course, they were referring to him as a
25 backhoe operateor with no knowledge or power at all in
26 the Church of Scientology.
0075
01 Q I see. And you had knowledge that that was not
02 true?
03 A Well, I had read an extensive deposition -- or
04 not deposition, a declaration to the extent and had
05 seen such things as the fact that Andre had been in
06 charge of something in Portland that involved
07 thousands of Scientologists, so I -- I was actually
08 impressed by how well they were able to just absolute
09 straight-faced dead-pan lie. I was -- they did a good
10 job. Well-trained.
11 MR. LIEBERMAN: Can you mark that.
12 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 9 was
13 marked for identification by the
14 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
15 THE WITNESS: Is this my account of that
16 meeting?
17 MR. LIEBERMAN: Take a look.
18 THE WITNESS: Well, again, it's one of the
19 things which I can't -- oh, Woody. I can't verify
20 that this is actually the posting that I did, but
21 let's see what it's about.
22 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Let me just
23 identify it for the record while you're taking a look
24 at it. This is a posting from Keith Henson to a.r.s.,
25 "Subject: Re: LSD," dated April 8th, 1995, and it
26 contains a dialogue between Mr. Henson and somebody
0076
01 named --
02 A Woody.
03 Q Also a Rick Sherwood in there?
04 A That's Woody.
05 Q Okay. So quoted in here is a statement in which
06 you give an account of your meeting with Jeff Quiros
07 and Aron Mason; is that right?
08 A Right.
09 Q Okay. And down at the bottom of that page, you
10 see where you say, "Do you have any idea of how wide
11 our circle of friends is"?
12 A Uh-huh.
13 Q Who did you mean by our?
14 A Ahh, the net.
15 Q The net?
16 A 30 million people.
17 Q And what did you mean by your circle of friends?
18 A I'm probably known by 10,000 people, and between
19 the people that I know and the people that folks like
20 Grady knows and the people that Ron Newman knows and
21 Jeff Jacobsen, and, you know, you're dealing with
22 people with big net presences -- presence, and I
23 notice that this is actually in response to a posting
24 by M. Council, because I have killfiled Woody, and if
25 she hadn't responded to Woody, I would have never
26 known that Woody had responded to my posting.
0077
01 Q Okay. Now, you say, "Do you have the slightest
02 idea of who you are threatening?" What threat are you
03 referring to in this particular dialogue or trialogue
04 or whatever it is?
05 A I'm -- let's see. Probably the "Scientologists
06 fight back. I know you don't like this. But they
07 persist," which was Woody's statement.
08 Q Okay. So that's what you meant by a threat.
09 A Yeah, in the context of the previous sentence,
10 which is "Henson, be careful, here. Others don't have
11 your bias and you might lose some credibility if you
12 try to make" out -- "make it out for what it was not."
13 And I -- my comment on that was "I" can't "figure out
14 which part of my posting" you're "referring to," and
15 then went on down, "If" you're "referring to the Ms.
16 Bloody/Tom K./-AB- extended episode, I clearly stated
17 that it" made "no sense to me." I went on to say, "It
18 is just about the weirdest story" I've "ever heard,
19 and if you or anyone else in or out of CoS can explain
20 it, I'd be nothing short of delighted. If you are
21 referring to my reporting of the EFF meeting, my bias
22 in these matters is fully on the record."
23 Q What is your bias?
24 A Oh, in favor of freedom of expression and I'm,
25 of course, opposed to the kind of brainwashing and
26 other sorts of abuse that the Church of Scientology is
0078
01 well-known for doing.
02 Q Okay.
03 A Ahh, right. Aron mentioned -- he mentioned that
04 Fishman had never been a CoS member --
05 Q There is no question on the table.
06 A Great stuff. Again, like I say, I'm not sure
07 this is mine, but it certainly is consistent with the
08 kind of things I would do.
09 Q Now, approximately when did you first post the
10 six or seven lines from OT VII to the internet?
11 A I'm sorry, I don't remember. You people no
12 doubt know.
13 Q Would it refresh your memory if I said it was in
14 the middle of July of 1995; does that sound about
15 right?
16 A It sounds about right, yeah.
17 Q And where did you obtain the --
18 A I was responding to somebody else's posting,
19 which means that I obtained it right there on the
20 screen by hitting the F key for follow-up, and that
21 the previous posting then with these appropriate kinds
22 of colons or greater-than signs jumped into my buffer,
23 and I probably deleted some of the text which was in
24 there because I normally do that, and then I posted
25 some kind of comment on it beyond that probably, and
26 hit the key that causes it to be posted to the net.
0079
01 Q Had you obtained copies, electronic copies or
02 computer disk copies of OT VII prior to that?
03 A Other than the fact that I think it had been on
04 the news spool -- on machines that I had access for
05 days before that, no.
06 Q But had you downloaded that?
07 A No. You got to be kidding.
08 Q When you posted it, was it sitting on any
09 computer memory of yours?
10 A Well, yeah, it was sitting in the computer
11 memory. Let's see. It was in the video RAM memory of
12 my terminal emulation program and it was in the memory
13 on either Portal or Netcom, whichever one I was using,
14 of that machine.
15 Q Why did you repost it?
16 A I don't remember. I wrote some kind of comment
17 on it and reposted it the way people do with stuff on
18 the net.
19 MR. LIEBERMAN: Number --
20 THE WITNESS: Oh, my goodness. Is that --
21 is that it in front of you there? Count the number of
22 symbols in front of the lines.
23 MR. LIEBERMAN: 124.
24 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
25 Kobrin.)
26 MR. LIEBERMAN: You'll get a copy in a
0080
01 minute, sir.
02 THE WITNESS: Six. I didn't realize it
03 was that far in.
04 MR. LIEBERMAN: Will you mark that.
05 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 10 was
06 marked for identification by the
07 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
08 MS. KOBRIN: Was that 10 that we're up
09 to?
10 THE REPORTER: Yes.
11 THE WITNESS: (Laughter).
12 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Okay. This is a
13 posting from Keith Henson to a.r.s. dated July 21,
14 '95. Subject is "Helena Kobrin threatens yet another
15 lawsuit." Down at the bottom is a posting of several
16 lines from "OT7," capital O, capital T, 7, which has
17 been blacked out for purposes of this exhibit since we
18 are marking this exhibit as part of the deposition
19 record. And it responds to a posting by somebody
20 named Tom Betz. Do you know who Tom Betz is, sir?
21 A No.
22 Q And Tom Betz is quoting somebody named Hillel
23 who, in fact, was quoting you, I believe, is the way
24 this works; is that right?
25 A Right.
26 Q And you had written "has anyone from California
0081
01 been graced with one of these letters, or do ours come
02 hand delivered with a summons?" What kind of letter
03 were you referring to there?
04 A Helena's letters.
05 Q These were cease and desist letters?
06 A Yes.
07 Q To cease and desist from posting --
08 A Six lines.
09 Q Of OT VII; is that right?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And then at the end you say, "I posted 16
12 lines." Do you know what you meant by that?
13 A No. I'm not -- like I say, I'm not even sure
14 that this is actually one of my postings, but if it
15 is, I don't even know what the 16 lines would have
16 referred to. Presumably it would have been before
17 this in time if this indeed is one of my -- a true
18 representation of one of my postings, but wherever I
19 was posting this thing, I was posting it quoting
20 people six levels deep. So six other people had
21 quoted exactly the same material before I quoted it.
22 Q Okay. And then you quoted it and posted it
23 again, right?
24 A Right.
25 Q Okay. Do you remember that there had been six
26 other people who'd done that previously?
0082
01 A No, that's just from -- you just see that from
02 the number of symbols that precede the lines involved.
03 Q Actually, there are five, I believe.
04 A Well, the colon counts, too.
05 Q The colon counts?
06 A Yeah. Some machines -- mine uses colons. In
07 fact, you can tell that, but I apparently cut this out
08 of some other posting and stuck it there.
09 Q So --
10 A If this was my posting.
11 Q But you did post these six or seven lines of OT
12 VII, we already established that, right?
13 A Six lines.
14 Q Yeah. Okay.
15 A Well, presumptively I did, but I don't know that
16 this is the posting where I did it.
17 Q But you did. Okay. Now --
18 A I --
19 Q Did you --
20 A I can't even tell you that it's OT VII, to be
21 truthful about it. I've never seen the originals.
22 Q Did -- did you receive a cease and desist letter
23 from Helena Kobrin as a result of this?
24 A As a result of something.
25 Q As a result of posting six lines of OT VII?
26 A As a result of something. Of posting probably
0083
01 the six lines. I don't know what actually caused it.
02 Q Well, what did the letter say caused it?
03 A I don't remember. I gave you guys a copy of it.
04 Whatever's in the letter.
05 Q But you don't remember what the letter said?
06 A No. Heaven's sakes, it was three pages or
07 something.
08 Q When you received this letter, did this increase
09 your status?
10 A Oh, yes.
11 Q You felt good when you got that letter, right?
12 A Oh, I was quite amused.
13 Q Did you let people know you'd received the
14 letter?
15 A Oh, yes. Matter of fact, I printed it up and
16 posted it on the BBS -- sorry, posted on the cork
17 board where I work.
18 Q Right. And before you received the letter, did
19 you indicate that you wanted to receive such a letter?
20 A I might have. It was quite a status symbol at
21 that point. However, I'm afraid that Helena degraded
22 the status very quickly by sending out I don't know
23 how many.
24 MR. LIEBERMAN: I'm informed that we need
25 to change the tape, so why don't we go off the record
26 while the videographer changes the tape.
0084
01 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. This is the
02 completion of tape number 1 in the deposition of Keith
03 Henson on May 8th, 1996. The time now is 11:33.
04 We're going off the record. Clear to talk.
05 (Recess taken.)
06 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the
07 record. This is start of tape number 2 in the
08 deposition of Keith Henson on May 8th, 1996. The time
09 now is 11:37. Go ahead, please.
10 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 11 was
11 marked for identification by the
12 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
13 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Okay. I have
14 asked the reporter to mark as Exhibit Number 11 a
15 posting to a.r.s. and other news groups from H.K.
16 Henson, subject again "Helena Kobrin threatens yet
17 another lawsuit." And there is a quote from somebody
18 named Dave Barron. Do you know who Dave Barron is?
19 A No. No, I don't.
20 Q And then after --
21 A Who's quoting somebody else.
22 Q Okay. He's quoting somebody named Zeltar, I
23 think, Z-E-L-T-A-R, and then he responds to Zeltar
24 saying, "I really don't understand why dissemination
25 of these six lines could cause CoS members or their
26 lawyers to exert so much fuss and bother," et cetera,
0085
01 and then there's a comment by Mr. Henson that says,
02 "Dave," I'm "going to be really pissed if you manage
03 to get a letter from Ms. Maginta (sic) lips and I
04 don't." Here you're referring to your desire to
05 receive a cease and desist letter from Helena Kobrin,
06 are you not?
07 A Assuming that this is actually one of my
08 postings, that would seem to be the drift of it.
09 Q Well, that was your attitude, wasn't it?
10 A Assuming this is actually a posting of mine,
11 yes.
12 Q But whether this was a posting of yours or not,
13 that was your attitude, was it not, that you would --
14 really wanted to receive such a letter and you'd be
15 really pissed if somebody else did and you didn't, in
16 your words, right?
17 A That's true. Right. Not that I'm owning up to
18 this one actually being one of my postings, but that
19 was -- there was certainly a great status, one up's
20 manship going on at that particular time on the
21 internet as to who could get one of these and who
22 couldn't.
23 Q Had you ever used -- did you ever use the term
24 Ms. Magenta lips to refer to Helena Kobrin?
25 A Before this? I don't know.
26 Q Have you ever used it?
0086
01 A Assuming this is one of my postings, yes.
02 Q Is it a term that rings a bell with you?
03 A No.
04 Q Okay. And you did receive such a letter, didn't
05 you?
06 A I've already stated that. If fact, I gave you
07 guys a copy of it.
08 Q Okay.
09 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
10 Kobrin.)
11 THE WITNESS: And if I failed to thank
12 Helena for the letter at that point, I certainly would
13 like to do so now.
14 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): You really got a
15 kick out of that letter?
16 A Oh, I posted it on the local -- like I say, the
17 local cork board. People were laughing about it all
18 week at the company.
19 Q You were laughing about it, too, right?
20 A Oh, it was a scream. For six lines? You got to
21 be kidding. It didn't work after awhile. I think I
22 was one of the last.
23 Q What was it that didn't work?
24 A Oh, she quit giving them out.
25 Q For those -- for those particular six lines, you
26 mean?
0087
01 A Yeah. Finally gave up.
02 Q You didn't post those six lines again though,
03 did you?
04 A I don't know. A lot of people put them in their
05 sigs. I don't really know whether I posted them again
06 or not.
07 Q Put them in their what?
08 A Sig lines.
09 Q What's a sig line?
10 A If you set something in what's called a sig
11 line, then at the end of every posting, it just block
12 adds whatever's in a file called .sig, and there were
13 people who had it in their sig blocks at the end of
14 their postings for --
15 Q So then it would stay, in effect, in the memory
16 on their computers?
17 A Yeah. It was a file in their computer that
18 would automatically be posted there, and there's a
19 bunch of people that did it for months.
20 Q Did you put it in you sig?
21 A No. I don't use sig block.
22 Q I see.
23 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
24 Kobrin.)
25 MR. WARD: Would you like a pen knife?
26 MR. LIEBERMAN: Thank you. I'm okay. If
0088
01 you could mark that, please.
02 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 12 was
03 marked for identification by the
04 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
05 MR. LIEBERMAN: I'll give you a copy in a
06 minute, as soon as I perform a little surgery here.
07 Here you go.
08 THE WITNESS: Well, again, I could
09 certainly not -- I mean, this isn't even something
10 from me. I could -- certainly could not say that this
11 is -- is character accurate to what I would have
12 received from Helena at that particular time or
13 whoever was behind the HKK account since that account
14 has been used at times when Helena was clearly other
15 places, but I don't know. I -- okay. What do you
16 want me to say about it?
17 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Right. Does --
18 did you receive this letter?
19 A I don't know. Prob -- it's quite possible I
20 received it, but I can't -- I certainly can't verify
21 it.
22 Q But you did receive such a letter of this
23 character, a cease and desist letter from Helena
24 Kobrin, you can't looking at it identify it
25 specifically, but this is in the nature of what you
26 received; is that your testimony?
0089
01 A Actually, I think -- I think the one I got was
02 longer. I'm not sure.
03 Q Okay.
04 A I'm not at all sure.
05 Q Did --
06 A It's a form letter.
07 Q Did you also receive a copy of a letter that was
08 sent to your systems operator concerning your posting
09 of these?
10 A No.
11 Q No? Did you receive any communication from your
12 systems operator warning you about copy -- potential
13 copyright infringement?
14 A No.
15 Q At any time did you receive such a communication
16 from any --
17 A No.
18 Q -- any systems operator?
19 A Never heard from any of them. Not that I can
20 remember. It's not like they might not have sent
21 something to me. E-mail is not a hundred percent
22 reliable. But I can't recall ever having seen
23 anything from either of my service providers.
24 Anything at all.
25 Q Who are your two service providers again? I'm
26 sorry.
0090
01 A Netcom and Portal.
02 Q Netcom and Portal. You usually use Portal?
03 A It varies. In the early part -- in recent times
04 Portal has had problems with being -- the news spool
05 being real slow. So I've tended to shift to Netcom
06 more, but then Netcom dropped some postings on the
07 floor, and so I was doing some from Portal recently.
08 Q Now -- now you said that when you received the
09 cease and desist letter from Helena you posted it to
10 a.r.s.?
11 A I don't remember whether I did that or not.
12 Q I thought you just testified that you --
13 A No, no. I posted it on the physical cork
14 bulletin board. Printed out a copy and posted it.
15 Q But you didn't post it to the internet?
16 A I don't recall whether I did that or not. I
17 might have. There were so many copies of it at that
18 time that I -- that it's -- if I had -- if I had done
19 it, it would have been excessive.
20 Q But didn't you want to let everybody know on
21 a.r.s. that you had gotten such a letter so that your
22 status would go up?
23 A Of course, of course. You have to actually show
24 that. I mean, when you get to that, you'll see why.
25 Q All right. And to do that, wouldn't you have
26 had to post it then?
0091
01 A I might have. I don't -- I just don't remember.
02 I might well have posted it, but it was so -- like I
03 say, there were so many copies of it and they were all
04 the same that I don't remember whether I did it or
05 not.
06 Q Now, you say when we get to that. What did you
07 mean?
08 A SP levels. If you get to that.
09 Q Now, what do you mean by SP levels?
10 A Well, I gave you the -- the official --
11 Q The document you produced?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Might as well take a look at that document.
14 MR. LIEBERMAN: Do we have copies of this?
15 THE WITNESS: I think I've got one more
16 with me.
17 MR. LIEBERMAN: Stuck it in the back here.
18 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
19 Kobrin.)
20 THE WITNESS: In you want, we can enter
21 that one as an exhibit and -- we can go ahead and
22 enter it as an exhibit and run some copies of it
23 later. I know the contents.
24 MR. LIEBERMAN: You may need to look at it
25 and I may need to look at it.
26 THE WITNESS: I think I got another copy.
0092
01 MR. LIEBERMAN: You have another copy of
02 it? Okay.
03 THE WITNESS: I think I do.
04 MR. LIEBERMAN: Why don't you mark that as
05 the next exhibit.
06 THE WITNESS: Yes. I have a copy.
07 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 13 was
08 marked for identification by the
09 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
10 THE WITNESS: This also gets us into
11 ARSCC.
12 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Now, this is a
13 letter -- this is a document which you produced in
14 discovery in this case; is that right?
15 A Right. I didn't actually have this one, if you
16 note the date on it, I didn't have this one when --
17 when the suit was filed or even when I was in for the
18 TRO hearing, this is the 18th of April, but since I
19 knew -- I wanted to provide -- I wanted to be helpful
20 and provide you guys with something along this, so
21 when I saw this one cross the net, I downloaded it and
22 printed it out.
23 Q Okay. Now, this is a posting to a.r.s. and
24 subject "RFD:" --
25 A That's request for discussion.
26 Q "SP levels."
0093
01 A Yes.
02 Q And then it says, "Organization:
03 ARSCC" --
04 A Yes.
05 Q -- "...Mr. Castle," C-A-S-T-L-E, "to you." Now,
06 what is ARSCC?
07 A Beats me. I mean, people -- I would say that
08 probably the -- ARS is for alt.religion.scientology.
09 The CC is probably central committee is sort of the
10 most common usage of it. It's been called clam
11 council, coordinating council, coordinating committee.
12 Q Okay. Now, who's on this committee or council
13 or whatever?
14 A Haven't the slightest idea.
15 Q Okay.
16 A It's mythical. At least -- actually, I
17 shouldn't --
18 Q Didn't just appear out of nowhere. Somebody is
19 responsible for it.
20 A I shouldn't say that. There may actually be an
21 ARSCC, but my suspicion is that it's a troll.
22 Q Uh-huh. But if it is a troll, there's obviously
23 somebody who's trolling, right?
24 A Oh, there's a lot of people who troll on this.
25 Q Now, do you have any knowledge or information as
26 to who may be doing this troll?
0094
01 A Oh, I've trolled on it. Especially when
02 somebody makes some kind of a statement about the
03 thing, I'll make some minor correction, you know, like
04 I'll say I looked it up in this book and cite some
05 seven digit policy letter number.
06 Q Now, just for the record, what is a troll?
07 A Ahh. It comes from fishing where you drag a
08 bait through the water and a fish is foolish enough to
09 grab it.
10 Q So it's like a joke, right? It's a put-on?
11 A It's a put-on, yes, usually, but it's very
12 difficult to say because, as we all know, put-on's can
13 take on horrible kinds of -- of levels of problems.
14 In fact, it's my considered opinion that all of
15 Scientology was a put-on by L. Ron Hubbard, and look
16 at where that went.
17 Q Okay. Now, this posting purports to be
18 something called "the current ARSCC SP levels FAQ."
19 What is FAQ?
20 A Frequently asked questions.
21 Q Okay. And that's a term that's used on the
22 internet, right?
23 A Right. The frequently asked questions are
24 usually kept at a site called rtfmmit.mu.
[rtfm.mit.edu]
25 Q Now, what this purports to be is a listing of
26 various levels of status, as you put it --
0095
01 A Right.
02 Q -- whereby people who have taken various actions
03 against the church are given higher levels of SP --
04 A No, it's not actions against the church, it's
05 actions of the church against them for the most part,
06 with the exception of 7.
07 Q Well, let's take a look at 1. 1 says, "The SP1
08 grade is gained by criticizing the cult openly." So
09 that's an action that somebody takes again the church?
10 A Right, you're right. There's a couple of them.
11 Q "This is generally achieved by posting a message
12 critical of the cult to" a.r.s. "but can also be done
13 by protesting outside a Scientology location," right?
14 A Uh-huh.
15 Q So you clearly qualify here for SP1 level,
16 right?
17 A Right, right.
18 Q Okay. Now, you've never been sued, by the way,
19 for criticizing the cult openly or for posting a
20 message critical of the cult, that SP1 level doesn't
21 result in a lawsuit, does it?
22 A No, no. You have to go much higher than that to
23 get -- to be --
24 Q Now, SP2, it says, "can be earned by receiving
25 an acknowledgement from a Scientologist. This
26 generally takes the form of a response to your
0096
01 message"..."but in the case of protests, will
02 generally be achieved by a Scientologist talking to
03 you." So you qualified for that one, too, right?
04 A Oh, yes.
05 Q All right. Then "SP3 is earned by having one of
06 your message cancelled by a forged cancel message from
07 the pro-Scientology cancelpoodle." Now, you already
08 stated that you have no information as to whether or
09 not you qualify for that, but you suspect that you
10 have; is that your point?
11 A I think mine was cancelled. I'm not sure. Oh,
12 you mean the more recent -- oh, back way when, yeah.
13 I don't remember for sure. Mine probably was
14 cancelled back.
15 Q But you don't know for sure?
16 A I think she cancelled -- I think Helena had all
17 of them cancelled before she sent the letters out.
18 Q But don't know that. You're just speculating?
19 A Right. It's something which should be -- which
20 should be discoverable by finding out who owns the
21 accounts which were used for running the cancels.
22 Netcom has gone through maybe 50 or a hundred of those
23 accounts by now.
24 Q Now, SP4 -- is that the highest level, SP4?
25 A Oh, no, it goes on.
26 Q Oh, yeah, I see. "SP4 is achieved by receiving
0097
01 a legal threat from the Church"..."In the vast
02 majority of cases, this has been via an e-mail message
03 from Helena Kobrin." This would be the cease and
04 desist letter we're talking about; is that right?
