From hkhenson@cogeco.ca Thu Nov 22 13:36:38 2001 Path: sn-us!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!enews.sgi.com!newspeer2.tds.net!gail.ripco.com!news.lightlink.com!news2.lightlink.com From: hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Not missing, SEALED Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 18:36:38 GMT Organization: Temple of At'L'An Lines: 236 Message-ID: <3bfd3450.130039011@news2.lightlink.com> References: <3bfc0723.52926764@news2.lightlink.com> <5l9qvt4bhsi7ojiucuq5p3p1qkj0e901g4@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.40.229 X-Original-Trace: 22 Nov 2001 13:37:04 -0500, 24.141.40.229 Xref: sn-us alt.religion.scientology:1005088 On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:42:13 -0800, Brent wrote: >On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:02:04 GMT, hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson) >wrote: > >> >>I have been extremely reluctant to accuse the judge in my case in >>Hemet of wrongdoing. However . . . . . Keith Henson > >How in the heck can they "seal the record" FROM the defendant and >the appellate courts? I can see sealing the records from the public >in cases of things like national security (or preventing the public >from contracting pneumonia for hearing about Xenu :-), but there is >no indication of even a reason for sealing this record. Of course there was a reason, the accommodate scientology. Schwarz and Abelson were desperate to keep the Frank Oliver exhibits out of a court record where they could be cited. Desperate enough to induce the judge to alter the record of what happened (in the minute order for that day) and to order the court reporter to seal part of the record and make no indication that it had been sealed. The court reporter did it, but there is no way she would have been happy about it. It is a guess that someone in the court was intercepting her mail when Dan Leipold wrote her urgently about the missing material. When my agent tracked her down and read Dan's letter to her, she told him what had been done. What the judge tried to do was to change history. And if OSA had managed to kill or incapacitate me in jail in Riverside or succeeded in killing me while being arrested in Oakville he would have gotten away with it. The cult didn't bother to put a fig leaf on their control of the poor judge in this instance--which was why I was concerned about the cult going after the judge. (He is 75, so there are many ways he could die and it be considered "natural.") Unless he did it alone, I think Penal Code Section 182 (conspiracy) and Section 132 (forging or altering court records) applies. This can't have been just a favor his old buddy Abelson, so there must have been heavy inducements. It would have been easy to transfer money from the cult to the judge and not have it look suspicious because the judge does a lot of private judging and two scientologist could pay him lots for a fake case. BTW, is there a reason why someone 75 is still working? >I would think that there would have to be a motion to seal part of >the record, with both sides allowed to give arguments before records >can be sealed. What possible reason can there be for "sealing" the >fact that motions were submitted? In any case, simply DELETING >portions of the court records is NOT how records are sealed. The >portions that are sealed are well-marked in the transcript as >sealed, and the transcript still reflects accurately what happened >in the case. What was sealed--with no indication, no notice and no hearing--was the part before the jury was brought in where the judge ruled on our motion to reconsider, Harr's question about it now being part of the record, Schwarz's objection, and the judge saying it could not be undone. Well maybe not, but he sure tried to hide it. >What happened here is simply forgery of court records. Right. They maybe could have gotten away with it by trying to make it look like an error. But the minute order of that day does not reflect what is in the transcript he sealed. Sealing the transcript is prima facie evidence that a court record, the minute order, was indeed forged--by the judge and (I don't see how to avoid this) his clerk. We now have about 6 hoping mad lawyers. I don't know how the US Attorney will react to them reporting this business with the judge. But I bet you the cult will go after *him* in an ever more complicated attempt to contain this mess. Keith Henson PS Here is Dan's letter which never reached the court reporter: Leipold, Donohue & Shipe, LLP 960-A West Seventeenth Street · Santa Ana, CA 92706 Telephone (714) 796-1555 Fax (714) 796-1550 email DLEIPOLD@lds-law.com October 19, 2001 Amanda Fagan,CSR 4100 Main Street Riverside, CA. 92501 RE: People of the State of California v. Henson, Case No. HEMO14371 Dear Ms. Fagan: If you will recall, you transcribed this matter at the request of our office for Mr. Henson several weeks ago. Upon careful review of the transcript it has been