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 e-mail to

                                                                                    arkeus@yahoo.com (by request)

 

 

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: Robert K Schwarz - #202293, P O Box 2013 Boise, ID 83701

 

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:

            During the prosecution of Keith Henson in April of 2001, you were observed to be constantly in the company of Scientology attorney Elliot Abelson.  Mr. Abelson is widely known to have defended and been intimately associated with the Gambino (Mafia) pornography business.  (Google Results 1 - 10 of about 41 for "Elliot Abelson" Gambino)  At that time did you know of Mr. Abelson’s background? 

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

            During the prosecution of Keith Henson in April of 2001, did you consult with or take direction from Elliot Abelson, other lawyers associated with Scientology or others associated with Scientology?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

            If the answer to SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 2 is yes, did you take recommendations from Mr. Abelson, other lawyers associated with Scientology or others associated with Scientology as to which jury members to recuse?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

            During the trial, one of the female jury members who sat in the front row, right hand side, (facing the jury box) was observed by Henson and others to frequently wave her fingers at Mr. Abelson particularly on leaving or entering the courtroom.  Did you observe this?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

            If the answer to SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4 is yes did you ever acquire an understanding a to why the jury member was waving to Mr. Abelson?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

            Before the trial shortly after April 11, 2001 Barbara Graham, who also picketed Scientology’s compound and was one of the named (but not allowed) witnesses in the Henson trial called you on the phone to complain about her house being watched, her phone records tampered with and her and her guests being followed.  Do you remember this event?

Yes_____  No_____
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

            Barbara Graham reports that the harassment stopped after she made the above phone call.  If you can remember, to whom did you speak about this phone call?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

            Before or during the Henson trial did you visit the Scientology compound Henson picketed?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

The location Henson was picketing has been reliably described as heavily armed and encircled with razor wire.  If this is a good description, would one person with a picket sign and no history of violence reasonably be considered a threat?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

Probation officer Garry Davis told Henson that his prosecution and sentencing to a maximum term with no chance of being free during appeal was a matter of county politics and not criminal justice.   From your knowledge of the case, was this a reasonable statement?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

            How was Tom Gage involved in the Henson case?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

Judge Albert Wojcik assigned the Henson case to Judge Walker and then Judge Wallerstein was brought in when Judge Walker recused himself.  Judge Wojcik would not take the case himself, having expressed fear of the Scientology organization.  Please detail your feelings if you have felt fear of the Scientology organization.

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

How was Kevin Ruddy involved in this case?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

How was Bernie Skiles involved in the Henson case?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

            Did this case come to the attention of the elected DA, Grover Trask?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

            If the answer to the above question is yes, be specific about how Mr. Trask was involved.

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

At trial during your direct questioning of Ken Hoden you asked:

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 the time of trial that nobody was killed in this incident, that the bullet fired by a disgruntled, refund-seeking Scientologist, Jerius Godeka, (later judged insane) did not go through the baby’s head?  “ . . [T]he fetus was unharmed.”  (The Oregonian, September 26, 1996)

Yes_____  No_____

 

 

 

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

            If yes on the above question, did you intend to leave the jury with an impression that you knew to be false, that Scientologists are in danger from protestors instead of the real situation, that is they are in danger from disgruntled members?"

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

            Your Motions in Limine precluded Henson or his witnesses from testifying that he was picketing, why he was picketing (the two women killed there in the spring of 2000), Scientology practices such as “fair game” or “TR-L” (Training Routine Lying) or the Scientology policy of paying witnesses for false testimony.  In fact, defendant was told by his lawyer that there was a good chance he would be sent to jail for contempt if he testified in his defense at all.  Did a person other than you write all or any part of the Motions in Limine or otherwise provide recommendations or assistance?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

            If the answer to the above question is yes, who beside yourself wrote parts or all of the Motions in Limine?