05 A Right.
06 Q So that's what you were hoping to achieve by
07 receiving --
08 A Well, you can then put it in your sig line that
09 you're an SP4. A lot of other people crowd their sig
10 lines up with Knights of Xenu and all sorts of other
11 stuff, but I usually forget to even put my SP rating
12 on it.
13 Q So then this goes on, but the point is that this
14 is something you aspired to achieve; is that right?
15 A Well, it's a status symbol. I mean, a.r.s. is a
16 culture, it's a little culture. You know, 30,000
17 people.
18 Q And within this culture, you aspired to achieve
19 this level by getting this letter from Helena, and lo
20 and behold, you got it and you were very happy.
21 A Well, for something which actually didn't
22 present any level of danger whatsoever, because nobody
23 is going to really sue somebody over six lines of
24 scripture.
25 TIME: 11:56
26 Q Okay. Now, do you know who Arnie Lerma is?
0098
01 A Yes.
02 Q Have you ever met Arnie Lerma?
03 A No.
04 Q Have you ever spoken to him on the phone?
05 A Yes.
06 Q About how many times have you spoken to him on
07 the phone?
08 A I can only think of one time that I spoke to him
09 on the phone, and it was just after he had been
10 subjected to a search and seizure operation on his
11 house. I may have --
12 Q Was it while the search and seizure was going
13 on?
14 A I don't think so. I think it was just after it
15 was over.
16 Q Uh-huh. And why did he call you if you'd never
17 spoken to him before?
18 A He didn't call me, I called him.
19 Q I see. And why did you call him?
20 A Well, to see what was going on and to express my
21 support and sympathies for his problems.
22 Q How did you find out what was going on?
23 A On the net. It was posted.
24 Q Was -- did Arnie Lerma e-mail you?
25 A I don't remember whether it was an IRC or just
26 a posting to a.r.s., but I found out about it when --
0099
01 not while it was going on, but within a matter of --
02 my guess would be hours of when it happened.
03 Q I see. Are you sure you didn't get the phone
04 call or the information while it was going on?
05 A It could have been, but it's not my recollection
06 that it occurred while it was going on.
07 Q In fact, didn't you -- didn't you make a posting
08 to a.r.s. informing people that the raid was going on
09 as it was going on?
10 A It's possible that I did. I don't -- I do not
11 remember having -- I do not remember exactly how I
12 found out about it or what stage it was that it was
13 going on at that time. It's been a long time, but if
14 I made a posting on it, perhaps you could introduce
15 that and refresh my memory on it, if indeed it is my
16 posting.
17 Q Now, when you spoke to Arnie Lerma, what did you
18 talk about?
19 A He was extremely distraught, as anybody would be
20 who just had their house tore up by a bunch of people
21 acting under color of law. I cannot -- I don't
22 remember what the contents of that conversation were,
23 but it was not -- it was essentially nothing of any
24 great substance to it.
25 Q Did you discuss with him any plans to post
26 materials yourself?
0100
01 A No.
02 Q No. Did he suggest that that might be a good
03 idea?
04 A No.
05 Q Did you ever discuss with him whether he planned
06 to make further postings?
07 A No.
08 Q Did you ever discuss with him the SCAMIZDAT
09 postings?
10 A No.
11 Q Did you ever communicate with him electronically
12 or by computer on any of those subjects?
13 A I don't believe I have ever done that with him
14 on it. If --
15 Q Have -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
16 A If I did, it was -- I don't think I did. I
17 might have, but I don't remember having ever given
18 anybody any advice -- certainly not giving Arnie any
19 advice on it. It was pretty much of a surprise when
20 he posted something and therefore exposed himself to
21 legal action for which there really wasn't a whole lot
22 of reason.
23 Q Uh-huh. Did he ever e-mail to you any of the
24 Scientology materials?
25 A No.
26 Q Did he ever tell you that he had e-mailed those
0101
01 materials to Grady Ward?
02 A No.
03 Q Did Grady Ward ever tell you that?
04 A No.
05 Q Do you have any information as to whether or not
06 Arnie Lerma ever sent or e-mailed any materials to
07 Grady Ward?
08 A No. I have no information at all.
09 Q Since the time of the raid, search and seizure
10 on Arnie Lerma's house, have you had any direct
11 communications with him other than the phone call you
12 already identified?
13 A Oh, yes. For example, this is in my letter to
14 the judge, Arnie sent me a letter that he had written
15 to judge -- I'm not sure how to pronounce the name.
16 It's Brinkema --
17 Q Brinkema, yes.
18 A -- Brinkema about being dosed with acid -- LSD
19 that he found -- that he things he had on his
[thinks]
20 toothbrush after the raid.
21 Q So he sent that letter to you?
22 A Yeah, just so that I could print it out and
23 deliver it to the judge, Judge Whyte.
24 Q And you did that, right?
25 A Yes.
26 Q And Judge Whyte returned it to you; is that
0102
01 right?
02 A No, Judge Whyte still has that letter as far as
03 I know.
04 Q I see. Now, did you discuss that with Arnie
05 Lerma, the contents of that letter, that incident?
06 A It's possible, but if I recall, that incident
07 was first discussed on an IRC, that's internet relay
08 chat, session that I wasn't at, and at later Arnie
09 asked me to print and deliver this letter to Judge
10 Whyte.
11 Q And how did he ask you to do that, by what
12 method?
13 A E-mail.
14 Q Uh-huh. Did you ever inquire of Arnie Lerma why
15 he used the toothbrush if he thought it was laced with
16 LSD?
17 A Well, he didn't know it until after he used it.
18 Q Did you read his letter?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And he says in the letter that he suspected it
21 before he used it.
22 A No, he doesn't. At least, I don't remember
23 having read that. Maybe he does. He certainly
24 suspected it afterwards. He says it was only because
25 he ran it under hot water for a considerable time that
26 he got a relatively small dose of it.
0103
01 Q Why did he run it under water for a long time?
02 A Because he was too cheap to buy a new
03 toothbrush. Or actually too poor.
04 Q But why was he running it under hot water to
05 begin with?
06 A To loosen it up so that the mechanism would
07 work. It's an electric toothbrush.
08 Q I see. Didn't he say he was running it under
09 hot water to get rid of the LSD?
10 A No, he ran it under hot water so that it would
11 loosen it up and run it and that just happens to have
12 washed off most of the LSD. This isn't the first time
13 that people have accused the Church of Scientology of
14 doing this trick.
15 MS. KOBRIN: There's no question pending,
16 Mr. Henson.
17 THE WITNESS: I notice where they're
18 sensitive.
19 TIME: 12:04.
20 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): By the way --
21 excuse me, I just want to look at some of the prior
22 exhibits for a second.
23 A Sure.
24 Q Take a look at Exhibit 9. Did you mark -- put
25 down --
26 A No, I didn't mark them.
0104
01 Q The one dated April 8th, 1995.
02 A Big block -- this one?
03 Q Yeah.
04 A April --
05 Q 8th.
06 A Okay.
07 Q You see -- this is a posting from you. It says,
08 "Subject: Re: LSD." This is dated April 8th, 1995.
09 What does LSD have to do with this posting?
10 A Haven't got a clue. That's what's called topic
11 drift, and what often happens is that people will make
12 a cascade of things replying to other people's
13 messages without changing the subject line on it, and
14 eventually the subject line has nothing whatsoever to
15 do with whatever's in the posting.
16 Q I see.
17 A Happens all the time. Sorry.
18 Q No need to be sorry.
19 A It's very confusing. The net is confusing
20 enough to us who are on it. For people trying to deal
21 with it outside of it, it's really tough.
22 MR. LIEBERMAN: All right. Number 176.
23 Here you go.
24 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 14 was
25 marked for identification by the
26 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
0105
01 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Okay. This is a
02 posting dated August 13, '95 from H.K. Henson, subject
03 "International noose is loosening fast on Scn."
04 Whatever that means. And it quotes a statement from
05 Andrew Milne, M-I-L-N-E, and then there's a response
06 by Mr. Henson and then there's another statement from
07 Mr. Milne, and then there's another response from
08 Mr. Henson. And you state here "I have never signed
09 any silly billion year contracts, or agreed to keep
10 the OT tripe secret." You were aware that people who
11 had been in the church would sign confidentiality
12 agreements, were you not?
13 A Well, again, I can't swear to this being a
14 posting of mine, but --
15 Q Putting that aside you were aware of that?
16 A Putting that --
17 Q Yes or no.
18 A Putting that aside, I have -- I have no direct
19 knowledge of that, but it is -- I suppose it would be
20 considered to be general knowledge that people in the
21 church sign all sorts of strange stuff.
22 Q Well, you're aware that Erlich signed a
23 confidentiality agreement, aren't you?
24 A No.
25 Q Do you ever read the decisions of Judge Whyte in
26 the Erlich case?
0106
01 A No.
02 Q No? You received them, right?
03 A In the Erlich case?
04 Q Yes.
05 A I don't think so.
06 Q Did you ever look at the preliminary injunction
07 that Judge Whyte issued in the Erlich case?
08 A No.
09 Q You went down to the court and obtained copies
10 of the documents from the Erlich case, right?
11 A Right.
12 Q And Erlich sent you a copy of the decision,
13 didn't he?
14 A No.
15 Q He didn't?
16 A No.
17 Q You're sure of that?
18 A I don't think so, unless he posted it to the
19 net.
20 Q All right. And I forgot what -- whether you
21 answered this or not. Weren't you aware that Erlich
22 signed a confidentiality agreement?
23 A I don't know.
24 Q Weren't you aware that Lerma signed a
25 confidentiality agreement?
26 A I haven't the slightest notion. That's well
0107
01 outside of my knowledge of this.
02 Q You didn't follow those cases very closely?
03 A There's -- you're dealing with stuff that's the
04 size of several phone books thick. I don't know what
05 they did, and besides that, it's stuff that happened,
06 you know, decades ago.
07 Q I'm just asking you whether you followed those
08 cases very closely or not.
09 A It is alleged, anyway -- at least I think I have
10 heard that it was alleged that they signed
11 confidentiality agreements, but as to whether this is
12 actually true or not, I haven't the foggiest notion.
13 Q But you've made a point on several occasions
14 that you haven't signed a confidentiality agreement in
15 clear distinction to others; haven't you?
16 A I don't know clear distinction to others, but I
17 certainly have never signed anything with the Church
18 of Scientology.
19 Q Right. And you've indicated that you've
20 emphasized that point in distinguishing yourself from
21 others, haven't you or not?
22 A I don't know that it distinguishes me from
23 others, but it certainly is true.
24 Q In fact, you've made that distinction in this
25 very case, haven't you?
26 A I don't think it's a distinction, it's just a
0108
01 statement of fact.
02 Q Okay.
03 A It's true, I think, for most of the people who
04 are on a.r.s.
05 Q What's true with most of the people on a.r.s.?
06 A There are certainly very few people on a.r.s.
07 who would have ever had an opportunity to sign
08 anything with the Church of Scientology because most
09 of them are not former members.
10 Q But the former members would have signed a
11 confidentiality agreement if they'd been --
12 A I haven't got any idea.
13 Q You don't have any idea about that?
14 A Well, the Church of Scientology counts anybody
15 as a member who's ever been to any one of their
16 things, and I'm sure that most of those people haven't
17 signed any agreements.
18 Q But why would you have emphasized that you never
19 agreed to it if you had no idea whether other people
20 had or not?
21 A I don't understand where this is going. Maybe
22 if you can explain what you're after, maybe I can just
23 answer it.
24 Q Are you not aware that Scientologists who
25 participate in the upper-level services are required
26 to sign a confidentiality agreement?
0109
01 A This has been alleged. I don't know it for a
02 fact.
03 Q But you know that it is asserted that that is
04 true?
05 A It is alleged anyway.
06 Q Yes. Okay. Now, have you ever read the Vien
07 decision?
08 A No.
09 Q You made a comment here about the Vien decision,
10 didn't you?
11 A I've read comment about the Vien decision.
12 Q What comment have you read about the Vien
13 decision?
14 A Perhaps one or two paragraphs about it.
15 Q Written by whom?
16 A No idea.
17 Q Where did you read it?
18 A A.r.s., more likely than anything else. Far
19 more likely than anything else.
20 Q You're aware, are you not, that the court in the
21 Vien case enjoined Edith Vien from using the
22 upper-level materials as trade secrets?
23 A I do not remember. I remember what was alleged
24 in the case from the standpoint that somebody posted
25 that, but I don't remember what the -- what the
26 injunctions were. I also remember having read that
0110
01 the case probably would have been reversed on appeal
02 if she'd had the money to do it.
03 Q I see. That's somebody's opinion, right?
04 A Well, it's as much an opinion as all the rest of
05 the tripe I've read on that topic.
06 Q What's not opinion is the fact that the district
07 court entered an injunction against her.
08 A So what.
09 Q You're aware of that --
10 A They entered an injunction against me that I
11 don't think is justified either.
12 Q But you're aware that a court entered an
13 injunction against Edith Vien, are you? Yes or no.
14 A I'm aware -- I'm aware that that is -- that that
15 is the case, but I haven't the slightest idea what the
16 injunction forbid her to do.
17 Q Are you aware that the court awarded damages
18 against Edith Vien?
19 A No.
20 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay.
21 (Discussion held off the record.)
22 MR. LIEBERMAN: I need number 170.
23 Off the record for one second.
24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: You want to go off the
25 record?
26 MR. LIEBERMAN: Yeah, just for one second.
0111
01 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time now is 12 --
02 12:14 and we're going off the record. Clear to talk.
03 (Discussion held off the record.)
04 (Lunch recess taken from 12:15 to 1:15.)
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
0112
01 AFTERNOON SESSION
02 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time now is 1:22.
03 We're back on the record. Go ahead, please.
04 MR. LIEBERMAN: We can mark this as
05 Exhibit l5.
06 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 15 was
07 marked for identification by the
08 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
09 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Exhibit l5 is a
10 posting to a.r.s. It's dated from H.K. Henson,
11 Subject: Arnie -- "FLASH" in all caps --
12 A Capitals.
13 Q "Arnie Lerma," L-E-R-M-A, "raided" and it states
14 very simply "Just got word, not much details, Clams,"
15 with a capital C, "are inside Arnie's house with
16 another federal seizure warrant." Signed Keith
17 Henson.
18 A Well, again, I can't state that this is
19 unequivocally a piece of my work. I don't know that
20 every byte in it is the correct one, but I would
21 suspect that this -- it certainly seems on the face of
22 it reasonable, and to be really truthful about it, I
23 don't remember how I got the details of that. That
24 was 11:00 o'clock on Sunday, according to this thing.
25 If this is an accurate representation of that, I don't
26 know. Somebody may have called me, and if it was, I
0113
01 do not remember who did it.
02 Q Does this refresh your recollection at all that
03 you may have learned about this while the search and
04 seizure was actually ongoing?
05 A I might have. However, I do remember that when
06 I talked to Arnie, which may have been sometime around
07 this time, by that point, they had -- they had left, I
08 think.
09 Q Okay.
10 A I could be wrong on that. I don't know. This
11 is East Coast time. It was also an interesting thing
12 that at the time Helena was actually participating in
13 this raid, she was also posting from her account on
14 Netcom.
15 Q Now, you don't recall whether anybody else might
16 have called you about this action as it was going on?
17 A My -- my best recollection --
18 Q Excuse me.
19 A I simply do not remember how I got this word.
20 Q Okay.
21 A Thinking back, it probably was a phone call.
22 Q Okay. That you received?
23 A Yeah. That's my --
24 Q And probably from Arnie or probably from
25 somebody else?
26 A I'm sure it wasn't from Arnie because he was
0114
01 right smack in the middle of getting raided, but I
02 don't know who -- I don't know who gave it -- who
03 would have called me. The news spread very quickly.
04 Q Amongst whom?
05 A Well, I put it on the net, and, you know, ten
06 minutes later any one of a hundred thousand people
07 knew about it.
08 Q Right. Did you have any discussions or
09 communications with Mr. Lerma after the search and
10 seizure about providing him with any kind of support
11 or assistance in his litigation?
12 A No.
13 Q Okay. What about with Mr. Wollersheim or Mr.
14 Penny after the lawsuit was begun?
15 A I never talked to either one of those. I have
16 donated money to FactNet -- I have donated money to
17 FactNet, spelled with the N capitalized.
18 Q Did you ever communicate with Mr. Wollersheim or
19 Mr. Penny by e-mail?
20 A I might have, but I do not remember having done
21 so. I've never talked to either one of those
22 individuals by phone.
23 Q Unless you did by e-mail, would you have
24 communicated with them by any other method?
25 A Oh, certainly, you know, in -- many other
26 methods, but I don't believe that I've ever
0115
01 communicated with either one of them.
02 Q It may be a problem with your answer, it may be
03 a problem with my question. Let me just be clear.
04 You don't remember ever communicating with either of
05 them in any fashion whatsoever?
06 A They've posted stuff to the net. That's a
07 one-way communication. I don't believe that I've ever
08 written e-mail to them, and I'm almost certain that
09 I've never talked to them on the phone, at least not
10 knowingly.
11 Q Right. And my understanding, from what you've
12 said, is you obviously have never met them.
13 A Yes. That's certainly true. I've met very few
14 of the people.
15 Q Who have you met who's on a.r.s.?
16 A For example, I met Grady Ward at that picket and
17 the second time I saw Grady Ward was at TRO hearing
18 and, let's see, I've met Dennis Erlich -- some of the
19 people, quite a few of the people in the Bay Area that
20 showed up for pickets or for things like that, I've
21 met some of the people in the Phoenix area because I
22 was down there for something else and there was a
23 picket last September. So I met a bunch of those
24 people.
25 Q Okay. At the time of the search and seizure at
26 Mr. Lerma's house, were you aware that anybody other
0116
01 than Mr. Lerma had posted OT materials on the
02 internet?
03 A I'm aware that Dennis Erlich had been accused of
04 that. I never saw any of that 'cause that all stopped
05 before I got involved or close to that.
06 Q Were you aware that Grady Ward had?
07 A No.
08 Q Did you believe he had?
09 A I couldn't even form an opinion on that. I
10 don't think so.
11 Q Right. Did you think that Grady Ward might be
12 the subject of a similar search and seizure as
13 Mr. Lerma had been?
14 A Because of his outspokenness against the --
15 against the Church of Scientology, I would rather
16 imagine. I would imagine that that was speculated on,
17 and I don't know whether I did any of the speculating
18 or not.
19 Q But the only people who had been subjected to a
20 search and seizure were people who actually had
21 posted, right? Posted materials, not people who had
22 merely criticized; isn't that right?
23 A That's asking me for speculation that I don't
24 really know.
25 Q Okay. Well, you knew the only people who had
26 been subjected to a search and seizure at the time had
0117
01 been Mr. Erlich and Mr. Lerma, right?
02 A I don't really know. I don't remember how the
03 FactNet -- what timing the FactNet raid hit. I don't
04 remember whether that was before or after Arnie Lerma.
05 Q It was after. It was several weeks after.
06 A Well, you have more of a handle on the time line
07 than I do.
08 Q Is there any reason why you would have
09 speculated that Mr. Ward would be subjected to a
10 search and seizure?
11 A Well, he'd been trolling something fierce for a
12 long time.
13 Q You knew it was a troll?
14 A How can any -- how can I know it's a troll? It
15 looked like a troll to me, but as far as I knew, it
16 was a troll.
17 Q You were aware that he was suggesting that he
18 may have connections with SCAMIZDAT; were you not?
19 A Well, anybody who read a.r.s. and didn't just
20 throw away all of his postings would be somewhat aware
21 of that.
22 Q But you assumed it was a troll rather than he
23 really did have some connection with SCAMIZDAT?
24 A Seemed awful likely to me.
25 Q Why would that be?
26 A Well, because the people who really are doing
0118
01 that kind of thing aren't going to be twitting them
02 that hard.
03 Q Mr. Lerma did.
04 A Lerma was pretty silly. But then so was I.
05 Q Ultimately so was Mr. Ward, wasn't he?
06 A Oh, I don't know. I think this is -- this is
07 being enjoyed by all parties.
08 Q Oh, really?
09 A At least on this side of --
10 Q You're enjoying it?
11 A Of course.
12 Q You sort of think this is like recreation, don't
13 you?
14 A Well, it comes off the recreation budget, if
15 that's what you mean.
16 Q It's fun for you.
17 A Right.
18 Q Okay.
19 A It's also training.
20 Q Training for what?
21 A Ahh, for the big action.
22 Q Tell me about that.
23 A Oh, the big action is going to come when some
24 major government finally decides to really sit down
25 hard on free speech on the net.
26 Q Uh-huh. Has that happened yet?
0119
01 A Oh, yes.
02 Q And this is -- getting involved in this
03 litigation you view as training for future actions
04 with the government?
05 A I've said so in postings. Many people have said
06 this in postings. This is not new information.
07 Q So you welcome this litigation as a training
08 exercise?
09 A I didn't really expect it to happen, but since
10 it did happen, I decided I'd enjoy it.
11 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
12 Kobrin.)
13 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): So when and if
14 the government or a government, I think is the way you
15 put it, is that right, begins censoring the net, what
16 big action do you foresee as coming in the future?
17 A I haven't got an idea.
18 Q By action, do you mean lawsuit or do you mean
19 tactics to --
20 A I don't know what form it will take. Probably
21 many different forms. I have been involved in
22 defending constitutional rights for a long time. I
23 defeated a United Nations treaty on this particular
24 matter, if you happen to be aware of that. I've
25 testified before congress on this matter.
26 Q On which matter have you testified before
0120
01 congress?
02 A The Moon treaty.
03 Q Moon meaning the thing up in the sky?
04 A Yes.
05 Q Okay.
06 A Do you know of Dickstein, Shapiro & Lauren?
07 Q Do I know them?
08 A The law firm.
09 Q They're a law firm?
10 A Yeah, those are the people who ran that campaign
11 for me.
12 Q Okay.
13 A In fact, Mr. Liebertner.
[Ratiner]
14 Q Okay. Now --
15 MR. LIEBERMAN: Let me see number 209,
16 please.
17 TIME: 1:36
18 MR. LIEBERMAN: Mark that.
19 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 16
20 marked for identification by the
21 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
22 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): This is a posting
23 dated 19 September '95 to a.r.s. from H.K. Henson,
24 "Subject: Scientology is DUMB," D-U-M-B in all caps,
25 and it's a response to a posting by somebody named
26 Richard Smol, S-M-O-L, who apparently is from
0121
01 Cleveland. Do you know Richard Smol?
02 A No.
03 Q Have you ever communicated by e-mail with him?
04 A Not to my knowledge.
05 Q So you just may have on this occasion or maybe
06 one or two others responded to something he may have
07 posted and that would be the extent of your
08 relationship with him?
09 A As far as I know.
10 Q Yeah. Okay. And in this dialogue Mr. Smol had
11 stated that Scientology is definitely not a religion,
12 and you took a somewhat different point of view,
13 didn't you?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And you took the point of view that you believed
16 that the top CoS people are true believers; is that
17 right?
18 A Right, in sense that Eric Hoffer wrote the book
19 The True Believers.
20 Q Okay. But in that sense, it's your view that
21 the top people in the Church of Scientology do believe
22 in the writings of Mr. Hubbard; is that right?
23 A Well, writings of Mr. Hubbard, if you will --
24 not just the writings, but the entire fantasy that he
25 developed. Including the space aliens and the Marcabs
26 and all the rest of the thing. DC8, gorilla goyles,
[goals]
0122
01 airplane goyles. Wow.
02 Q I take it by your comment "wow" that you don't
03 believe in them?
04 A I don't believe in the Easter bunny either.
05 Q And, by the way, do you believe in the
06 resurrection?
07 A I'm sorry, I don't. I'm afraid that since the
08 word is mentioned in here you people probably should
09 be aware of my work in the field of memetics, which is
10 essentially a study of the -- of replicating
11 information patterns that infest human beings the way
12 computer viruses infest computers, and I've written
13 reams of material on this, of which I provided
14 pointers in the deposition -- in the response to
15 produce documents.
16 MR. LIEBERMAN: 248.
17 THE WITNESS: By the way, if this ever
18 comes to trial, I will bring -- I will call myself as
19 an expert witness in this particular field.
20 MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, I'm glad we have
21 advanced notice of that.
22 THE WITNESS: Well, you're certainly
23 welcome. Try to find another one.
24 MR. LIEBERMAN: There. You can mark that.
25 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 17 was
26 marked for identification by the
0123
01 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
02 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): This is a posting
03 dated 26th of September 1995 from H.K. Henson to the
04 news group a.r.s., subject: Whyte, W-H-Y-T-E, rules
05 on Erlich, E-R-L-I-C-H, and it's again a posting
06 from -- Mr. Erlich is quoted and then there's a
07 response from Mr. Henson. And Mr. Erlich's posting
08 states that "Judge Whyte has ruled on the issues
09 relating to me"..."and has vacated the writ of
10 seizure." It goes on to say, "The ruling is 42 pages
11 long. The scienos," spelled S-I -- S-C-I, excuse me,
12 E-N-O-S, "will undoubtedly appeal it. Further details
13 as available." And then there's a response. "Way to
14 go, Dennis. Hot dog." I presume we can" all -- "we
15 can see all of these when they are scanned in. I live
16 in San Jose and have access to a scanner. Should I go
17 get a set from the court?" Signed Keith Henson. Did
18 you go to the court to get a set?
19 A Well, again, I can't be absolutely certain that
20 this actually is one of my postings, but I don't
21 remember having gone to the court. So if indeed the
22 stuff ever got scanned in and posted to the net, I
23 don't believe that I did this.
24 Q Okay.
25 A I could be wrong about that, but I would say --
26 well, actually, before I scanned in some of Grady's
0124
01 original filings, I didn't scan any
02 Scientology-related material at all until I got sued,
03 and then I loaded up the software to make my scanner
04 run, which I'd acquired in January, I think it was, of
05 this year and --
06 Q You didn't have a scanner before January of this
07 year?
08 A I had access to a scanner. I have access to a
09 3,000 page an hour scanner, but I never wound up using
10 it.
11 Q So you didn't scan in any of the materials from
12 the Erlich case?
13 A No. The stuff that I -- that may be represented
14 by some of this, this -- one of the exhibits, I
15 remember typing some material in, whether it's the
16 same as this material or not, but in the early days of
17 the Erlich thing, I typed in some of them. I remember
18 typing in some material from the court cases.
19 Q Right. Typing in some of the pleadings, you
20 mean?
21 A Some of the exhibits, if I remember correctly.
22 Q Okay. Because you didn't get access to any of
23 the upper-level materials from the court though, did
24 you?
25 A I've never seen any upper-level materials in
26 hard copy.
0125
01 Q Okay. Now, when you said you scanned in some of
02 the materials that Grady -- from Grady's case, what
03 were you referring to?
04 A His -- the three-inch pile of paper that Grady
05 was served with originally.
06 Q Oh, okay.
07 A When Grady was down here for that, he had two
08 sets of it, and so he left me with -- left one set
09 with me, and I ran it through the scanner. Never
10 actually ran it through the OCR stage on the thing.
11 It's on a CD ROM.
12 Q Okay. And after you scanned it, what did you do
13 with it?
14 A I didn't do anything with it. I couldn't get
15 the CD ROM to read at home. And it's 24 megabytes, I
16 think. Something like that.
17 Q Okay. Now, in this posting Dennis Erlich talks
18 about a 42-page ruling by Judge Whyte. Did you ever
19 go down and take a look at what that ruling was?
20 TIME: 1:44
21 A I think that somebody else got that ruling and
22 scanned it in, and I may have skimmed through it at
23 some time, but it was too dense for me to read it in
24 detail.
25 Q Did you notice that Mr. Erlich neglected to note
26 on his posting that he had been enjoined by Judge
0126
01 Whyte from copying the materials except for very
02 limited fair use?
03 A No.
04 Q Did you notice that Judge Whyte had held that
05 the materials were properly copyrighted by RTC and RTC
06 did have a right to enforce its copyrights in those
07 materials?
08 A I will accept that from you, but I don't think I
09 knew that necessarily. Judge Whyte's rulings tend to
10 be pretty -- pretty detailed.
11 Q I would agree. Did you ever use a scanner --
12 I'm sorry, I think you've answered this. If you have,
13 forgive me. Did you ever use the scanner to scan in
14 any of RTC's proprietary materials?
15 A No. Unless they were contained in court filings
16 that -- that RTC filed or something like that. If
17 that's --
18 Q Did you ever scan in NOTs 34?
19 A No.
20 Q Did you ever scan in OT VII?
21 A No.
22 Q Did you ever scan in any NOTs materials?
23 A No, no NOTs material at all.
24 Q NOTs, by the way, should be N-O --
25 A I told her.
26 Q Thank you. When did you scan in -- I'm sorry,
0127
01 strike that.
02 I believe you've previously testified that
03 you did post NOTs 34 to the internet, and I believe it
04 was a.r.s. on two occasions in the last six to eight
05 weeks; is that correct?
06 A I've posted something. Whether it was NOTs 34
07 or not is hard to say.
08 Q Well, is what you believe to be NOTs 34; is that
09 right?
10 A What purported on the face of it to be NOTs 34.
11 Q Thank you.
12 A Would you like to know how I did that?
13 Q How you did it?
14 A Yes.
15 Q First let me ask you: Where did you get it
16 from?
17 A Netcom.
18 Q Where on Netcom?
19 A The file user spool news/
20 alt.religion.scientology. And those should all be
[/usr/spool/news/alt/religion/scientology]
21 separated by marks between them.
^[slash]
22 Q Now, you downloaded it, right?
23 A No.
24 Q Well, you have it on some disks of yours, don't
25 you?
26 A Well, I have it on my disk quota at Netcom. I
0128
01 never actually downloaded it.
02 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
03 Kobrin.)
04 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Is it still
05 there?
06 A Yes.
07 Q Okay.
08 A It's in my private directory, so it's not
09 accessible to anybody else.
10 Q Was that -- when the disks you produced --
11 A It's on there.
12 Q It's on there.
13 A Yeah, I copied it.
14 Q It copied it from there onto the disk that you
15 produced?
16 A Onto the disk, but I copied it directly onto
17 those disks, there's not a copy on my machine at home.
18 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
19 Kobrin.)
20 TIME: 1:50.
21 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): So these files on
22 Netcom -- in other words, you control those files,
23 right? It's not like somebody else --
24 A You mean can I delete them?
25 Q Yeah.
26 A Yeah. In fact --
0129
01 Q No one else can go into it and access it without
02 your approval or authorization or assistance?
03 A Oh, no, other people can go in there and do it.
04 Q How would they do that?
05 A Anybody with root privileges, which probably is,
06 as a guess, 50 people or a hundred people on Netcom,
07 any of their syst admins can do it.
08 Q At Netcom, you mean?
09 A Yes. People who have root privileges on Netcom.
10 Anybody else can't get into my directory, it's not
11 accessible.
12 Q Right. Okay. Now, after you posted NOTs 34 --
13 A Well, I should tell you how I did that.
14 Q Okay. Tell me how --
15 A Okay. To find the things, in the first place, I
16 looked at this TRO from Grady -- about Grady and I
17 wondered what on earth this fuss was all about, so I
18 ran a program called grep, which is short for get
19 regular expression, and on the file that I was talking
20 about that ends up in Scientology, and what it does is
21 it threads -- it goes through all the files in that
22 directory, of which there was thousands at that time,
23 and, in fact, the total number of files that's --
24 that's been in that directory is in the -- 155,000
25 some odd files in that directory, and it found among
26 that, looking for the -- looking for NOTs, it
0130
01 found a -- I don't know, 20, 30 some odd number like
02 that of them with that -- with that word in it. And
03 so I went looking at a few of those files to see what
04 on earth it was about, and the first one I ran across
05 was NOTs 34, which immediately sprung out as being
06 something
07 interesting. So what I did is I sucked that file into
08 an editor by asking VI to pull it in, and then deleted
09 stuff on either side of it and pulling up that copy.
10 I might add that I found it in two different -- I
11 found it in what I guess was one of the SCAMIZDATs,
12 but interestingly enough, the SCAMIZDATs that I found
13 it in or whatever they were were cut in different
14 places, which is indicative to me that either one
15 person is trying to simulate more than one person out
16 there or there really are several different people who
17 aren't even talking to each other who were posting --
18 reposting those because of the old SKAMIZDATs.
19 Q Okay.
20 A Anyway, I cut this piece out and wrote the stuff
21 that I had on it and then posted it to a.r.s.
22 Q Okay. And --
23 A Actually, no, sorry, I didn't do it that way. I
24 download -- I actually -- after I'd cut that piece of
25 the thing out, I printed it. I don't -- I guess I --
26 I guess I did download that file. I edited it on --
0131
01 on Netcom with VI. I then downloaded that file and
02 printed it, and that's the date on it is the 26th, I
03 believe, and that's the one that I took to Judge Whyte
04 and presented to him.
05 Q Now -- so you did download it. Is it still
06 where you downloaded it or --
07 A Which? NOTs 34 or my --
08 Q Yeah.
09 A -- or my inclusion of it?
10 Q Either one.
11 A Yeah, I've got a copy of it on my machine at
12 home.
13 Q Okay.
14 A It's an inclusion in the letter -- in the letter
15 to Judge Whyte.
16 Q Right. So you have the letter to Judge Whyte in
17 your machine at home and inside that is your
18 inclusion?
19 A Right. The quoting -- the fair use quoting of
20 NOTs 34. I was effectively reporting to Judge Whyte
21 that some of the stuff looked criminal to me.
22 Q Following your posting, did you receive a cease
23 and desist letter from Ms. Kobrin?
24 A I received a -- I received some piece of e-mail
25 from the address h...@netcom.com. I haven't got any
26 idea who's behind that.
0132
01 Q Did you --
02 A Did I respond?
03 Q In turn, did you post that to the internet?
04 A Of course. I consider it to be abusive e-mail.
05 Q Uh-huh. And did you consider this to also
06 increase your status as an SP?
07 A No, it wasn't adequate. My status was -- I
08 suppose it would have given me a clam cluster, but
09 I -- you know, that's a minor matter. You don't go up
10 a full grade unless you really -- really get the
11 requisite kind of things, like in the case of SP5, you
12 have to either be fair gamed by them or have them sue
13 you.
14 Q Okay.
15 A I did not consider that to be legally binding
16 notice.
17 Q You didn't consider it to be a legally binding
18 notice?
19 A Using e-mail for the delivery of legal papers
20 is -- unless they're PGP signed and it's agreed upon
21 that this will be done, I don't believe to be an
22 adequate notification.
23 Q Did you have doubts that the communication was,
24 in fact, from Ms. Kobrin?
25 A Well, considering that Ms. Cobrin's account has
26 been used at times when she was clearly somewhere
0133
01 else, I have no idea who actually wrote it.
02 Q Did you have any doubt that RTC, in fact, did
03 intend to convey to you the message that you should
04 cease and desist from posting NOTs 34 to the
05 internet? You're under oath here.
06 A I suppose I could have drawn that conclusion.
07 Q Okay. When you did this letter to Judge Whyte,
08 did you give a hard copy of that letter to anybody
09 else?
10 A I've been thinking about that, and I'm sorry,
11 but I can't answer that with any degree of
12 reliability. It's possible that I gave away some
13 copies of that, but I don't remember if I did who they
14 went to.
15 Q Okay. Do you retain a hard copy of the letter
16 with --
17 A One.
18 Q Other than the inclusion of the letter, do you
19 retain a hard copy of NOTs 34?
20 A I don't -- yes, in the stuff that I have asked
21 permission to delete.
22 Q To delete?
23 A When I pulled the two pieces of -- that had NOTs
24 34 over in them into my directory of Netcom, I left
25 them there, and when I went looking for stuff to
26 satisfy the request to produce documents, I found them
0134
01 there, and I had meant to delete them at the time, but
02 I apparently hadn't done it. So they're still sitting
03 on my spool -- on my disk quota at Netcom.
04 Q Okay. In terms of whether you have a hard copy,
05 that is, a printed-out copy --
06 A No. Nothing with NOTs 34 alone on it.
07 Q Just the letter with the inclusion?
08 A Just the letter with the inclusion.
09 Q Did you receive any communication from Netcom
10 following the posting of NOTs 34?
11 A I didn't receive any. That doesn't mean they
12 didn't send it, but it never wound up in my mailbox.
13 Q Do you have reason to believe they sent it, but
14 you didn't receive it?
15 A No. My mail to Netcom usually comes to support,
16 and I've forgotten the woman -- Margaret, who cancels
17 accounts that have been used for cancelling --
18 illegally cancelling other postings. That usually
19 comes through pretty reliably.
20 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
21 Kobrin.)
22 TIME: 2:00.
23 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Now, you did make
24 a posting, did you not, in which you stated "I am
25 publicly seeking more NOTs material, stolen or not."
26 Do you recall that posting?
0135
01 A I think you'd have to read more of the -- of the
02 context of that. Can you read on another sentence or
03 two?
04 Q Yeah. "I'm also publicly seeking more NOTs
05 material, stolen or not, which describes criminal
06 activities. It is my intent to post and discuss any
07 parts of NOTs which amount to manuals for criminal
08 activities." Do you recall making that posting?
09 A It sure sounds like something I would have
10 posted on there. It may not be every character in
11 place, but I think I would claim that anyway.
12 Q Mr. Henson, we're talking about something that
13 was done a few weeks ago. Are you saying you don't
14 remember that you posted that?
15 A I can't remember. If I -- I couldn't -- no, no,
16 no. I posted something which was very similar to that
17 or maybe even that, but the thing I'm getting at is
18 that without my hard copy and comparing it character
19 for character, I cannot guarantee that what you have
20 there is exactly my posting.
21 Q Do you have your hard copy?
22 A No, not with me, but I will say that that
23 certainly sounds very close. It would not surprise me
24 a bit for that to be compared character for character
25 and to be correct. As I pointed out to the judge, I'm
26 not interested in any of the NOTs which does not
0136
01 discuss criminal activity.
02 Q Right. I understand that that's your position.
03 Did you receive any materials whatsoever from any
04 source whatsoever in response to that request?
05 A I received no material from any source
06 whatsoever in any form, neither electronically nor
07 hard copy. Sorry.
08 Q Don't have to apologize to me. I'm quite happy
09 that that's true.
10 A Well, it wasn't for lack of trying.
11 Q Do you plan on trying again?
12 A Not as long as I'm under the -- under the
13 injunction.
14 Q Were it not for the injunction, would you try
15 again?
16 A Well, it might be hard to avoid it. I
17 understand that all of NOTs got posted sometime over
18 the weekend and somebody with a stronger stomach than
19 I seems to have read through the whole thing and they
20 sent me a note saying that there were three of them
21 which seem to discuss illegal practice of medicine
22 without a license. 26 was one of them, but I don't
23 remember the other two numbers.
24 Q Who sent you this notice?
25 A I don't remember.
26 Q Mr. Henson, this is a notice you would have
0137
01 received in the last day.
02 A Right. I don't remember who sent it to me.
03 Q Do you have it?
04 A I don't believe I deleted it, so I -- if you
05 want the name of the person who did it, I can probably
06 find it.
07 Q Could you --
08 A On the other hand, it is private e-mail, so it
09 falls under the ECPA, but I tell you what, I will tell
10 you -- I will tell you what numbers they were if you
11 want to look them up.
12 Q No, I want to know the name of the person who
13 sent you that notice.
14 A I'm not going to give it to you, not unless you
15 get a court order to do it because it's electronic
16 communications privacy material.
17 Q Electronic communications are no more private
18 than postal communications and you're still required
19 to identify in a lawsuit who you received commun --
20 relevant communications from.
21 A I don't believe that that's the case. Besides
22 that, why is this relevant?
23 Q Because it may indicate who is working to
24 illegally post this material, and perhaps it may
25 indicate who's working with you.
26 A This happened -- the person who sent this --
0138
01 Q It's clearly a suggestion to you as to what
02 other materials you might want to post, according to
03 your alleged position.
04 A Well, whoever did it at least waited until it
05 had been posted to the internet. Every single
06 solitary bit of it and some considerable hours beyond
07 that giving them time to read that tripe and analyze
08 it sufficiently to decide that this was -- that this
09 was something which applied to my case.
10 Q Well, until we can get a court order, I'm asking
11 you not to destroy that communication or any
12 identification of who sent it to you.
13 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
14 Kobrin.)
15 MR. LIEBERMAN: Number 488.
16 TIME: 2:05.
17 MR. LIEBERMAN: Mark that.
18 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 18 was
19 marked for identification by the
20 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
21 MR. LIEBERMAN: Take a look at that.
22 THE WITNESS: Well, again, I can't be --
23 well, it's obviously not -- not the full text of my
24 posting 'cause, of course, it has the included thing
25 clipped out of the middle of it.
26 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Meaning the NOTs
0139
01 34 material?
02 A Right.
03 Q Right.
04 A It also has the thing of blowing BT's clipped
05 out of it. Blacked out. I forget whether BT's are in
06 capitals or not.
07 Q Okay. Putting that aside and understanding that
08 you're not -- you are not vouching that every
09 character in here is precisely the same character as
10 on your original, although we may ask for comparison
11 if there's really a necessity to do that, this is --
12 this appears pretty much to be what you've recently
13 posted on a.r.s., does it not?
14 A Well, it certainly would be no problem for Judge
15 Whyte to verify it, since he has a copy of it.
16 Q But I'm asking you to verify that this appears
17 to be what you sent. Is that right?
18 A For purposes of discussion, I would tentatively
19 allow you to consider it if you want to discuss parts
20 of it.
21 Q Good. Thank you.
22 A Subject, of course, to verification that it
23 matches Judge Whyte's copy.
24 Q That's fine. I think we can take it subject to
25 that.
26 Take a look at the last page. You see
0140
01 where you say, "It is my position that the public
02 interest in this matter should override all commercial
03 copyright concerns"?
04 A Uh-huh.
05 Q And then you go on to say, "The entire corpus of
06 material the Church of Scientology is trying to keep
07 from public view is so at odds with what cult victims
08 are told when they are suckered into it as to
09 constitute fraud thinly disguised as religion."
10 You're not stating here, Mr. Henson, that the entire
11 corpus of RTC materials constitutes fraud and thereby
12 is subject to being posted by you pursuant to your --
13 your intention to disclose fraud and criminal
14 activity?
15 A I can see how you might read it that way.
16 Q Okay.
17 A I'm not sure that was my intention.
18 Q You're not sure it was your intention.
19 A Well, actually, I'm fairly sure it wasn't my
20 intention because a lot of that stuff is just boring
21 rather than being criminal.
22 Q Well, you go beyond criminal. You also talk
23 about fraudulent.
24 A Have you read any of that stuff?
25 Q That's not the point, Mr. Henson.
26 A Well, I've been exposed to an adequate amount of
0141
01 the stuff over the last year to form a pretty fair
02 opinion of it.
03 Q And your fair opinion of it is that most of it,
04 if not all of it, is fraudulent; is that not right?
05 A Goyles, DC8's --
06 Q Just answer the question, sir.
07 A Well, let's put it this way: I would
08 certainly -- I would certainly bow before Judge
09 Whyte's view of it if he looked through it. It's --
10 it is --
11 Q I'm not asking you to bow or not to bow, I'm
12 asking --
13 A Is it my opinion this it's fraudulent material?
14 Q Yes.
15 A Taken as a whole, yes.
16 Q Thank you. By the way, do you think the Bible
17 is fraudulent?
18 A Is that a relevant sort of a question?
19 Q Yes. Now you can answer it. I think it's
20 relevant.
21 A That's going to take a long digression.
22 Q I just want a yes or no.
23 A I can't answer it yes or no. For example, the
24 gospel according to Timothy -- is it Timothy? Steven.
25 There's a lot of material that was -- they picked and
26 chose among the stuff largely on literary merit or
0142
01 what got included and didn't get included in
02 the Bible. Religious mimesets are things which are --
[meme sets]
03 which evolve normally, and the Bible has clearly been
04 something which has had a lot of the rough edges filed
05 off of it in the passage of time.
06 Q You consider Scientology also to be a religious
07 mimeset, don't you?
[meme set]
08 A Oh, yes. Among other things.
09 TIME: 2:12.
10 Q Now, when you posted the letter from Helena
11 Kobrin to the internet, you also posted with it her
12 running response to it paragraph by paragraph, didn't
13 you?
14 A Yes, I did.
15 Q All right.
16 A Whether what you have is that exact, I don't
17 know.
18 Q I understand that. Now, in responding to it,
19 you treated the letter as having come from Ms. Kobrin,
20 didn't you?
21 A In the -- well, I knew it came from somebody at
22 HKK.
23 Q But you addressed your response to "Dear
24 Mrs. Kobrin," didn't you?
25 A If it says so on the letter, I probably did.
26 Q Okay.
0143
01 MR. LIEBERMAN: Let me have 49.
02 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): At the end of
03 that posting where you responded paragraph by
04 paragraph to Helena Kobrin, you once again solicited
05 NOTs materials, legal -- legally or illegally
06 obtained, for the same purposes you previously had
07 solicited them, did you not?
