H. Keith Henson

2237 Munns Ave.

Oakville, ON  L6H 3M9  Canada

905-844-6216 (Fax by prearrangement)

416-529-2789 (Cell)

hkhenson@cogeco.com

 

In Pro Per

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER            Plaintiff,

                       vs

H. KEITH HENSON,

             Defendant

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

Case No. D 96-20271 RMW

 

EX PARTE MOTION FOR: VARIANCE ON INJUNCTION TERMS, RE PLAINTIFF RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER’S MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 

CIVIL CONTEMPT.  REQUEST FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL, REQUEST FOR MORE TIME TO PREPARE A DEFENSE, DEFENDANT’S BRIEF PER AUG. 16 HEARING (PART 1)

 

Date:  Sept. 13, 2002

Time: 9:00 am

Courtroom:  Hon. Ronald M. Whyte

 

As expressed in my telefax letter to the court on August 23, 2002 the permanent injunctions and the willingness of the court to entertain RTC’s motion expressed at the August 16, 2002 hearing make it impossible to brief certain defenses against the contempt motion made by RTC without the possibility of violating the terms of the permanent injunction.

I have been told that the document I referred people to in the context of a posting to (the Internet news group) alt.religion.scietology is by word count about 4 parts analysis and comments to one part NOTs 34, information certainly relevant to a court making a fair use determination.  However, if the court ultimately decides the document on xenu.net is not fair use, I could not supply the court with a copy of it to examine without violating the injunction against “possessing” even if only between printing and mailing.  (Truly a Catch 22 situation.)   In the event that the court does not grant a variance in the injunction terms and time to properly brief this aspect of a defense I will have to rely on the court’s sense of fair play and presume the court will examine the document on line.

It is my contention today and it was my belief at the time that the document I referred to on May 9, 2002 is covered under fair use, specifically permitted by (2) of the permanent injunction.  (“Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit use of the Works to the extent permitted under 17 U.S.C. section 107.”)  RTC’s recent legal actions against Google, Inc. and RTC’s failure to take action against the cited analysis makes a strong case that RTC considered the analysis of NOTs 34 on xenu.net to be fair use as well.

On March 8, 2002 RTC’s in house law firm Moxon and Kobrin wrote a letter (Exhibit A), which forced Google to remove links to 85 web pages on www.xenu.net.  These web pages are listed in Exhibit B.[1]  (These letters are redacted as to names and phone numbers.)

[1]  This letter generated an amazing amount of bad publicity for Scientology, see Exhibit I, “How the Church of Scientology is forcing Google to censor its critics”, John Hiler, Microcontent News, March 21, 2002 and two follow up articles, Exhibit J, “Scientology, Google and the First Amendment,” an editorial dated May 2, 2002 from the San Jose Mercury News, Exhibit K, a New York Times story April 22, 2002, and Exhibit L, from BBC News, April 25, 2002.  There were perhaps a hundred other similar reports.)

On April 9 (and/or 10), 2002 Moxon and Kobrin wrote a similar letter (Exhibit C) with a similar list of links (Exhibit D).  Additional letters followed on April 18, 2002, (22 Google Groups archive articles), April 29, 2002, (2 articles), June 19, 2002, (1 article) and August 15, 2002 (7 articles) forcing Google to remove these articles.  (Exhibits E, F, G, and H.)

None of these letters requested the removal of the link I inserted in my posting of May 9, 2002, not even the August 15, 2002 letter that followed by over a month RTC’s filing of a contempt motion against me on June 24, 2002.

  The Google link to the NOTs 34 analysis was still active on August 25, 2002.  The Google reference reads:  “Operation Clambake presents: NOTS34: a scholars commentary ... DM in this case is not to be confused with David Miscavige, who is a known squirrel, and in many cases has altered LRH technology beyond recognition. ...”

The court may verify the above statements regarding dates and contents of RTC’s letters to Google directly by questioning RTC’s in house counsel.  Since these letters came from RTC’s in house counsel, their testimony about the dates and contents of the letters would be better to authenticate them than any testimony I could provide.  In the context of multiple copyright claims to have 85 links to xenu.net and 32 Google Groups articles removed, RTC has failed to request removal of a link to xenu.net they have represented to this court to be a violation of the injunction due to copyright.

