From elrond1@home.com Sun Jul 08 20:41:02 2001 From: elrond1@home.com (Gregg) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Problation report objection from Jim Harr Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 00:41:02 GMT Organization: Temple of At'L'An Message-ID: <3b51fcbd.74208431@news2.lightlink.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.40.229 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.40.229 X-Trace: 8 Jul 2001 20:42:59 -0400, 24.141.40.229 X-Original-Trace: 8 Jul 2001 20:42:59 -0400, 24.141.40.229 Lines: 150 Path: news2.lightlink.com Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1339220 This is impressive. Keith Henson LAW OFFICE OF JAMES O. CRIPPS AND JAMES J. HARR JAMES O. CRIPPS State Bar No. 31518 JAMES J. HARR State Bar No. 95032 133 N. Buena Vista, Suite 1 Hemet, CA 92543 Telephone: (909) 925-5024 Attorney for Keith Henson RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.) Case No. HEM014371 ) Plaintiff ) ) OBJECTIONS TO PROBATION vs. ) OFFICER'S REPORT DATED MAY 8, ) 2001 KEITH HENSON ) ) Date: July 20, 2001 Defendant ) Time: 8:30 a.m. ) Dept: H-4 ---------------------------------- Keith Henson, defendant in the above-entitled action and hereinafter "Defendant", by and through his attorney, hereby objects to Probation Officer Gary Davis' report dated May 8, 2001 ("the report"), as follows: 1. Defendant's attorney is substantially misquoted on page 10 of the report, lines 37 through 42. The report states, "On behalf of the defendant, Mr. Harr states the defendant is "remorseful" in terms of making threats to individuals, as opposed to the church as an entity relating to Count III." This is a grossly inaccurate quote because the Defendant and his attorney have always maintained that the Defendant did not threaten any of the alleged victims or the Church of Scientology. What Mr. Harr really said was, "To the extent that the alleged victims may have perceived that the Defendant threatened them, the Defendant is remorseful." 2. Page 1 of the report states that the date of the offence is May 26, 2000 to July 21, 2001. Count III alleges that the offense occurred on or about July 1, 2000 through September 1, 2000. The Defendant does not know why this report states date other than those set forth in the complaint. 3. Page 3 of the report says the circumstances of the event were taken from "Reports of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department 4DR00201037". Since the "facts" set forth in the aforementioned Sheriff's report are dramatically different from what is relevant to sentencing, the Defendant asserts that the "facts" set forth in the report are of no use to the court in sentencing. A good portion of page 3 of the report is dedicated to what "Gavina Idda" did or said, including the picture with the satellite coordinates that the court deemed inadmissible. Perhaps the most glaring example is at page 5 of the report, where it says: "Under Penal Code 11418.5(a). a threaten to use weapons of mass destruction, with or without the intent or ability to carry out that threat, is a felony or misdemeanor." Who cares? This is not an issue in the case. At page 6 we find, "Mr. Richardson indicates that the defendant is not a stable person and he was previously under psychiatric care." There is no indication that the author of the report tried to substantiate it. At page 8 of the report, Mr. Richardson is again quoted: "Mr. Richardson concluded by stating that he has been in many dangerous situations in his professional career, and unequivocally, in this matter the concern and fear seen amongst the staff and Golden Era is real and warranted." Mr. Richardson is not a "victim", he did not provide this information at trial, and his unsubstantiated hearsay is clearly inappropriate for sentencing. We are not going to waste the court's time outlining all of the unsubstantiated and irrelevant facts in the "Circumstances of the Offense" portion of the report. A final example is the information about the defendant taking GPS coordinates is unsubstantiated at trial and denied by the person who allegedly had the GPS equipment. It is clear that the court cannot rely on this position of the report in considering sentencing. 4. The author of the report accurately states at page l5 of the report that the defendant is opposed to a grant of probation if it includes search terms of this personal property or residence for the detection of explosives or any other contraband. The Defendant is not concerned that law enforcement authorities will find any unauthorized material. His concern is that certain Scientologists and their agents would exploit local law enforcement agencies to conduct unwarranted searches, in furtherance of their Fair Game approach to detractors. Since probation searches are not based on probable cause, and in light of the Defendant's prior experience with certain Scientologists and their agents, Defendant is convinced that probation, particularly formal probation, will merely be a harassment tool to silence legitimate and constitutionally protected free speech. Nevertheless, the Probation Officer recommends five years of formal probation. The Probation Officer provides no statutory basis that would authorize the Court to impose five years of probation, and we believe that three years would be the maximum, in an appropriate case, based on Penal Code section 1203 a. The Defendant asserts that this is not such a case. Additionally, the Defendant has made it clear that he would not accept terms of probation, such as a term 4, to submit to a search of person, auto and residence. In fact, the Defendant may not be appearing at this sentencing because he is seeking refugee status in Canada based, at least in part, on the proceedings in this case. How about term 7 not to have any direct or indirect contact with the victims or any property owned or controlled by the Church of Scientology? This term is too vague for the Defendant to understand, and would undoubtedly be construed to include lawful Internet posting and picketing. Is the Probation Officer prepared to list the hundreds, if not thousands, of properties that Scientology owns and/or controls throughout the world so that the Defendant will be on notice of where he might not be able to go? This would certainly be a requirement in order to put the Defendant on notice of where he might lawfully go in various countries where Scientology has a presence. Additionally, the Defendant is apparently in Canada, and intends to remain there for the foreseeable future while his refugee status is resolved. Even if his refugee status is denied at some point the Defendant has, and probably would, resume residence in Palo Alto, California, which is not in Riverside County. Therefore, Riverside County can try to hand this formal probation football off to another county, or put a substantial inconvenience on the defendant by having him report to Riverside County. We believe that it is important to clearly state the Defendant's position about probation. The only way that certain Scientologists will believe that the Defendant is not threatening, harassing and annoying them will be for Defendant's probation to consist of placing the Defendant in solitary confinement, tied to a chair, naked, gagged, blindfolded, and wearing boxing gloves. This would be the minimum necessary to insure that he can't speak, see anyone, launch or hide nuclear weapons, use a computer or hold a picket sign. Otherwise, he will be in violation of probation because the Defendant will continue to try to stop certain Scientology activity in a lawful way. Since this makes him an enemy and suppressive person under the Fair Game Doctrine, the Defendant has to be stopped under that doctrine by any means necessary. The "victim statements" in the report and the letter of Mr. Abelson on behalf of certain Scientologists support this position. Respectfully submitted this ___ day of July, 2001 in Hemet, California ______________________________________ JAMES J. HARR, attorney for KEITH HENSON