08 A Right, for the exposure of criminal activity.
09 Q Yes. Well, it went further than that didn't
10 it? It also said, "or to show the fraudulent bait and
11 switch nature of Scientology," didn't it?
12 A I don't know. You've got it in front of you.
13 Q No, I'm asking you what your memory of something
14 you posted just a few weeks ago is. Do you remember
15 saying that?
16 A Could have been.
17 Q Okay.
18 A Again, it shouldn't be something which is
19 subject to any real argument because I gave Judge
20 Whyte a copy of it.
21 Q I'm not asking you for an argument, I'm just
22 asking you to identify what you said.
23 A Well, anything that's been out of my hands and
24 isn't PGP signed or something similar, I am not going
25 to count on without a character by character
26 comparison.
0144
01 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 19 was
02 marked for identification by the
03 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
04 MR. LIEBERMAN: Want to take a look at
05 that.
06 (Discussion held off the record.)
07 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Exhibit Number 19
08 is response, I suppose, to a letter -- an e-mail from
09 Helena K. Kobrin at RTC from H.K. Henson. Without
10 verify -- vouching for a character by character
11 analysis, does this appear to be the document we were
12 just discussing in which you responded to Ms. Kobrin's
13 letter?
14 A It might be.
15 Q Does it appear to you to be?
16 A It probably even is.
17 Q Thank you.
18 A It shouldn't be a problem, as I say. Judge
19 Whyte's got a copy. It says right on the top of it cc
20 to Judge Whyte.
21 Q If you take a look at the last page --
22 A Uh-huh.
23 Q -- see the paragraph that starts, "Well,
24 Helena" --
25 A Oh, that was a nice troll.
26 Q You say, "I'm going to put it a little nicer
0145
01 than Grady would, but you can take your demand, fold
02 it till it is all corners, and stick it where the sun
03 don't shine." That's your language; isn't it?
04 A Yeah. I think it's rather colorful. However,
05 it was considerably exceeded by the follow-up post on
06 it. Go ahead.
07 Q "And, just to show" what I mean -- "show I mean
08 it, I am again asking for NOTs or any other
09 Scientology AT materials acquired by legal or illegal
10 means which describe criminal acts, amount to criminal
11 instruction manuals, or show the fraudulent bait and
12 switch nature of Scientology." That's your language,
13 too, isn't it?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Thank you.
16 A However, it was considerably exceeded by the
17 follow-up poster on this.
18 Q Who was the follow-up poster?
19 A Steven Tes -- Tesla.
20 Q Okay.
21 A Who changed --
22 Q There is no question.
23 A Who changed the subject line of it to "Origami
24 Butt Plug."
25 Q You find that amusing?
26 A I nearly died laughing.
0146
01 Q You enjoyed this, too, sending this one, this
02 response to Helena?
03 A That's true, but people beat me up all that
^^ ^^^^ [delete]
04 much. I'm really not that good at it.
^^^^ [delete, sub, "the time"]
05 Q But you had fun with this in any event, right?
06 A Yes.
07 Q Okay. Who is Mike Godwin?
08 A Mike Godwin is the chief counsel for EFF,
09 Electronic Frontier Foundation.
10 Q Have you had any discussions with him in the
11 last month or so?
12 A Yes. I don't think that I had any phone
13 discussions, but I think I have exchanged a little
14 e-mail with him.
15 Q Is that concerning Grady's case?
16 A No, mine.
17 Q It's concerning your case. He doesn't represent
18 you, does he?
19 A No.
20 Q What were those -- those e-mail communications
21 about?
22 A The fact that the request to produce documents
23 was asking for my e-mail with Mike Godwin. It was a
24 heads up that CoS might be going after EFF, too, and
25 Sherry Steele, who is one of the other lawyers there.
26 Q Has EFF posted any Scientology-copyrighted
0147
01 material?
02 A I don't know. I don't think so.
03 Q Has Sherry Steele to your knowledge?
04 A Not that I know of.
05 Q Has Mike Godwin?
06 A To the best of my knowledge, not, but I don't
07 know who SCAMIZDAT is. Could be any of those people.
08 Q Do you have reason to believe it might be?
09 A No.
10 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
11 Kobrin.)
12 Q Do you remember writing a letter to Judge Whyte
13 on or about -- on April 23rd, 1996 complaining about a
14 document request to Mr. Ward?
15 A I remember that I did write something of that
16 nature.
17 Q All right.
18 A Again, Judge Whyte should have a copy of that,
19 so there shouldn't be any argument about what's in it.
20 Q Okay.
21 A Assuming you have a true copy of it there, I
22 would certainly be willing to comment on it.
23 Q Okay. Now, you said in the letter, and I'll get
24 a copy out in a minute, "I've written a great deal
25 about Scientology and the AT materials in the past 14
26 months. Most of it has been public postings, but some
0148
01 has been private e-mail, some of that to
02 Scientologists. At times I have quoted parts of this
03 in very private mail to other critics such as Mr.
04 Ward." What parts of the AT materials did you quote
05 in private communications to Mr. Ward or others?
06 A I don't believe that that was referring to AT
07 materials, the quoting.
08 Q Oh, I see. What was it referring to?
09 A I don't know. Can you let me have a copy of it?
10 Q We'll give you a copy of it.
11 A I suspect that -- writing about AT materials, it
12 would then be the quoting about my writing about them,
13 not -- not quoting the AT materials themselves.
14 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
15 Kobrin.)
16 THE WITNESS: I truthfully cannot think of
17 any time where I have actually quoted any AT materials
18 in any private e-mail to any individual.
19 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Mark that.
20 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 20 was
21 marked for identification by the
22 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
23 THE WITNESS: Yeah, this would be quoting
24 parts of private e-mail, especially to other -- from
25 Scientologists to other critics.
26 MR. LIEBERMAN: I see.
0149
01 THE WITNESS: That was what I was thinking
02 about at this point.
03 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Okay. You see
04 this list of people here?
05 A Uh-huh.
06 Q I just want to go through that.
07 A Sure.
08 Q Alex DeJoode, do you know who he is?
09 A No.
10 Q I assume if you don't know who he is, you've
11 never had any communication with him; is that right?
12 A To the best of my knowledge, I haven't.
13 Q Right.
14 A On the other hand, I -- you know --
15 Q Okay. Dennis Erlich, we've already discussed.
16 Steven Fishman, do you know Steven Fishman?
17 A I never met him. I've -- I've corresponded a
18 time or two on the net and, you know -- I've
19 corresponded with him. My primary thing to Steve
20 Fishman is trying to get Steve Fishman to be more
21 careful in checking his facts before he posts. He's
22 definitely a loose cannon, and we've -- there's been a
23 number of us who have been leaning on him. He
24 mistakenly posted somebody's e-mail address thinking
25 this was the famous Gene Ingram and it wasn't.
26 Johan --
0150
01 Q Wait, wait, wait. On Steve Fishman, have you
02 ever had any communication with him about the contents
03 of any Scientology advanced materials?
04 A I don't believe so. To the best of my knowledge
05 I don't think I've ever discussed any of that stuff
06 with Steve Fishman, except whatever I've had in public
07 in -- on a.r.s.
08 Q What about Johan Helsingius?
09 A Johan runs the anonymous remailer in Finland
10 which was attacked and broken into by the
11 Scientologists in the very earliest days of this
12 thing.
13 Q Which was what?
14 A Attacked by -- the anonymous remailer, they got
15 one name out of it and the person they got the name --
16 Q When you said broken into --
17 A Well, they broke the -- they broke the anonymous
18 remailer from the standpoint that they got somebody's
19 name out of it.
20 Q Okay, but they didn't break into his offices or
21 anything, did they?
22 A Oh, yeah. They came to the door with the
23 police --
24 Q With the police?
25 A Who later admitted they had been scammed
26 entirely.
0151
01 Q I don't know who they admitted it to, sir.
02 A They posted it on the net. I can get you the
03 postings for it.
04 Q Anyway, have you ever had any communications
05 with Johan?
06 A Yes.
07 Q What?
08 A I don't believe that I've had any communications
09 with Johan since my involvement with Scientology
10 started. I may have. It's been a very long time ago
11 when the -AB-/TC/Ms. Bloody Butt affair was going on,
12 was being analyzed on the net.
13 Q That has nothing to do with anything we were
14 talking about in this case, does it?
15 A Oh, yes, that's all Scientology, but I don't
16 believe -- I had some communications with Johan, but I
17 flat don't remember what it was about, but it was two,
18 three years ago.
19 Q Okay. Have you ever had any communication with
20 him about the advanced technology materials?
21 A Jeff Jacobsen?
22 Q Either Johan or Jeff Jacobsen.
23 A No.
24 Q Have you ever had communication with Jeff
25 Jacobsen?
26 A I actually talked with Jeff. I'm not sure I'd
0152
01 recognize him at this point.
02 Q In person or by telephone?
03 A In person. I was down in Phoenix for the
04 September picket of the Church of Scientology. I was
05 down there for something else and --
06 Q Do you have any information that Jeff Jacobsen
07 has posted any information -- any proprietary
08 materials to the internet?
09 A I don't know. He might have, but I don't know
10 of any.
11 Q Tom Klemesrud, do you know him?
12 A I have not yet met Tom. I've exchanged a fair
13 amount of e-mail with him. Tom has one of the most
14 interesting cases that's involved in this whole thing.
15 The Tom Klemesrud/Linda Woolard events eventually will
16 make a major movie.
17 Q Is that a troll?
18 A No. Hemorrhoid blood five feet up on a wall has
19 just got to be a case to go on television.
20 Q Is that another troll?
21 A No.
22 Q Mr. Klemesrud -- have you had any -- excuse me,
23 any communication with Mr. Klemesrud about the
24 advanced technology materials, about the contents of
25 them or the posting of them?
26 A As far as I can remember, no.
0153
01 Q Okay. Do you have any information whatsoever
02 whether Mr. Klemesrud personally has posted any of the
03 materials himself?
04 A No, not at all.
05 Q We've already discussed Mr. Lerma. Have you
06 ever communicated with Peter Mante?
07 A I don't even know who Peter Mante is.
08 Q Okay.
09 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
10 Kobrin.)
11 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Ron Newman?
12 A Ron Newman runs the extremely well-known web
13 page on Scientology and their fight with the net.
14 I've never met him. I have talked in IRC with him.
15 He's -- his web page --
16 Q In IRC -- you should identify what that means.
17 A Internet relay chat.
18 Q Which is what?
19 A Like realtime e-mail.
20 Q Realtime e-mail?
21 A Yeah.
22 Q What's the difference between realtime e-mail
23 and regular e-mail?
24 A Realtime means realtime within a couple of
25 minutes usually, depending on how lag the net is, but
26 you can sit there and type on the thing and when you
0154
01 put a line out, it will go out to the other people who
02 are in a chat room with you. I've never -- I don't
03 believe that I've ever talked to Ron Newman in person
04 or over the phone.
05 Q Have you ever talked to Snory Helgerson?
06 A Who?
07 Q Do you know who Snory Helgerson is?
08 A No. For some reason, that name rings a bell. I
09 don't know who that -- it sounds familiar. They may
10 have posted to the net or something. I don't know.
11 Q If you don't know, you don't know.
12 A Don't know.
13 Q What about any of the other people on this list
14 other than -- other than Ms. Thomson?
15 A Robert Penny, I know who he is. I've never met
16 him, never exchanged an e-mail. I've read a few of
17 his postings. Felipe Rodriquez, I believe, is from
18 the Netherlands, but I'm not sure. I've exchanged
19 e-mail with Karin Spaink, mostly about her legal case
20 against the Church of Scientology in the Netherlands.
21 Shelley, of course -- I've talked with Shelley since
22 she's a reporter on this kind of thing. David
23 Touretzky, I think he's on -- somewhere on the East
24 Coast, and I believe he at one point had -- had the
25 Fishman declaration on his machine, but I may have the
26 wrong person there. And Larry Wollersheim -- well,
0155
01 he's the famous guy who's been trying to collect his
02 money for 15 years or whatever it is from Scientology.
03 Ron "Neuman" is wrong, is misspelled, it's
04 N-E-W-M-A-N.
05 Q Right. It's even noted there that it's
06 misspelled.
07 A Yeah.
08 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Put that aside.
09 (Discussion held off the record.)
10 MR. LIEBERMAN: Let's take a two-minute
11 break. Go off the record.
12 (Discussion held off the record.)
13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time now is 2:32
14 and we're going off the record.
15 (Recess taken.)
16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the
17 record. The time now is 2:39. Go ahead, please.
18 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): You said a little
19 while ago you donated some money to FactNet.
20 A Yes.
21 Q Did you ever purchase or donate money in
22 exchange for any CD ROMs from FactNet?
23 A No.
24 Q Never obtained any CD ROMs from FactNet.
25 A Nope.
26 Q Okay.
0156
01 MR. LIEBERMAN: Did you give me 501 yet?
02 Here you go.
03 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 21 was
04 marked for identification by the
05 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
06 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): This is a posting
07 to a.r.s. from Keith Henson dated 16th of April 1996,
08 a mere three weeks or so ago, subject, "Following
09 Vaclav Havel."
10 A I really should change the subject lines more
11 often.
12 Q Now, you see the middle paragraph there where
13 you say, "This may change"?
14 A Yes.
15 Q You say, "This may change, but to date the
16 actions of the CoS against me have afforded me nothing
17 but amusement." That's your language, isn't it?
18 A Given the usual disclaimers on this, it
19 certainly looks like it.
20 Q Yeah, and I think you've already indicated that
21 that, in fact, is precisely your attitude, right?
22 A Oh, yeah.
23 Q Okay.
24 MR. LIEBERMAN: 505.
25 THE WITNESS: This is going to be great to
26 read in court.
0157
01 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 22 was
02 marked for identification by the
03 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
04 THE WITNESS: (Laughter).
05 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): This is a posting
06 dated April 17th from Keith Henson, subject, "I've got
07 mine." It's to a.r.s. and various other news groups
08 and it's in response to a posting from somebody named
09 Steve A. Do you know who Steve A is?
10 A Not sure. He may be the same guy that did the
11 a.r.s. SP levels.
12 Q Uh-huh. And it begins by discussing whether or
13 not your motion to recuse should have been called a
14 motion to recuse or a motion to dismiss. You recall
15 that?
16 A Well, the Complaint here was about what he
17 referred to as a cheap shot, but I wasn't upset.
18 Q You didn't think it was a cheap shot, did you?
19 A Well, no, I thought it was a cheap shot, but I
20 wasn't upset about it. I mean, lawyers are good for
21 cheap shots.
22 Q Thought it was a cheap shot to point out it
23 should have been called a motion to recuse?
24 A Did you read the rest of it? It turns out
25 Bender's Federal Form have -- has it wrong.
26 Q Uh-huh.
0158
01 A In fact, when I posted the thing originally, I
02 said I was pretty sure that -- in fact, there's a
03 previous posting to this where I posted the thing that
04 I had filed and I said I was pretty sure that it was
05 wrong, but I said, "Who am I to argue with Bender's
06 Federal Forms." I'm not a lawyer, I can't correct
07 their stupid typos.
08 Q Anyway, the point -- what I wanted to direct
09 your attention to was down at the bottom where you
10 say, "Defending Constitutional right may be a high
11 moral purpose, but it is also a lot of fun. Compared
12 to my other past and present hobbies, it fits right
13 in."
14 A Yes.
15 Q This is your language, too, isn't it?
16 A Well, it's -- along with my usual disclaimers on
17 the thing, it sounds like it.
18 Q And it's consistent with your view that -- that
19 this litigation a lot of fun for you?
20 A Well, isn't it to you? Or do you hate your
21 work?
22 Q Answer yes or no, please.
23 A Well, so far I've had a lot of fun.
24 Q Okay, thank you.
25 A You mean you're not going to ask me about my
26 past and present hobbies?
0159
01 Q No.
02 A Well, doesn't matter anyway. I posted them.
03 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
04 Kobrin.)
05 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Would this be a good
06 time to change tape?
07 MR. LIEBERMAN: You're about to run out?
08 Why don't you do that then.
09 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the completion
10 of tape number 2 in the deposition of Keith Henson on
11 May 8th, 1996. The time now is 2:46. We're going off
12 the record to change tape. Clear to talk for just a
13 second.
14 (Recess taken.)
15 MR. LIEBERMAN: Mark that as the next one.
16 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 23 was
17 marked for identification by the
18 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
19 MR. LIEBERMAN: This will look familiar to
20 you.
21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I'm not on yet.
22 MR. LIEBERMAN: We're talking off the
23 record.
24 (Discussion held off the record.)
25 (Recess taken.)
26 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. I'm going to
0160
01 bring up the sound. We're back on the record. This
02 is start of tape number 3 in the deposition of
03 Mr. Keith Henson on May 8th, 1996. The time now is
04 2:48. Go ahead, please.
05 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Okay. I've
06 marked as Exhibit --
07 A 23.
08 Q -- 23 defendant's objections and responses to
09 request for production of documents, which has a court
10 filed stamp on it of April 29th, 1996. Did you
11 prepare this document, Mr. Henson?
12 A Yes, I did.
13 Q Turn to page 2.
14 A Okay.
15 Q In response to request number 1, which was all
16 copies of NED, N-E-D, for OTs series 34, whether in
17 hard copy or electronic form, you've stated you have
18 one hard copy and one electronic copy of the posted
19 document. Now, you previously testified you had one
20 hard copy contained within a copy of the letter to
21 Judge Whyte. Is that what you were referring to here?
22 A Right. I don't have any copies of O -- of NOTs
23 34 by itself.
24 Q Okay. Then in question 2 at the bottom of the
25 page, in response to question 2 you say, "Prior to
26 TRO, defendant might have given out a few" copies --
0161
01 "few hard copies of March 26th letter or the longer
02 reply post which contained that letter, but at this
03 point does not recall doing so."
04 A I think I've answered that the same here today.
05 Q Yeah. And you -- if you did distribute a few
06 hard copies, you -- I think you testified you don't
07 remember who you did that to?
08 A No.
09 Q If you distributed, did you do it by hand or
10 would you have mailed it?
11 A No, it would have been by hand. I certainly
12 didn't mail any of them. I wouldn't -- it would be
13 unlike me to mail something like that which was in
14 electronic form which I could transfer to somebody a
15 thousand times easier with an e-mail.
16 Q Okay. Now, if you turn to page 3 --
17 A Uh-huh.
18 Q -- question 3 was "Any and all documents
19 relating to posting reproduction, distribution, or
20 display of works of L. Ron Hubbard, including, but not
21 limited to, the Works," and in the middle paragraph
22 beginning on line 15 you state, "While loading legal
23 files into defendant's long unused ftp directory" --
24 and I think we already established what that means,
25 right?
26 A Right.
0162
01 Q -- "defendant found that defendant does have
02 what might be a compressed copy of some or all of
03 SKAMIZDAT postings which defendant downloaded from a
04 Scientology-associated ftp site, theta.com, to
05 defendant's ftp directory in October 1995."
06 A That's the date that's on the file.
07 Q Right. What is theta.com?
08 A I don't really know except that it's a
09 Scientology-associated site.
10 Q What do you mean by Scientology associated?
11 A It's got all sorts of L. Ron Hubbard works on
12 it. Before they put up their own site, it was the
13 only place on the net that had any Scientology stuff
14 that seemed to be, if not official, at least
15 semi-official.
16 Q Are you suggesting that this is a site which the
17 church created?
18 A Well, it certainly -- if it wasn't created by
19 them, it was certainly run with their -- with their
20 approval.
21 Q And on what basis --
22 A At least that's my assumption.
23 Q Why do you assume that?
24 A Well, actually, I might be wrong. I will have
25 to find out who runs theta.com and depose them and
26 find that out, but you have a point, I might be wrong.
0163
01 Q You said you found SCAMIZDAT postings at
02 theta.com?
03 A Yes.
04 Q Why would the church be supporting an ftp site
05 with SCAMIZDAT postings on it?
06 A I don't know.
07 Q In any event, you downloaded SCAMIZDAT postings
08 from this ftp site; is that right?
09 A That's correct.
10 Q And you did that in October of 1995?
11 A Uh-huh.
12 Q Which SCAMIZDAT postings did you download?
13 A Beats me. Never looked at them.
14 Q Why did you download them?
15 A I thought it was really funny to do it from a
16 church site.
17 Q Who would have been able to laugh with you other
18 than yourself?
19 A Oh, all the rest of the people on a.r.s. that
20 are the critics.
21 Q How would they have known that you downloaded it
22 to your own site?
23 A I posted extensively on having done it. I
24 twitted the church unmercifully about that for weeks
25 and they never responded.
26 Q Do you have any of those postings where you
0164
01 twitted the church unmercifully about it?
02 A No, as a matter of fact, but I probably can get
03 them if I ask for them.
04 Q Okay.
05 A I'm sure they've got them. I was really
06 surprised that they didn't respond to it, because I
07 would have deleted it if they said it was not an
08 official copy.
09 Q If they said it was not an official copy?
10 A Yeah. That was my offer. I clean forgot that I
11 had it there until I started -- until I started
12 stuffing legal papers over into the ftp directory and
13 what's this? Been sitting in my ftp directory for --
14 ever since October of last year.
15 Q And you have no idea what was in there?
16 A No. I never decompressed them. Did you guys
17 get them apart? I mean, you've had them for better
18 part of a week.
19 Q Well, I'm not the deponent.
20 A Well -- sorry, I was just curious. I have no
21 idea what they actually were. I should ask at this
22 point though, can I delete them?
23 Q We'll get back to you on that.
24 A Okay.
25 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
26 Kobrin.)
0165
01 TIME: 2:55.
02 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Now, on page 4 on
03 line 13 you state, "Defendant also found parts of
04 SCAMIZDAT number 11 from which NOTs 34 was cut per the
05 description contained in the letter of March 26th to
06 Judge Whyte."
07 A Yes, we discussed this before.
08 Q You found this SCAMIZDAT 11 on your ftp site?
09 A Right -- no, not my ftp directory.
10 Q Where did you find that?
11 A They're in my home directory on Netcom.
12 Q Now, do you know when you downloaded SCAMIZDAT
13 11 in there?
14 A I didn't.
15 Q How did it get there?
16 A I copied it.
17 Q Do you know when you did that?
18 A No, but it would have been the day before the
19 March 26th letter, so it would have been maybe the
20 25th.
21 Q That's when you found it or when you copied --
22 A When I copied it. It's described in the letter
23 of what I did to get this stuff. I copied it off the
24 news spool, which would have been sitting in for
25 heaven only knows how long.
26 Q And why did you copy it?
0166
01 A In order to have a copy of it. In order to
02 write the letter to Judge Whyte reporting criminal
03 activity.
04 Q What parts of SCAMIZDAT 11 did you -- did you
05 just copy the NOTs 34 part or did you copy other parts
06 of SCAMIZDAT 11?
07 A Well, the stuff that sits there, there's two
08 pieces which contain NOTs 34 that are cut like -- you
09 know, it's a long piece of string and they're cut at
10 different places, and two of them contain NOTs 34, and
11 not knowing which one of them, I had the whole thing,
12 they both seemed to have the whole of NOTs 34 in it.
13 They're sitting in my home directory, but I don't
14 remember which one I cut it out of.
15 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
16 Kobrin.)
17 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Is your -- is
18 your ftp directory on Netcom or on Portal?
19 A Netcom. After I discovered the stuff, I went
20 through my Portal directory and didn't find any.
21 Q Okay. Top of page 5, the request was for
22 documents which you have received as a result of your
23 solicitation, and you say, "No documents possessed."
24 I just want to confirm what I believe was your prior
25 testimony that not only do you not possess any such
26 documents, but that you never received any; is that --
0167
01 A I never received any. There was never any
02 e-mail or any hard copy sent to me as a result of
03 that. I think everybody who read that thing among the
04 critics out there knew that this was big-time
05 trolling and didn't want to burden me with such
06 nonsense.
07 Q Did you anticipate that you would be sued as a
08 result of this trolling?
09 A I figured there was a fair probability of it.
10 Q And you considered that it was okay to do that
11 and to --
12 A I actually --
13 Q -- to induce the church into --
14 A I actually didn't figure that they would find a
15 judge who would be willing to do it.
16 Q Now, number 9, "Any and all documents relating
17 to the licensing or customer agreement between you and
18 any internet access provider." Now, we established
19 that your access providers are Netcom and Portal.
20 A Right.
21 Q Do you have such documents?
22 A Actually not.
23 Q So your objection is meaningless because you
24 don't have them to produce in any event; is that
25 right?
26 A Well, that's true. If I went to some trouble, I
0168
01 could probably get them, but I didn't see any point in
02 doing that.
03 Q By if you went to some trouble you could
04 probably get them, meaning you could ask your access
05 providers to provide them to you?
06 A Right, but you guys can do that, too.
07 Q Well, if we asked them for it, are you going to
08 maintain your objection to our seeing them?
09 A To the irrelevance on it?
10 Q Yes.
11 A Probably.
12 Q Okay.
13 A Object on general principles.
14 Q The reason we want to see them, so you
15 understand it, is to see whether there are any
16 provisions with respect to copyright infringement on
17 it which is relevant to this case. Do you maintain
18 your objection in light of that explanation?
19 A Well, I certainly don't think I've infringed any
20 copyrights.
21 Q That's -- that's not the point. Do you maintain
22 your objection to our discovering those documents?
23 A Well, it doesn't make any difference whether I
24 object or not on it. I mean, I don't have any control
25 over you guys goin and asking Portal and Netcom for a
[going]
26 copy of their customer service agreements. It's a
0169
01 public document, for heaven sakes.
02 Q Number 10.
03 A I've already stated I've never --
04 Q You not only don't have them, but you have no
05 memory of ever receiving them?
06 A I don't believe I've ever received any.
07 Q Okay. Same is true with number 11?
08 A Yep.
09 TIME: 3:02
10 Q Now looking at Number 12, which says, "Any and
11 all documents relating to postings made by you,"
12 et cetera, putting aside any documents relating to
13 postings having nothing to do with Scientology --
14 A I don't keep them.
15 Q You don't keep them. So you do not have any.
16 A I really -- you know, I figure other people
17 archive this stuff. My writing isn't -- isn't that
18 stellar, so --
19 Q If the answer is you don't have them, that's all
20 I want to know.
21 A But I did give you a pointer to my articles on
22 memetics.
23 Q Look at number 19. I know you have deposited an
24 objection to producing these documents. What I want
25 to know is whether any exist with respect to each of
26 these individuals.
0170
01 A Prior to the date of being sued, I don't believe
02 I have anything that I've saved from any of these
03 people.
04 Q And after the date?
05 A I'm not sure. I haven't cleaned things up since
06 then, but in any case, I didn't -- in any case, I'm
07 going -- I would object, and you're going to have to
08 wind up getting a court order --
09 Q I understand that. I want to know if we have to
10 do that, what the scope of -- of the objection is,
11 which I'm entitled to have. When you make an
12 objection on the basis of privilege, such as this,
13 you're entitled to maintain that objection until the
14 court rules on it, but you're also required to
15 delineate what documents were -- are at issue.
16 A I don't think I saved any e-mail from these
17 people.
18 Q Okay. Can you check on that and let us know
19 that?
20 A Sure.
21 MR. LIEBERMAN: Counterclaim.
22 (Discussion held off the record.)
23 MR. LIEBERMAN: I'll wait for the copy to
24 be made.
25 While we're waiting, why don't we take a
26 two-minute break. It's going to take a few minutes to
0171
01 copy that.
02 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:07.
03 We're going off the record. Clear to talk.
04 (Recess taken.)
05 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 24 was
06 marked for identification by the
07 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
08 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the
09 record. The time now is 3:14 in the afternoon. Go
10 ahead, please.
11 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Okay. We have
12 marked as Exhibit 24 a document entitled "Answer and
13 Counterclaims" filed April 25th, 1996 by the defendant
14 Keith Henson. Did you basically draft this by
15 yourself?
16 A I took off from Grady Ward's -- I sucked Grady
17 Ward's thing into my editor, and I hope I managed to
18 change all cases of Grady Ward to Keith Henson and not
19 miss any.
20 Q Okay. I'm just going to ask you a few questions
21 about this document.
22 A Sure.
23 Q On page 2, line 13, you say, "avers that
24 plaintiff's e-mail complaint was intended to
25 intimidate lawful criticism." What e-mail complaint
26 are you referring to?
0172
01 A Probably the July -- the July threat letter, but
02 I could have been responding to both of them.
03 Probably was.
04 Q You're talking here not about the complaint in
05 the lawsuit, you're talking about a cease and desist
06 letter from Ms. Kobrin?
07 A Right.
08 Q Okay. Just wanted to be clear about that.
09 A I appreciate the editing.
10 Q Page 4.
11 A There's a lot of spelling errors in this thing.
12 Q Okay. In paragraph 7 --
13 A Uh-huh, yes.
14 Q -- you say, "This answering defendant is
15 informed and believes." The word informed suggests
16 that you have been informed of this by somebody; is
17 that correct?
18 A Self-informed.
19 Q Okay.
20 A It's legalesse. I probably should have used
21 different words, but I'm not a lawyer.
22 Q It's okay.
23 A Should I stick in self-informed?
24 Q No, no. That's why I'm asking the questions.
25 Now we know.
26 Page 6, I probably shouldn't do this, but
0173
01 I'm going to ask you what Extropian magazine is.
02 A Extropians are a group of people who are out on
03 the -- if you will, the bleeding edge of technology,
04 people who are into nanotechnology, uploading
05 themselves into computers or robot bushes, into the
06 study of many aspects of highly transhuman
07 metamorphose.
08 Q Is this magazine published on a regular basis?
09 A Oh, yes. I think it's quarterly.
10 Q How often -- quarterly?
11 A It's a nice big, slick magazine.
12 Q Is this a paid position that you have there?
13 A No, but I show up in the masthead.
14 Q Do you get paid as a freelancer for any articles
15 you write for them?
16 A Yes. Not for this magazine, but I certainly
17 have been paid for other magazines.
18 Q Okay. By the way, a little while ago you said
19 that you had affixed to the bulletin board at work the
20 latest cease and desist letter you received.
21 A No, the previous -- the one back in July.
22 Q Oh, okay. Where -- what work site did you do
23 this in?
24 A One of my consulting jobs.
25 Q I see. Okay. The next paragraph you say, "He
26 is currently the president and CEO of XOC. What's
0174
01 XOC?
02 A Xanadu Operating Company.
03 Q What is that?
04 A One the originators of hypertext.
05 Q Is that --
06 A If you want to know more, about a week ago there
07 was a front page article about it on the Wall Street
08 Journal.
09 Q Okay. Is it a company that is presently
10 operating?
11 A Barely.
12 Q And what did it do actually?
13 A It spent about 4 and-a-half million dollars
14 worth of Autodesk's money and developed the world's
15 most powerful hypertext system.
16 Q Was this a paid position when you were president
17 and CEO?
18 A I still am and yes, in stock.
19 Q Okay. The stock apparently isn't worth very
20 much at the moment; is that right?
21 A Well, I'm in the process of swapping 10 percent
22 of it for $900,000 worth of effort that somebody did.
23 Q You're a member of the board of Alcor Life
24 Extension Foundation.
25 A Right.
26 Q Is this the cryonics --
0175
01 A Yes.
02 Q Do you hold any executive positions with that or
03 are you just on the board?
04 A No, just on the board.
05 Q Then you say through your activities with Alcor
06 you became knowledgeable with the ECPA?
07 A Right. That's the lawsuit that you introduced
08 earlier.
09 Q Okay. Now, paragraph 9, you say, "Keith Henson
10 has been informed and on that basis believes that on
11 January 11th, 1995, attorney for the plaintiff, Helena
12 Kobrin, executed or caused to be executed a special
13 computer command called a RMGROUP to automatically
14 destroy the internet discussion group designated
15 alt.religion.scientology." You weren't a participant
16 in a.r.s. at the time; is that correct?
17 A I'm not sure. I don't remember the exact day
18 that I -- that I went onto that. I might have been.
19 It was right around that time.
20 Q But I thought you said that, in fact, the event
21 that triggered your becoming interested in it was when
22 you learned of this alleged act; isn't that right?
23 A I'm actually not certain whether it was that one
24 or something which occurred very close to that time,
25 which was the raid on the pin net server. I honestly
[penet]
26 can't answer you on that. However, somebody managed
0176
01 to get a letter that Helena wrote, if I remember
02 correctly, and posted it to the internet,
03 and, of course, this particular event was a major
04 event. It was discussed all over the net. It was
05 discussed particularly in comp.org.eff.talk, which is
06 where I used to hang out.
07 Q You don't do that anymore?
08 A I read it occasionally. I try to catch up with
09 it once in a while.
10 Q Now, how does this command -- how is this
11 command supposed to automatically destroy a discussion
12 group?
13 A The -- just in a rough way of describing it, the
14 messages that are distributed to -- to news servers go
15 into a directory structure in a particular case. Here
16 it goes into one that's under the news spool and then
17 under the alt hierarchy and then under religion and
18 then under Scientology where you build this multilevel
19 directory, and the effect of RMGROUP causes the
20 operating system of the news server to delete the
21 file -- sorry, to delete all the contents of that
22 directory and then to remove the entire directory
23 itself so that further --
24 Q So is all anybody in the world needs to do to
25 destroy a discussion group is just put RM on some
26 header and send it out and the news group will just be
0177
01 destroyed?
02 A Right.
03 Q But it didn't happen, did it?
04 A Well, it didn't happen because people
05 immediately reinstated it.
06 Q Are you saying that it was destroyed and then it
07 was reinstated?
08 A Oh, yeah. It was destroyed on, I don't know,
09 thousands of sites and all the postings were gone.
10 Q How --
11 A Well, there were -- reports about it were all
12 over the net for weeks. It was a major event. A lot
13 --
14 Q So if I sent out an RMGROUP thing today, went to
15 my computer and I typed that out and sent it out, I
16 could destroy alt.religion.scientology tomorrow --
17 immediately? That's you testimony?
18 A In all the places that honor those requests. A
19 lot of people have gotten really tired of people
20 destroying groups like that and they won't even honor
21 those requests. They simply turn off the permissions
22 or else they cause that to be fed into something where
23 they can look at it and see if this is -- if this is a
24 destruction of a group that hasn't had anything posted
25 in it for years or is somebody being destructive and
26 trying to cut off legitimate discussion of some topic.
0178
01 Q Isn't it true, sir, that almost all access
02 providers do not have their system set up so that
03 somebody can automatically remove a group from it,
04 that it has to go through human --
05 A Oh, no, far --
06 Q -- human control and discretion?
07 A No. By numbers, I would say far more -- many
08 more people have it turned on than turned off. Now,
09 the bigger providers, like Portal and Netcom and
10 people like that, have it go through a human editing
11 stage on it, but most of the smaller people don't.
12 And so I don't know how many places -- places this
13 actually deleted all the files which were in
14 alt.religion.scientology, but it was probably a
15 substantial number of them.
16 Q And why would anyplace set up their system so
17 that anybody in the world could just destroy a news
18 group on it?
19 A It used to be that people were more trusted in
20 this business.
21 Q Uh-huh.
22 TIME: 3:26.
23 Q Look at page 9.
24 A Uh-huh.
25 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
26 Kobrin.)
0179
01 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Now, sir, do you
02 have any documents that show that -- as you allege,
03 that Helena Kobrin sent out such a message?
04 A I'm not sure. I doubt it.
05 Q What's the basis for your allegation?
06 A I've seen the message.
07 Q Where have you seen it?
08 A It was on a.r.s. a year ago or so like that.
09 Q What did the message say?
10 A It -- control messages tends to be rather short.
11 It mentioned something about the name being
12 trademarked and something else like that and --
13 Q So it -- so there was a --
14 A Yeah, there's a comment.
15 Q -- a comment on it --
16 A Comment field.
17 Q -- that gave reasons, and it said, "Please
18 remove this news group," didn't it?
19 A It wasn't please remove, it was directed to
20 bots, electronic automated machinery all over
21 the net that destroyed things. I'm sure I can get a
22 copy of that letter. I -- I hadn't really thought
23 of -- and probably can ask Mr. Ward for a copy. I
24 think he may have included it in his filings. If not,
25 I can certainly -- certainly provide one. I'll have
26 to ask, but I know it exists out there.
0180
01 Q And didn't the message say, "We request that you
02 remove the a.r.s. news group from your site. Please
03 confirm that you have done so." You don't recall
04 seeing that?
05 A You're quoting it.
06 Q Does that -- that sounds familiar to you?
07 A It sounds very similar to it.
08 Q So that's a request, isn't it, sir?
09 A Well, for some sites, yeah, some sites where
10 people actually read it, but I know that as a control
11 message, it doesn't necessarily go through human
12 hands. Like I say, if they had the news -- the
13 news -- the system which loads news into the
14 directories, if it's set up the default way, it just
15 deletes it. Gone.
16 Q That's up to the individuals who run those
17 systems, isn't it, as to how they want to set up their
18 system? As you said, many systems are set up -- the
19 major systems are set up so that there is somebody who
20 reviews such requests, isn't there? Isn't that right?
21 A That's -- that may be -- that is to the best of
22 my knowledge true. It may or may not -- I don't know
23 whether it's true in all of the major systems, and I
24 don't know at what size you cut off major systems. I
25 do know --
26 Q Certainly a system -- a system can choose to set
0181
01 itself up so that there is human control over that;
02 isn't that correct?
03 A That is true.
04 Q Now, do you have any evidence as to the actual
05 destruction of sites? What evidence do you have of
06 that?
07 A Oh, there were people complaining about it for
08 weeks.
09 Q I'm not talking about people complaining about
10 it. Do you have any hard evidence of that, that
11 anything actually happened?
12 A No, not -- certainly not with me, but I'll bet I
13 could get it for you pretty quick. Would you like
14 affidavits from various sites that it did --
15 Q I'm just asking you what you have now, sir.
16 A I think I could get it. That's a good -- good
17 point. I'll try to do that.
18 TIME: 3:31
19 Q Okay. On page 10, paragraph 18, you say, "Keith
20 Henson has been informed and on that basis believes
21 that on April 10th, 1996 a man claiming to be an
22 investigator called his ex-wife and attempted to
23 obtain information which would be damaging to Keith
24 Henson." I have a couple questions about that.
25 First, you say has been informed. Were you
26 informed --
0182
01 A E-mail from my ex-wife.
02 Q What's your ex-wife's name?
03 A Carolyn Mynel.
04 Q And do you have a copy of that e-mail?
05 A I don't think so.
06 Q You destroyed it?
07 A I delete all my e-mail. It's possible -- it's
08 possible that she kept a copy of it. I might be able
09 to get it for you if you really want it.
10 Q Yes, I do.
11 A Or if you want, I might be able to get an
12 affidavit from her, if you prefer that.
13 Q No, I'd like to see the e-mail.
14 What did she say in the e-mail?
15 A It was just essentially this (indicating).
16 Q Well, what did she say -- did she identify the
17 person?
18 A By name? No. I don't believe the person
19 identified themselves to her.
20 Q Did she say what the person said to her?
21 A I don't remember.
22 Q Did she say what information he tried to obtain?
23 A Not in detail.
24 Q How about not in detail?
25 A Said about the same thing that I put in here
26 (indicating).
0183
01 Q So is all she said is he tried to obtain
02 information which might be damaging to you, but she
03 wouldn't say what information that was?
04 A No.
05 Q Did you call her to find out?
06 A No.
07 Q Did you e-mail her to find out?
08 A No.
09 Q Never made -- no inquiry further?
10 A No.
11 Q Did you respond to the e-mail in any way?
12 A I think I warned her that -- I think I warned
13 her that there might be other attempts to do this.
14 Q How did you warn her?
15 A With e-mail.
16 Q So you did respond to it?
17 A Yeah, I guess I did.
18 Q What did you say in the e-mail?
19 A Just a warning that -- that they could take tape
20 material and resplice it, having been known to do
21 that.
22 Q They could take tape material --
23 A Yeah, taped -- any responses she would make over
24 the phone.
25 Q Did you say anything else in your response?
26 A No.
0184
01 Q Did you keep a copy of your response?
02 A No.
03 Q Destroyed that, too?
04 A No, I didn't -- I never keep a copy of -- very
05 seldom keep copies of my e-mail going out.
06 Q So your response was simply this warning about
07 tape.
08 A Yeah.
09 Q Nothing else was in it?
10 A No.
11 Q Okay. Did your wife -- in your wife's e-mail,
12 did she say anything other than a man attempted to
13 obtain this information?
14 A No.
15 Q Did she say what she had said to him?
16 A No. She just -- she said she hadn't been
17 responsive to him.
18 Q Did she say what she did say to him?
19 A No.
20 Q Did she say she told him to go away?
21 A I -- I don't know what she said. It was a very
22 short e-mail message.
23 Q Did she ask you what she should do if he came
24 back?
25 A No.
26 Q Did she say anything about what her reaction to
0185
01 it was?
02 A No.
03 Q When was the last time you had been in
04 communication with your ex-wife?
05 A Some months before that.
06 Q How often do you communicate with her?
07 A Not very often.
08 Q Did you have children together?
09 A Yes.
10 Q Is that the usual subject of your communications
11 at this point?
12 A It has been the subject of most communications
13 over the past ten years.
14 Q Are those children grown now?
15 A Yes. Pretty close.
16 Q Are they still living with your ex-wife?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Teenagers?
19 A Yes.
20 Q How many children are there?
21 A Four. The older ones are long gone.
22 Q Uh-huh. When did you get divorced from your
23 ex-wife?
24 A '80, I think. I'm not real good at keeping
25 track of dates.
26 Q Would you characterize it as a fairly bitter
0186
01 divorce?
02 A Relative to some that I've seen, no.
03 Q Was there a custody fight?
04 A No.
05 Q You agreed to her having custody?
06 A Yes.
07 Q Was there some sort of order sought that you
08 keep away from the children?
09 A No.
10 Q What was -- when you got this e-mail you made no
11 further inquiry of her as to what was said?
12 A No.
13 Q You weren't interested?
14 A No. It wasn't that, it was just expected that
15 this would occur, so it wasn't any kind of surprise
16 for me.
17 Q Okay. Paragraph 19, you make various
18 allegations about somebody named Eugene Ingram.
19 A Yes. An indirect employee of the Church of
20 Scientology and/or RTC.
21 Q And you say in lines 19 and 20 -- you make
22 reference to Mr. Ingram's felony warrant in the State
23 of Florida. Do you see that?
24 A Yep. Would you like a copy of that? I didn't
25 bring one. I've got one.
26 Q Mr. Henson -- Mr. Henson, you want to get out of
0187
01 here early, right?
02 A I don't care.
03 Q Let me just ask the questions. That felony
04 warrant, did that relate in any way to you?
05 A In Mr. -- the felony warrant?
06 Q Yes, in Florida. Did it have anything to do
07 with you?
08 A No, except I'm just interested in it.
09 Q I understand that. I'm just asking that
10 question. You then go on to say, "It would not be a
11 surprise to find blackmail of state officials was
12 involved." Which state officials do you think were
13 blackmailed?
14 A Jay Pruner.
15 Q Do you have any evidence of that?
16 A No. Actually, I guess I do have evidence of
17 that. An extreme change of heart over a period of a
18 few days.
19 Q That's it?
20 A Yes, that's it.
21 Q Okay. You'll see on page 12, paragraph
22 beginning on -- with line 5, you make allegations that
23 various people have attempted to intimidate you
24 through defamation. In what way do you think you've
25 been defamed?
26 A Typically Vera Wallace's postings.
0188
01 Q What did Vera Wallace's postings say that was
02 defamatory?
03 A I can't quote it at this point. She defamed
04 just about everybody you could name in there.
05 Q Okay, but sitting here today, you can't tell me
06 what the defamation was?
07 A No, but I could certainly dig it up for you.
08 Q Threats of barratry -- what's barratry by the
09 way?
10 A It's what Helena got fined for last year.
11 Q What barratry has been -- threats of barratry
12 and barratry have been engaged in against you?
13 A This case.
14 Q This case is barratry?
15 A (Witness nods head up and down.)
16 Q This case in which a preliminary injunction has
17 been issued against you is barratry; that's your
18 testimony?
19 A That's my opinion.
20 Q Okay. So that's what this is based -- this
21 allegation is based upon this very case?
22 A And other ones.
23 Q What other cases have been filed against you?
24 A And others filed against other people. This is
25 just typical --
26 Q So you're suing for damages for cases that were
0189
01 filed against other people or just against you?
02 A Good thought. I ought to make it a class
03 action.
04 Q You yourself are seeking damages only on -- for
05 damages that you've incurred, I assume; is that right?
06 A Chances of me collecting any damages from these
07 people are zero, even if I win them.
