On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:30:08 GMT, [email protected] (Keith Henson) wrote:
>Being in Canada it often takes quite a while to get court matters
>through the mail and sometimes they get lost entirely. But I have a
>nice collection for you that I will post on this thread.
#3 in a series
H. Keith Henson
2237 Munns Ave.
Oakville, ON L6H 3M9 Canada
In Pro Per
RIVERSIDE SUPERIOUR COURT
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff/Respondent, vs KEITH HENSON, Defendant/Appellant
Appellate No. 003226Case No. HEM014371
MOTION TO AUGMENT UNDER RULE 12(a),
MOTION FOR ORDER TO "UNSEAL" AND
TRANSCRIBE RECORD Cal Rules of Ct 4, 12, 12.5, 243.1-243.4
Date:Time:Courtroom: Judge Waters
Rule 12, Augmenting and correcting the record, reads:
(1) At any time, on motion of a party or its own motion, the reviewing court may order the record augmented to include:
(A) any document filed or lodged in the case in superior court; or
(B) a certified transcript--or agreed or settled statement--of oral proceedings not designated under rule 4.
(2) A party must attach to its motion a copy, if available, of any document or transcript that it wants added to the record. If the reviewing court grants the motion it may augment the record with the copy.
(3) If the party cannot attach a copy of the matter to be added, the party must identify it as required under rules 4 and 5. Notice was given to the trial court on January 8, 2002 to augment the clerk's record and part of reporter's transcript, under Rule 12(b)(1). (Exhibit A.)
Rule 12(b)(2) reads: "The clerk or reporter must comply with a notice under (1) within 10 days after it is filed. If the clerk or reporter fails to comply, the party may serve and file a motion to augment under (a), attaching a copy of the notice."
It has been more than ten days. A telephone call on January 17 to the court reporter Amanda Fagan, 909-955-1590, elicited no return call. Exhibit B is a letter from Ms Fagan informing Mr. Leipold that the remaining portions of the reporter's transcript have been "sealed" by Judge Wallerstein.
Rule 243.1(d) requires an express finding to seal records. Rule 243.2(b) requires a motion to seal records. Neither a motion to seal nor any express finding of a reason to seal under Rules 243.1(d)(1) through 243.1(d)(5) is in any court record of the case available to me.
Although Faretta v. California (1975), 422 U.S. 806, 821; 45 L.Ed.2d 562; 95 S.Ct. 2525, is primarily about forcing counsel on unwilling defendants, there are extensive notes on the history of law. Footnote 17 for example, "The court of Star Chamber was an efficient, somewhat arbitrary arm of royal power . . .." and " . . . the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard of basic individual rights."
Charles I made extensive use of the Court of Star Chamber to persecute dissenters, including the Puritans who fled to New England. This puts the arbitrary use of judicial power at the very root of the reasons the United States came to exist.
"Sealing" part of the transcript critical to appeal without due process is akin to a one judge informal Star Chamber proceeding.
According to Ms Fagan she was instructed by the judge in a hallway not to transcribe motions in limine or Voir Dire. Her only justification of this breach of the Rules was "He's the judge." (Exhibit C Henson declaration of November 17, 2001 and D Henson Declaration of January 22, 2002.)
Even if the California appeal courts apply fugitive disentitlement to my appeal, this matter is not mooted. I will require the records described per Rule 12(a)(3) in the attached notice filed January 8, 2002 for Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board proceedings.
Defendant/Appellant can attend a hearing by telephone if the court deems an appearance in this matter necessary.
H. Keith Henson, pro se Dated January 22, 2002