From hkhenson@cogeco.ca Wed Nov 21 15:02:04 2001 Path: sn-us!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.lightlink.com!news2.lightlink.com From: hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Not missing, SEALED Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:02:04 GMT Organization: Temple of At'L'An Lines: 110 Message-ID: <3bfc0723.52926764@news2.lightlink.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.40.229 X-Original-Trace: 21 Nov 2001 15:02:19 -0500, 24.141.40.229 Xref: sn-us alt.religion.scientology:1004791 I have been extremely reluctant to accuse the judge in my case in Hemet of wrongdoing. However . . . . . Keith Henson 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