H. Keith Henson
Box 60012
Palo Alto, CA 94306

Telephone (650) 325-7533
Facsimile (650) 325-5246

In Pro Se




RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

 
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,)   Case No.: HEM014371
                                  )
                                  )   Date:  May 16, 2001      
                                  )  
                                  )   Time:  11:00  AM
        V.                        )   
                                  )   NOTICE OF MOTION AND
                                  )   MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
                                  )   OF JNOV, MOTION TO SHORTEN
__________________________________)   TIME.

 
       Defendant requests the court reconsider JNOV based on
this motion and the attached declaration before passing
sentence.
     Intent is a core element of 422.6 and a necessary element
of the offense to prove for conviction.  Rebuttal of core issues
are not usually excludable by the court.
     The alternate to the prosecution's contention presented by
default to the jury is that defendant did not have the "specific
intent" of terrorizing, as the statute requires.  The obvious
intent of the defendant, i.e., the reason defendant was
picketing, was to get Scientology members out of the
organization before it killed more of them (such as Stacy Moxon
Meyer, June 25, 2000) or more members of the public.  (Defendant
has had a number of people leave Scientology in response to both
picketing and such actions as talking to them in person and on
the phone.)  The court did not permit testimony of the well
documented reasons--the deaths of two women at Golden Era and
those of members at other scientology locations--why defendant
started to picket Golden Era in May 2000, and continued to
picket, leaving the jury with only the charged default as to
intent.
     Defendant is well aware that the employees of the film
studio changed their activities in response to his presence. 
Indeed, it was their extreme apparent guilt reaction of papering
over windows and shutting down in response to defendant's
picketing after Ashlee Shaner's death (now being prosecuted as
manslaughter) that influenced the defendant to seek funds over
the Internet to continue to bring his message to them.  The same
hiding response was seem when others such as when Bruce and
Kathy Pettycrew, and "Jason" picketed June 11, 2000 and by Brent
Stone when he picketed alone.  
     (Hiding--known sometimes as "blue tarp tech"--is one of the
standard responses Scientologists make to being picketed.  The
others are to ignore, to photograph picketers, or to counter
picket.  Defendant has seen all of these responses within the
past year.  The most recent pickets in Los Angeles (March and
May) were confrontational with Scientology counter demonstrators
trying to block the view of picketers signs with their own--
often 3 or 4 of them to one picketer.  Defendant has picketed in
the San Jose area hundreds of times.  Scientologists there have
ignored or photographed picketers and rarely even come out to
argue with the picketers though they have counter picketed
defendants home both in the summer of 2000 and for an extended
period in 1998 or 1999.)
     Defendant also believes the law was misapplied. 
Subdivision (c) of section 422.6 provides that no violation of
subdivision (a) can occur by speech alone, unless the speech
threatened violence against a specific person and the defendant
had the "apparent ability to carry out the threat."
     Even if defendants postings were taken as implied threats
against a specific person, defendant assures the court that he
does not have nor has he *ever* had either an eagle or a cruise
missile.  Neither does he have any idea of how to obtain a
highly protected eagle or semi truck sized, million dollar
weapons weapons closely held by a few national governments.  To
claim defendant has an "apparent ability" to carry out such
"threats" is beyond reason.  It would be reasonable to assume
defendant has the ability to throw a rock or other object over
the fence at Golden Era.  Though victims claimed to have such a
fear, the fear has no rational basis since it was not claimed,
much less proven, that defendant had made such a threat or even
had implied such a threat.  Any other activity such as driving
on the same road behind a bus or watching apartments from a car
or sidewalk are either not crimes or scientology has committed
crimes against the defendant to a far greater extent than the
defendant has against Scientoloyg.
     The other limitation the court put on the defense under 352
was to forbid mention of Scientology policy or religious
practices such as financially rewarding complainants and
witnesses as in the policy letter of 1 September 1969R.  Thus
the defense could not raise a doubt about the testimony of the
witness due to corporate policies of which Training Routine
Lying, fair game, "Hating the witness," the point reward system
(Section 8 of "Investigation Section," (Tab 11 of Frank Oliver's
material) and paying for testimony/convictions (Tab 18, page 2,
Sept. 1, 1969R) are only examples.  The effect was to prevent
the defendant from explaining to the jury an alternate
motivation besides fear for the witnesses testimony.  
     The same limitations prevented the defendant from
explaining the paraphrase in Exhibit 23A of the last three words
of "fair game" ("destroy them utterly") that were most likely
interperted by the jury as a threat to Scientologists rather
than reference to a threat against critics and ex members who
try to practice Scientology outside of the corporate structure
from the founder of Scientology.  The prosecution KNEW this was
a Hubbard quote rather than a threat from the interview with
Tony Greer:  
     "I read the following from an internet print out from
Henson, "You have a point. The only way I can get clear of this
scientology mess is to "destroy them Utterly". Henson said that
was a quote from L. Ron Hubberd [sic]. As to what to do to
enemies of scientology."
     This court is aware of other legal actions taken by
Scientology against the defendant due to the introduction of
what the court admitted as postings authenticated by the
defendant in a bankruptcy 2004 deposition conducted by Mr. Rosen
of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker.
     The most recent action in defendant's bankruptcy case
occurred on Thursday, May 4, 2001.  In that action (a hearing on
a motion to recuse Judge Weissbrodt)  Mr. Rosen authoritatively
stated on the record that he knew defendant was going to jail
for a year.  A tape or transcript of this hearing will be
submitted to this court as soon as it is obtained.
     Defendant knows that statements by lawyers are not made
under oath.  None the less, a statement by a lawyer with obvious
close ties to the Riverside DA's office regarding sentencing
made *before* a probation report has been written and submitted
to the court is an unnerving thing to observe.

     To the extent there are statments of fact in this motion,
they are, under penalty of perjury, true to the best knowledge
of the undersigned.


Respectfully submitted,

Keith Henson, pro se
Dated:________                ___________________
                              ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR