H. Keith Henson

176 Henry St., #45

Brantford, Ontario N3S 5C8


Telephone:  (519) 770-0646

                    (519) 774-1620 cell


Pro Se








In re:






























CASE NO.: 98-51326 ASW-7












Time:  NA








            David Cook, attorney for DEZOTELL, HODEN and WAGONER moved the court to rule in summary judgment July 26, 2005, to make the claims of these individuals non-dischargeable.  In doing so, creditors Dezotell, Hoden and Wagoner brought their civil case, and the debtor’s criminal case, on which the civil case is solely based, into the purview of the bankruptcy court.

The court allowed the debtor more time and permitted him to propound interrogatories to investigate debtor’s claim of extrinsic fraud in the underlying cases:

Debtor has propounded several interrogatories to date and has a number of others ready to serve.  However, the clerk of the Hemet court returned two interrogatories claiming they were not in the correct form “to be filed” when there was no intent for them to be filed, only responded to by the clerk and one of the three judges involved in the debtor’s criminal case.  No amount of explaining to the court clerks what an interrogatory is or what they need to do with it has been effective, nor do the clerks return phone calls. 

Debtor has no recourse except to return to the court asking the court to name as parties certain people and agencies debtor has reason to believe have information related to the extrinsic fraud in the underlying cases and to permit limited use of subpoenas to produce documents. 

Logically an extrinsic fraud claim brings into the courts view both those who were party to the fraud and those who have knowledge about the events contributing to the fraud.

If Alice obtained a judgment against Bob by extrinsic fraud, sold the judgment to Charley, then Bob declared bankruptcy, Charley would be a creditor party, but Alice and anyone who had information about the extrinsic fraud perpetrated on Bob would be a party for the purpose of a bankruptcy court examining the underlying case(s).

In the case at hand, the civil judgment brought to the bankruptcy court depends entirely on the criminal judgment.  If the debtor is allowed to investigate and present an extrinsic fraud response to the creditor’s motion, anyone who has knowledge about the criminal or civil cases could be considered a party for service of interrogatories and document subpoenas. 

At this point the documents envisioned to be subpoenaed include the contents of the Riverside District Attorney’s files containing the two letters referenced below, certain standard procedures from the Hemet court, including the way indictments were processed and filed in September 2000, the procedure in April of 2001 for picking jury members and determining that the people who report for jury duty were actually the people summoned to duty, and the list of actual jury members who served at debtor’s trial.

This is an unusual request and needs to be justified before the court.  Debtor attaches Exhibit A, a timeline (filed with the Riverside Grand Jury on April 14, 2001) of events from May 17, 2000 to September 17, 2000, which provides the names of people in the Riverside County DA’s office who were associated with the prosecution of debtor wherein extrinsic fraud is suspected.  Most of these people are expected only to have contributory information.  

The list of people named in that timeline and connected to acts of interest includes:

Grover Trask, the elected Riverside County District Attorney

Alan E. Oberstein, a Scientology attorney

Gerald Feffer, a Scientology attorney
Deputy D.A. Kevin Ruddy

Specific dates from Exhibit A:

“May 24, 2000: Scientology attorney Alan E. Oberstein meets with the Riverside County District Attorney Trask regarding Mr. Henson.  [This was one day after debtor had discussed picketing Scientology’s compound at Gilman Springs near Hemet, CA, on the Internet following the death of Ashlee Shaner, May 17, 2000.]

“July 27, 2000: Scientology attorney Alan C. Oberstein writes to the Deputy District Attorney referring to the May 24, 2000, meeting and encloses selected Internet postings by Henson.

“Aug. 16, 2000: Scientology attorney, Gerald Feffer (of Williams and Connally, Washington, D.C.) writes to Deputy D.A. Kevin Ruddy. In his letter, Feffer refers to the prior meeting between them and sets forth factual and legal arguments that Henson should be arrested for extortion.”

In addition, debtor requests that other people be named as parties:

Michael Gilchrist

Dana Reid

Muriel Dufresne

            On the eve of trial, the three above were substituted out as “victims” and Ken Hoden was substituted in (like basketball players).  Also:

Cindy Garcia, a senior clerk at the Hemet court or an alternate person in the court administration if Ms Garcia cannot provide the requested information.  The interrogatory would be limited as above. 

