H. Keith Henson

c/o Ida Camburn

1270 Vista Grande Dr.

Hemet, CA  92543

Telephone:  (519) 770-0646

                    (519) 774-1620 cell

 

Pro Se                                                                         Sent by Mail and Fax.

 

 

 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

 

In re:

 

KEITH HENSON,

Debtor

 

HILLARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER,

 

                        Plaintiffs,

 

            vs.

 

H. KEITH HENSON

 

                        Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)
)
)

 

CASE NO.: 98-51326 ASW-7

 

ADV.NO.035136

 

 

 

 

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES RELATED TO EXTRINSIC FRAUD IN THE UNDERLYING CASES

 

 

By the order of Judge Weissbrodt

 

July 26, 2005

 

 

 

 

PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEBTOR H. KEITH HENSON

RESPONDING PARTY: Ken Hoden, served through his attorney of record, DAVID J. COOK, ESQ. (State Bar # 060859), COOK, PERKISS & LEW, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 333 Pine Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94104

SET NO: ONE (NUMBERS 1-35)    

INTRODUCTION

In his reply to creditor’s (HILLARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER) Motion for Summary Judgment, Debtor Henson asked the court for more time to respond, one particular being that one creditor and witness, Ken Hoden, may have been under duress when he testified at the debtor’s criminal trial.  (Mr. Hoden was reliably reported in the Fall of 2004 to be in Scientology’s notorious punishment program known as the “Rehabilitation Project Force” or RPF.)  The court gave debtor additional time and permitted debtor to attack the underlying cases to his bankruptcy on the basis of extrinsic fraud. 

 So that debtor could attempt to show that the underlying criminal judgment was obtained through extrinsic fraud debtor was permitted discovery:

 

JUDGE WEISSBRODT:  You’re welcome to send out interrogatories, Mr. Henson.  . . . . you’re not restricted in whom you can send an interrogatory to. 

 

It is unusual for a court to grant such powers.  But in this case, the creditors are a corporate front (RTC) for Scientology or interchangeable penurious members of an organization that exercises total control over their lives. 

Further, Scientology has a well-established record of framing critics such as Paulette Cooper.  The sentencing memorandum (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MARY SUE HUBBARD, et al.  Criminal Case No. 78-401) dated Dec. 3, 1979 includes this description:

“ . . . [They] considered themselves above the law. They believed that they had carte blanche to violate the rights of others, frame critics in order to destroy them, burglarize private and public offices and steal documents outlining the strategy of individuals and organizations that the Church had sued. These suits were filed by the Church for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting its critics and in order to create an atmosphere of fear so that critics would shy away from exercising the First Amendment rights secured them by the Constitution.”

Both “bankrupting” and “First Amendment rights” are common to the debtor’s case and the events that led up to the above case where 11 high-level Scientologists were sentenced to prison.  The above case was also rife with attempts to corrupt the judicial process.  It might be noted that Scientology has not changed the “scriptures” such as “fair game” or “training routine lying” that “justified” such behavior in the years since that sentencing memorandum.

.  Some of the questions may be directed to determining the party responsible for the continuing extralegal harassment of the debtor (related to continuing behavior conducive to extrinsic fraud).

            On April 29, 2005, in Brantford, Ontario, debtor held for the police and eventually identified a private investigator, Robert Del Bianco.  Del Bianco is now charged with assault.  Del Bianco was working for a private investigation agency run by David Brewer.  An Ontario Provincial Police officer (Gino Tatasciore) informed debtor that Mr. Brewer’s agency was subcontracted to another agency and that he talked with the client of this second level agency.  The person to whom Officer Tatasciore spoke claimed to “be involved” in a lawsuit against debtor in the US.  The officer was reluctant to name the party, citing Canadian privacy laws although Canadian privacy laws probably do not apply to non-Canadians outside of Canada.

This bankruptcy is the only legal action in the US of which the debtor has been informed.  Assuming the person did not lie, the OPP officer could have talked to RTC, Hilary Dezotell, Ken Hoden, Bruce Wagoner, the US Trustee or any of the attorneys or previous attorneys for these parties.

July 26, 2005, Judge Weissbrodt permitted debtor to propound interrogatories to determine who hired the PI firm whose agent harassed debtor and investigate debtor’s claim that the underlying cases contributing to this bankruptcy were extrinsic fraud.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

TO: The Party named above named and party’s attorney of record, if any.

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that defendant and debtor above named requests that party answer the following interrogatories under oath within 30 days from the date of service, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Bankruptcy Rules 9014 and 7033.  Return this interrogatory by mail to the above captioned address in Hemet, California.

 

In answering these interrogatories, furnish all information available to you, including information in the possession of your attorney(s) and investigator(s) for your attorney(s), and not merely such information known of your own personal knowledge. These interrogatories shall be deemed continuing and in the event you discover further information that is responsive to any of them, you are required to provide supplemental answers in accord with FRCP 16(e).  If you cannot answer the following interrogatories in full, after exercising due diligence to secure the information to do so, so state, and answer to the extent possible, specifying your inability to answer the remainder, and stating whatever information or knowledge you have concerning the unanswered.