08 Q Will you please answer my question.
09 A Sure, I'm seeking damages, why not?
10 Q For lawsuits filed against other people?
11 A No, for barratrous behavior.
12 Q Against you or against other people?
13 A It's not only me, but other people.
14 Q So your -- this claim is for lawsuits and
15 threats of lawsuits against other people; is that your
16 testimony?
17 A I think I probably should take your advice to
18 heart and reword it. I do get one chance or two
19 chances to do that.
20 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
21 Kobrin.)
22 TIME: 3:43
23 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): By threats of
24 barratry, you mean threats of lawsuits; is that your
25 concept?
26 A Threats of unjustified lawsuits. Barratry is an
0190
01 unjustified lawsuit, among other things.
02 Q And you believe this lawsuit is unjustified?
03 A Yes, I do.
04 Q Now, when you made this allegation about
05 defamation, did you --
06 A Which -- where --
07 Q The one just before barratry. I went back a
08 step to defamation.
09 A Defamation.
10 Q When you made this allegation, what -- what
11 defamatory statements did you intend to include within
12 that?
13 A Stuff by Vera Wallace.
14 Q But you can't --
15 A Oh, I can find it if you want. No problem.
16 Q But sitting here today, you can't tell me what
17 they were?
18 A I can't quote them in detail any more than I can
19 quote any of this stuff here, but I definitely
20 remember that that was done.
21 Q Okay.
22 A Of course, it's like defamation from the
23 LaRouchians, nobody takes them that seriously.
24 Q So you didn't take it very seriously?
25 A Well, the truth of it is you really can't take
26 defamation from Scientologists very seriously. I
0191
01 could have sued the LaRouchians, on that matter,
02 except that nobody would have believed anything they
03 said. I've been defamed by people before.
04 Q But none of this stopped you from participating
05 in a.r.s., did it?
06 A No.
07 Q In fact, as you said, you had a great deal of
08 fun about it, right?
09 A Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that I -- that
10 I can't claim defamation.
11 Q Okay.
12 (Discussion between Mr. Lieberman and Ms.
13 Kobrin.)
14 MR. LIEBERMAN: I think we'll go off the
15 record for a minute.
16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. Okay. The
17 time now is 3:46. We're going off the record. Clear
18 to talk.
19 (Recess taken.)
20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time now is 3:53.
21 We're back on the record. Go ahead, please.
22 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Okay.
23 Mr. Henson, I think near the end of last week you
24 filed a document called reply to second declaration of
25 Warren McShane.
26 A Oh, yes.
0192
01 Q All right. And you attached two sets of
02 exhibits to that. One Exhibit A was a document
03 authored by somebody named Marjorie Wakefield; is that
04 right?
05 A That's true.
06 Q And then Exhibit B were a set of -- a collection
07 of documents; is that right?
08 A Actually, there's Exhibit -- there aren't any
09 tabs on it. I'm sorry. There's actually B, C and
10 D, I think. They're labeled large script on the
11 bottom.
12 Q Oh, I see, yes. Okay. There was a D as well,
13 you think?
14 A I think there's D.
15 Q Yes. Okay. So I'm only interested in
16 Exhibit B, so I'm going to take C and D off.
17 MR. LIEBERMAN: Be careful. Ask you to go
18 mark that.
19 (WHEREUPON, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 25 was
20 marked for identification by the
21 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
22 MR. LIEBERMAN: Watch your fingers. There
23 you go. Be careful that staple.
24 (Discussion held off the record.)
25 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Okay.
26 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 25 is, in fact, merely a
0193
01 copy of Exhibit B to Mr. Henson's reply to the second
02 declaration of Warren McShane, and this consists of
03 several reprints apparently of HCO bulletins, HCO
04 bulletins of the Church of Scientology. Mr. Henson,
05 from where did you obtain these documents?
06 A The net.
07 Q You downloaded them from the net?
08 A No. As a matter of fact, somebody sent them to
09 me as e-mail through the net.
10 Q I see.
11 A Is this part of AT?
12 Q I don't think we're claiming that it is.
13 A Okay. I said in there I was taking a risk on
14 doing that.
15 Q So this was e-mailed to you by whom?
16 A I don't remember.
17 Q How long ago?
18 A Prior to the date I turned this thing in by
19 about two days or so, and I downloaded it and stripped
20 the headings on it in the process of producing this,
21 and I don't know who it was.
22 Q It was only a few days ago. You don't remember
23 who sent it to you?
24 A Didn't remember -- didn't look even.
25 Q And are you stripped the headings off?
26 A Yeah.
0194
01 Q What -- you maintained no record of the
02 headings?
03 A No. What I did is I sucked actually several
04 pieces of stuff, this and the other -- D -- C and D,
05 and a great deal -- the main piece that this is the
06 reference to I posted to the net in draft form.
07 Q You're referring to your actual reply?
08 A Yeah, the reply to the McShane thing.
09 Q Right.
10 A And I had -- it took forever to get that thing
11 done because I sucked all this material together that
12 people had downloaded to me in response to that and
13 merged it all together, and cut out these pieces here
14 as -- as exhibits.
15 Q Okay. Did you obtain Exhibit B from the same
16 source as you obtained Exhibit C and D from?
17 A I don't think so. I think they were all
18 separate people that sent those in. I'm not sure at
19 this point which those are even.
20 Q Did you obtain these from Mr. Wollersheim or
21 Mr. Penny?
22 A I would have remembered those people. These
23 are -- these were people that I had never heard of
24 and, as a matter of fact, I do know that one of the
25 things, and I don't remember which one it was, it
26 might well have been Exhibit B, was actually sent to
0195
01 me by -- indirectly by -- to somebody else who sent it
02 to them who sent it on to me, and they had stripped
03 out the names and headers on it, so I have no idea who
04 it came from.
05 Q Did you post Exhibit B to the net?
06 A No, I don't think -- well, I take that back.
07 Maybe I did. I don't -- I truthfully don't remember
08 whether I did it or not.
09 Q You --
10 A It would be on the net if I did.
11 Q Are you aware that these documents are also
12 copyrighted?
13 A Fair use.
14 Q Your idea of fair use is it's okay to republish
15 them in their entirety?
16 A I don't believe this is in -- entire. I think
17 there's a big piece missing out of it. Yeah. A
18 number of pages have been removed from this
19 abbreviated version. The pages removed include
20 details of the questions submitted, and from the fact
21 that there's 580 on here and 604, looks like there
22 were like 24 pages removed from it, so --
23 Q That's one document, there --
24 A I don't believe I posted this thing, although I
25 might have. I don't remember for sure.
26 Q Are you aware that they've been copyrighted?
0196
01 A Oh, everything's copyrighted. Stuff is born
02 copyrighted. Everything that you guys have duplicated
03 here of my material is copyrighted.
04 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. At this time I have
05 no further questions of you. If at some point later
06 in the case facts develop which require further
07 questioning, I reserve our right to request that of
08 the court, but at this point I have no further
09 questions.
10 EXAMINATION BY MR. HENSON:
11 THE WITNESS: I'd like to introduce a
12 number of exhibits, the first one being a Playboy for
13 June 1996 --
14 MR. LIEBERMAN: You're not really going to
15 introduce a Playboy into this?
16 THE WITNESS: Why not? It's applicable.
17 One of the arguments is that this material has been
18 very carefully maintained, and I can show in the 2
19 million people who've seen this piece of the thing,
20 Travolta -- short paragraph, "Travolta credits
21 Scientology for his mental stability. As a graduate
22 of some of the most advanced levels of Scientology
23 training, Travolta is required to believe that he is
24 possessed by the spirits of murdered space aliens.
25 Does this sound like mental stability to you?"
26 MR. LIEBERMAN: So you want to introduce
0197
01 that?
02 THE WITNESS: Yes.
03 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. Well, let her mark
04 it first.
05 (Discussion held off the record.)
06 (WHEREUPON, DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT A was
07 marked for identification by the
08 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
09 THE WITNESS: In fact, actually, the date
10 is on this page. So she didn't need to do that. Just
11 this page would be enough.
12 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay.
13 THE WITNESS: I'd like to introduce a --
14 MR. LIEBERMAN: You got to give me copies
15 of those. Do you have copies of those?
16 THE WITNESS: Sorry. We'll have to run --
17 MR. LIEBERMAN: Let me see it before you
18 introduce it so I can make an objection.
19 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I should have run
20 this stuff, but I didn't do it until this morning.
21 It's a newspaper article on the Vosper
22 case.
23 MR. LIEBERMAN: From when? There's no
24 date on it or anything.
25 THE WITNESS: I don't remember when the
26 Vosper case was, but --
0198
01 MR. LIEBERMAN: Where does this come
02 from? There is no identification on it or anything.
03 THE WITNESS: a.r.s.
04 MR. LIEBERMAN: Maybe what we ought to do
05 is take three minutes just to copy these things.
06 THE WITNESS: Fine by me.
07 MR. LIEBERMAN: So that we can take a look
08 at them while you're introducing them. So if we could
09 go off the record for just a few minutes while these
10 exhibits are copied.
11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. The time now is
12 4:04. We're going off the record. Clear to talk.
13 (Recess taken.)
14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the
15 record. The time is 4:18. Go ahead, please.
16 THE WITNESS: Okay. We've already
17 introduced one of these exhibits. I want to introduce
18 Exhibit B, which is a newspaper story about a 1971
19 case, Vosper case, and that should be B.
20 (WHEREUPON, DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT B was
21 marked for identification by the
22 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
23 MR. LIEBERMAN: Let me see a copy of that.
24 THE WITNESS: Sure. I'll keep one and you
25 guys can have the rest of them.
26 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. I'm going to object
0199
01 to this exhibit. It still gets marked.
02 THE WITNESS: Right.
03 MR. LIEBERMAN: I'm going to object to
04 this exhibit as -- that there's no identification on
05 it as to where it came from, what it is.
06 THE WITNESS: Okay.
07 MR. LIEBERMAN: It's also irrelevant, but
08 relevance is reserved.
09 THE WITNESS: Right. Okay. C, this is
10 a -- I'm trying to remember the guy's name, Wayne --
11 can somebody help?
12 MR. LIEBERMAN: I haven't seen it. I
13 don't know what it is.
14 THE WITNESS: Whitney. Okay, this is a
15 story by Wayne Whitney which has been posted to the
16 internet, and you can mark it as C, I guess it is.
17 (WHEREUPON, DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT C was
18 marked for identification by the
19 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
20 MS. KOBRIN: Copies?
21 THE WITNESS: Yeah, copies. And this
22 relates in that this can eventually be turned into --
23 this is just a heads up for you guys because it's --
24 it can probably be turned into an affidavit. The guy
25 is locally available, I believe. I've asked him for
26 it as an affidavit, but I haven't got it yet, and
0200
01 again, if you want to object, it's just fine.
02 MR. LIEBERMAN: I object, no foundation.
03 No identification.
04 THE WITNESS: Well -- okay.
05 MR. LIEBERMAN: Next?
06 THE WITNESS: The next one is a, I'm
07 sorry, poorly done copy of the Ninth Circuit Court of
08 Appeals. This is the Religious Technology Center
09 versus Robin Scott, et al. And this is where I
10 believe that my contention of estopple with respect to
11 trade secrets has been established by the Ninth
12 Circuit, and --
13 (Discussion held off the record.)
14 (WHEREUPON, DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT D was
15 marked for identification by the
16 Certified Shorthand Reporter.)
17 THE WITNESS: There you go. And I guess
18 that's it.
19 MR. LIEBERMAN: Objection on a variety of
20 grounds. Ninth Circuit opinion is not for
21 publication, which means it can't be used in any other
22 case.
23 THE WITNESS: Well, that may -- it may be
24 published. And finally --
25 MR. LIEBERMAN: Now, before you introduce
26 this one, I have to say that this one we object to
0201
01 introducing and marking as an exhibit because it
02 contains identifications of upper-level processes, the
03 very titles of which in some instances are trade
04 secret information. Now, there are two alternatives.
05 One is for you not to introduce it.
06 THE WITNESS: Right.
07 MR. LIEBERMAN: The other is to introduce
08 it, if you insist, sealed.
09 THE WITNESS: I don't care. We can
10 introduce it sealed if it's just as good as anything
11 else.
12 MR. LIEBERMAN: Or you can withdraw it.
13 It's up to you, but the court says that anything
14 having to do with these materials needs to be
15 submitted in sealed form and --
16 THE WITNESS: Well, I tell you what,
17 rather than submit it here today kind of thing, I'll
18 just let you have all the copies and you guys can
19 shred them and I'll introduce -- if I decide to
20 introduce it, I'll seal it and give it to the court
21 directly.
22 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay.
23 THE WITNESS: However, I should go ahead
24 and tell you where that came from.
25 MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes, because I was going
26 to ask you.
0202
01 THE WITNESS: Well, I have no problem
02 telling you where it came from. It was spammed all
03 over the net Sunday night, I believe, and was on
04 altavista and dejanews, and it's still on Netcom in an
05 HTLM version.
06 MR. LIEBERMAN: And you downloaded it?
07 THE WITNESS: I downloaded the index.
08 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay.
09 THE WITNESS: Just as -- to establish that
10 whatever trade secrets these things had, they -- if
11 exposing stuff ruins a trade secret status of the
12 thing, it's -- it's ruined.
13 MR. LIEBERMAN: Are you through?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes. You can seal that.
15 MR. LIEBERMAN: I have just one or two
16 questions.
17 THE WITNESS: Sure.
18 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. LIEBERMAN:
19 Q (By Mr. Lieberman): Do you know --
20 have any information as to who posted this?
21 A The stuff is signed Valar or Volar or something
22 like that.
23 Q Volar?
24 A Volar, yeah.
25 Q Do you know who Volar is?
26 A Nope.
0203
01 Q Any information whatsoever?
02 A Was a complete surprise to me when it showed up
03 on the net.
04 Q Okay.
05 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Any other questions?
06 MR. LIEBERMAN: I think we're through.
07 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. I'll take us off
08 the record. This is the completion of the deposition
09 of Keith Henson on May 8th, 1996 which has consisted
10 of three videotapes. We're going off the record for
11 the final time for today at 4:24. Clear to talk.
12 (Whereupon, at 4:24 p.m., the deposition
13 of H. KEITH HENSON was concluded.)
14
15
16 _________________________
16 H. KEITH HENSON
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
0204
01 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
01 ) ss.
02 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA )
02
03 I, CAROL WIBLE TORRES, a Certified Shorthand
04 Reporter in and for the State of California, hereby
05 certify that the witness in the foregoing deposition,
06 H. KEITH HENSON,
07 was by me duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole
08 truth and nothing but the truth in the within-entitled
09 cause, that the foregoing is a full, true and correct
10 transcript of the proceedings had at the taking of
11 said deposition to the best of my ability.
12 _______________________________
12 Carol Wible Torres, CSR #3391
13 Date: May 10, 1996
13
14 The signing of the deposition by the deponent
14
15 was conditionally waived at the time of the taking of
15
16 the deposition.
16 ___________________________
17
17 Upon completion of the foregoing transcript, the
18
18 witness was notified it was ready for signature, but
19
19 the deposition was not signed by the witness for the
20
20 following reason:_____________________________________
21
21 ______________________________________________________
22
22 ______________________________________________________
23
23 ______________________________________________________
24
24
25
25
26
26
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <hkhensonD...@netcom.com>, Keith Henson wrote:
|
| Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.legal,
| comp.org.eff.talk,alt.2600
| From: hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson)
| Subject: Re: I've got mine...
| Message-ID: <hkhensonD...@netcom.com> Lines: 5628
|
[in case anybody needs to get it from archive]
Dear Keith,
My link slowed down this morning for one endless article
and, yes, it was this. I've tried to summarise it and
make any helpful points I can. No doubt any ARSers who
have archives, papers or expertise to help or comment
will pitch in and do what they can for you.
=========[THE SUMMARY OF THE SUMMARY]==============
What you should do in analysing this is realise that
they have a set 'script' at to how they want to portray
you and portray events, and simply design questions to
force that picture. One scenario they have is the
'big conspiracy', and I think this is abusive discovery
for intelligence gathering rather than seriously meant.
The other is to portray you as an irresponsible idiot
who gets kicks out of defying the law, a spotty hacker
grown older but not wiser -- that you ''induced the church
to sue you'' -- and you have to be very careful
of letting them put this one on you.
They also have a script
that by contrast they are perfectly reasonable people who
don't harass anyone for speech dear me no, no 1st amendment
analysis here, but only and singlemindedly pursue violations
of property rights, so they want to measure out the infringements
by very teaspoonful and check NetCom's TOS re copyright etc.
They go through both the postings of the 6 lines and the NOTs
to systematically establish that you have access to scanners,
that you are Scamizdat or know who it is, whatever. You
supposedly have this mysterious circle of friends, cypherpunks.
You need to systematically link in CoS's history of barratry
and misuse of courts.
They keep trying to allege a close connection with Arnie Lerma
hence FACT-NET. They also want to broaden your motives, to
also the whole works for bait and switch not just those
things inciting crime, and you must be very careful not to
let them. The RMGROUP is something still worth exploring,
but is there proof that Kobrin issued it? A few documents
you issued had marginal effect. The list of NOTs contents
cannot be sealed, because the 'Ho has laready published it.
================[END]======================================
Points re the deposition
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Time spent clueing in the opposition to Net technicalities
is not advancing your case any. If anything, they you are
being a free computer consultant to the other side: they
should pay their own person to work on educating them.
p008 are you familiar with procedures of deposition?
Biographical details?
Participation in newsgroups? Previous litigation?
knowledge of scientology: taken courses, read books?
what are they tring to show---perhaps that you
are ignorant of the subject!
EX1, the case against the FBI (why is this included?
what do they mean to achieve by it??)
and then date of first posting to a.r.s.....?
This business of saying that postings produced may not
be word for word correct is a necessary caution, but
does not shield you that much: in anything that counts,
the court will likely decide that a posting signed
HKHenson whose general content you support is on
balance of probailitlities most likely yours,
and act accordingly. Obviously they *would* be helped
by more positive acknowledgement, or they wouldn't
push so hard for it, but they're not deeply hindered by
the lack of it either. Erlich case: you ''thought the
judge was in over his head''. Is this put on record
just to annoy the present judge, or for some deeper
purpose? Attempts are made to link you with Dennis
Erlich and a list of people, they largely fail, they
aren't succeeding in their supposed conspiracy theory
but I suppose they have lost nothing for trying.
Look at p0026. While you are off describing what ISPs
and killfiles etcetera are, they simply pause and return
to a preset agenda which is trying to show (because the
suggestion is obviously harmful to them) that there is
no first amendment element, because you have made numerous
postings which are critical speech but only once been sued
through quite proper use of copyright law on a legitimate
issue. If you and Grady are seeking to establish a pattern
of misusing the courts, you haven't done so yet: you need
to get reference to the large number of cases, to the
cases thrown out and the the judges' hostile comments,
particularly as they pertain to misuse of the courts.
Brinkema said stuff of this kind. You would need to do it
in a detailed and documented way. That database search,
so vast a number of cases, so vast a number of failed
cases, by CoS bodies needs to be in there---also multiple
instances of sanctions and disbarrment on CoS lawyers. Work
to build grounds (if not in this case, then the next mug's)
that there is systematic abuse.
You sorta half made a point about the threats made over
the six lines. Can you **prove** Vera &co act offcially for
CoS as part of their jobs?--You can Milne, but he doesn't
make the treats. What was threatened? Have you any
detail of this? RonartistR didn't threaten **you**.
If people insulted you, you insulted them too, and it
was all part of the general rough-housing accepted on a.r.s.
and protected under the first amendment, not unlawful threats;
or that's how the clams have succeeeded in portraying it.
On ''no more secret scriptures'' (what was IN IT?) they seem
to have got an admission you posted in then gone no further.
P34, plaintiffs#5, ''just the facts ma'am'', the clams
pick up on your desribing Grady as (i) respected and (ii)
outspoken, and try to twist ''playing by the rules''
[of custom, with other users] as playing by the ISP's
terms of service re copyyright. They will be back with
documents on this one, and obviously intend to make a meal
of it. they've more or less laid it out that you took
a personal (moral) decision to chance breaking the at
your own risk, you were wrong -- especially in a law which
is strict liability on actions without need of guilty motive --
and you should now pay the price. A jury might be sympathetic,
but will it get as far as a jury? Obviously they hope not.
They say you have made a deliberate decision to infringe
copyright and trade secrets, you say not. They ask whether
you took legal advice before posting either the 6 lines or this,
and come round to you saying it was your own decision. They
also add that you posted twice i.e. twice the infringement,
and making the point of the illegal cancel is important here.
They are obfuscating: ''if the cancelbunny saw it to cancel,
then it must have got out the first time, as well as your
reposting it later.'' They are trying to avoid the cancelbunny
stuff and ploddingly lay down these ''two infringements''
anyway, it will take some work to pin them down here. You have
done very little to pin the cancellation on the clams. Is there
any way to formally tie the case to the federal wirefraud
investigation? To **GET** a definite link to the truth being
established on the bunnies? That would be a positive step.
Page44, they get you to admit you posted NOTS34 knowing it was
copyrighted, or at least that they had asserted a claim to
copyright, though not that it was connected to the Erlich case.
Page46, **REMAILERS** come into it, and this is important re
a possible legal attack on them as third parties. They get enough
admissions out of you to show you know a fair bit about chained
remailers and may have counselled others on their use. They are
very interested in the 'CYPHERPUNKS' (they would be---an obvious
target), and very keen to misrepresent that you know specific
people individually but are refusing to name them.
Page54, plaintiffs#6, the message about Armstrong, which talks
about the attack on Grady, and they ask ''what sort of attack''.
This is important, because it can be brought into the linked case
with Grady, and the whole business of Ingram and deposing him
might come into it. In fact I think they might pressure him hard
to accept a large but realistic cash settlement to stop that
happening. Then they go into who ''all your influential friends''
might be (hint: the Cypherpunks?) and who SCAMIZDAT is.
Page58, plaintiff's#7--Patrick Volk and Trolling. Evidently
their strategy is to proceed on two paths at once of either
shooting you with with the ''grand conspiracy'' theory or
hanging you with the ''lone idiot'' theory. Yeah you are
a fun guy, a real mushroom, and you know a lot about computers.
But they are not such fools as you think.
:-o
:-o Here's this Henson bloke,
:-o they'll say, very clever as a computer nerd but a bit of
:-o an idiot in real world terms. He's made his own moral
:-o choice to defy the law etc at his own risk, in a strict
:-o liability statute, and he should pay the penalty. Not
:-o only that, but the man is a complete loon and scofflaw
:-o who takes nothing seriously, sets out to play practical
:-o jokes on lawfirms, incites false prosecutions on himself,
:-o and makes a play before his idiot friends of the status
:-o it gets him: give him a few months in jail for misleading
:-o the courts so he can get some **real** glory with them!