In its motion before this court, RTC made a great deal out of my fugitive status and the events which led up to it.  It is my belief that Scientology (RTC) grossly corrupted the court and the District Attorney’s Office in Hemet from before I was arrested through trial and possibly into the appeal.  I believe it involved outright fraud by the court itself.  Judge Robert H. Wallerstein sealed parts of the transcript, and exhibit materials went missing in the appeal record without due process and in clear violation of the rules of the court.  (See Exhibits M and N, letters/replies to the Riverside Appeals Division.)  He apparently did so to cover up falsifying his minute order of April 19, 2001--which is in conflict with his ruling in open court that was publicly reported at the time and witnessed by a number of people, including my lawyer, Mr. James Harr.  The reason seems to have been to keep certain Scientology Office of Special Affairs policy documents out of the public record.  Mr. Harr produced a declaration about the illegally sealed transcript and missing exhibits (Exhibit O), but of course by not releasing the sealed part of the transcript of April 19, 2001, the Hemet court can claim it did not happen.   I really don’t expect this court to pay attention to Mr. Harr’s declaration, but if the court were to suggest to Federal law enforcement agencies that the subject of Scientology’s perversion of justice in Riverside County deserves some attention, I am sure Mr. Harr (who was very unhappy about this abuse) would be pleased to cooperate with them.

RTC mentions in the motion that I was subjected to arrest in Canada shortly after I arrived here.  That arrest has resulted in a lawsuit against the police.  (Exhibits P and Q)  Scientology’s temporary influence over the police and certain government ministries has become an embarrassment, more so because Scientology was convicted here as a corporation for “breech of the public trust.” Scientology infiltrated the RCMP, the Toronto police, the Attorney General’s office and a number of other private and public agencies.  When they were raided in 1983, forty file cabinets of stolen government documents were recovered.  This history of Scientology in Canada is documented in minute detail on the Web, including a Canadian Supreme Court decision in a related libel case brought by Justice Casey Hill that stated: 

 

Every aspect of this case demonstrates the very real and persistent malice of Scientology.

 

With regard to NOTs 56, the manner in which I created that parody is clearly described in the RTC’s own Exhibit 13.  Unless they plead a lack of reading skills, I do not see how asking for a contempt ruling on my mention of NOTs 56 can be anything but bad faith.

            As to why RTC filed this action at this time?  Scientology’s leaders were incensed that I had filed an amicus brief (Exhibit T) in the Lisa McPherson hearings.  Also RTC had just crushed Bob Minton, releasing legal resources that now appear in this court. 

Mr. Minton had spent close to ten million dollars in supporting opposition to Scientology’s excesses, including over two million on the Lisa McPherson wrongful death case in Florida.  Mr. Minton’s capitulation has been the subject of thousands of recent postings on alt.religion.scientology.   I quote an anon posting of August 14, 2002 because the poster put the situation in a nutshell.

 

“You should also look at the litigation that went on for years prior to this.

Minton and Brooks were getting hit with dozens upon dozens of subpoenas.

Every nook and cranny of their lives were being pried into during

depositions. Tens of thousands of pages of depositions were being taken,

much of it completely redundant and done solely to harass and intimidate.

The judges in the various depositions were being controlled by the cult to

an astounding degree and this in conjunction with the history of the cult's

manipulation of the justice system probably made Minton suspicious of the

court system. Schaeffer was the first judge to cut through the cult's

bullshit ONCE she found out what was going on but it was too late by this

time.”

 

 

            During the course of 35 days of hearings in the Lisa McPherson matter (on an attempt to disqualify counsel for the Estate), it came to light that notes had been taken in meetings between Mr. Minton and Scientology attorneys, including Mr. Rosen.  Judge Schaeffer ordered the notes of attorneys Rosen and Yingling to be turned over to the court where they became Exhibits 185 and 191.  There was extensive testimony about these notes that is now on the Web, so the testimony could be produced if the court wants to see it (http://whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/_06_12_AM.htm starting on page 49).  Certified copies of these notes are attached here as Exhibits R and S.  It would take forensic accountants working for law enforcement to do a full analysis of these notes.  They relate to this case in a small way because Mr. Rosen wrote that they “expect to spend” $350,000 on me beyond the million or so claimed as having already been spent.  The actual number (projected from Mr. Rosen’s statement to the bankruptcy court Sept. 13, 2000) is probably closer to $3 million.