 

INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

 

The following definitions apply to each of the interrogatories and are deemed to be incorporated therein:

 

1. The word "document(s)" means all handwritten, typed, printed, recorded or graphic matter, photographic matter, sound reproductions, or computer input or output, however produced or reproduced, pertaining in any manner to the subject matter identified.

 

2. The words "identify" or "identity" when used with reference to a natural person or persons means to state, in addition to any information which may be specifically requested by the interrogatory, the following for each person:

 

a. The person's full name;

 

b. The person's last known residence and business address;

 

c. The full name and address of the person's last known employer;

 

d. The name of any person or entity whom the person is claimed to have represented in connection with the matter to which the interrogatory relates; and,

e. The person's employer and position at the time.

 

3. The words "identify" or "identity" when used with reference to an entity means to state, in addition to any information which may be specifically requested by the particular interrogatory, the following:

 

a. The name of the entity;

 

b. The address of the entity's main office;

 

c. The county in which it has its principal place of business;

 

d. The address of the office of the entity which is most directly connected to the matter to which the interrogatory relates; and,

 

e. If a corporation, the state in which it is incorporated and the states in which it is licensed to do business.

 

4. The words "identify" and "identity" when used with respect to a document or documents, means to state, in addition to any information which may be specifically requested by the particular interrogatory, the following for each document:

 

a. The nature and substance of the document;

 

b. Any title, caption, file numbers, symbols or other characteristics sufficient to enable the document to be precisely identified;

 

c. The date or approximate date on which the document was prepared;

 

d. The date, if any, it bears;

 

e. The date it was transmitted;

 

f. The identity (as defined above) of the person who wrote, signed, initialed, dictated, recorded, developed, or otherwise participated in the creation or formation of the document;

 

g. The identity of each addressee or recipient thereof;

 

h. The identity of the present (or last known) custodian thereof and of all copies thereof; and,

 

i. To the extent that the answers to the preceding subparts are obtainable by an examination of the document itself, you may respond to the same by attaching a copy of the document to the answers to the interrogatories and referring to said document for answers to each subpart.

 

5. The word "describe" when used in reference to an act, occurrence, event or transaction means to provide, in addition to any information which may be specifically requested by the particular interrogatory, all of the following information:

 

a. The date, time and place thereof;

 

b. Identify as defined above each natural person thereat;

 

c. The name, employer and position of each natural person who participated therein or was otherwise connected therewith; and,

 

d. The nature and substance thereof.

 

6. As used herein, the singular form of a noun or pronoun shall be considered to include within its meaning the plural form of the noun or pronoun so used and vice versa; in similar fashion, the use of the masculine form of a pronoun shall be considered to also include within its meaning the feminine form of the pronoun so used and vise versa; in a similar fashion, the use of any tense of a verb shall be considered to also include within its meaning all other tenses of verbs so used.

 

7. The following definitions apply to terms used herein (except as the context may otherwise clearly require):

 

a. The words "defendant", "debtor," or “Henson” refer to the defendant and debtor in this action.

 

b. The words “party”, "you", "yours", "plaintiff", "creditor" or "claimant" refer to plaintiff in this action, the attorneys for plaintiff and persons or entities at any time employed by, associated with or acting for or on behalf of any of the foregoing. 

 

c.  The words “party”, "you" and "yours" may also refer to others subject to these special interrogatories.

 

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

            List your education starting with high school, years, include institutions and whether  applicable majors and degree(s) were g ranted.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

List the positions you have held in Scientology organizations and the approximate dates you held these positions.  Include time in the RPF as a “position.”  Attach extra pages if needed.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Listthe courses you have taken in Scientology.  Attach extra pages if needed

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

            Debtor’s first picket at Gilman Springs was May 20, 1997.  List the first 5 times you were aware of debtor at Gilman Springs.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

            Debtor picketed Scientology's operation at Gilman Springs January 6, 1998.  Describe that picket from your viewpointAttach extra pages if needed

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

In 1998 you sued debtor.  Who induced you to sue debtor?

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

            Who paid the legal bills for that case?

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

On May 17, 2000, construction machinery (a paver with no lights) was moved off the property at Gilman Springs on a public road after dark, accompanied by a front loader.  Ashlee Shaner's car ran into the blade of the front loader about 9:15 pm, decapitating her almost in front of her mother.  Were you involved at all in the decision to move this equipment after dark?

Yes_____   No_______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

The next day, May 18, 2000, was a Thursday, "stats" day (when "production" statistics must be turned in to supervisors).  Did the decision to move this equipment after dark have anything to do with the next day's being "stats day"?

Yes____   No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

May 26, 2000, debtor picketed the Gilman Springs property over the death of Ashlee Shaner.  There were only two people visible on Golden Era property.  Who warned you that the debtor was coming and how did they know?

________________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

            May 30, 2000, debtor picketed again, coming upon a chaotic scene of construction, with people hurriedly leaving after just starting work.  Debtor speculated at the time that he had been tailed all the way to Tucson and back.  If you know, was he?

Yes___  No____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

If the answer to the above question is no, how were you warned and by whom?

