On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:04:36 GMT, [email protected] (Keith Henson) wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 01:10:22 +0100, Mike Gormez <[email protected]>
For the record Keith Henson
H. Keith Henson c/o Barbara Graham P.O. Box 86824 San Diego, CA 92138 Telephone: (310) 406-9834 cell [email protected]
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
In re:KEITH HENSON,DebtorHILLARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER, Plaintiffs, vs.H. KEITH HENSON Defendant. )))))))))))))))))) CASE NO.: 98-51326 ASW-7ADV.NO.035136OPPOSITION TO SECOND RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS CHAPTER 7 CASE OPPOSITION TO DEZOTELL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT REQUEST FOR MORE TIME TO RESPONDREQUEST TO PROPOUND ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIESTime: 3:00 p.m.DATE: January 17, 2006(SERVED BY EMAIL AND MAIL)
Defendant has read Wayne Silver's opposition to dismissing the Chapter 7 and agrees with his analysis. In addition, defendant cites Judge Morgan's closely reasoned decision in the Lee Chapman case, signed December 16, 2005, as applicable on the face of it in the matter of the RTC lien.
David Cook, attorney for DEZOTELL, HODEN and WAGONER has moved the court to rule in summary judgment January 17, 2006, to make the claims of these individuals and the injunctions against the defendant non-dischargeable.
As was pointed out in my previous reply, the motion has a certain superficial plausibility, but, as the Court is well aware, this is an unusual case, as were the underlying cases. I referred the court to Exhibits A, an amicus brief I filed in a Florida wrongful death case, and Exhibit B, a letter to the Justice Department requesting a civil rights investigation. These exhibits plus C and D below were attached to my reply dated July 14, 2005, and are incorporated here by reference.
On the basis of my concerns about the coercion of Ken Hoden, the primary witness against me, the court permitted serving interrogatories on parties. Shortly after the court clarified the form for the interrogatories, defendant was forced to move. In spite of the disruption, defendant managed to get an interrogatory served on Ken Hoden by late October. The response was mailed very late in November, and due to mail delays came into my hands after Christmas.
The interrogatory questions are Exhibit F; Mr. Hoden's responses are Exhibit G. Mr. Hoden's responses with respect to his being placed in the RPF are evasive. Not only does every Sea Organization (high level staff) member in scientology know of the "Rehabilitation Project Force," many, including Ken Hoden, have experienced it. Also, Ken Hoden had an RPF section located nearby for many years at Gilman Springs, probably under his authority. I believe the court could take his evasiveness as admission that he has been subjected to RPF in the past and was on this punishment program again in the fall of 2004. A declaration from a first-hand witness is in transit.
Scientology may wish to define the RPF as an "ecclesiastical program for religious workers," but it is in fact a vicious punishment program that is one of the many ways Sea Organization staff members are rigidly controlled and coerced, even into giving false testimony.
Information about the RPF by Dr. Steven Kent of the University of Alberta was incorporated by a web site reference in my July 14, 2005, filing. That material has now been moved, but similar material is available in several other places. The following is from an affidavit by Dr. Kent webbed at http://www.lermanet.com/kent.htm
"The RPF is a penal program that Scientology operates to correct alleged deviations by members of its elite Sea Organization (commonly called Sea Org). Scientology leaders send Sea Org members to the RPF if they received a particular type of reading while being "counseled" (or what Scientology calls "audited") on an E-meter (which is a device that gives readings about galvanic skin responses). Sea Org members also enter the RPF program if they are producing poor results on their jobs, have poor personality indicators (presumably such things as depression, grumbling, or expressing doubts about Scientology or its techniques), or are obviously making trouble (Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology, 1977: 1).
"23. Scientology's official policies allow a person to refuse an RPF assignment by resigning from Sea Org and/or by signing a statement documenting his or her alleged "crimes" and absolving the group from future legal action (see Anonymous, n.d.). Unofficially, however, numerous accounts exist of Sea Org members who simply were taken into RPF facilities against their will. Moreover, inmates in the RPF program who deviate from its strict rules may have their RPF overseers assign them to the harsher and more punitive, "RPF's RPF," and these assignments are unlikely ever to be 'voluntary' in any manner.