:-o
It's a complete travesty, of course, but that's how they'll
seek to present you --- you should think before you laugh!
I think is establishing a counterattack you need to show
you feel you have first amendment or ather rights in exposing
a document which shows unlawful intent, that CoS in barratrously
misusing the law to stop you, and--that gives a hook for--as
part of a continuing history of barratry. You then need to build:
(i) the vast number of cased by Scn groups
(ii) the vast number of *failed* cases
(iii) the vast number of
<a href="http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~achorn/cos/cos.newliens">
liens owing
</a> including Wollerheims $5M and the public statements of
''not one thin dime'' showing their own scant respect for the law
(iv) the critical judgements including Brinkema indicating misuse
(v) the numbers of attorneys actually disbarred, rather a lot
(vi) complaints and sactions against attorneys including those
in the present case which -- while not DIRECTLY germane to their
actions in the present case -- tend to establish a general pattern.
You should depose HKK as to:
(vii) do you think email is a proper means of service?
(iix) is it always you posting from that account?
(ix) threats over the 6 lines, sebsequently declared fair use,
didn't they rather make the law and your threats subject to mockery?
(x) do you have any knowledge of the cancels? would you condemn
the cancels as a federal offence? [she will say ''no knowledge'',
it is the possibility of getting her for perjury later that counts]
(xi) are you aware of '' 'Ho of babble-on'' and the Kook of the Month
award: these don't express just general contempt for law and lawyers,
don't you think your actions brought them on?
Re the joking post:
(xii) ''I think I acted humorously given the medium, but responsibly.
I didn't initiate the joke, I merely continued it, but it was a
harmless one. What would have been your response had you responded:
an unnecessary warning letter? Don't you think that was at least
partly a deserved waste fo your time??'' If the say, no we would
have gone straight to court, you say ''what---over a lorry load of
striped paint, without if you're ignorant of paint first asking a
paint expert to check the plausibility of such a thing?''.
I would take this ''just a joker'' attack rather seriously,
and think how to counter it.
Page66, plaintiffs#8, Soboczinski. I don't know why they ask
the propriety of posting threatening EMail. I think perhaps
they are only trying to make absolutely sure you admit having
seen this warning from a scientologist on posting confidential
stuff. They try to twist ''playing by the rules'' of accepted
custom into playing by the ISP's terms of service on copyright
and go after this throughout, continuing trying to introduce
these documents from NetCom direclty later on. They mention
archives as a lead in to Deana Holmes, still with half an eye
to suing her over enchefferised NOTs, and from her to Homer
and the FreeZone who --it is hinted -- are the market for
stolen NOTs. Somewhere along the line, someone should
''have heard'' that (a) many Freezoners reject the upper OTs
and NOTs, and (b) those that want'em have had 'em for years.
This one should not be allowed to slip through. On killfiles,
you are just being an unpaid computer consultant for the
other side. Then Aaron Mason of EFF, more conspiracy stuff.
Bear in mind that the ''big conspiracy'' line may never be
actually used in the case, but BY SUCH ABUSIVE DISCOVERY
they can get a hell of a lot of intelligence materials.
Page76.
-=-=- END FOR NOW -=-=-
Maybe more later.
Anyone on the other newsgroups want the a.r.s webpages,
they can be indexed via mine (below).
Full index: /x/clam/lynx1.html
home | SCIENTOLOGY | LINKS
quick reference:
/x/clam/quickref.html
home | SCIENTOLOGY | LINKS | QuickReference
Maureen Garde's page has the legal files, Brett Achorn's
the debts and liens.
MORE:
page76, plaintiffs#9. This 'wide circle of powerful friends'
[==cypherpunks ==conspiracy?]. And 'when did you post the 6 lines?'.
Someone should invalidate anything based on this, as the 6 lines have
been held and always obviously were fair use while the NOTs is a
substantive dispute as to whether quote is justified because the
material incites unlawfulness. What they really want is to show that
you downloaded WHOLE OTS at that time. Plaintiffs#10 with Tom Betz is
back on this theme of being a ''scofflaw loon'' who gets challenges
the law for kicks. Plaintiffs#11, Magenta Lips, more of the same.
Plaintiffs#12, you got another 'Ho note for NOTs, but not a copy
of the ISPs 'Ho note which they wisely binned. SP levels likewise
are there to prove you are a complete loon.
Page98, Lerma. I think the inference is, you knew instantly
of the raid because you were closely connected, and plotting,
with him. Plaintiffs#14, 'Noose Tightens' -- in response to Milne,
wd be fun at least if he were deposed. The point is you were
aware of confidentiality agreements signed by exClams, with
the inference you felt free to do what you like with the Clams
confidential materials if you hadn't; and whether you were aware
of the injuctions in the erlich papers (but would they have been
directly biinding on you? Perhaps not, just one more indication
that you **well**knew** the material was coinfidential when you
posted it -- intention may be relevant to increased penalty),
also aware of the Vien decision.
>>>> afternoon session <<<<
Page112, plaintiffs#15--sorry, this is the one where they
use timing to allege conspiracy with Lerma. Then they
try to add Wollerheim and Penny of FACT-NET too.
Page116 Line16: they continue this absurd line, defending
against first amendment challenges, that attacks have *only*
been on actual or (in Grady's case) suspected copyright violators.
You need to lay some groundwork that others like Henri
have been harmed, to undermine this apparent 'reasonableness'.
And again the attempt to portray you as a nutcase who
hates the law, a potential hacker terrorist who is going
to go up against governments next. That will really make
you porpular; you have to counter the false poratrayals
they are establishing. Plaintiffs#16, seems to be here
to establish that you ''admitted scientologists are sincere in
their beliefs.''
>Dickstein, Shapiro and Lauren.
Nobody should be born with the name Dickstein ;0)
Plaintiffs#17, Whyte rules on Erlich. They are trying
to establish you have access to scanners to be Scamizdat:
did you scan OT7 or NOTS34 for either posting. And
they go into how you got NOTS34 if not. The validity
of this EMail service or not is importnat, and you seem
to have partly conceded it. The want to know about
the hard copies of the letter for extra infringements.
You solicited NOTs where it incites crime; and recieved
none. You will 'try again once the injunction is off',
which probably means it will be made permanent.
It is interesting whether the ECPA line will hold up.
Plaintiffs#18, the open letter to Judge White,
THE WATERS GET MUDDIED AS TO WHETHER YOU WOULD POST
STUFF WHICH WAS BAIT & SWITCH AS WELL AS INCITING CRIME.
It take it you weren't personally going to post stuff which
was only bait and switch (not inciting crime), and you
should make this very clear. They also say you felt
you could post the entire corpus. I would counter this
if I were you! They even try to get you saying you have
equal dislike for the Bible as for the clamcrap--presumably
to set a jury against you if it comes to jury trial.
Page144, plaintiffs#19, reply to the 'Ho note, where it
becomes the original origami buttplug. You are this jibing
scofflaw hacker terrorist loon again, I can see it coming.
I just hope the jury finds it funny. But it will need a GOOD
countercase that the clams are barratrous, vindictive,
incomptetent and (eventually) to be laughed at,
or your humour will rebound on you badly.
Then back to grand conspiracy, with Mike Godwin of EFF.
Page148, they try to mislead people that you were quoting
on not contents of emails but bits of AT materials.
Plaintiffs#20, the supposed list of conspirators.
While they won't **get** their big conspiracy in the real case,
they can get a lot of intelligence gathering done in the shape
of abusive discovery. Can you counter it as such? First of
all are there HCOPLs and such which ought to go on court record
e.g. the law is easily used to harass and destroy. I'm not sure
how this would be done, would it be posted to you or what, without
further attacks that it is copyright material being used for
evidence. There must be surveys in past cases which show abusive
discovery. Karin Spaink might have a lot of material for you.
Page155, time 2:39. Did you get FACT-NET cdroms? no.
Plaintiffs#21, vaclav Havel posting, back to the scofflaw loon theme.
Plaintiffs#22, I got mine, not sure what they're after.
Plaintiffs#23, response to request for discovery,
those three extra hard copies for a few extra infringements.
P167 L13 ''induce the church into suing you''. You have
to very carefully counter this one as above.
They are determined to get the NetCom T.O.S into this!
You don't keep postings.
Plaintiffs#24, Answer and Counterclaims. Clarifies some facts, then...
The RMGROUP. They paint a very odd picture--those irresponsible ISPs
leaving their systems on automatic so vandals can delete whole
newsgroups without manual intervention to stop it. Hey, the subway
train has an automatic stop handle: they don't expect vandals
to pull it needlessly, they don't have a man watching it so you don't,
and they even have the nerve to fine you if you do! It strikes
me this is ADMITTED(?--find out)and a MUCH WORSE VIOLATION THAT DELETING
INDIVIUAL MESSAGES. Maybe you should get a fellow computer consultant
to give evidence along these lines, *if* it is material?
Refer to:
|
| From: wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell)
| Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
| Subject: Re: Reporting Alan Rachins for forged cancels: first lead
| Date: 14 May 1996 22:25:30 -0500
| Message-ID: <4nbira$9...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
|
| Title 18, United States Code, Section 2701
|
| $ 2701. Unlawful access to stored communications
|
| (a) Offense. - Except as provided in subsection (c) of this
| section whoever -
| (1) intentionally accesses without authorization a
| facility through which an electronic communication
| service is provided; or
| (2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that
| facility; and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents
| authorized access to a wire or electronic communication
| while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be
| punished as provided in subsection (b)
|
Has Kobrin done an admitted offence under this? Was it ever
investigated? Will you raise it in your deposition taking?
How do you link it to this case --- write a complaint to the FBI
and bring the letter into evidence??
Let's here what background and proof there is on this incident.
p181 the business with your ex-wife:
you haven't really brought any proof.
p188 Barratry is raised. You should really build a case for this --
sinple reference to the one present suit won't hack it. I'm not
sure exactly what damages you are seeking for actions against who;
the clams seem to think your submission is confused and won't succeed
i.e. I don't think you have them worried here.
p191, the Margery Wakefield stuff, not sure what's happening.
p193, entering of some HCOBs: YOU SHOULD BE ENTERING HCOPLs ETC
on use of the law to harrass!
p195 14-15 watch out: exceeding fair use!
p196. Playboy :-( a copy of the article itself wd have done
Exhibit'B', Vosper case
Wayne Witney: you **will** need an affidavit with full address
The ninth circuit opinion, not sure it's citeable
%
% 25 MR. LIEBERMAN: Now, before you introduce
% 26 this one, I have to say that this one we object to
% 0201
% 01 introducing and marking as an exhibit because it
% 02 contains identifications of upper-level processes,
% 03 [the] very titles of which in some instances are
% ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
% 04 [trade] secret information.]
% ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WHAT *ARE* YOU THINKING OF TO ACCEPT THIS:
THE 'HO HERSELF HAS WIDELY PUBLISHED A LIST OF THE TITLES !!!!
THE CONTENTS LIST SHOULD THEREFORE BE UNSEALED.
Blah, blah, the end.
<phew!>
H T H --this is the best I can make of analysing it.
--Regards, Woof Woof, glug glug--
X E M U * who drowned judge Swearinger's dog?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on alt.religion.scientology!
/~~~~~~~ @----,+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : :http://www.demon.net/castle/x/clam/index.html
HOW TO GET N.O.T.s----http://www.icon.fi/~marina/sherilyn/
Jeffrey L. Bell
From the Deposition:
> Q I see. And what's a troll, sir?
> A Oh, it comes from the fishing where you troll a
> bait along in the water and a fish will jump and bite
> the thing...
Of course, the best trolls succeed in a "hook, line, and sinker"
situation.
-Jeff Bell
Steve A
hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
They actually read this thing out in the depo!?!?!?!
<bask> What a bunch of maroons(tm henry)!!
--
Steve A, SP4, Clam | "You're a sucker for them Russian constructivists,
Cluster and Bar; | Jack Duckworth."
A Mayett's Mutt | I don't speak for Castle: they don't speak for me.
David Forthoffer
Keith Henson wrote:
> ...
> What strikes me on the second reading of this transcript is how
> clueless poor Mr. Lieberman was. I realize that a substantial part
> of this deposition is me educating him on the basics of Internet
> culture and inferstructure. Well, I guess someone had to do it
> <grin>. From all I can tell, Eric Lieberman is actually a reasonable
> person, he just has a client hell bent on looking foolish. Eric
> and Tomas Hogan, and all the rest of the outside lawyers are doing
> their part in bringing down CoS by draining its coffers. Don't
> underbill guys.
>
> Keith Henson
What strikes me is how clueless *you* were.
About two-thirds through, you start falling into Mr. Lieberman's
traps and actually admit you wrote some of the postings.
Also, why didn't you object to most of the exhibits as inadmissable
due to no proven author?
Good luck. You'll need it.
- David Forthoffer
Ron Newman
In article <4nec0a$g...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
Jeffrey L. Bell <jlb...@presto.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>From the Deposition:
>
>> Q I see. And what's a troll, sir?
>
>Of course, the best trolls succeed in a "hook, line, and sinker"
>situation.
Shouldn't that be "hook, line, and snicker" ?
--
Ron Newman rne...@cybercom.net
Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <Td2c7QAP...@xemu.demon.co.uk>,
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <hkhensonD...@netcom.com>, Keith Henson wrote:
[big snips]
>=========[THE SUMMARY OF THE SUMMARY]==============
>Time spent clueing in the opposition to Net technicalities
>is not advancing your case any. If anything, they you are
>being a free computer consultant to the other side: they
>should pay their own person to work on educating them.
no. i disagree strongly with this. the less said in any
deposition, the better, but if keith can expound for hours
with them coughing up ten thousand dollars an hour in lawyer
fees and eating up their deposition time, all well and good.
it costs them far more to learn about the net this way than
to learn about it by buying _the internet for complete fucking
idiots, loons, and scientologists_.
>This business of saying that postings produced may not
>be word for word correct is a necessary caution, but
>does not shield you that much: in anything that counts,
>the court will likely decide that a posting signed
>HKHenson whose general content you support is on
>balance of probailitlities most likely yours,
unless you deny it and it's obviously not similar to
your posting style. i'd still go through all their
piles of posts they claim you wrote and deny any
posts that say:
"BWAHAHAHAHA! I AM KEITH HENSON THE COPYRIGHT TERRORIST
AND I"LL BOMB YOUR KULT TO THE GROUND!"
or any obvious forgeries, but i'm sure you're checking
that out.
[huge snip]
h
[ For Public Key: finger he...@netcom.com ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQCVAgUBMZy11W130hVrA/MJAQF2YAP9GdNxNZBq+tfkfbaMW+hGWhuB5gKcitC4
i2ikb7cONNY6mBRTmnEQ+S6pRbSowJDOM2OlvEVv6chyKH/JmuPi/kdrLGWvXFRJ
hYKOGcAtKIFuxlUkx7NBvQIjyAjCHiuIIWhj93qeq2qjFgKpIckSiaPEhdVXMTd9
Px9/mn0I1Ug=
=Gbk2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Keith Henson
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Distribution: inet
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk wrote:
> hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
[snipped depo re Steve's RFD on SP levels]
Steve, I didn't have much to give them, and they asked about the ARSCC.
So, in the interest of being *helpful* I gave them your fine prose on
the topic, and they had to discuss it in detail. Keith Henson
PS, I have been wondering about something. Does filing a counter-
claim as part of being sued by the clams (SP5) make one an SP7? I
am claiming the higher rank, just interested. Some minor clarifications
in the FAQ might need to be made for this situation. Keith Henson SP5
(with misc. clusters and bars)
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <Td2c7QAP...@xemu.demon.co.uk>,
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[part 2 of response to some things i missed]
[. . .]
>This one should not be allowed to slip through. On killfiles,
>you are just being an unpaid computer consultant for the
>other side. Then Aaron Mason of EFF, more conspiracy stuff.
[?!?]
aaron mason is chief editor of FREEDOM MAGAZINE, ferchrissakes!
someone correct me if i'm wrong. look it up in the cult's
second special issue on the internet in a row. his leering
face is on the inside cover.
h
[ For Public Key: finger he...@netcom.com ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQCVAgUBMZy58W130hVrA/MJAQF9kwP/XdUa6LChEITGWmKT4YdeGR75yVq02nZa
QcNkqSsHeaC1wQzr45jQ55Z8J9AEU5VpWqqakSrAcDQQfT5i4RZdku9zqswHao2D
CnOJlGAVPFR4Rrr52eiOi1Er4US9jc46Jw+F5JHU4R3fBU2ISvIeP0BsCh0VYW/U
xaLvg6csRVI=
=ZlhR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <319aefa0...@192.0.2.1>, Steve A
<ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk> writes
>> 18 Q And within this culture, you aspired to achieve
>> 19 this level by getting this letter from Helena, and lo
>> 20 and behold, you got it and you were very happy.
>> 21 A Well, for something which actually didn't
>> 22 present any level of danger whatsoever, because nobody
>> 23 is going to really sue somebody over six lines of
>> 24 scripture.
>
>They actually read this thing out in the depo!?!?!?!
><bask> What a bunch of maroons(tm henry)!!
No, actually I don't think they are being foolish at all.
What they are seeking to show is that Keith is a bit of a
joker, who thinks the courts are a laugh and gets amusement
and startus from mocking them, and he deliberately
gave out false information to induce the Clams to sue him.
Which is a fairly serious offence, don't know whether it
is a crime or only a civil wrong (for which compenation
can be awarded to the people you induced to sue).
--Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on (alt.religion.scientology!
/~~~~~~~ @----, ++++++++++++(/x/clam/faq/woofglug.html
Keith Henson
Excerpt from Lonsome Squirrel:
"Why? How is he any different?", I questioned. "Fred Hare was Ron's
personal courier on the Flag Ship Apollo in 1971 and 1972. He
travelled through Europe carrying millions of dollars which was used
for Scientology expansion, and not once did he ever lose a single
penny of Ron's money. There was no danger that was too great for Fred
Hare to overcome, and he certainly knows how to handle the enemy. I'll
tell you what happened one time. There was a psych convention in
London, and a notorious electric-shocking, drug pushing, killer
psychiatrist from Australia named Harry Bailey was scheduled to speak
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
at the Portman Hotel in front of about three hundred other evil SPs.
The G. O. got the word that this lunatic suppressive, whose nickname
was "Doctor Deep Sleep", was going to carry on a raving tirade,
criticizing and maligning Scientology. The press was there, and we had
to stop this psycho from making his speech. Ron was in Saint Hill at
the time, and the British Government was causing trouble, trying to
revoke his visa. Anyway, just to show you what amazing "confront"
Fred had, he disguised himself as a room service attendant in the
hotel where this Harry Bailey was staying, and he triumphantly put
crystals of LSD into the psychiatrist's toothpaste.
"What happened?", I asked.
"Well, Bailey never made his speech!", Kevin laughed
[end of excerpt]
Could someone in Austrailia find out if Harry Bailey is still alive,
or if there is anyone who remembers what happened to him in London?
(sorry the time is vague, but someone can contribute a close year from
the statement about the British Government.)
If I can get an affidavit to go along with this excerpt, it would make
a *most* interesting thing to bring up, along with Arnie's LDS story,
in a RICO suit.
Keith Henson
(maybe even as good as the story about drowning Duke)
Keith Henson
Folks this is off the scanner with minimum work, just enough to get it
to fit between 80 lines. Your comments on how to respond would be most
interesting. I can ask the judge for leave to amend and it might
be a thought to go to RICO. In any case, most of these arguments were
made in grady's case so there is not much surprise. Only one thing--
are they trying to sneek in a motion for declaratory judgement?
Keith Henson
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR ThE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a) No. C-96 20271 RMW
California non-pi'ofit coi'poiation; )
) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
Plaintiff, ) DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS FOR
) FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND
V. ) LACK OF SUBJECT MATFER
) JURISDICTION jFed. IL Civ. P. 12(b)(I),
H. KEITH HENSON, an individual ) 12(b)(6), 13(b).]
)
Defendant. ) Date: July 19, 1996
) Time: 9:00 a.m
Hon Ronald M. Whyte
TO DEFENDANT H. KEITH HENSON:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Friday, July 19, 1996, at 10:00
am., or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard in the
courtroom of the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, United States District
Judge, located at 280 South First Street, San Jose, California 95113,
plaintiff Religious Technology Center ("RTC") will, and hereby does,
move for an order dismissing the purported counterclaims of defendant
H. Keith Henson ("Henson"), as follows:
1. Henson's first purported counterclaim for "Conspiracy
against rights" under 18 U.S.C. 241,1 fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), because
neither a private right of action nor civil liability is created by
that statute;
2. Henson's third purported counterclaim for "Conspiracy
against civil rights" under
42 U.S.C. 1985(3)2 fails to state a claim on which relief can be
granted because RTC's alleged conduct was not motivated by the racial
or other class-based discriminatory animus required by that statute
and because Henson has not alleged any state action necessary to
support a conspiracy claim to infringe First Amendment rights;
3. Henson's second purported counterclaim for
"International Infliction of
Emotional Distress," is a permissive counterclaim under Fed.R.Civ.P.
13(b) which, in the absence of any independent jurisdictional basis,
is beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court, Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)( 1); and
Given even the most charitable reading of Henson's claims,
under no circumstances can Henson's factual allegations lead to any
recovery in this Court under any cognizable legal theory. As a result,
Henson's counterclaims must be dismissed with prejudice.
This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion,
the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings
on file in this action, and such other and further evidence and
argument as may properly come before the Court at the hearing.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUThORITIES INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
In his "Answer and Counterclaims," [hereinafter "A&C"] pro se
defendant Henson asserts three counterclaims against plaintiff RTC,
none of which can survive this motion to dismiss premised upon Rules
12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 13(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
All are permissive counterclaims, and none presents any basis for the
exercise of federal subject matter jurisdiction in a case where the
parties are not diverse.
Henson's first counterclaim -- denominated "Conspiracy against
rights," 18 U.S.C. 241 is expressly premised upon a criminal statute
which creates no private right of action and no civil liability. It
thus fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under any
cognizable legal theory and, therefore, should be dismissed with
prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6).
Henson's third counterclaim under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) is
fatally flawed because it fails to allege either the class-based
animus or the state action that are prerequisites to a First Amendment
conspiracy claim under the statute.
Henson's second counterclaim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress is based on transactions or occurrences entirely
different from those upon which the Complaint's intellectual property
claims are predicated, and which rise or fall on facts and legal
theories separate and distinct from those supporting RTC's claims.
