On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:14:32 GMT, [email protected] (Keith Henson) wrote:
There was an article in the Brantford paper today about my adventures with scientology and their PIs. I don't want to post it before I get permission, but if you were to ask on chat or something you be able to find a copy someone had scanned.
Sorry for not correcting the OCR errors in this legal document I received recently. Awful busy with other projects. If someone wants to reformat it, be my guest. I have to reply to this thing--so if people have suggestions . . . .
I might have to ask for more time.
I DAVID J. COOK, ESQ. (State Bar # 060859) ROBERT J. PERKISS, ESQ (State Bar # 62386) 2 EBRA D. LEW, ESQ. (State Bar # 114537) COOK, PERKISS & LEW 3 A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 333 Pine Street, Suite 300 4 San Francisco, California 94104 Tel: (415) 989?4730 5 Fax: (415) 989?0491 ile No. 45,658 6 Attorneys for Creditors HILARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, 7 AND BRUCE WAGONER 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION I I In re: CASE NO. 98?51326 ASW?7 12 KEITH HENSON, 13 Debtor. 14 15 HILARY DEZOTELL, an individual; ADV. NO. 0351.36 KEN HODEN, an individual: and 16 IBRUCE WAGONER, an individual, DECLARATION OF DAVID J. COOK, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY 17 Plaintiffs, JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P.§ 56 AND BKRTCY.C. § 7056 is vs. 19 H. KEITH HENSON, an individual, Debtor, Date: July 26, 2005 20 Time: 3:00 p.m. Defendant. Courtroom: 3099 21 Judge: Arthur A. Weissbrodt 22 1, DAVID J. COOK, hereby declare and state as follows: 23 1. 1 am one of the attorneys of record for the Creditors in the above?entitled action, am 24 duly authorized to practice before all courts in the State of California, and am familiar with the 25 facts and circumstances in this action. 26 2. Plaintiffs HILARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, AND BRUCE WAGONER 27 28 1
DECLARATION OF DAVID J. COOK. ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY jUDGMENT PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P.§ 56 AND BKRTCY.C. § 7056 ? CASE NO. 98?51326 ASW?7 / ADV. NO. 035136
I ("Plaintiffs") bring this nondischargeable action by virtue of the Amended Complaint filed on
2 pril 21, 2003. This action is brought under Bkrtcy.C. § 523(a)(6), to determine the
3 riondischargeability action of a civil judgment in the action in the Superior Court, County of
4 Riverside, Hemet Branch, entitled Hilai:y Dezotell, Ken Hoden, and Bruce Wagoner v. H. Keith
5 Henson, Case No. HEC 009 ("State Court Action"), on the basis that Plaintiff engaged in conduct
6 ?onstituting a willful and malicious injury, as defined under Bkrtcy.C. § 523(a)(6).
7 3. This is a classic nondischargeability action brought under the court's core jurisdiction
8 of I I U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A)(K)&(O).
9 4. These Plaintiffs are entitled to the application of collateral estoppel, in that the conduct
10 in the underlying civil action shows sufficient facts to demonstrate that the debt would be
I I nondischargeable under Bki?tcy.C. § 523(a)(6).
12 5. Collateral estoppel applies in a Bankruptcy Court proceeding when the State Court has
13 djudicated the claims of the parties leading to a final decision.
14 6. This case is even more straightforward in that the State Court chronology shows active
15 litigation both in the civil and criminal courts, as follows:
16 A. On April 26, 2001, HENSON was convicted by a jury for violating California Penal
17 Code § 422.6, for intimidating, threatening, and oppressing DEZOTELL, HODEN and
18 WAGONER on the basis of their religious beliefs. Penal Code § 422.6 provides that:
19 "No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall be force or threat of force, wil~fidly injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress or threaten any other 20 person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the 21 United States because of the other person's race, color, religion . . . " (Emphasis 21 added) 23 B. After his conviction, Debtor was released on his own recognizance until his scheduled
24 appearance for sentencing on May 16, 2001. However, Debtor fled to Canada, prior to his
25 sentencing date, arid on July 20, 2001, Defendant HENSON was sentenced in absentia to a term of 26 365 days subject to probation terms which he did not accept. Additionally, due to HENSON's 27 failure to appear, a bench warrant was issued which is still outstanding. 28 2 DECLARATION OF DAVID J. COOK, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P.§ 56 AND BKRTCY.C. § 7056 ? CASE NO. 98?51326 ASW?7 / ADV. NO. 035136 2
I C. On July 30, 200 1, Plaintiffs filed a civil action against HENSON for a violation of their
2 ?ivil rights pursuant to Civil Code § 52. 1, a parallel statute to the hate crime statute under which
3 HENSON was convicted. The State Court Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A " which is
4 attached hereto and incorporated herein.
