On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 12:58:34 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>Diane Richardson wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 13:59:45 GMT, "Kevin Brady"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >"Diane Richardson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]
snip >> >> Keith Henson is not a police officer, in case you hadn't noticed.
To some extent citizens have a duty to assist the police. >> >I had! In fact, the police have probably been paid not to do that job, so I
>> >am glad that others exist who will take the responsibility seriously.
>> Actually, it was OSHA who investigated Stacy Moxon's death.
>> Do you "know for a fact" the Scientology also bribed OSHA? :)
Both OSHA and the police (Tony Greer) investigated. For my part in the investigation I put Tony in contact with Jesse Prince and Warrior, both of whom have a great deal of insight into how scientology works. They recommended Tony obtain and read Stacy's ethics file to see if she was the kind of person who would do something which would get her in a lot of trouble. Scientology refused to let Tony see it. Tony will likely deny it, but before I was arrested he told me that in his opinion Stacy had been murdered, but that it would never come out until someone who knew how and why defected from scientology. There are indications Tony's opinion is widely shared among local law enforcement. snip >> >> It's interesting that in all his contemporaneous posts about his
>> >> activities, Keith Henson never once claimed he was following those
>> >> buses to learn more about Scientologists' habits and patterns, so that
>> >> he could be a more effective protestor.
It is in the articles you reposted, getting life saving information to them in the mail as well as on a picket sign. >> >You are correct that I was projecting my own intentions onto Keith's
>> >actions. I do not know his intentions, any more than you do. The man to
>> >ask is Keith Henson.
>> No need to ask Keith Henson at this late date. His expressed his
>> intentions quite clearly last summer, at the same time he was engaging
>> in these activities.
>> A google search shows him expressing his intentions quite clearly.
>> >> Rather, he spent a good deal of time remarking upon their "paranoid"
>> >> reactions to his presence.
>> >Perhaps it was because their reaction was so remarkable?
>> No, because, as he said quite clearly in his voluntary meeting with
>> sherriff's office personnel, he got a kick out of it. He enjoyed
>> creating fear and consternation in people he views as less than
How on earth does she justify this? I view the unfortunate victims of scientology or other cults like I would victims of disease, an information based disease. >> It was a game to him and nothing more -- as if he
>> was a kid stirring up an anthill and then laughing over all the
>> ants scurrying around to repair the damage.
Showing up with a sign saying No OTs or about the recent victims does damage? Ok, maybe it does do psychological damage if you believe in imaginary OT powerz, but is telling the emperor he has no clothes a crime? >> Except in this case he was dealing with human beings, not ants.
>> Even now he refuses to acknowledge their humanity, though,
>> which I find quite sad.
Please cite an example. snip >Here is my take on the whole thing. First of all the possibility that
>any ONE person would even have access to, let alone the ability to, shoot
>off an ICBM is patently ridiculous.
And one of the few scientologists who reads ars, Brian McPherson told me it was ridiculous on tape. I transcribed that tape and posted after a picket Gregg and I did in late May. >Secondly - all Keith was doing was picketing - expressing his opinion in a
>constitutionally approved way. He was not threatening violence
>in any way shape or form.
>His following cars etc. was not stalking but self-protection - he has and
>his family has been followed, harassed and so on for years. He has the
>right to protect himself and his family from such harassment.
The *only* cars I followed were being used by scientologist PIs. And that was always after I had turned the tables on them when they were following me an I and wanted to get their license plate numbers. >He NEVER once tried to in any way hurt anyone.
>The case was presented in such a way that his posts re: Tom Cruise
>Missiles were out of context. It was HUMOUR. The really sad part is that
>the jury never got to hear what Keith Henson was really protesting - which
>is the illegal, immoral , and unethical behaviours of the COS. He was out
>there because people have died because of
>COS neglect or ignorance or whatever. He pickets and protests because the
>COS as an entity is evil. It is not about religion - and boy am I sick of
>that red herring. The COS likes to trot that one out so it can appear
>sympathetic - all it does is look pathetic.
>The COS made sure that the DA did not allow ANY testimony regarding the
>COS' treatment of Keith Henson and his family nor that it was the
>religion mentioned in the charge.
That was not the big problem, what they did to me was not really a proper defense except perhaps morally. The problem was that the motions in limine the judge approved forbid mentioning scientology practices such as lying on the witness stand and policies such as fair game. Of course the entire "prosecution" was fair game. The "victims" were engaged in fair game by making false accusations and according to OSA, HCO Policy letter of 1 September 1969 (revised 24 September 1983) that was made part of the court record, they were each paid a thousand dollars by scientology's International Finance Office for their false testimony. This policy, if it was carried out, is a violation of California laws, Section 186 of the Penal code IIRC. My expert witness, Frank Oliver, was prepared to testify on this subject but Judge Wallerstein ruled he could not. These three rulings gutted my defense that they were lying and we had to hope the jury would see the ridiculousness of the charges and understand that the law was being misapplied. Keith Henson >Reading the reports from those inside the Base is really enlightening. It
>was NOT Keith Henson that inspired fear - but Hoden who did so. Keith
>Henson has never been a physical threat to the COS. The only threat he
>represents is that he tells the truth about their unethical, immoral, and
>The whole court case was a disgrace to jurisprudence. The judge did not
>allow a proper defense to be given,the DA was puppeting what the COS
>lawyers wanted him to. During the trial and after posts here to ARS
>showed how happy the COS was - and how they planned on making it even
>harder for Keith once he was in jail.