Thus, his counterclaim is permissive under Fed.R.Civ.P. 13(b), and, as
a matter of law, must be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction independent of the Complaint. There is no diversity of
citizenship between RTC (a California corporation) and Henson (a
California citizen), and Henson's exclusively state-law counterclaim
presents no federal question.
TIlE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE PLEADINGS
Subject matter jurisdiction of RTC's complaint is predicated
upon federal question and federal copyright jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. ~
1331 and 1338(a) and (b). RTC's trade secret claims are brought under
the doctrine of what used to be called pendent jurisdiction, and now
is denominated '~supplemental jurisdiction,~ because they arise out of
the same transactions and occurrences and form part of the same case
or controversy as the copyright claims. 28 U.S.C.
1367(a). RTC does not and could not assert diversity jurisdiction,
because both RTC and Henson are California citizens. [Compl. 4; A&C
1]
Henson asserts as counterclaims one state tort law claim and
two purported federal claims under 18 U.S.C. 241 and 42 U.S.C.
1985(3). The two federal claims are wholly frivolous, and cannot
support federal junsdiction~ See Points I and II post. In addition,
all of Henson's counterclaims, including in particular his claim for
emotional distress, allege different facts, transactions, and
occurrences than those alleged by RTC. See Point III post.
RTC's Complaint states that RTC holds exclusive copyright and
trade secret rights in a variety of confidential works known as the
"Advanced Technology" of Scientology religion. [Compl. 6-13]. Henson,
without authorization, reproduced one of RTC's copyrighted works and
posted it to the Internet [15], and induced others to make
unauthorized copies of RTC's copyrighted and trade secret works which
Henson attempted to wrongfully acquire and
threatened to post to the Internet. [17-25]. Predicated exclusively on
those transactions and occurrences, RTC asserts claims for relief for
declaratory judgment of copyright infringement [ 28-33], copyright
infringement [ 34-36], and trade secret misappropriation [ 37-40].
In contrast, Henson's counterclaims are premised upon a
purported course of conduct alleged to have been undertaken at
different times and in different places from the infringements and
misappropriations set forth in RTC's complaint. He asserts that one of
RTC's lawyers attempted to "obliterate" or "destroy" an Internet
discussion group (of which Henson admittedly was not a participant at
the time) [A&.C 7-10], and claims that RTC violated someone else's
First and Fourth Amendment rights. [ 10-12]. Henson then makes a
variety of assertions regarding an alleged cancellation (never
ascribed to RTC) of a computer message Henson claims to have sent; a
telephone call allegedly made by a private investigator to Henson's
ex-wife; and cease and desist notices regarding his acts of
infringement and misappropriation. [ 13-20].
As his claims for this alleged conduct, first, Henson attempts
to assert a "civil rights" conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 241 [ 23],
involving "unlawful computer forgeries, defamation, threats of
barratry and barratry" resulting from the exercise of his First
Amendment right to criticize the practices of Scientology. [ 20].
Henson's intentional infliction of emotional distress counterclaim [
21] reincorporates his previous factual allegations and accuses RTC
and a variety of unnamed churches and individuals of following
"scriptural instructions" to cause mental distress in him and his
family. Finally, Henson alleges a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) based
on RTC and others allegedly conspiring to deprive him of his First
Amendment rights. [ 22].
It thus is evident that Henson's counterclaims do not arise
out of the same acts or transactions as RTC's claims. Moreover, all of
Henson's counterclaims, including his intentional infliction of
emotion distress counterclaim, are nothing more than a compendium of
propaganda against RTC and ipse dix it.
ARGUMENT L NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION EXISTS UNDER 18 U.S.C. 241
RTC challenges Henson's first counterclaim under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6).3 That rule is designed "to eliminate actions that are
fatally flawed in their legal premises and destined to fail." Adva~ced
Cardiovascular Systems, Juc. V. Scii,icd Life Systems, Inc., 988 F.2d
1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1993); accord, Balisire,i V. Pacifica Police
Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
1990) "Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory
or the absence of sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory.").
Henson's first claim -- for a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 241 [A&C
23]-- is precisely so flawed and exactly so destined. Section 241 is
exclusively a criminal statute that, as a matter of law, creates
neither a private right of action nor any civil liability. Aldabe v.
Aldobe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980); ChflsUw7 Popiihsi Party
ofArkcuisas v. SccretaJ)' of State ofArkansas, 650 F. Supp. 1205, 1214
(ED.
Lewis v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 554 (D.D.C. 1986); Fiorino v.
Turner; 476 F. Supp. 962, 963 (D. Mass. 1979). Henson's section 241
count, therefore, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, and should be dismissed with prejudice as the defect is
incapable of cure.
Neither the charitable reading to which a challenged claim is
entitled, Pe/oza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., 37 F.3d 517,
521(9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 5. Ct. 2640 (1995), nor the
additional deference accorded to apro se pleading rescues a claim from
dismissal when "it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove
no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to
relief" Freeman v. The Time, Inc. Magazine Co., 68 F.3d 285, 288 (9th
Cir. 1995), quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).~ Mere
conclusory allegations -- in which Henson indulges repeatedly -- are
disregarded altogether, Pillsburv, Madison & Sutro v. Lerner; 31 F.2d
924, 928 (9th Cir. 1994), and a claim is insufficient if, as Henson
does, the claimant "relies upon bald assertions, insupportable
conclusions, and opprobrious epithets." Gallego v. Wilson, 882 F.
Supp. 1169, 1171 (D. Mass. 1995), quoting Dartmouth Review v.
Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13, 16 (1st Cir. 1989) (internal quotation
marks and additional citations omitted).
II. HENSON'S 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) CLAIM IS FATALLY FLAWED AND
ENTIRELY WITHOUT COLOR
Henson's third counterclaim for civil conspiracy to deprive
him "of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and
immunities under the law" under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) is entirely without
color and must be dismissed for two reasons. First, the counterclaim
does not and cannot allege that RTC's alleged conduct was motivated by
the specific "racial or otherwise class-based, invidiously
discriminatory animus" that is a sine qua non of such a claim. Bray v.
4 While the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) is charitable to the pleader,
I Nllinimal requirements are not tantamount to nonexistent
requirements. n~e threshold may be low. but it is real--and it is the
plaintifl~s burden to take the step which brings his case safely into
the next phase of litigation ~ court need not conjure up implied
allegations or contrive elaborately arcane scripts in order 10 carry
the blushing bride through the poital
(~oOI~y V. Af~b~1 (),I ~ X5 I I.2d 513. 514 ( t~t Cir. I 9X5))
Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 113 5. Ct. 753, 758 (1 993) (women
seeking to exercise constitutional right to have an abortion do not
constitute a 1985(3) "class"); Portland Feminisi Woinen's Health Ctr.
v. Advocatesfor Life, Inc., 62 F.3d 280, 284 (9th Cir. 1995) (same).5
Henson's counterclaim fails for a second, independent reason:
"A 1985(3) private conspiracy . . . requires an intent to deprive
persons of a right guaranteed against private impairment." Bray', 113
5. Ct. at 762. See also United Brotherhood of Caipenters v. Scott, 463
U.S. 825, 833 (1983). Henson claims that the purpose of the alleged
conspiracy was to interfere with his "rights to free speech guaranteed
under the constitution." [A&C 22]. But the First Amendment is a
restriction upon government action only, Caipenters, 473 U.S. at 833,
and not "against private impairment." Bray', 113 5. Ct. at 762. Thus,
to state a claim under ~ 1985(3) for conspiracy to interfere with
First Amendment rights, a plaintiff must allege "that the State was
somehow involved in or affected by the conspiracy." Caipenters, 473
U.S. at 833 ("The Court of Appeals accordingly erred in holding that
1985(3) prohibits wholly private conspiracies to abridge . . . the
First Amendment."). See also Roe v. Abortion Abolition Soc y, 811 F.2d
931, 933 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 848 (1987) ("Section
1985(3) does not . . . protect individuals against private efforts to
encroach on constitutional shields, such as the first amendment, that
protect only against official conduct."). Henson makes no allegations
of state action, and thus he can make no colorable claim under section
1985(3).
III. HENSON'S PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS OFFERS
NO INDEPENDENT JURISDICTIONAL BASIS AND ThEREFORE MUST BE DISMISSED
A.~ the Supreme Court made plain in Bray:
What~vcr may be the pre~ise meaning uf a ~ for purpo.~~s of 1955(3)
-. the term un(luestiona1)ly connotes something more than a group of
individuals ~l~o ~hare a desire to engage in conduct that the 1955(3)
defendant disfavors Otherwise, innumerable tort plaintitYs svould he
able to assert causes of action under 1955(3) by simply defining the
aggneved class as those seckiug to engage in the a~tivifv the
defendant has interfered with This definitional ploy svould convert
the statute ink) the general federal tort las~ it \vas the very
purpose of the animus requirement avoid
1135 Ct .t 759 Compulsory counterclaims, as defined by Fed.R.Civ.P.
13(a), come within the Court's
supplemental jurisdiction and survive as counterclaims even if they
would be dismissed for
want of jurisdiction if brought independently. 6 C. Wright, A. Miller,
M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure 1422, at 169-70. Permissive
counterclaims under Rule 13(b) are afforded no such accommodation.
Sh~nblin v. City of Colchester; 793 F. Supp. 831, 833 (C.D. Ill.
1992). Federal courts "consistently hold that permissive counterclaims
must be supported by independent grounds of federal jurisdiction."
Wright, Miller & Kane, supra, at 170 (and cases cited therein at n.3);
State Farn Fire & Casualty Co. v. Geaiy, 699 F. Supp.
756, 762 (ND. Cal. 1987) ("As a permissive counterclaim, it must be
supported by independent grounds of federal jurisdiction");
Consolidated Freighttvay's Coip. v. Coast Freighttvay's, Inc., 628 F.
Supp. 894, 897 (C.D. Cal. 1986) ("If a counterclaim is permissive it
is well-settled that there is no federal jurisdiction . . . unless
[it] rests on an independent jurisdictional ground"); Anderson v.
Central Point School Dist. No.6, 554 F. Supp. 600, 605 (D. Or. 1982),
aff'd and remanded on other grounds, 746 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1984)
(same).
Henson's second counterclaim -- which purports to allege a
state law cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional
distress -- is a permissive counterclaim which fails for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. No federal question is invoked by this
claim, and there is and can be no allegation of diversity of
citizenship between this California plaintiff and California
defendant. Under Rule 13(a), a counterclaim is compulsory if it
"arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject
matter of the opposing party's claim. . . ." If a counterclaim is not
compulsory, it is permissive -- i.e., "any claim against an opposing
party not arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter of the opposing party's claim." Fed.R.Civ.P. 13(b).
Furthermore, supplemental jurisdiction may only be exercised where the
claims other than those in the complaint are "so related to claims in
the action within [the] original jurisdiction that they form part of
the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States
Constitution." 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).
In Hydronautics v. Fimiec Coip., 70 F.3d 535, 536 (9th Cir.
1995), the Ninth Circuit framed the inquiry as "whether the essential
facts of the various claims are so logically connected that
considerations ofjudicial economy and fairness dictate that all the
issues be resolved in one lawsuit." Thus, a counterclaim is compulsory
when it "arises from the same aggregate set of operative facts as the
initial claim, in that the same operative facts serve as the basis of
both claims or the aggregate core of facts upon which the claim rests
activates additional legal rights otherwise dormant in the defendant."
In re Pinkstaff 974 F.2d 113, 115 (9th Cir. 1992) (construing
identical "same transaction or occurrence" language in 11 U.S.C.
106(a) and interpreting in pari materia with Rule 13(a)). See also
FD.I.C. v. Hulsey, 22 F.3d
1472, 1487 (10th Cir. 1994) (compulsory if claims are logically
related, law and fact issues are largely the same, resjudicata would
bar a later claim by counterclaim, and the same evidence would support
or refute both claims).
Henson's emotional distress counterclaim does not arise from
the transactions or occurrences which form the basis for RTC's
Complaint, and thus is plainly permissive. Analyzed under the case or
controversy standard of the supplemental jurisdiction statute, it also
fails to pass muster. The Complaint focuses exclusively on discreet
violations of RTC's intellectual property rights through unauthorized
Internet postings of copyrighted and trade secret materials. By
contrast, Henson's counterclaim purports to assert infliction of
emotional distress arising principally from RTC's following of
decades-old "scriptural instructions" [A&C
22], together with conclusory allegations of defamation and a panoply
of allegedly tortious conduct in no way linked to Henson's copyright
infringenient or trade secret misappropriation.
None of the factors that render counterclaims compulsory or
make additional claims part of the same case or controversy is present
in Henson's pleading. The "transactions or occurrences" of RTC's
Complaint are discrete violations of the federal Copyright Act, 17
U.S.C. ~ 101 et seq., and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act,
3426.1 ci seq. In contrast, Henson's emotional
distress counterclaim rests on principles of state tort law wholly
unrelated to copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation.
Similarly, the facts and evidentiary bases which Henson must prove to
prevail on his counterclaim are entirely different from those at issue
in RTC's Complaint.
As the Ninth Circuit has made unequivocally clear,
counterclaims that "involve completely different factual and legal
issues, and arise from different transactions or occurrences" are
permissive. Sealy v. Easy Living, Inc., 743 F.2d 1378, 1384 (9th Cir.
1984). The compulsory nature of a counterclaim, by contrast, is
reflected in "the similarity of the facts necessary for the
determination of both actions" and the "substantial overlap" of "the
facts necessary to prove" the two sets of claims. Pochiro v.
Prudential Insurance Co., 827 F.2d
1246, 1251, 1252 (9th Cir. 1987). Finally, a favorable determination
for RTC on its lntellectual property claims will not, of itself,
preclude Henson's pursuit of his counterclaims. That circumstance is
consistent with a permissive counterclaim, as it is only compulsory
counterclaims that are jeopardized on resjudicata and collateral
estoppel grounds. Id. at 1251.
In light of the foregoing, there can be no doubt that Henson's
counterclaim is permissive and, in the absence of any independent
basis for the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction, must be
dismissed. The jurisdictional defect is evident on the face of the
pleadings, and when the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction under
Rule 12(b)(1) is based solely on the pleadings, the issue is whether
the Court is empowered to hear any evidence in support of the
counterclaims. See Hanford Dow rnv inders Coalition, Inc. v. Dowdle,
841 F. Supp. 1050, 1057 (D. Wash. 1993), aff'd, 71 F.3d 1469 (9th Cir.
1995). There would be no basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction
of Henson's claim had it been filed against RTC in a complaint. That
simple fact dooms those same allegations raised as a permissive
counterclaim. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Henson's counterclaims should be
dismissed in their entirety and with prejudice. Dated: May (~1996
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R HOGAN
By: ~ Thomas R. Hogan
RABJNOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, P C, Eric M.
Lieberman
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER Roger M. Mugrim William M. Hart
HELENA K. KOBRIN Attorneys for Plaintiff RELIGIOUS TECIINOLOGY CENTER
Keith Henson
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine (da...@xemu.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <319aefa0...@192.0.2.1>, Steve A
: <ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk> writes
: >> 18 Q And within this culture, you aspired to achieve
: >> 19 this level by getting this letter from Helena, and lo
: >> 20 and behold, you got it and you were very happy.
: >> 21 A Well, for something which actually didn't
: >> 22 present any level of danger whatsoever, because nobody
: >> 23 is going to really sue somebody over six lines of
: >> 24 scripture.
: >
: >They actually read this thing out in the depo!?!?!?!
: ><bask> What a bunch of maroons(tm henry)!!
: No, actually I don't think they are being foolish at all.
: What they are seeking to show is that Keith is a bit of a
: joker, who thinks the courts are a laugh and gets amusement
: and startus from mocking them, and he deliberately
: gave out false information to induce the Clams to sue him.
I don't think so. I think they are trying to reduced their
liability if I ever get them to trail. And, there was no
*false* information in my postings, in fact, *this* particular
item is something they even asked me to bring. In reference
to abusing the courts--*I* didn't bring this action, nor any
of the other large numbers of thousands the Cos has brought.
: Which is a fairly serious offence, don't know whether it
: is a crime or only a civil wrong (for which compenation
: can be awarded to the people you induced to sue).
Just off hand, I don't think any such law is on the books.
It would make an interesting argument to present in court
however. Keith Henson
Ted Mayett
In <54W6jUAO...@xemu.demon.co.uk> Dave Bird---St Hippo of
Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>Which is a fairly serious offence, don't know whether it
>is a crime or only a civil wrong (for which compenation
>can be awarded to the people you induced to sue).
>
>
We will know in a few months. The arslf is shaping up.
It's coming together, and I'm the Boss.
kEvin
In article <hkhensonD...@netcom.com>,
Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom.com> wrote:
>If I can get an affidavit to go along with this excerpt, it would make
>a *most* interesting thing to bring up, along with Arnie's LDS story,
>in a RICO suit.
Try Paulette Cooper as well. I don't know if her settlement prevents her
from giving one or if she wants to risk her peace, but on this newsgroup
she commented about feeling effects similar to LSD after a meeting with
cult types over lunch. (Unlike Arnie, she couldn't identify the experience
from her past and she followed up to his description of what it felt like.)
During her fight, Karin Spaink was constantly fighting cult demands that
she meet with them over lunch, and DM is rumored to keep plastic wrap
over his waterglass at meals. Given their obsession with LSD it's not
as fantastic as it seems at face value. Try to document Hubbard's
obsession with LSD. (I know he's made tons of references to it, but
I don't have any of the stuff saved. If you can put up evidence that
they have a (negative) religious connotation associated with LSD, it
will add quite a bit to Arnie's and any other affadavits you get.)
kEvin
el...@netcom.com
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <elvisDr...@netcom.com>, kEvin <el...@netcom.com> writes
>
>>If I can get an affidavit to go along with this excerpt, it would make
>>a *most* interesting thing to bring up, along with Arnie's LDS story,
>>in a RICO suit.
>
>Try Paulette Cooper as well. I don't know if her settlement prevents her
>from giving one or if she wants to risk her peace, but on this newsgroup
>she commented about feeling effects similar to LSD after a meeting with
>cult types over lunch. (Unlike Arnie, she couldn't identify the experience
>from her past and she followed up to his description of what it felt like.)
Yeah, but we went through this at the time, and the symtoms sounded
very little like LSD and very much like a panic attack under stress.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <henriDr...@netcom.com>, henry writes:
>XEMU:
>>Time spent clueing in the opposition to Net technicalities
>>is not advancing your case any. If anything, they you are
>>being a free computer consultant to the other side: they
>>should pay their own person to work on educating them.
>
>no. i disagree strongly with this. the less said in any
>deposition, the better, but if keith can expound for hours
>with them coughing up ten thousand dollars an hour in lawyer
>fees and eating up their deposition time, all well and good.
>
their time with stuff that doesn't advance their case.
In article <hkhensonD...@netcom.com>, Keith Henson
<hkhe...@netcom.com> writes
>Folks this is off the scanner with minimum work, just enough to get it
>to fit between 80 lines. Your comments on how to respond would be most
>interesting. I can ask the judge for leave to amend and it might
>be a thought to go to RICO. In any case, most of these arguments were
>made in grady's case so there is not much surprise. Only one thing--
>are they trying to sneek in a motion for declaratory judgement?
>
I don't know, but what they are clearly doing is trying to sink
your counterclaims.
One thing that you could do is to argue the point of the cancel: RTC
were not entitled to commit a felony to counter a civil wrong,
technical ease of doing it does not adress the real issue which is
consent, and [in the earlier incident] cluelessness is not an excuse
it just means what was not done dleiberately was done recklessly.
Write to the FBI in pursuit of this, and to netcom on whether
they will supply the FBI with info on Rachins, and include a
question as to whether the whole newsgroup cancel -- include
the published article in which it is admitted -- asking whether
this should aslo be dealt with as a felony. Follow these up with
phonecalls, and try to get a reply to bring to court as well as
your letter outward. The cancel tends to support some of your
counterclaims and the rmgroup to show a general pattern of abusive
behaviour over time.
That's the main point I can come up with.
In article <hkhensonD...@netcom.com>, Keith Henson
<hkhe...@netcom.com> writes
>: >They actually read this thing out in the depo!?!?!?!
>: ><bask> What a bunch of maroons(tm henry)!!
>
>: No, actually I don't think they are being foolish at all.
>
>: What they are seeking to show is that Keith is a bit of a
>: joker, who thinks the courts are a laugh and gets amusement
>: and startus from mocking them, and he deliberately
>: gave out false information to induce the Clams to sue him.
>
>I don't think so. I think they are trying to reduced their
>liability if I ever get them to trail. And, there was no
>*false* information in my postings, in fact, *this* particular
>item is something they even asked me to bring. In reference
>to abusing the courts--*I* didn't bring this action, nor any
>of the other large numbers of thousands the Cos has brought.
>
Have it your own way. Strictly, they are saying you CONTINUED
a falseehood (troll) put out by someone else, that there was
an FTP site -- albeit with a ridiculous I/D number -- with the
aim of tricking them into sending legal letters or suing: that
you aided another in trying to get them to sue and look fools
based on untrue information you fed them. This is againsrt
something called the Lanham Act.
Also, I think it's clear they're attacking your character,
and portray you as a basically fr=ivolous person. You don't?
Oh well, we'll see how those sections of the deposition are
used at trial. Icould be wrong, of course. So could you.
>: Which is a fairly serious offence, don't know whether it
>: is a crime or only a civil wrong (for which compenation
>: can be awarded to the people you induced to sue).
>
>Just off hand, I don't think any such law is on the books.
>It would make an interesting argument to present in court
>however. Keith Henson
>
It's called the Lanham Act.
Rich Burroughs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[other groups snipped]
On Fri, 24 May 1996 05:20:18 +0100, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> Yeah, but we went through this at the time, and the symtoms sounded
> very little like LSD and very much like a panic attack under stress.
I believe that Paulette said she had many cups of coffee that day, and
that after the fact she read that high stress and lots of caffeine can
produce effects similar to what she experienced.
It wasn't my impression that she was completely ruling out the possibility
that she was dosed.
I can't verify any of this, as my a.r.s. archive is buried in the back yard,
along with all of my sekret skriptures. Too bad I can't afford titanium...
Rich
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMaX8/oT0GKfZRA/9AQHuuwQAx2UKaCQBnXoy4n7ztGvwVDgBvcItv0Cd
VGXQANV11dy2qkpuzs8yQPNiBHCx6TcqREctkwm/fUBMsOoCN0kM3R7+t45gqe24
1wwP/e6YXQVcKm1YYATr8GnUkYzgXDZSNvEzjXpvTzrg2uXRSZvHPtxTbi0ulGsT
nG8470ug4cE=
=WE+h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----