I don't have a copy of the order yet, but Judge Weissbrodt turned down my request to testify in the bankruptcy trial by video. I have asked my lawyer to ask for an injunction so I could testify in the Federal Court without being arrested in the court by state officers brought in by scientology, but I don't expect this to work even if he is willing to file it.
Mr. Zlotoff won't file these letters, but he said there was no reason I should not post them as open letters on the net.
There are at this moment four cases active. The bankruptcy case, a case to withdraw the bankruptcy case before Judge Ware (the Judge who ruled against me in the IRS case--the case that Judge Silverman now wants filed), the contempt filing over NOTs 56 before Judge Whyte, and the civil case against me in Hemet.
I think they are trying to burn through that $350,000 Rosen said they "expect to spend" by the end of the year.
Having the entire legal force of the cult come down on me is why I am so unhappy about Bob Minton folding.
H. Keith Henson
2237 Munns Ave.
Oakville, ON, L6H 3M9
July 14, 2002
Hon. Judge Arthur S. Weissbrodt
Federal Bankruptcy Judge
Northern District of California
280 S. First St.
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Judge Weissbrodt:
I am enclosing a letter to the court I wrote October 23, 2000. On the advice of counsel it was never mailed--though a circulated draft of it was posted by an unknown person on the Internet news group alt.religion.scientology March 4, 2001. I believe Mr. Zlotoff has copies of the exhibits if you want to see them.
There are some updates.
As a result of protesting over the deaths of two young women at the Church of Scientology's paramilitary compound near Hemet, CA, I was convicted of Cal. Penal Code 422.6 in April of 2001. The motions in limine effectively prohibited a defence and the judge sealed critical parts of the testimony against the rule without due process. One effect of sealing the testimony was hide the fact that a minute order excluding critical documents for an appeal was in conflict with the judge's ruling in open court. The very right to appeal was denied without a hearing on evidence of dirty hands on the part of the Scientology influenced court and district attorney.
May 12, 2001 I was in Canada for a picket. Due to numerous public threats, including death threats involving a Scientology controlled jail, a friend of mine took me to a well-known immigration lawyer. After looking over what the attorney agreed were serious human rights violations, he said I had a potential refugee claim. Partly because of his opinion and continuing death threats posted by Scientology agents on the Internet, I decided to stay here as a refugee and skipped a sentencing hearing on May 16. I was later granted provisional refugee status.
One of my lawyers, Mr. Graham Berry, has been driven from the legal profession entirely due to incessant legal actions against him. He is still fighting them politically.
January 29, 2002 Judge Silverman in the Sklar appeal to the Ninth Circuit wrote:
" . . . . An IRS closing agreement cannot overrule Congress and the Supreme Court.
"If the IRS does, in fact, give preferential treatment to members of the Church of Scientology -- allowing them a special right to claim deductions that are contrary to law and rightly disallowed to everybody else -- then the proper course of action is a lawsuit to put a stop to that policy. The remedy is not to require the IRS to let others claim the improper deduction, too."
I had filed the lawsuit Judge Silverman suggests against the IRS back at the end 1998. Judge Ware promptly dismissed it, and his ruling was upheld on appeal. No new suit has been filed, probably because nobody wants to face the litigation machine when Scientology intervenes (as expected) in a suit against the IRS.
May 8, 2002 after 22 years of litigation, Scientology paid the Wollersheim judgement (which had grown to about $8.7 million). They paid it to the court on the day of a hearing where a court ruling was expected to collapse their corporate shells.
More recently Judge Schaeffer in Florida ordered the production of notes by Scientology attorneys Monique Yingling and Samuel Rosen (who has been in your court and has been involved in every civil and criminal action against me since the copyright case). The two sets of notes are Exhibits 191 and 185. The notes document extortion (credible threats to litigate Bob Minton to death) and conspiracy to obstruct justice. Among other amazing things, they show that Scientology "expects to spend" some $350,000 on top of $1,065,000 already spent on legal cases against me. (I cannot reconcile this with Mr. Rosen's claim of $2 million on September 13, 2000 in your court.)
