H. Keith Henson

P.O. Box 12441

Prescott, Arizona 86304

Telephone:  (928) 445-4412

hkhenson@rogers.com                 

 

Pro Se

 

 

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     EX PARTE MOTION FOR ORDER TO UNSEAL AND TRANSCRIBE INFORMALLY SEALED PARTS OF HEM014371 TRIAL RECORD.     Time: TO BE SET Date: TO BE SET Courtroom: 3099 Judge: Arthur S. Weissbrodt

            At the hearing before this court on November 7, 2006[1], the plaintiff's attorney David Cook was tasked with obtaining the entire trial record of the criminal trial upon which the civil trial was based and in turn upon which plaintiff's advisory motion to make the civil judgment non-dischargeable is based.

Mr. Cook has since asked for and been given a continuance to June 21, 2007.  The fact defendant is filing this motion rather than Mr. Cook indicates Mr. Cook has not yet taken steps to produce the complete record of the criminal trial.

            Defendant’s interest in the complete trial record extends back to 2001, when his considerable efforts to obtain the complete trial record for an appeal failed because the late Judge Wallerstein had, without notice, informally sealed all parts of the court reporter's transcript outside of the presence of the jury (Exhibit A Declaration of H. Keith Henson dated November 27, 2001).   At that time the court reporter, Amanda Fagan, stated that she had the tapes and could transcribe them, given a judicial order to unseal.

            This motion is a request for an unsealing order.

Defendant will bear the cost for the record to be transcribed.

There is a litany of irregularities overshadowing the record of case HEM014371, which defendant believes the complete record of the case will help to expose. 

First, defendant believes the complete record will show irregularities with respect to the Frank Oliver declaration and exhibits would have been critical to defendant’s criminal case on appeal (defendant had been denied witnesses and effectively gagged at trial by motions in limine).  While defendant and his attorney recollect that the exhibits were admitted to the record in open court (over the strenuous objections of DDA Robert K. Schwarz), the court's minutes of that day do not confirm the exhibits' being admitted, and the Frank Oliver declaration and exhibits vanished from the court record.

Second, defendant has long believed that Riverside DDA Tom Gage filed false information with the court in an attempt to entrap defendant into failure to appear; specifically that Mr. Gage falsely swore he had mailed the MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT AND NOTICE TO APPEAR to the defendant (Secor letter Exhibit B, April 13, 2001).  

The court may recall a hearing on September 13, 2000.  At that hearing defendant was surprised by a docket sheet introduced by RTC.  The docket sheet indicated there had been criminal charges filed against defendant in Hemet, California. 

Defendant still has the never-folded, never-mailed indictment papers that were handed him at the arraignment hearing in Hemet early on September 15, 2000.   The papers are available for inspection by the court.

Third, defendant was recently given Exhibit C (an arrest warrant with its fax cover sheet) in the context of an extradition hearing in Arizona.  This arrest warrant is dated September 15, 2000, the same day set for defendant's videotaped deposition in Hurtado vs. Berry (Case No. Bc208227 Superior Court Of California, County Of Los Angeles).  The deposition was scheduled on August 25, 2000, six days before the September 1, 2000 filing of the MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT AND NOTICE TO APPEAR by DDA Tom Gage.

Defendant filed for a protective order in the Hurtado case supra on September 12, 2000, before he knew of the arraignment.  There was no reason for defendant to be deposed in Hurtado vs Berry (at a location two hours travel time from Hemet).  The protective motion said in part:

"Mr. Berry has been my counsel in this and a number of other matters since then, and is currently my counsel for surrender notice from the District Attorney in Riverside County on pending criminal charges involving purported threats of the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction." 

 

Mr. Berry had inquired of the DA's office in Riverside (some 30 miles from the Hemet court where the NOTICE TO APPEAR was filed) if an arrest warrant was forthcoming.  He had been asked to inquire because defendant was aware of an investigation by Sheriff Deputy Tony Greer.   (RTC's lawyers obviously knew of the overlapping deposition and arraignment; the logical conclusion is they had set it up.) 

Defendant's protective motion in the Hurtado case apparently led RTC lawyers to conclude that defendant had somehow found out about the unnoticed arraignment.  On September 12, 2000, an agent for RTC bought a printout of the docket (evidence--the 09/12/2000 online court docket entry in HEM014371: MISCELLANEOUS PAYMENT OF $0.50 RECEIVED  Exhibit D [bottom of page]) that was introduced by RTC at the hearing in this bankruptcy case the next day.  This one page docket sheet from the previously unknown Hemet criminal case was filed in this court in an attempt to prejudice the court against defendant and salvage something from an attempt to entrap the defendant though overlapping deposition and arraignment dates.

As it turned out, on September 14, 2000, the court in the Hurtado case supra considered defendant's protective motion and required the deposition to be reset for later date with a referee to prevent possible physical violence by RTC's attorney Kendrick Moxon due to his threats during a three-way phone conversation with Mr. Berry's counsel in Hurtado.  The Hurtado deposition never materialized, since the case fell apart and Wager, one of Hurtado's lawyers, was investigated by the Los Angeles Police Department for soliciting perjury.  (The Los Angeles DA—for "political reasons"—did not accept the complaint filed by the LAPD.)

