On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:36:16 GMT, [email protected] (Keith Henson) wrote:
>Sometimes you just have to sit back in open mouthed astonishment at
>the crooked lawyers and cult corrupted courts in Hemet.
>Basic law say that after a case has gone to appeal the court of
>original jurisdiction has no authority over the case. But here we see
>the cult asking the judge who ruled against me in the civil case to
>effectively dismiss the appeal by denying me the right to even *file*
Bit of follow up. It may be that the cult filed motions in both courts.
H. Keith Henson
176 Henry St. #45
Brantford, ON N3S 5C8 Canada
519-770-0646 (Fax by arrangement)
In Pro Per
RIVERSIDE SUPERIOUR COURT APPEALS DIVISION
HILARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER
Appellate No. 003381
Case No. HEC009673
REQUEST FOR EXTENTION OF TIME TO RESPOND, REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
December 17, 2002 this court issued an order:
"Hearing: Ex Parte Hearing re Respodent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
"Honorable JUDGE SHARON J. WATERS, Presiding
"Court Reporter: NONE
"The court has received Respondent's Motion to Dismiss appellant H. Keith Henson's appeal based on the entitlement doctrine. Appellant shall have ten (10) days from the date of this minute order to file opposition. Preparation of the record is ordered STAYED pending the court's decision on the motion."
According to the post office cancellations on the envelope, the order was duly mailed on Dec. 17, 2002 but with inadequate postage. That caused it to be delayed in Riverside and/or San Bernadino (two cancellation marks) until December 20, 2002 when more postage was added. The letter then made good time (for international Christmas mail) arriving in Oakville on December 29, 2002. As the court knows from my notice of address change filed December 22, 2002, I no longer live in Oakville. Mr. Hagglund informed me December 31, 2002 that I had mail and I picked it up later that day.
Since the time to respond was past before the notice arrived, I request additional time to file an opposition.
Further, I would like the court to clarify what I am opposing. I have a motion dated December 5, 2002, but the December 5, 2002 motion is to dismiss the Notice of Appeal rather than the appeal and is directed to the trial court in Hemet rather than the Appeal court in Riverside. The motion I have lacks the Appeal case number on the motion and the proof of service. I presume there was another motion filed in Riverside that I have not been seen.
H. Keith Henson, pro se Dated January 1, 2003
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 4050 Main Street Riverside, CA 92501
CLERKS CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
PLAINTIFF: HILLARY DEZOTEL VS.
DEFENDANT: H KEITH HENSON
Case No. 003381
TO: H KEITH HENSON
2237 MUNNS AVE.
OAKVILLE ON L6H3M9
I, clerk of the above entitled court, do hereby certify I am not a party to the within action or proceeding; that on the date below indicated, I served a copy of the attached RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS depositing said copy enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the mail at Riverside, California addressed as above.
CLERK OF THE COURT
By: DOLORES AVILA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Minute Order/Judgment
Case No.: 003381 Date: 12/17/02 Dept: 06
Case Name: HILLARY DEZOTEL VS H. KEITH HENSON Case Category: Appeal from Judgment - CIVIL
Hearing: Ex Parte Hearing re Respodent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
Honorable JUDGE SHARON J. WATERS, Presiding
Court Reporter: NONE
The court has received Respondent's Motion to Dismiss appellant H. Keith Henson's appeal based on the entitlement doctrine. Appellant shall have ten (10) days from the date of this minute order to file opposition. Preparation of the record is ordered STAYED pending the court's decision on the motion.
Clerk's Certificate of Mailing re: RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
Notice sent to DAVIS & WOJCIK on 12/17/02
Notice sent to MT SAN JACINTO JUDICIAL DIST - HEMET on 12/17/02
Notice Sent to H KEITH HENSON