"24. The RPF involves: forcible confinement; hard physical labor and other forms of physical maltreatment: long hours of study; various forms of social maltreatment; forced confessions; and (as a final condition of release from the program) obligatory "success stories" (see, for example, Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology, 1980). Inmates remain in the RPF for indefinite periods of time, and accounts from former Scientologists who were in this penal system report that some people remain in it for well over a year."
The RPF is not the only form of punishment that hangs over Scientology staff members. In the past year (2005) two others who ranked high in scientology, probably higher than Mr. Hoden, became "non-persons." There is of this date no indication that even the positions they occupied still exist. One of them, Warren McShane, has been in this court in person and by declaration (May 2001) representing RTC (as president of the corporation and other functions, including paralegal). Punishments for Warren McShane's and Marty Rathbun's transgressions (whatever they were) included ordering their wives to divorce them. This is well known Scientology Sea Org policy.
The divorce records for both of them are public documents on the Riverside County Court web site.
Ken Hoden's response to Special Interrogatory 18 is worth examining. His inflammatory testimony against the defendant at trial "bullet went through her shoulder, through her baby's head in her womb ...." is not consistent with either the news paper story ("...[T]he fetus was unharmed," The Oregonian, September 26, 1996.) or his new statement also under oath "as the baby was born brain damaged and died a few months after it was born as a result of its injury." Neither is it consistent with another newspaper story in the Portland Bee a year after the shooting.
Helen Burke A Year Later Shooting and Wheelchair Can't Stop Her Ministry and Motherhood By Rita A. Leonard For The Bee
Sellwood resident Helen Burke's work as a minister with the Church of Scientology Celebrity Center is taking a personal bent these days.
Burke is paralyzed below the waist as a result of a shooting incident Sept. 25, 1996. Gunman, Jairus C. Godeka, who had burst into the church's downtown Portland office intent on mayhem, wounded her.
Before Godeka was finally subdued, he set fire to the building, held one person hostage and shot three other people. Arrested at the scene, Godeka is now in prison awaiting trial.
Four months pregnant at the time, Burke was the first and most seriously injured by Godeka's rampage. Steve Crandell, the church's executive director, took one of Godeka's gunshots in the stomach. "He saved my life, though," recalls Burke. "He pulled me to safety through a fire door."
Burke's baby, Bridget, was born safely on Feb. 14. "She's beautiful," says Burke with a smile. "She's my Valentine present." Bridget is her third child, joining siblings Siobhan, 12, and Tim, 10.
Ken Hoden's response also includes characterizing the gunman, Jairus Godeka, as a "critic" of scientology. Exhibit H is a web page copy of a newspaper story about Godeka and his experiences with Scientology. He was obsessed with Scientology, had serious mental problems (eventually judged guilty but insane for the shooting), and possibly was engaged in extortion but there is no indication Godeka criticized any aspect of Scientology in public.
Ken Hoden's denial of training to "outflow false data" per TR-L or related does not seem possible for someone who reached his level to those who have been inside the cult. A declaration to this effect is in transit.
His denial of being coached for trial testimony is even less believable since that is done almost universally.
Defendant is most reluctant to ask for more time.
Unfortunately events beyond his control delayed sending out the interrogatory to Mr. Hoden and there was further delay partly due to Christmas mail delays in getting his reply. Additionally, defendant believes a new element has been added to the motion, "that the injunctive relief in the Judgment of October 7, 2002 and the injunctive relief in the permanent injunction against H. KEITH HENSON of October 8, 2002, be exempted from the discharge . . . "
Defendant was not aware that bankruptcy courts could discharge injunctions. However, since this has been made part of the motion, defendant must respond. Defendant understands that the Hemet court exceeded its authority in imposing a permanent injunction due to the type of filing. If permitted more time, defendant will locate the proper section of the California code. The type of filing in the Dezotell case limits damage awards to $25,000 or less and does not authorize permanent injunctions. This permanent injunction was obtained by fraud either by the court or on the court in Hemet. The injunction has been used to threaten protestors and prevent them from exercising their First Amendment rights. (Berry Declaration, Exhibit I, also in transit)
If the court does permit more time, defendant requests permission to serve interrogatories on former RTC president Warren McShane and (possibly) on former RTC Inspector General Marty Rathbun.
