On Sat, 18 May 2002 07:32:26 GMT, [email protected] (Keith Henson) wrote:
>This is going to be filed Tue. This is late draft, but if you have
>comments or fixes and can get them here by about Monday evening I can
>work them in.
Reply to selected points of defendant's SCHEDULE "A" Claim No. 841/2001
Defendants in this case and 842/2001 were surprised that SCHEDULE "A" made no references to evidence while requiring plaintiffs to produce evidence. Plaintiffs supply the attached exhibits A-V.
>2. "The plaintiff is ordinarily a resident of the State of California."
The plaintiff is a recognized refugee claimant, Client ID 4460-0022 and has been for the previous 11 months.
>3. "In or about late April, 2001, the plaintiff was convicted in
>the State of California for what in Canada would be known as
>uttering threats and hate crimes."
I was convicted in highly irregular trial of California Penal Code 422.6, "intimidate/threaten/oppress because of race, religion, or colour." Besides the reality that I did not "intimidate/threaten/oppress" the 735 cult inmates behind razor wire and protected by guards armed with assault rifles, I could not have been convicted of this crime in Canada because Scientologists are not an identifiable "race or colour" leaving only "religion." Scientology is not recognized as a religion in Canada. It does not even have charity status here or in England (for good reasons).
> "The plaintiff was to be sentenced by the court in California on May 16, 2001."
In a case marked by numerous irregularities in procedure and violation of the rules of the court such as setting an arraignment without notice, sealing parts of the record without due process, and in limine ruling prohibiting presenting a defence. These human rights violations form the basis of my refugee claim.
>4. "Prior to May 16, 2001, the plaintiff fled from California
>and entered Canada, where he took up residence with
>William Gregg Hagglund."
I came to Canada to take part in a picket May 12, 2001 with the intent to return on 13th. Mr. Hagglund suggested (because of numerous *public* implied death threats against me by scientologists on the news group alt.religion.scientology) that I seek the counsel of a Canadian immigration lawyer. I did, and made a decision to stay based partly on Mr. Mamann's surprising opinion that I had a legitimate refugee claim.
>6. "Subsequent to May 16, 2001, Immigration Canada
> issued a warrant for the arrest of the plaintiff."
This is a misleading statement made in an attempt for the police to distance themselves from actions for which they are responsible. Exhibit M by Steve Smith states:
"(NOTE: Church of Scientology in Toronto brought Henson's presence to the attention of police)"
This note indicates that the Toronto Police *solicited" the warrant from Immigration.
Furthermore, July 27, 2001 close to two months after Immigration dropped their concerns that I presented any danger to the public, Exhibit U (Immigration file pages 179 and 185), a fax from Steve Smith's office to Steve Smith at Det. Glavin's fax number, (416) 808-4545, indicates the possibility that--in spite of the ajudicator's ruling--Officers Galvin and Smith were still pursuing a vendetta (on behalf of Scientology?) against me and/or Mr. Hagglund.
>7. "The defendants plead that prior to effecting the arrest
>of the plaintiff, the Fugitive Squad of the Toronto Police Service
>had received information that not only had the plaintiff been
>convicted of what in Canada would be known as uttering threats
>and hate crimes, "he was also an explosives expert, and knowing
>that he was now a fugitive from justice, they decided to proceed
>very cautiously for their own protection."
See the response to 3 above re "uttering threats and hate crimes." It is apparent from Exhibit M that Toronto Fugitive squad "received information" from Scientology.
Scientology is well known for fabrications. They fabricated evidence and had the author Paulette Cooper indicted for making bomb threats. (Exhibits R-4 and R-5) As for "explosives expert" using Google you will indeed find 17 web pages using the word combination of "Keith Henson" and "explosives expert." Every single one of them a scientology fabrication or has an origin in a scientology fabrication. "Explosives experts" are trained people who work on bomb squads for police departments or have formal training in the chemistry of explosives or blaster's licenses. I have never taken a training course in explosives--not even to the extent of the millions who have had such training in the armed forces.
Use of "Keith Henson" "expert" in Google groups gives places where I refer to experts, but no cases I can find where I refer to myself as one. It is not that I am very modest; just you can't get away with such fabrications with Internet savvy people.
From: Keith Henson ([email protected])
Subject: Re: it's a simple queshton.