In these notes Scientology claimed that Mr. Minton had caused them to spend $34,950,000 (believed to be about 30 percent of RTC’s legal expenses suing those they consider enemies in the last five years).  They wanted him to derail the Lawrence Wollersheim case and the Lisa McPherson wrongful death case and to pay them back, threatening that they would keep him tied up in legal actions for the rest of his days.  Many would call this extortion and obstruction of justice if Scientology attorneys were not involved. 

To the best of my knowledge neither of these attempts to subvert justice succeeded so far.   Not long after Mr. Minton capitulated Scientology paid Mr. Wollersheim $8.7 million (after 22 years of litigation and expenses estimated at $140 million) rather than face the collapse of their corporate shells by a state court in Los Angeles.  The Lisa McPherson case has been delayed by six months but may still go to trial.  I know that the extortion of Mr. Minton did result in a substantial transfer of wealth from him to Scientology and that the pace of litigation against Mr. Minton has somewhat abated.

In the hearing on August 16, the court may not have understood my statement that “Somebody has to do it.”  Scientology is a danger to our form of government with a clear mandate from their dead (but expected back any time now) leader to subvert our government.  Whether I like it or not, it seems to have fallen to me as a civic duty to test how far along Scientology is to achieving L. Ron Hubbard's goal.

 

HCO PL 4 Jan 1966, "LRH Relationships to Orgs"

"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the

[Scientology] orgs say what is legal or not."

L. Ron Hubbard

 

I think the court suspects it has been subjected to abusive manipulation by the Scientology cult and that RTC and Mr. Rosen are using the court as a weapon against me.  I am (as Mr. Rosen noted) beyond the physical reach of this court, having been made forced into exile.  That does not prevent me from being dismayed that the reputation of the US courts is being ruined by a wide spread public perception that the courts are unable to curb the abusive behavior of Scientology (and other extremely wealthy litigants).  Sandra Day O'Connor has expressed the same concern.

Reputation is, of course, the most important asset the courts have.

If the court is going to entertain Mr. Rosen’s request for jail time as a possible result of RTC’s contempt motion, I believe I should be entitled to a court appointed attorney.  This is not due to a complete lack of ability to pay for an attorney, but the near impossibility of finding one who will consider going against the world’s most litigious cult.  The court will remember Mr. Graham E. Berry.  Scientology (OSA) is widely perceived as using corrupt lawyers, courts, and a corrupt State Bar to bankrupt him.  OSA drove him from the legal profession for taking my case (among others).  Mr. Berry’s saga of civic duty in the face of the cult of Scientology is more impressive than mine and like mine may be found on the Web by entering his name in a search engine such as Google.

To reassure the court, being attacked Scientology in courts is not my only civic minded activity.  (See Exhibit U.)

If the court does permit me assigned counsel, then this is also a request for a delay so appointed counsel could become at least slightly familiar with the complexities of the case.

Where there are facts stated in this brief, I certify under penalty of perjury in the Province of Ontario, Canada, and the laws of the United States that they are true to the best of my knowledge.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

H. Keith Henson, pro se                       Dated August 26, 2002, signed in Oakville, ON.

(Also to be submitted as an Amicus brief in a related matter before the California Supreme Court.)           



[1]  This letter generated an amazing amount of bad publicity for Scientology, see Exhibit I, “How the Church of Scientology is forcing Google to censor its critics”, John Hiler, Microcontent News, March 21, 2002 and two follow up articles, Exhibit J, “Scientology, Google and the First Amendment,” an editorial dated May 2, 2002 from the San Jose Mercury News, Exhibit K, a New York Times story April 22, 2002, and Exhibit L, from BBC News, April 25, 2002.  There were perhaps a hundred other similar reports.)