Deputy Tony Greer,the deputy Sheriff who under pressure signed the original “weapons of mass destruction” (11418.5 PC) warrant after stating:

“In reviewing all of the Internet postings I did not see any direct threat of violence towards the church or any personnel of the church.”  (Exhibit C)

Gavino Idda, an "internet expert" for the Church of Scientology who provided the Internet postings to Tony Greer.  (Exhibit C)

Bill Yaude,cited as a close associate of Gavino Idda by Tory Christman (Exhibit D), was probably the source of the “Dexter” web site discussed by Tony Greer in Exhibit C.  (Idda and Yaude were named by Tory Christman as the operators of a huge denial of service attack that ran between November 1998 and October 1999.  The attack poured millions of forged postings into the alt.religion.scientology Usenet news group.  It eventually came to the attention of FBI Special Agent Blevins in Dallas, TX.)

Bernie Skiles who (with Kevin Ruddy) met with Tony Greer July 31, 2000.  (Exhibit C)

Edwin Richardson, Private Investigator for Scientology. “Senior Investigator Skiles from the Riverside County District Attorney's Office requested the documents from Richardson.” August 8, 2000.  (Exhibit C)

John Doe 1, the second person with Edwin Richardson. He was referred to in error, in reports by debtor, as “Frank Petty,” who at trial turned out to be someone else (photo attached as Exhibit E).  On July 2, 2000, these two individuals assaulted and drove debtor into the roadway that runs through the scientology compound (Exhibit B).  (This report erroneously refers to Edwin as “Eliot.”)

Ava Paquette of Moxon & Kobrin

Kendrick Moxon and Helena Kobrin.  In a letter dated August 18, 2000 cited at point G of Debtor’s March 12, 2001 declaration (Exhibit F), Debtor makes the case for attempted extrinsic fraud in that declaration:  that Ms Paquette and her law firm conspired with members of the DA’s office to set up an overlapping deposition and arraignment for September 15, 2000, particularly:

Tom Gage,who signed the indictment paper (initials only, “TWG”) on September 1, 2000, and is believed to have purposefully withheld mailing the “Defendant’s copy.”  (Points M and N of Exhibit F and first posting about Mr. Gage (in error spelled Gauge) Exhibit G)

Leonard Mandel, who was with Tom Gage in court September 15, 2000.

Robert K. Schwarz, the junior deputy DA assigned to prosecute the case, now a resident of Boise, Idaho, and an employee of the Idaho Attorney General’s office.

Judge Albert Wojcik chief judge of the Hemet Court at the time.  In chambers Judge Wojcik expressed “fear of Scientology” and said he would not take the case for that reason. 

Judge Rodney L. Walker, the second judge assigned to the case.  Robert K. Schwarz had him recused for knowing Deputy Tony Greer, as “a litigation tactic.”  (Phone call August 6, 2005) Judge Walker was concerned with the First Amendment rights of the debtor.  Judge Wallerstein, a retired municipal court judge who did arbitration work in Hollywood entertainment disputes, was not.  At the end of trial, Judge Wallerstein admitted he knew:

Elliot Abelson, attorney for Scientology.  A prosecutor turned Mafia pornography lawyer, he coached DDA Robert K. Schwarz throughout the trial, mentioning to a witness that he had called in certain favors to get the conviction.  Abelson later took over opposition to the criminal case appeal before:

Judge Sharon Waters, who allowed a private party, Elliot Abelson, to oppose my appeal in the criminal case, Exhibit H at paragraph 10, “It is unclear to me who the opposing party is.”

Amanda Fagan, court reporter at the criminal trial for the late Judge Wallerstein.  From a declaration by debtor November 27, 2000:

“3. When I asked her why the transcript for the morning of April 19, 2001 was missing, Amanda stated that the Judge Wallerstein informally (in the hallway) told her not to prepare the voir dire and Motions in Limine parts of the transcript.

“4. When I expressed amazement that the court records could be sealed so casually, she replied, "He's the Judge."

“5. I asked her if she was aware that the transcript was in conflict with the minute order of that day. She indicated she was not aware and was irritated at being asked.”



See also the declaration of James J. Harr dated Dec 18, 2001 (Exhibit I) and contemporary posts on April 19 and April 20, 2001.

Message-ID: <3ae06832.19951815@news2.lightlink.com>

The morning started off with a big win.

Judge Wallerstein  took up the motion we filed yesterday,

and ruled against us again, taking only a few minutes.

Afterwards, Jim asked him if the motion had been filed

with the court, and, after a short interchange with his

clerk, it was determined right there on the record that

the motion and exhibit were filed.



Sealing the part of the record by ordering the court reporter not to transcribe parts of the record might be considered extrinsic fraud by the court if manipulating the record was

done to deny part of debtor’s trial record for appeal.  Debtor is also seeking an unsealing order from this court to permit the court reporter to transcribe the sealed parts of the record.  (Debtor will pay for the transcripts.)   This occurrence was one of many unusual and odd incidents (such as the treatment of the jury questionnaires) that took place in the courtroom.  These incidents suggest that the criminal judgment--without which the civil judgment would not exist--may have involved extrinsic fraud.