Date: 2000-09-29 10:08:36 PST
Androdeax <[email protected]> wrote:
> can any one give me some quick and easy directions on how to make a simple
Sure we *could*. There are at least millions of people who know how.
But how about thinking about it first. A little dialog perhaps.
What do you want to do with this item?
For example, the big fireworks noise makers (solutes) are sometimes called bombs. If that is what you are interested in, we can point you to the right news group and you might be able find an expert who would let you learn to make and use them under supervision. This will not eliminate the possibility of being hurt or even killed, but it greatly reduces it.
>8. "On or about May 28, 2001, members of the Fugitive
>Squad of the Toronto Police Service and members of the Tactical
>Response Unit of the Halton Regional Police Service arrested the
>plaintiff in the parking lot of a mall in Oakville as a requirement of
>the warrant issued by Immigration Canada."
It was an Immigration warrant so there is a real question as to why Toronto was involved. Immigration as well as the Toronto police (and anyone else who read Net postings such as Exhibit J on May 17) would know I was staying with Mr Hagglund in Oakville. Immigration normally routes requests for people to be picked up through local police. So why was Toronto going into Halton territory? Does this indicate malice? Or was it an attempt to get me out of the country and into Scientology's hands before I could apply for refugee status the next day? In particular were the Toronto Police acting for Scientology? (Beyond being lied to and used.)
>9. "The defendants specifically deny that any of the plaintiff's
>Charter rights were violated, and plead that they acted without
>malice and in accordance with due process of law."
With respect to the Halton Police, I have no evidence at this point that they acted with malice. They are not blameless because they clearly failed to read the warrant before acting on it or they would have noticed the inconsistency of an arrest warrant issued 4 days previously for a person who officer Glavin told them had "fled to Canada this A.M." (Exhibit Q) Though I have so far been unable to locate a rule to this effect, common sense dictates that arresting officers should be required to *read* the arrest warrant. The Toronto officers may not have had the warrant with them, certainly I do not remember being shown a warrant. The notes of Halton officers Springstead, Cross, and Labanch mention an immigration warrant. Officer Scott refers to it as a US warrant, which is quite odd because Canada does not arrest on US warrants. It is clear from Exhibit Q, the arrest report three of them signed, that the Halton officers did not read the warrant. Had they read the warrant they would have called into question the unprecedented use of the ETF on *non-criminal* inquiry warrant.
Exhibit V is "Extracts from the ruling of the Supreme Court in Canada in Hill v. Church of Scientology, file no. 24216, 20 February and 20 July 1995." In this ruling the Supreme Court upheld the highest libel award ($1.6 million) to that date noting:
"Every aspect of this case demonstrates the very real and persistent malice of Scientology."
The entire document is interesting reading. Paragraph 27 starts: "Patricia Felske is a Scientologist who . . . ." and goes on to describe various ways she contributed to as an agent of Scientology to the malicious actions against Crown Attorney Hill.
"32 From the contents of the Felske Memorandum, which only came to light at the trial of the present action, it is evident that prior to the start of the contempt hearing, Scientology was well aware that no sealed envelopes had been opened. Yet it still proceeded with a contempt prosecution against Casey Hill."
"34 ... Morris Manning met with Patricia Felske and two other representatives of Scientology during the weekend prior to the hearing of the contempt motion. However, he testified that they were not interviewed for the purpose of giving evidence at the contempt trial ... Cromarty J. characterized the failure to call these individuals as 'a most eloquent omission'.
This is the same Patricia Felske upon whom the Toronto police (and indirectly the Halton police) relied upon for much of the information used to justify the use of extreme force in my arrest. Al Buttnor, the other original source in the May 14 report to the police (Exhibit F) hold the position in Scientology occupied by Jacky Matz, mentioned for being convicted of breaches of trust.
There is no question whatsoever that Ms Felske, Mr Buttnor and Corporate Scientology acted with malice toward Mr. Hagglund and me. Was that malice transferred to the police so that they knowingly acted as agents of Scientology? For example, did the Toronto officers know (as Scientology does) that the "explosives expert" danger was a complete Scientology fabrication? (When I actually *did* work with explosives back in the 60s and 70s, I used them responsibly, never hurt people or damaged property, and was never even questioned about my uses of them.)