noted that an important in limine hearing that occurred on the morning of April 19th and was recorded by you is not present in the transcript. This hearing was in reference to a motion filed by Mr. Henson's attorney the day before and heard that on the 19th before the jury was brought in. Please promptly review your notes in this matter and provide us with the full, certified transcript of this in limine hearing. I have calendared my file for the receipt of this transcript for 10 days from the date of this letter. I wish to thank you for your anticipated prompt, professional cooperation in preparing this vital transcript. Very truly yours, LEIPOLD, DONOHUE & SHIPE, LLP Daniel A. Leipold DAL/ H. Keith Henson 2237 Munns Ave. Oakville, ON L6H 3M9 Canada 905-844-6216 >>H. Keith Henson >>2237 Munns Ave. >>Oakville, ON L6H 3M9 Canada >>905-844-6216 >>hkhenson@cogeco.com >> >>November 21, 2001 >> >>Judge Sharon Waters >>Riverside County Courthouse >>Appeals Division >>4100 Main Street. >>Riverside, CA 92501 >> >> Re People of the State of California v. Keith Henson >> Appellate No. 003226, Case No. HEM014371 >> >>Dear Judge Waters: >> >>I am writing you based on the information contained in Elliot >>Abelson's letter of November 2, 2001. This letter presumes that if he >>is permitted to communicate with you, I can as well. >> >>I hope you have seen my letters to your clerk, Frita, particularly the >>one of Oct. 18, 2001. In that letter I complained about altered >>records in this case. It is the recollection of at least three >>different people and a contemporary Internet posting that on the >>morning of April 19, 2001 Judge Wallerstein ruled against a motion to >>reconsider but did say on the record that the motion, declaration and >>exhibit he had ruled on had become part of the record--over the strong >>objections of DDA Robert Schwarz. >> >>Since this material is important, if not critical to the appeal, it >>was a matter of considerable surprise to find it was missing from the >>clerk's record and that the section of the transcript where the ruling >>occurred was also missing. A lawyer friend of mine who had expedited >>obtaining the trial transcript was alerted to the missing material in >>the transcript. He wrote a letter to Amanda Fagan CSR--copy enclosed. >> >>In spite of the letter, and several attempts to reach her by phone, my >>lawyer friend was unable to make contact. I had another friend try >>and eventually he located her. >> >>He sent me email late yesterday: >> >> Keith, Amanda Fagan returned my call and here's the content of the >> call. I asked her why she did not answer the mentioned letter and >> she says she never received it. Per her request I read the letter >> to her. >> >> Here's the long and short of it. She says the missing portion is >> not "missing" but rather the judge ordered it sealed. >> >>In my letter to your clerk dated Oct 18, I asked the following: >> >> I cannot verify what the judge said from the court reporter's >> transcript because that part of the trial transcript is simply >> missing from what I was provided. Could it be that this portion >> of the trial transcript was left out in order to be consistent >> with the missing documents and ruling? I have historical reasons >> to be concerned. >> >> This case started with an attempt to frame me for failure to >> appear. >> >>As I understand it, the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over >>these matters. I would greatly appreciate your unsealing the >>transcript. I would also appreciate it if you could find out why >>neither my lawyer nor I were notified of the sealing of this critical >>part of the transcript, and what reason the judge had for sealing part >>of the transcript in the first place. It was, as I recall, only about >>his ruling and minor procedural matters. >> >>If the memory of several people who were in the court that day serves, >>you will also find the Judge's minute orders for April 19, 2001 are in >>conflict with the transcript. >> >>Since I last wrote to your clerk, I have noticed one other item >>missing from the record, an amicus brief by Arnoldo Lerma. This is >>the fourth or fifth incident in this case of court records being >>tampered with. If this concerns you, Riverside now has its own branch >>of the U.S. Attorney's office. Talk to Dan O'Brien, 276-6210. I have >>talked to him and he is aware of the cult's high level of "influence." >> >>Posted to the news group alt.religion.scientology to create a public >>record. Under penalty of perjury I state that copies of this letter >>were mailed to the below addresses and that the contents of this >>letter are factual to the best of my knowledge. >> >>Very truly yours, >> >> >> >>H. Keith Henson >> >> >>CC District Attorney Office >> Appellate Department >> 4075 Main St. >> Riverside, CA 92501 >> >> Law Offices of Elliot Abelson >> 8491 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 1100 (actually a mail box) >> Los Angeles, CA 90069-1911 >>