I've got mine...

2 views
Skip to first unread message

NJWoods

unread,
Mar 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/28/96
to
..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.

Steve A

unread,
Mar 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/30/96
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

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

unread,
Mar 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/30/96
to hkk
-----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.]

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

unread,
Mar 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/31/96
to
On Thu, 28 Mar 96 15:52:21 GMT, 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.
>
>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

unread,
Apr 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/1/96
to he...@netcom.com
In article <henriDp...@netcom.com>, he...@netcom.com (henry) wrote:
>-----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.]
>
>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'?
>
========================SNIP==========================

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

unread,
Apr 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/1/96
to
Pat Braden (bra...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: 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

unread,
Apr 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/2/96
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[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

unread,
Apr 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/2/96
to
he...@netcom.com (henry) writes:

>>..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

unread,
Apr 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/2/96
to
In article <315f0260...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,

bra...@ix.netcom.com (Pat Braden) wrote:
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

"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

unread,
Apr 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/4/96
to
In article <hkhensonD...@netcom.com>,

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....

ste...@netcom.com

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

unread,
Apr 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/4/96
to
Taneli Huuskonen (huus...@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:
: 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

unread,
Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96
to
H Keith Henson (hkhe...@shell.portal.com) wrote:

: 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

unread,
Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96
to

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

unread,
Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96
to
Keith Henson (hkhe...@netcom.com) wrote:
: 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

unread,
Apr 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/11/96
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

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

unread,
Apr 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/11/96
to

> 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

unread,
Apr 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/12/96
to
Keith Henson (hkhe...@netcom.com) wrote:

[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

unread,
Apr 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/12/96
to
hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote:

>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

unread,
Apr 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/12/96
to
Keith Henson wrote:
> 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

unread,
Apr 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/13/96
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

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

unread,
Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96
to
This is being posted out of order. Sorry, I am still getting used to this
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

unread,
Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96
to
H Keith Henson <hkhe...@shell.portal.com> quotes Thomas R. Hogan
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

unread,
Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

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

unread,
Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96
to
More for the amusement of my fan club. BTW, Thanks! 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

unread,
Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96
to
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


H Keith Henson

unread,
Apr 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/19/96
to
Keith Henson (hkhe...@netcom.com) wrote:


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

unread,
Apr 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/19/96
to
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
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

unread,
Apr 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/19/96
to
Tom Klemesrud (tom...@netcom.com) wrote:
: 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

unread,
Apr 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/20/96
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

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

unread,
Apr 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/20/96
to
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.

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

unread,
Apr 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/20/96
to
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'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

unread,
Apr 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/20/96
to
On Wed, 17 Apr 1996 15:37:27 GMT, hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson)
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

unread,
Apr 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/20/96
to

-----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

unread,
Apr 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/20/96
to
In article <hkhensonD...@netcom.com>, Keith Henson writes:
>

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

unread,
Apr 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/22/96
to
Keith Henson wrote:
> 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

unread,
Apr 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/22/96
to
Kelly Stanonik (k...@neptune.net) wrote:

Arrgh! You figured it out. Well, we will just keep it a copyrighted
trade secret. Keith Henson

H Keith Henson

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

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

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to


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

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

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

unread,
Apr 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/28/96