5 D. On June 14, 2002, Plaintiffs in that civil action filed a Motion for Summary
6 Adjudication of Liability on the first cause of action for violation of civil rights. The motion was
7 based on the adjudicated facts underlying HENSON's criminal conviction which created a
8 collateral estoppel in the civil case. Defendant HENSON filed an opposition, and the court
9 granted after a contested hearing on August 26, 2002.
10 E. On September 4, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting a final judgment and an
I I order: (1) for permanent injunctive relief to be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant
12 HENSON; (2) for statutory civil penalties in the amount of $75,000 (S25,000 per Plaintiff); and
13 (3) for reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Civil Code § 52. 1 (h), in the amount of $23,666.65.
14 That motion for final judgment was unopposed by Defendant HENSON and was granted by the
15 Court on October 7, 2002. The final j udgment was signed on October 7, 2002 and served on
16 Defendant HENSON's then counsel on October 15, 2002 and the permanent injunction was signed
17 on October 8, 2002 and served on Defendant HENSON's counsel on October 9, 2002. Copies of
18 the final judgment and permanent injunction are attached hereto as Exhibits "B " and "C" which
19 are attached hereto and incorporated herein.
20 7. The essential facts in the underlying State Court litigation is that the Defendant engaged
21 in a course of conduct of unmitigated terror, stalking, and harassment. The key allegations are
22 found at paragraphs 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the State Court Complaint marked Exhibit "A " which provide
23 as follows:
24 "T From approximately May 26, 2000 through and including approximately September 3, 2000, Defendant engaged in anti?re!igious conduct in violation of the 25 civil rights of Plaintiffs in repeated, planned, willful, and malicious acts of harassment, stalking, threatening behavior, and other acts inspired by his hatred for 26 Scientology and Scientologists. 27 28 3 DECLARATION OF DAVID J. COOK, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P.§ 56 AND BKRTCY.C. § 7056 ? CASE NO. 98?51326 ASW?7 / ADV. NO. 035136 3
1 8. Throughout that period, on repeated occasions, Henson followed Plaintiffs from their homes to work and from work to their homes, taking photographs and writing 2 down license plate numbers, lurking around their residences and their Church employer's facility, and taunting and harassing them because of their religion. He 3 stalked the entrance to their Church with anti?Scientology signs that were derogatory, menacing, and hate?filled. 4 9. Over time, Defendant's harassment and intimidation escalated to the point of threats of violence such that Plaintiffs began taking different routes from their 5 homes to their Church employer's facility and refused to go outside their residences and place of employment out of fear of Defendant, while the Church had to hire 6 security professionals for the protection of its staff. 10. Defendant's menacing and threatening conduct culminated when he, along 7 with a cohort, used a Global Positioning System ("GPS") device to plot the satellite coordinate of several buildings located at the religious facility at which Plaintiff 8 work, calculating sufficient coordinate information to launch an accurate missile strike on those targets, and posting their coordinates to the Internet, thereby inciting 9 others with the suggestion that just such a missile strike might be made by using the coordinates he calculated." 10 8. The Riverside County District Attorney's Office charged and ultimately obtained a 11 12 ?onviction under Pen.C. § 422.6, based upon the intimidation, threats, and oppression suffered by
13 laintiffis as a result of their religious beliefs. The ensuing criminal conviction ultimately led to
14 the successful filing and prosecution of the civil action entitled Dezotell v. Henson, Riverside
County Superior Court Case No. 009673, which was concluded by way of a final judgment based 15 16 upon the same conduct and the entry of a monetary award.
17 9. The Debtor was convicted of a crime of essential religious persecution which was
18 followed by a civil judgment based upon the same set of facts. This is not the type of conduct
19 which could be considered as accidental, negligent, or even reckless. The Debtor intended to
20 ?orninit these acts for his own personal gratification and satisfaction.
21 10. Plaintiffs relief is seeking a Judgment in this court that the Final Judgment of October
,Y) 7, 2002 (Exhibit "B") and the Permanent Injunction of October 8, 2002 (Exhibit "C") be declared
23 nondischargeable, both 1) for the monetary relief of $75,000 for the three Plaintiffs, plus
24 $23,666.65 for attorney's fees; and 2) any injunctive relief, including the injunctive relief as set
25 forth specifically in the Permanent Injunction of Exhibit "C. "
26 11. Plaintiff is entitled to an order declaring that the above State Court Judgment, both the 27 monetary and non?monetary portion, including all injunctive relief, is nondischargeable under 28 4 DECLARATION OF DAVID J. COOK, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P.§ 56 AND BKRTCY.C. § 7056 ? CASE NO. 98?51326 ASW?7 / ADV. NO. 035136 4
I Bkr?tcy.C. § 523(a)(6). 2 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 3 foregoing is true and correct. 4 Executed on June 21, 2005 at San Francisco, California 5 6 /s/ David J. Cook DAVID J. COOK, ESQ. (SB# 060859) 7 8 F.\dje henson.sj2 9 10 17056 ? CASE NO. 98?51326 ASW?7 / ADV. NO. 035136 5