There is circumstantial evidence leading to the conclusion that two of the Toronto officers did know and also to the conclusion that the Halton officers did not know. After my arrest the Halton officers milled around eager to start searching the car. They asked the Toronto officers several times and frustrated with a lack of response, started questioning Mr. Hagglund (who was in handcuffs) what was in the car without even informing him of his rights. (Mr Hagglund openly told the Halton officers that the car contained picketing supplies, signs, handout flyers, and a battery powered megaphone.)
There is other evidence of malice. Officer Bonenfante said loud enough for the officer holding Mr. Hagglund to hear that: "No American will ever get refugee status." He said something else quietly to Mr. Hagglund that also indicated malice. Mr Hagglund might testify to what he was told if asked.
Notably lacking attached to this document is any evidence defendant officers relied upon in their determination that I was thought by them at the time to be a dangerous person. Indeed given their complete lack of interest in searching the car or even asking me a single question about "explosive or weapons" there is every indication that they had no expectations that I was dangerous to arrest at all.
In upholding the $1.6 million dollar judgement in the Casey Hill case , the Supreme Court of Canada said: "As an experienced lawyer, Manning ought to have taken steps to confirm the allegations that were being made."
As experienced officers, the defendants ought to have taken steps to confirm the allegations that were being made--especially considering the people and the group that were making them. That group, Scientology, is a notorious international organization with numerous members convicted of felonies, including manslaughter, in many nations, and a criminal conviction in Canada for Breaching the Trust by infiltrating (among others) the Toronto Police itself.
Instead, they make statements such as those in Exhibit Y.
>10. "The defendants specifically deny that any injuries were
>suffered by the plaintiff during or as a consequence of his arrest
>on May 28, 2001, and put the plaintiff to the strict proof thereof."
Possibly because I was not in the driver's seat, I have not suffered nightmares the way Mr. Hagglund has for almost a year. Still, forcing a man in his late 50s face down into a puddle at gunpoint cannot be considered anything but a violent act. If unjustified, it is assault even if the police do it.
>11. The defendants plead that following the plaintiff's arrest,
>the plaintiff was taken into the custody of Immigration Canada.
I agree that the paperwork says this, but I was not even introduced to an Immigration officer. As far as I could tell, it was the Halton and Toronto police. However, I would not object to the court or the defendants making Officer Steve Smith a party.
>12. The defendants state that at all material times they were
>acting in the performance or purported performance of a public
>duty, and plead that as a consequence of the plaintiff's action not
>having been commenced within six months of the date of his arrest,
>pursuant to the provisions of section 7 of the Public Authorities
>Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.38, the plaintiff's action
>is statute barred.
The date on the filing is November 28, 2001. The action was filed about 11:30 in the morning, a few hours short of the 6 month limit. Officers Bonenfant and Glavin continued to engage in libellous acts and acts of malice such as the exceedingly unusual testimony they gave in my hearing May 31 for some time afterward. From the evidence in Exhibit U, Officer Glavin may have been involved on or after July 27, 2001
>13. The defendants plead and rely upon the provisions of
>section 25 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and state that they at
>all material times acted with lawful authority and with no more force
>than they thought was reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
It is clear from officer Bonefante's statement to Mr. Hagglund "No American . . ." that he knew I would be appearing before an immigration officer shortly, and may have known I had an appointment with Mr. Mamann for the following day. Arresting someone with extreme force who you know has counsel and could be asked to surrender by his counsel is fairly strong evidence of malice. "Unnecessary roughness" in sports terms. It is difficult understand an officer making a statement such as the one in Exhibit Y:
"We get notified by Scientology, we check, and he's an undesirable," Toronto Police Fugitive Squad Detective Phil Glavin said of Henson. "We look on the Internet, and he's a self-proclaimed bomb expert."
as having any origin except malice since such material cannot be found on the Internet.
Although it is not a matter for which I can claim damages, the police were needlessly endangering citizens. The notes of Hassenbach show a woman and a baby carriage was in the path of their vehicle. A few months after my arrest an officer was killed in training exercise similar to this one. (The officer's best friend jumped out of a van, tripped and discharged his weapon. The bullet hit the officer in the head.)
Incidentally, one term I want included in the settlement with Halton is that officers be required to actually read warrants before executing them, even when another police service claims to have one.