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

            Before Graham Berry was forced to withdraw from representing Henson, he observed (thinking you intended for him to look) two letters in the open case file on your desk.  One of those letters was from Alan C. Oberstein to Grover Trask and mentioned a meeting held May 24, 2000 (this was the day after Henson had discussed picketing at Gilman Springs on the Internet).  The other was from Scientology attorney, Gerald Feffer (of the major Washington, D.C. law firm Williams and Connally) to Deputy D.A. Kevin Ruddy. In his letter, Feffer refers to a prior meeting.  Do you remember these letters?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

            In reference to the above letters, do you remember letting Graham Berry read them?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

            Characterize the letters if you can, particularly as to who was at the referenced meetings.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

 SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

            As has been explained to Henson by a Hemet court clerk, in the year 2000 indictments were printed on 4-part carbonless paper.   The copy marked “DEFENDANTS COPY” is notice to the defendant and is mailed if the defendant is not handed the paper on release.  Is this your understanding of the indictment and notification process as it existed in September of 2000?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24:

            If the above was not the procedure at that time, please specify how defendants were notified.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

            Please explain the process where the words “Release with letter to Appear” are entered by the DA’s office into the computerized court records.  Particularly, is entering this information equivalent to a sworn statement the defendant has been notified?

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26

            If you answered yes on SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23, and the defendant was handed the “DEFENDANT’S COPY” in court at the time of arraignment, would that be evidence of an attempt to entrap the defendant into a “failure to appear” charge by not mailing the notice to appear?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 27:

            In court September 15, 2000 did you notice if the defendant was handed the “DEFENDANT’S COPY” in court on the day of arraignment? 

Was____  Was NOT____  Don’t remember____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 28:

            Would the lack of fold marks in the paper “DEFENDANT’S COPY” be physical evidence that it had not been mailed?

Yes_____  No_____

 

 

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29:

            After September 12, 2000 did you hear annoyance expressed by anyone in the DA’s office at the Scientology lawyers who inadvertently notified Henson of the indictment in a bankruptcy hearing September 13, 2000?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 29:

Henson attempted to report a crime, Section 132 of the Penal Code, which states that providing false information to a court is a felony, to Sheriff Deputy Secor April 9, 2001.  Henson was rebuffed, posting a in a letter to Secor dated April 13, 2001 that, the Sheriff deputy had told him there was no mechanism to report criminal acts of this type by a Deputy District Attorney.  Is this your understanding as well?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 30:

Before the end of the Henson trial, were you aware that Judge Wallerstein and Elliot Abelson knew each other?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31:

You insisted on Judge Walker recusing himself for knowing Tony Greer, a Sheriff Deputy who was to be a witness for the prosecution.  Was the real reason because Judge Walker had expressed First Amendment concerns about the case?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 32:

If no on the above, what was the reason to recuse when the defendant was not concerned about who Judge Walker knew?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

Part of the evidence in the case was derived from a 2004 exam conducted by Mr. Rosen where Henson was forced to answer questions about postings under civil rules.  This material was then introduced within a day or two in the criminal case.  Did the lack of Fifth Amendment protection for the defendant in the acquisition of this material concern you?

 Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34:

            In the Fall of 2004Ken Hoden was reliably reported to be locked up in Scientology’s notorious punishment gulag, the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) and had been for an unknown period.  He is obviously under duress at this time.  At the time of trial, was there anything you can remember about Ken Hoden’s demeanor or appearance that indicated he was under duress?

Yes_____  No_____

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 35:

            Just before a hearing, immediately outside the courtroom doors, and in the presence of other witnesses Elliot Abelson attempted to hand Henson a toothbrush tied with a black ribbon.  There is significance in the Mafia world to this “gift.”  The recipient is going to jail (the toothbrush) and he has been marked to be killed (the black ribbon).  At the time of trial were you aware of this “gift” or its symbolism?

Yes_____  No_____                                       (signed)

Dated Aug. 16, 2005                                        H. Keith Henson, pro se,

(Acting under the July 26, 2005 order of

Federal Bankruptcy Judge Arthur S. Weissbrodt)