On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:21:34 GMT, [email protected] (Keith Henson) wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:14:32 GMT, [email protected] (Keith Henson)
> I have to reply to this thing--so if
>people have suggestions . . . .
>I might have to ask for more time.
Please take a look and either post or email me corrections or suggestions. The URLs links will be replaced by paper documents.
For the google impaired my email is hkhenson[at.] rogers.com
Thanks for the help.
In re:KEITH HENSON, Debtor
HILLARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER,
H. KEITH HENSON Defendant.
CASE NO.: 98-51326 ASW-7ADV.NO.035136
REQUEST FOR MORE TIME TO RESPOND
REQUEST TO PROPOUND INTERAGATORIES
David Cook, attorney for DEZOTELL, HODEN and WAGONER has requested the court rule in summary judgment to make the claims of these individuals non-dischargeable.
The motion has a certain superficial plausibility, but as the Court is well aware, this is an unusual case, as were the underlying cases. I refer the court to Exhibits A, an amicus brief I filed in a Florida case and Exhibit B, a letter to the Justice Department requesting a civil rights investigation.
A detailed reply to Mr. Cook's motion is a major undertaking and will take time to properly document. As an example, the primary witness against me, Ken Hoden is now locked up in Scientology's notorious punishment program (the RPF) and has been for some time--perhaps because of his being assigned responsibility for one or both of the women who were killed ("Depraved Indifference murder") at "Gold Base" in the Spring of 2000. If he was locked up or being threatened with the RPF in 2001 when he testified against me, the underlying criminal case (and therefore the DEZOTELL case) were fraud on the courts due to testimony given under duress.
In addition, it appears that one or more of the plaintiffs or their agents in this case has engaged in extralegal criminal harassment against the debtor. (Exhibit C a letter to the US trustee, Exhibit D Brantford Expositor story.)
An officer with the Ontario Provincial Police tracked the harassment and assault back through two levels of PI firms to a client in the US. The US client told him they are engaged in a lawsuit against me. I discussed the matter last week by telephone with David Cook and received a most evasive reply. I have attempted to discuss the matter with Elaine Seid through email, but her email does not work at the moment.
Since there are (in theory) multiple debtors it would be unfair to falsely accuse one of them. I request the court permit interrogatories to be served on the debtor parties to determine which one of them is engaging in the extralegal criminal harassment.
H. Keith Henson, pro se
Dated July 12, 2005