Please let me know if I missed anyone or if there are better ways to connect them to the extrinsic fraud issue.
H. Keith Henson
176 Henry St., #45
Brantford, Ontario N3S 5C8
Telephone: (519) 770-0646
(519) 774-1620 cell
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
In re:KEITH HENSON,Debtor
HILLARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER,
vs.H. KEITH HENSON
CASE NO.: 98-51326 ASW-7
REQUEST FOR THE COURT TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN INVOLVED PARTIES AS PARTIES
FOR EXTRINSIC FRAUD INVESTIGATION
David Cook, attorney for DEZOTELL, HODEN and WAGONER moved the court to rule in summary judgment July 26, 2005, to make the claims of these individuals non-dischargeable. In doing so creditors Dezotell, Hoden and Wagoner brought the civil case, which is entirely based on debtor's criminal case, into the bankruptcy court.
The court allowed the debtor more time and permitted him to propound interrogatories to investigate debtor's claim of extrinsic fraud in the criminal case:
Debtor has propounded several interrogatories to date. However, the clerk of the Hemet court returned two interrogatories claiming they were not in the correct form "to be filed" when there was no intent for them to be filed, only responded to by the clerk and one of the three judges involved in the debtor's criminal case. No amount of explaining to the court clerks what an interrogatory is has been effective, nor do they return phone calls.
Debtor is forced to return to the court asking the court to name as parties certain people and agencies debtor has reason to believe have information about the extrinsic fraud in the criminal case and to permit limited use of subpoenas to produce documents. At this point the documents envisioned to be subpoenaed include the contents of the DA's files containing the two letters referenced below and procedures from the Hemet court, including the way indictments are processed and filed, and the procedure for picking jury members and determining that the people who show up are actually the people summoned to jury duty. This is an unusual request and needs to be justified. Debtor attaches Exhibit A, a timeline (created and filed with the Riverside Grand Jury on April 14, 2001) of events from May 17, 2000 to September 17, 2000, which provides the names of various people in the Riverside County DA's office who were associated with the prosecution of debtor wherein extrinsic fraud is claimed. The list of people named and connected to specific acts on specific days includes:
Grover Trask, the elected Riverside county District Attorney
Alan E. Oberstein a Scientology attorney
Deputy D.A. Kevin Ruddy
May 24: Scientology attorney Alan E. Oberstein meets with the Riverside County District Attorney Trask regarding Mr. Henson. [This was one day after debtor had discussed picketing Scientology's compound at Gilman Springs near Hemet, CA, on the Internet over the death of Ashlee Shaner, May 17, 2000.]
July 27: Scientology attorney Alan C. Oberstein writes to the Deputy District Attorney referring to the May 24, 2000, meeting and encloses selected Internet postings by Henson.
Aug. 16: Scientology attorney, Gerald Feffer (of Williams and Connally, Washington, D.C.) writes to Deputy D.A. Kevin Ruddy. In his letter, Feffer refers to the prior meeting between them and sets forth factual and legal arguments that Henson should be arrested for extortion.
In addition, debtor requests that other people be named as parties:
On the eve of trial, these three were substituted out as "victims" and Ken Hoden was substituted in. While this might not be extrinsic fraud, it is certainly odd. Debtor is aware of no other cases where victims were substituted in and out like basketball players.
Cindy Garcia, senior clerk at the Hemet court--limited to obtaining information on standard indictment and jury selection and identifications procedures.
Deputy Tony Greer the deputy Sheriff who under pressure signed the original "weapons of mass destruction" (11418.5 PC) warrant after stating:
"In reviewing all of the Internet postings I did not see any direct threat of violence towards the church or any personnel of the church."
Gavino Idda, an "internet expert" for the Church of Scientology who provided the Internet postings to Tony Greer.
Bill Yaude cited as a close associate of Givino Idda by Tory Christman, probably the source of the "Dexter" postings discussed by Tony Greer.
Bernie Skiles who (with Kevin Ruddy) met with Tony Greer July 31, 2000
Edwin Richardson, Private Investigator for Scientology. "Senior Investigator Skiles form the Riverside County District Attorney's Office requested the documents from Richardson." August 8, 2000.
John Doe 1, the second person with Edwin Richardson. He was in error referred to as "Frank Petty" who at trial turned out to be someone else. (Photo attached as Exhibit_)
Ava Paquette of Moxon & Kobrin and
Kendrick Moxon In a letter dated August 18, 2000 cited at point G of the March 12, 2001 declaration (Exhibit B), Debtor makes the case for extrinsic fraud in that declaration: that Ms Paquette and her law firm conspired with members of the DA's office to set up an overlapping deposition and arraignment for September 15, 2000 particularly:
Tom Gage who signed the indictment paper (TWG) on September 1, 2000 and is thought to have purposefully withheld mailing the "Defendant's copy." Points M and N of Exhibit B and original posting Exhibit_)
Leonard Mandel who was with Tom Gage September 15, 2000.