Samuel D. Rosen.  Scientology attorney.  The use of Rosen’s 2004 examination of debtor in October 2000 is discussed in Exhibit J (October 31, 2000, Declaration of James J. Harr) and in Exhibit K

       4.  A critical issue in this case is the People's attempt to

authenticate certain alleged Internet postings by the Defendant. When

the prosecutor assigned to the case found out that the Defendant would

not stipulate to authentication, as is his right under the United

States Constitution and the California Constitution, a Scientology

attorney, within days, tried to get the Defendant to authenticate

these very postings in a Scientology deposition of the Defendant in

the Defendant's pending chapter 13 bankruptcy.  A transcript of

Defendant's testimony was then given to the prosecuting attorney and

presented to the Defendant's attorney as proof of authentication.

This is clear evidence of the power of the Scientology machine and the

dubious way in which the district attorney was willing to gain an

advantage regarding the authentication of certain documents by such

tactics  A copy of the relevant pages of this transcript is the

possession of the district attorney and the attorney for the Defendant

and can be produced if requested by the court


Bypassing the debtor’s protection under the Constitution by abusing a bankruptcy 2004 hearing where (under civil rules) a person cannot refuse to answer could be considered extrinsic fraud or close to it, especially when the hearing transcript was given to DDA Robert Schwarz without the debtor’s being given an opportunity to correct it.

Robert V. Carlson, a Scientology agent in Hawaii who has been attacking the debtor on the Internet, posting and reposting many times Scientology’s hate page about the debtor.  (See Exhibit L for a listing of the people attacked on this web site.)  This is more related to the ongoing extralegal attacks on debtor than the extrinsic fraud, but involves the same people and mind set.

RTC.  RTC is already a party, but not a party to the Dezotell et al. motion.  The attorneys in the Dezotell civil case cost almost $25,000.  The named parties are penurious (Sea Org members are paid no more than $50 a week) so who paid for it?  Debtor knows the papers were prepared by Mr. Rosen’s office because extraneous papers from other cases in his office were accidentally attached to the original service.  (Posting August 22, 2001, Exhibit M.)  Neither he nor any members of his firm were ever named as attorneys of record.  It raises a question of how many parties are actually before court as creditors.  For the purpose of answering this question debtor requests the following persons be added as parties:


David L. Cook, the current attorney for Dezotell et al.

Gilbert Y. Nishino, SBN 100036, the first attorney

Robert A. Davis, Jr., State Bar No. 160357, and

Joseph M. Wojcik, State Bar No. 177296, who took over when the first attorney was disbarred. 

Barry A. Reimer, Commissioner of the Riverside County Superior Court, who ruled on the civil case.  Debtor’s attorney at the time thought the Commissioner was under duress at the time he ruled against debtor.

If the court agrees with debtor that there is some question as to the number of creditors before the court, then the consequences of David Cook’s motion might apply to other cases that contributed to the bankruptcy.  In which case debtor requests the court add:

Jackie Lynn Garcia, a court clerk for Judge Whyte who was blamed for what looked to the debtor as extrinsic use of the courts for a contempt of court entrapment attempt.

“As the result of a misunderstanding between the undersigned and his

clerk, the Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Plaintiffs

Motion for a Finding of Contempt filed September 26, 2002 was


inadvertently filed under seal. There is nothing confidential about

the order . . . .  (Filed  OCT 09 2002)”  --Judge Whyte


“Rosen whined about Gregg's press release on the sealed order in a Fed

Ex letter dated Oct. 1, but *that* didn't draw Judge Whyte's attention

to the "misunderstanding." 


“I mailed the above letter Oct. 3, 2002 to Judge Patel, Chief Judge of

the Northern District.  Mail from Canada takes 5-6 days.  Perhaps a

phone call from Judge Patel asking him "why is this sealed?" did get

his attention.  From the date on the "unsealing order" it looks

someone built a fire under Judge Whyte the day my letter arrived.”

--Keith Henson



Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, limited to asking her if she received debtors letter and if she made contact with Judge Whyte at the time.

All of the named people (and the parties) are believed by debtor to have had direct or indirect involvement in possible intrinsic fraud, or to be in possession of information that is possibly relevant to a reply to creditor’s motion using the defense of extrinsic fraud.

Predicated on the difficulty of getting some of these people to reply to interrogatories, debtor requests that the time to respond be extended from the end of September to the end of October.


Respectfully submitted,


H. Keith Henson, pro se 

Dated August 23, 2005


"In summary, every aspect of this case demonstrates the very real and persistent malice of Scientology.”  Supreme Court of Canada,  July 20, 1995,  Hill v Church of Scientology, Paragraph 194.