Normally judges don't talk to each other, but the situation with Scientology's rampant abuse of people through the courts may justify you talking to both other judges and law enforcement--and possibly even sending you this letter without my attorney's approval.
The US courts are tied with inflexible rules that sometimes violate common sense. Using them, Scientology has perfected the process of perverting the courts into weapons against critics by the simple means of spending vast sums of money on unethical lawyers--when they don't directly corrupt police officers, District Attorneys, and other officers of the court. It is going to take an unusual court to deal with the matters brought up in this letter or my October 23, 2000 letter.
H. Keith Henson
CC Thomas R. Hogan
Enc Oct. 23, 2000 letter
Reply to Contempt motion.
Amicus Brief Dated June 18, 2002 on disk or at
H. Keith Henson
Palo Alto, CA 94306
October 23, 2000
Hon. Judge Arthur S. Weissbrodt
Federal Bankruptcy Judge
Northern District of California
280 S. First St.
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Judge Weissbrodt:
This is being filed as a letter to alert the court of certain abuse of process matters. It could be turned into a counter claim if the court would prefer it that way. A counter claim would be timely because the information on which it would be based emerged little more than a month ago before this court. If the court feels the need, the defendant suggests a hearing to provide a reasonable opportunity for the defendant to carry the burden imposed by Powell, (Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a)(3); United States v. Powell, 1964, 379 U.S. 48, 58, n. 18, 85 S.Ct. 248, 13 L.Ed.2d 112); of showing an abuse of the court's process.
ABUSE OF PROCESS IN THIS CASE IS PART OF A WIDE PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR
The judicial record is replete with cases worldwide and over decades of time where RTC/Scientology and their lawyers have been found to have abused process or the closely related torts of SLAPP suits or frivolous claims. Examples may be found here:
RTC v. Scott, Docket Nos. 94-55781, 94-55920 (U.S.Ct.App.9th Cir. July 5, 1996) (unpublished memorandum opinion affirming judgment and award of attorney fees).
"The facts are as follows: On January 20, 1993, the special master [Magistrate Kolts] awarded attorneys fees [$2.9 million], first under the Lanham Act finding the case exceptional because the plaintiffs 'have abused the federal court system by using it, inter alia, to destroy their opponents, rather than to resolve an actual dispute over trademark law or any other legal matter.' The master also awarded fees pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. s 505, finding that the plaintiffs' complaints had been brought 'in bad faith' to harass the individual defendants and destroy the church [a Scientology splinter group] through massive over-litigation and other highly questionable litigation tactics. [Attachment A] The master also awarded fees pursuant to the court's inherent authority to award fees when the losing party has acted in bad faith." U.S. District Court Judge James Ideman made a declaration used in the decision of the U.S. District Court in upholding the dismissal of Scientology's case. The Ideman declaration [Attachment B] was affirmed approximately as an unpublished opinion. (Defendant is aware of the Circuit Rule regarding the citation of unpublished opinions on points of law; this unpublished opinion is not being cited as precedent but for its facts).
In a case brought against [British] 20/20 television and heard by City of London magistrates. Reported in the UK Press Gazette, 25 September 1995. Scientology's Court Case Thrown out by Magistrates. ". . . attempt to prosecute undercover journalist Ali Braund, her producer and 20/20 television are dismissed as an abuse of process." Full story here.)
Another British case (" . . .abuse of the process of the court by misusing the documents . . . .")
A Canadian case, "The Church of Scientology was recently ordered to pay the defendants $60,500 in legal fees because the church's delaying tactics in proceeding with the suit constituted an abuse of process. Scientology launched the suit in 1976."
Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (Wollersheim IV) (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 647-648 [where the appeal court found that section 425.16 [SLAPP suit] applies to an action to set aside prior personal injury judgment, which resulted from defendant's exercise of his First Amendment litigation rights].
