COOK

COOK, PERKISS & LEW, PLC

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

 

333 PINE STREET, 3ad FL

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104‑3381

MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 270

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 941040270

TEL: (415)989‑4730

FAX: (4151989‑0491

August 23,2005

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

HOWARD KEITH HENSON

176 Henry Street, #45

Brantford, ON N3S 5C8

Canada

Re:        In re KEITH HENSON/HILARY DEZOTELL, etaLvs.H.KEITH HENSON

             CASE N0.98‑51326 ASW‑7/ADV. N0.035136

             Our File No. 45,658

Dear Mr. Henson:

 

I am in receipt of multiple sets of Interrogatories, some of which have been apparently mailed to me, and others I have received electronically. By this letter, I am meeting and conferring with you to convince you to withdraw all of your discovery and redraft it, if you wish, in conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the existent case law, as follows:

 

1.         You are not authorized to serve non‑parties with interrogatories. Nowhere in the federal

rules is this practice allowed. This is disruptive to individuals who are entitled to be free

of this type of alleged legal process, and moreover, disruptive to these Plaintiffs who are

now facing the prospect of an adverse party serving putative discovery devices. We

therefore request that you withdraw all of this discovery directed to third parties.

 

2.          The subject matter of the interrogatories directed to the Plaintiffs relative to the criminal

and civil state court cases are of an "intrinsic nature." By "intrinsic nature," I specifically

mean matters which took place in the course and scope of the state court proceedings.

Literally what happened in the courtroom, what documents were or were not presented,

what witnesses said or did not say, who said what to whom, how the District Attorney

treated you or did not treat you, what the parties contemplated, or for that matter,

anything related clearly fall within the concept of intrinsic conduct. Moreover, the fact

that your appeal was dismissed is clearly "intrinsic to the process" because you became a

fugitive and the appeal was dismissed. You made a decision by which to become a

fugitive and, of course, bore those consequences. You cannot seek to literally recycle the

entire criminal and civil process in the Bankruptcy Court because in some way you

believed that the outcome was unfavorable to you. Whatever the outcome, this is clearly

the product of the state civil and criminal justice system, and your remedies lie with

either a direct appeal (which you destroyed personally), or an attack through the concept

of a new trial, or other state‑authorized attack. By this statement, we are not indicating

that any of these remedies exist, but we are indicating that the Bankruptcy Court is not

the place for you to conduct, through the guise of discovery, a brand new trial.

 


HOWARD KEITH HENSON

Re:       In re KEITH HENSON/HILARY DEZOTELL, etaLvs.H.KEITH HENSON

            CASE N0.98‑51326 ASW‑7/ADV. N0.035136

            Our File No. 45,658

August  23,2005

Page 2

 

 

3.         Moreover, in some of this discovery, you have inquired into a whole host of areas which

constitute communications between counsel and clients, fee issues, document handling

issues, communications by and between non‑parties, and in effect, a whole host of far­

reaching matters which have absolutely nothing to do with any claim (which we dispute)

of extrinsic fraud. This discovery would be extremely burdensome by which to respond.

 

While we appreciate and respect, both in the tenor and fact, of Judge Weissbrodt's comments and do not take issue with your exercise of discovery rights, nonetheless, the current exercise goes well beyond the pale of any type of credible inquiry, both in the substance and format.

 

It is our intention to promptly move the court for an protective order which would quash, strike, or limit this discovery. We will be moving promptly.

 

We are quite serious about our intentions, as such a motion would seek the imposition of sanctions, which ultimately creates a greater financial obligation.

 

I am forwarding this letter to you by way of overnight mail to your California and Canada addresses, and email:

 

As a last matter, I note that you a are exploring a whole host of issues through the Internet in which you are describing my contact with you. I am not giving you permission, nor have I given you permission‑for you to publish the contents of any communication with you. While you are certainly free to publish what to you wish on the Internet, you are not authorized, nor do you have my consent, to publish on the Internet, either my name, or any contact with you.

 

Very truly yours

 

David J. Cook

DJC:kj

f:\djc\letter\Henson.1