Both of them have knowledge of Scientology frauds on courts that have contributed to the judgments against the defendant.
The bizarre mental pattern scientology imposes on Sea Org members is demonstrated here:
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.10(21) June 25, 2000 (Sunday morning), within minutes after Stacy Moxon Meyer was electrocuted while apparently inspecting a transformer vault, you and a female public-relations person approached Barbara Graham and David Rice, who were picketing, and tried to get them away from the gate by inviting them to breakfast. This is, by ordinary standards, unusual behavior. Please explain.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.10(21)
Plaintiff further objects that this question is vague and ambiguous as he has no idea whose standards defendant considers to be "ordinary standards." Without waiving these objections, plaintiff states that his normal practice was to sit down with people and communicate with them about issues that came up. Often, he would invite people onto the Church property and meet with them. However, given the overt hostility of Barbara Graham and David Rice for the Scientology religion, as evidenced by their prior picketing of the Church and their Internet postings that plaintiff had seen, he was unwilling to invite them onto the property to discuss their views, so he politely asked them to join him for breakfast in town. This was not "unusual behavior" for plaintiff or a departure from his "ordinary standards."
Ordinary behavior would be to tell the picketers "We have had a terrible accident and one of our staff has been killed. Please picket another day." The two picketers, being normal humans, would certainly have expressed sympathy and left. Instead Ken Hoden's reflex behavior was to attempt to distract people away from the location where they might see emergency vehicles.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.12(25)
July 3,2000, debtor was accosted on the road that runs through the Gilman Springs property by private investigator and Scientologist Ed Richardson and another person who might have been another private investigator. Debtor had to jump into the roadway and get motorists to call the police to escape their aggression. What is the name and, if you know, the address of the second person? (If licensed, provide also the state and license number.)
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.12(25) ... Without waiving this objection, plaintiff states he is unaware of an incident of the nature described in this interrogatory or of any incident in which debtor was accosted by anyone. Plaintiff also does not know the name of a person that worked with Ed Richardson.
Defendant finds this response hard to believe. The incident of defendant running through cars on the roadway was captured on tape by one or more of the dozen or so cameras focused on the road. The tape was taken to a nearby California Highway Patrol office on I10.
The proposed charge against defendant was "jaywalking." Defendant posted about this event:
4 Jul 2000
Keith Henson <[email protected]>
I didn't go out till after noon today, it is Independence day the prime national holiday. But I wanted to know if they had a US flag flying in the plaza.
On the way out, I saw a Highway Patrol officer with a stopped car. So I turned around, stopped, parked and talked to Officer Mushaney.
Officer Mushaney knew *exactly* who I was because the [scientologists] had delivered a tape of me in the middle of the road for the officers to watch and as a result cite me for jaywalking. The officers who looked at the tape concluded I was trying to get away from Edwin Richardson and the other thug (who does not seem to be Brian Reichenberg). So, with a comment or two about this being a fine day to celebrated the First Amendment, and a comment of approval for having a cell phone, I was on my way over to gold base.
[deleted section describing picket and emergency call.]
Many of them were out there looking at the spectacle of 4 police cars talking to the thugs and Ken Hoden.
As the "base captain" who was so deeply concerned with my presence that he warned 150 people by pager when I was reported to be on my way, Ken Hoden's failure to remember the first day Edwin Richardson and "thug2" were assigned to harass defendant and the videotape taken to the Highway Patrol is not credible. Neither is his failure to remember the name of the person with Edwin Richardson, since I frequently saw him interacting with those two and reported about it several times that summer.
There is a lot in Ken Hoden's interrogatory response that does not ring true. Still, I have a great deal of sympathy for Ken Hoden. At least he and his wife were put into the RPF together instead of being forced to divorce.
With respect to the extralegal criminal harassment that one or more of the plaintiffs or their agents in this case has engaged in against the debtor, defendant has made no progress identifying them. (Exhibit C is a letter to the US Trustee, Exhibit D is a Brantford Expositor story from July 2, 2005)
Since I am not providing a declaration to accompany this reply, any statements of facts in the contents of this reply are true to the best of my knowledge and are made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States.
H. Keith Henson, pro se Dated January 3, 2006