California case, [delay abuse of process] "Scientology management knew about their own torts and illegal activities in the Wollersheim and other cases. They knew that defeat was likely and immanent. In this context, Scientology deliberately used the new dummy corporate structures and fraudulent conveyances to those structures to attempt, among other things, to shield, extinguish, or lower punitive and other liabilities in light of California's defendant's net worth criteria for the determination of fair and adequate punitive liability. Artifices were planned and implemented to escape investigation and to mislead or hinder organizations seeking accurate information. From the decision of the California appellate court, 2nd. district, 3rd. division, July 29, 1991, B025920 & B038975, Super. Ct. No. C 420153. (The case is still active. After nearly 20 years Wollersheim has yet to collect a judgment now grown to over $7 million.)
(From The American Lawyer, December 1980) "Scientology's War Against Judges" [deep in the article] "Fourteen libel suits [inherently an abuse of process] have been filed against Paulette Cooper, New York freelance writer and author of the 1971 book, The Scandal of Scientology, and her publisher. Church documents seized in the 1977 Los Angeles raid and made public last year revealed "Operation Freakout," a campaign of harassment directed against Cooper that included death threats, obscene phone calls, phoney letters about her sexual behavior and a forged bomb threat against the church that resulted in Cooper's indictment in 1973. The [bomb threat] charges against Cooper were dropped in 1975.
[From the declaration of Yanny, a lawyer who worked for scientology and then was sued by them.] "These materials are offered to show the chronic nationwide contempt which the Cult has shown for all judicial process, These materials clearly demonstrate that the Cult, according to written policy, will use any means legal or illegal to subvert and frustrate judicial process against them, and will willingly and knowingly abuse judicial process in order to attack perceived 'enemies'. The victims of these attacks include lawyers, judges, witnesses, and party defendants."
In May 1994, Helena K. Kobrin and her firm (then known as "Bowles & Moxon") were ordered to pay $17,775.00 in sanctions for the presentation and prosecution of a frivolous civil RICO claim on behalf of RTC. Religious Technology Center vs Gerbode, No. CV 93-2226 AWT, 1994 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6432 (D.C.C.D.Ca.).
Defendant would like to call the court's attention to an abuse of process (or perhaps attempted abuse of process) inflicted on the defendant by RTC's in-house law firm of Moxon and Kobrin.
The case of Hurtado vs Berry was introduced into this case by RTC's attorney Helena Kobrin through her declaration to this court dated September 12, 2000. Ms. Kobrin's declaration attached an Internet printout of my filing (also dated September 12, 2000) in Hurtado, REPLY TO OPPOSITION, MOTION FOR LIMITED PROTECTIVE ORDER. (Which also has information on Mr. Rosen's previous sanctions "for conduct undertaken in bad faith, intended to harass and delay, and reflect[ing] a willful disregard for the orderly process of justice.") Page 4, line 2 of the original states: "Mr. Berry has been my counsel in this and a number of other matters since then, and is currently my counsel for surrender notice from the District Attorney in Riverside County on pending criminal charges."
RTC's lawyers misread this statement (guilty conscience perhaps?) to indicate I had knowledge that a criminal complaint had issued on September 1, 2000 that required me to appear for arraignment at 7:30 a.m. on September 15, 2000. It is an interesting question as to how and when RTC had knowledge of this Complaint and Notice to Appear and why I did not.
In any case, Ms Kobrin hurriedly prepared the character attack declaration she filed with this court on September 12, 2000.
Though I knew about the investigation (having been arrested while picketing and later "unarrested"), my first knowledge of the complaint was reading Ms. Kobrin's declaration just prior to the hearing before this court on September 13, 2000. I was not sure it was real until the late afternoon of September 14, 2000 when Mr. Berry first talked to Deputy District Attorney Tom Gage. (See attached accounts written and posted in the public record at the time. Attachment C.)
Mr. Gage made it very clear in that telephone conversation with Mr. Berry that he would seek a warrant for my arrest for failure to appear the next morning (September 15, 2000) while I was to be in a video taped deposition in Hurtado vs Berry. It was not stated, but I presume the warrant would have been faxed over to LA and I would have been arrested on camera.
The deposition was cancelled, and (to Mr. Gage's surprise) I appeared for arraignment September 15, 2000. At that arraignment, the bailiff handed me the (never folded) "Defendant's Original Copy" of MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT & NOTICE TO APPEAR available for inspection by the court. There is only one original copy. The customary practice of the Riverside District Attorney's office is to mail this copy to the defendant. The one I have has not been folded for mailing.