Given the hint from the docket sheet, defendant's council, Graham Berry, reached DDA Tom Gage by telephone late on September 14, 2000.  Mr. Gage reluctantly admitted that there was an arraignment for defendant the next morning.  Defendant reported the abusive conversation between Mr. Berry and Mr. Gage (misspelled "Guage") at the time in an Internet posting (Exhibit F) September 14, 2000 at 9:51 pm on alt.religion.scientology.  (The personal attacks by Mr. Gage against Mr. Berry in the conversation indicated close contact between Scientology operatives and Mr. Gage.)  Defendant traveled to Hemet that night and showed up for the arraignment when the court opened on September 15, 2000.   (Exhibit E, spanning Internet postings from September 13 [September 17] [September 18] to December 22 related to "Clark Bor,"  shows that an agent of Scientology believed that defendant knew about the arraignment by September 12.  Analysis on the later dates shows that "Bor" was most likely RTC lawyer Kendrick Moxon or someone closely associated with the RTC lawyers inside scientology.)

Defendant has long suspected (Secor letter, Exhibit B) an entrapment had been arranged between RTC lawyers and the Riverside DA's office (possibly including the District Attorney, Grover Trask).  Defendant believes this arrangement had as its ultimate goal arresting defendant for failure to appear, dramatically captured on videotape during deposition in the Hurtado case.  But defendant never expected to be handed supporting evidence for his suspicions, appearing in this motion as Exhibit C.

While the fax cover page for Exhibit C lists four charges and a date for the charges of 5/16/2001, the second sheet of the fax is an arrest warrant which was intended to support the fax cover sheet but it is in fact dated 09/15/2000, eight months earlier than the date specified on the cover page.  I.e., someone in the Riverside Sheriff Department pulled the wrong document.  Defendant believes that page 2 of Exhibit C is the arrest warrant intended for use in defendant’s expected arrest during the Hurtado (supra) videotaped deposition had the deposition gone forward on September 15, 2000.  

The warrant date, 09/15/2000, was the arraignment date for the criminal case now brought before the bankruptcy court through the advisory motion to make a civil judgment (entirely dependent on the criminal case) non dischargeable.

The warrant states:

Complaint under oath or penalty of perjury having been this day laid before me, that the crime(s) of violation of sections:

1) 422 PC-M, 2) 664/M422 PC-M, 3) 422,6 PC-M, 4) 1320(A) PC-M

Has been committed, and accusing Defendant,

KEITH HENSON

 

The "crime" behind the 4th charge, 1320(A)-"failure to appear"—that the warrant states "Has been committed" did not occur that day because (by happenstance involving this bankruptcy court as described above) defendant found out about the arraignment and appeared at the court early on the morning of September 15, 2000.  It is apparent that this arrest warrant "under oath or penalty of perjury" was not created on September 15, 2000, because the defendant not only did not "fail to appear" but was present when the court opened.  I.e., the "crime" of failure to appear simply didn't happen so it could not have been "laid before me."  Defendant wonders when this arrest warrant was created, what other documents are in the secret court files that Riverside County apparently keeps and how this one came to be presented as an official court document during Arizona extradition proceedings.

Exhibit C reveals to the defendant for the first time that Judge Wallerstein had ordered an arrest warrant for the failure-to-appear attempted entrapment.  Neither defendant nor his defense attorney, Jim Harr, knew that Judge Wallerstein had been involved in the criminal case seven months prior to his becoming the judge in defendant's criminal trial.  Defendant has been told that Judge Wallerstein had an absolute legal duty to disclose his previous involvement in the case to defendant and his attorney.  This arrest warrant, Exhibit C, was never entered into the docket of the case against defendant in Hemet (q.v.), further denying defendant and his lawyer knowledge of Judge Wallerstein's involvement in the overlapping arraignment and deposition attempt.  This is an irregularity overshadowing the record of the case and fitting a pattern of bias on the part of Judge Wallerstein that was manifested by excluding defendant's witnesses, gagging defendant's testimony by motions in limine, not permitting the defense to examine the jury questionnaires, permitting Scientology lawyer Elliot Abelson to openly coach DDA Robert K. Schwarz in court, admitting at the end of trial he knew former Mafia lawyer Abelson, and "sealing" part of the court record to exclude the admitted Frank Oliver material from the court record.

This previously unknown court document is evidence of fraud by a Riverside County court, filling out an arrest warrant for a set-up "crime" on the assumption it would occur because defendant had no notice.  This arrest warrant was generated before, perhaps 15-20 days before, the anticipated crime (i.e., the Riverside court itself was engaged in fraud in the attempted entrapment of the defendant).   It also presents the enigma of a signed and sealed arrest warrant that is not entered in the docket for the case.  It is now apparent that Riverside County keeps secret documents in its court files.  Defendant does not know how Riverside County will try to explain presenting this warrant as a legal document to a court in Arizona when it was not included in the docket for case HEM014371.

Finally, defendant notes that while Mr. Cook probably did not know of what appears to be intentional fraud on the federal bankruptcy court, there is little doubt from the papers filed by RTC for the hearing before this court on September 13, 2000, that the in-house RTC lawyers did know.   The court may wish to ask for an investigation to determine if the filing of this adversary motion based on an apparently corrupted trial court was an intentional fraud by Scientology lawyers on the federal bankruptcy court.

Given the above account of irregularities, defendant requests this court approve the attached order to unseal the record of case HEM014371 and to direct Amanda M. Fagan to transcribe the parts of the record of case HEM014371 heretofor informally sealed by the late Judge Wallerstein.

Since I am not providing a declaration to accompany this motion, I hereby declare that any statements of facts in the contents of this motion are true to the best of my knowledge and are made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States.

 

            Respectfully submitted,

 

            H. Keith Henson (pro se)                                  Dated   April 6, 2007