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

            June 25, 2000 (Sunday morning), within minutes after Stacy Moxon Meyer was electrocuted in a transformer vault, you approached Barbara Graham and David Rice, who were picketing, and tried to get them away from the gate.  Why?

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

            Related to the above question, you did not mention the tragic death that had occurred minutes before to the picketers, but instead invited them to breakfast.  This is, by ordinary standards, unusual behavior.  Is it mandatory in Scientology to attempt to hide information that may lead to bad public relations? 

Yes___  No____

(Expand on this answer if you wish)

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

            If the answer to the previous question is no, why was it done this time?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

            Three weeks before Stacy Moxon Meyer was electrocuted in the transformer vault, a ground squirrel got into the wires in the vault and was exploded, knocking out power to part of Golden Era.  Which buildings were affected?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

            Did the affected buildings include a home, office or other facility used by David Miscavige?

Yes____   No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

            Were any reports or policies written on preventing a reoccurrence?

Yes____   No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

            Were you involved in any way with such reports or policies?

Yes____   No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

Was a policy of regular inspections of the vaults instituted?

Yes____   No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

            What was the name of the chief electrician on June 25, 2000?

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

            July 3, 2000, debtor was accosted on the road that runs through the Gilman Springs property by private investigator Edwin Richardson and another person who might have been another private investigator.  What is the name and address of the second person?  (If licensed, provide also the state and license number.)

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

            That second person was caught on tape August 14, 2000 (transcript posted August 18, 2000) threatening debtor's daughter.  Did you authorize that second person to make threats?

Yes____   No______

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:

            What instructions were Edwin Richardson and that other person (above) given regarding the debtor?

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

Debtor was arrested late on July 19, 2000, as a "citizen's arrest" and then “un-arrested” because you, the complainant, would not sign the arrest papers.  Explain why you would not sign and the circumstances around this event.

___________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26:

In debtor's original indictment, Bruce Wagoner, Hilary Dezotell, Michael Gilchrist, Dana Reid and Muriel Dufresne are named.  Why were these 5 picked from the 735 people you stated worked at the Gilman Springs property?

___________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27:

            At that time, what were their positions at Golden Era?

___________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28:

Shortly before debtor's criminal trial, the last three were removed and you were substituted as a "victim."  If you know, explain why the substitution and who directed that it be done?

___________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29:

Friday, April 20, 2001, following testimony about your hunting down debtor's patents, Internet postings, and mention in a multi-person biographical sketch, you testified under oath at debtor's criminal trial:

Q: Thank you. Now, the last question that I have for you is this: Why did you -- why did you go through all the trouble of doing that?

 

A: Well, I didn't want to make the same mistake again.

 

Q: What mistake is that?

 

A: Well, we had an earlier situation where we had what might appear to be silly or foolish or joking type threats. And as a result somebody got killed. Somebody got shot. And I didn't want that to happen again.  And I was not going to make that mistake again, and I was determined not to make it again.

 

Q: What are you referring to?

 

A: Referring to the fact that a man one time took a little tiny tank and wound it up like this, and put a little sign on it and said, "Next time it will be real." And it chugged through the front door of our church, of one of our churches.

 

Q: Where?

 

A: Portland, Oregon.

 

Q: Then what happened?

 

A: All right. We took it to the police, explained to them that this is a threat. They said there was nothing they could do, looked like just a joke. He walked in later, shot Helen, who I've known for 25 years, shot Helen, bullet went through her shoulder, through her baby's head in her womb . . . ."

 

Were you aware (at that time) that the bullet was fired by a disgruntled, refund-seeking Scientologist, Jerius Godeka, and that the bullet did not go through the baby's head?  (" . . . [T]he fetus was unharmed," The Oregonian, September 26, 1996.)

Yes_____  No_____

 

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31:

            Do you now regret your perjury under oath?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32:

Were you aware at that time that debtor could not refute your testimony (which he knew to be wrong) because he had been denied witnesses and was forbidden to speak in his defense?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

The following document was recovered in the FBI raid of July 8, 1977 on the Church of Scientology:

INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE - TR L

 

Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.

 

Position: Same as TR-1

 

Commands: Part 1 "Tell me a lie". Command given by coach. Part 2 interview type 2 WC by coach.

 

Training Stress: In Part 1 coach gives command, student originates a falsehood. Coach flunks for out TR 1 or TR 0. In Part 2 coach asks questions of the student on his background or a subject. Student gives untrue data of a plausible sort that the student backs up with further explanatory data upon the coach's further questions. The coach flunks for out TR 0 and TR 1, and for student fumbling on question answers.

 

The student should be coached on a gradient until he/she can lie facily.

 

Have you been trained on this course or similarly coached for your testimony against debtor?

Yes_____  No_____

 

 

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34:

            Did any of the events of the years 2000 or 2001--deaths, pickets, trial or related--result in "ethics" actions against you?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35:

What do you know about the hiring of private investigators in Canada to “investigate” the debtor?

________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

 

 

Dated Aug. 14, 2005                                        H. Keith Henson, pro se,

(Acting under the July 26, 2005 order of

Federal Bankruptcy Judge Arthur S. Weissbrodt)