Helena Kobrin of Moxon and Kobrin knew by September 12 (the date on her declaration to this court) or perhaps much earlier that I was required to appear in Hemet, California on September 15, the same morning my deposition in Hurtado was scheduled in her office in Los Angeles. Time and distance make it obviously impossible to attend both.
Ms Kobrin's office did not cancel or delay the deposition set for September 15, 2000 until 8 p.m. on September 14, 2000 and that was only due to the ruling of Judge Hart requiring a deposition referee to be appointed in the Hurtado case. So from (at least) September 12 to September 14, Ms Kobrin knew I was required by a court to appear for arraignment and that I was required to appear at a deposition at her law firm at the same time. A clearer example of abuse of the court's process would be hard to imagine.
As of September 15, 2000, Ms. Kobrin's firm no longer wants a video deposition and in the past month has not even talked to me about a new time for a deposition in Hurtado.
In regard to abuse of process in this case, Title 11, Sec. 105 USC reads:
"Power of court (a) The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No provision of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process."
From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (?1996): "abuse of process: the tort of bringing and following through with a civil or criminal action for a purpose known to be different from the purpose for which the action was designed (compare malicious prosecution)" . . . . .
In an abuse of process tort it is general necessary to allege (and later show) a specific act of abuse of process. There are many in this case, but two of the clearest are Mr. Rosen's questioning my wife in deposition [Vol II, page 321 and the following 14 pages] about a declaration which he claimed was produced in this case, but was not. It was not produced by my wife in any case, but was given to another person who filed it in a case (where it was labelled Exhibit Z) in Southern California. The other clear example of abuse of process is Mr. Rosen's questioning me in deposition [Vol III, pages to be determined] to authenticate Internet postings which had no relation to this case, but were subsequently provided to the District Attorney in Riverside County for a bogus criminal prosecution against me.
Again, from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (?1996):
1: the quality or state of a bankrupt Example: filed for bankruptcy
2: the administration of an insolvent debtor's property by the court for the benefit of the debtor's creditors.". . .
At a hearing before this court on September 13, 2000. Mr. Rosen stated that RTC had spent $2 million in legal fees million on me. (I wrote the figure down at the time and it can be verified from the transcript.)
Mr. Rosen is an agent of his client RTC and is presumed to be making a representation before the court in good faith and with a proper factual basis. It is on the record, and I believe he would be judicially estopped from denying it.
RTC spent (according to their own court filings) about $860,000 on the copyright case, and $96,000 on the (accidental) contempt matter. They spent $190,000 on appeals, making a total of under $1.2 million on the copyright case and all related matters.
Subtracting copyright case legal expenses from Mr. Rosen's $2 million figure leaves $800,000 for RTC to have spent to date on the bankruptcy case. (There are no other cases between defendant and RTC.) I have independent evidence (a copy of a check dated September 2, 2000 to Mr. Hogan for $46,034.49 Attachment D) that RTC is currently spending $50,000-100,000 per month on this bankruptcy case. Mr. Hogan may be doing other work for RTC, but his is only one of four (and not the most expensive) law firms billing RTC in this case. An analysis of the recovery potential by an accountant would give RTC a best case collection potential of less than the amount RTC is paying law firms to prosecute this case per month.
The bankruptcy opposition by RTC in this case is obviously not "for the benefit of the debtor's creditors," at least not in financial terms. (Indeed, the financial interest of RTC would be best served by sanctioning RTC every penny of their claim and barring them from the court.) The bankruptcy laws do not recognize vindictive harassment by legal process as a legitimate creditor benefit. Thus, RTC and their lawyers are engaged in "a civil or criminal action for a purpose known to be different from the purpose for which the action was designed," i.e., abuse of process.
Defendant requests the court to take notice of this situation and to take whatever actions it deems appropriate under Section 105 of the bankruptcy laws to prevent further abuse of process.
To the extent there are statements of fact in this letter, they are made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States. All other statements are on my best knowledge and belief.
H. Keith Henson