Robert K. Schwarz, the junior DDA assigned to prosecute the case, now a resident of Boise, Idaho.
Judge Albert Wojcik chief judge of the Hemet Court at the time. In chambers Judge Wojcik expressed "fear of Scientology" and would not take the case for that reason.
Judge Rodney L. Walker, the first judge assigned to the case. Robert K. Schwarz had him recused for knowing Deputy Tony Greer, as "a litigation tactic." Judge Walker was concerned with the First Amendment rights of the debtor. Judge Wallerstein, a retired municipal court judge, was not. At the end of trial, Judge Wallerstein admitted he knew:
Elliot Abelson, attorney for Scientology. A prosecutor turned Mafia pornography lawyer, he coached DDA Robert K. Schwarz throughout the trial and later took over opposition to an appeal.
Amanda Fagan, court reporter. From a declaration by debtor November 27, 2000:
"3. When I asked her why the transcript for the morning of April 19, 2001 was missing, Amanda stated that the Judge Wallersheim informally (in the hallway) told her not to prepare the voir dire and Motions in Limine parts of the transcript. "4. When I expressed amazement that the court records could be sealed so casually, she replied, "He's the Judge." "5. I asked her if she was aware that the transcript was in conflict with the minute order of that day. She indicated she was not aware and was irritated at being asked.
See also the declaration (http://www.operatingthetan.com/HarrDec.gif) of James J. Harr dated Dec 18, 2001 (Exhibit _) and contemporary posts on April 19 and 20, 2001.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
The morning started off with a big win. Judge Wallerstein took up the motion we filed yesterday, and ruled against us again, taking only a few minutes. Afterwards, Jim asked him if the motion had been filed with the court, and, after a short interchange with his clerk, it was determined right there on the record that the motion and exhibit were filed.
Sealing the part of the record by ordering the court clerk not to transcribe material in conflict with Judge Wallerstein's minute order for the day--which did not include the motion and exhibit being filed--was clearly extrinsic fraud by denying debtor's main issue for appeal.
Samuel D. Rosen. Scientology attorney. Rosen's 2004 examination early in 2004 (date not certain but before March 12, 2001 where it is mentioned in Exhibit_)
4. A critical issue in this case is the People's attempt to authenticate certain alleged Internet postings by the Defendant. When the prosecutor assigned to the case found out that the Defendant would not stipulate to authentication, as is his right under the United States Constitution and the California Constitution, a Scientology attorney, within days, tried to get the Defendant to authenticate these very postings in a Scientology deposition of the Defendant in the Defendant's pending chapter 13 bankruptcy. A transcript of Defendant's testimony was then given to the prosecuting attorney and presented to the Defendant's attorney as proof of authentication. This is clear evidence of the power of the Scientology machine and the dubious way in which the district attorney was willing to gain an advantage regarding the authentication of certain documents by such tactics A copy of the relevant pages of this transcript is the possession of the district attorney and the attorney for the Defendant and can be produced if requested by the court
Bypassing the debtor's protection under the Constitution by using a bankruptcy 2004 hearing where (under civil rules) a person cannot refuse to answer is extrinsic fraud or close to it.
RTC. RTC is already a party, but not a party to the Dezotell et al. motion. The attorneys in the Dezotell civil case cost almost $25,000. The named parties are penurious (Sea Org members are paid no more than $50 a week) so who paid for it? Debtor knows the papers were prepared by Mr. Rosen's office because extraneous papers from other cases in his office were attached to the original service. (Posting August 22, 2001, Exhibit _) Neither he nor any members of his firm were ever named as attorneys of record. While having other firms do legal work is not common it isn't illegal either. But it does raise the question of how many parties are actually before court as creditors. For the purpose of answering this question (and if the court will indulge the debtor who is still curious about who hired the PI that assaulted him in Canada):
David L. Cook, the current attorney for Dezotell et al.
Gilbert Y. Nishino, SBN 100036, the first attorney
Robert A. Davis, Jr., State Bar No. 160357 and
Joseph M. Wojcik, State Bar No. 177296 who took over when the first attorney was disbarred. (Yes, the son of the first judge.)
Barry A. Reimer, Commissioner of the Riverside County Superior Court who ruled on the civil case. Debtor's lawyer at the time thought the Commissioner had ruled under duress.
Only some of these people were directly involved with the extrinsic fraud, but all of them are believed by debtor to have information that would contribute to supporting an extrinsic fraud motion.
Depending on the difficulty of getting some of these people to respond, debtor may be required to ask for more time in a subsequent motion.
H. Keith Henson, pro se
Dated August xx, 2005