[This response, by "[email protected]" never made it to newsguy so I repost
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 21:26:50 -0400, Mike Krotz <[email protected]>
> Here is the entire message:
>This is the ruling which came down this afternoon from Judge Robert
>Wallerstein, the third judge to which the Henson case has been
>The motion to Exclude Testimony concerning the "Fair Game" policy is
>granted with the following limitations:
>The court will conduct a 402 hearing prior of the qualifications of the
>defense expert to testify as to the existence of the "fair game"
>doctrine on the dates in question. In the event the court is not
>satisfied as to the experts qualifications the court will grant the
>Motion in Limne to include cross-examination.
Why on earth does the court need to be convinced of the qualifications of an "expert" on this? Why should an expert witness be necessary to show the court the numerous court findings that exist from many other courts that state CLEARLY that "fair game" DOES exist. In order to prove the DA's filing to be false, there are dozens of cases from around the world that have already decided the issue. The evidence from all of these court cases has CLEARLY been ignored by the DA in the filing that states as a *fact* that "fair game" has not existed since 1968. There is only ONE place that the DA could have gotten that information. In order to file that as *fact* as the DA did here, he would have had to take the "facts" he received from the "church", and forwarded them without checking the case evidence that is available to prove those "facts" to be wrong. >In the event the court finds the expert to be qualified, the court will
>conduct an additional 402 hearing to determine whether the testimony of
>the victim witnesses will disclose their membership in the Church of
This doesn't make sense. The question is not whether they should be asked if they are members of the "church". The question is whether or not the "church" is carrying out a policy that calls for, among other things, "manufacturing" crimes of an "enemy", and whether or not the members were acting according to that *policy*. These are tangible items. *Policies* and *orders* from an organization, along with evidence that those policies and orders are being acted on. If it were the "Thugees", perhaps you could avoid discussion of a "belief" in killing people, but to throw out evidence of actually carrying out "rites of killing" because it is done *based* on that "belief" is an entirely different issue. The existence of "fair game" goes directly to the heart of the case at hand, In this case, there is clear evidence of "fear" on the part of the scientologists whenever Keith shows up with a picket sign that tells the truth. Through (IMHO) a badly written and interpreted (by the DA and the court) law, it appears that if a "victim" can show that they were in "fear" of "weapons of mass destruction", it makes the defendant into a "criminal". (I also believe that this is a purposely wrong reading of the law, as the law calls for a "direct and immediate threat" which doesn't exist at all in this case, but that's the law they are using). In order to *use* this law, the cult must pretend that their (real) fear comes not from their fear of the truth, but from their fear of "weapons of mass destruction". Of course, this is not the case, as their fear comes from inability to face the truth, but they have managed to convert their "fear" into an asset through this badly worded law. It has allowed them to take their fear (which is real) and cast it as a fear of "weapons of mass destruction" (which is not the case at all), instead of fear of facing truth. That plays nicely into the hands of the "fair game" policy which calls for the manufacturing of crimes of the "enemy". As a defendant, not allowing Keith to give the jury a chance to decide for themselves if he is a victim of the "fair game" policy would be bizarre. Of course they're in "fear", the Breckenridge decision explains that. The question is whether or not a jury that was kept from any explanation of *why* they are so paranoid could imagine that an organization and its members could exist in such fear of the truth. If the can't (and it's a REAL stretch of the imagination to think that anyone could have THAT much fear of honesty), they may actually decide that the only "sane" explanation is that the cult was really in fear of "nukes". >The basis for the court's ruling is as follows:
>Section 789 of the evidence code does not permit religious beliefs to
>be challenged for the purpose of impeachment or bolstering a witnesses
>credibility. Thus, it would be unreasonable to question the witnesses
>as to what their religion was to test their credibility.
This has NOTHING to do with testing their credibility. It has to do with showing that they commit crimes. Showing that they follow *policies* that call for perjury, will of course go to the issue of credibility, but that again is not a discussion of the "beliefs", it is a discussion of the *actions* taken on *orders* from an organization based on their written *policies*. >There appears to be no such limitation where the issue of religion has
>been placed in evidence by the party seeking protection for the said
>belief. In the instant case the People apparently intend to place in
>evidence the fact that the victim witnesses are members of the Church
>of Sciedntology. The People cannot use as a sword the religion of the
>victim witnesses and allege that very assertion serves as a shield to
>questioning the credibility of the witnesses.
>The court will reconsider and grant the motion, if the People will not
>introduce the religious beliefs of the victim witnesses.
Again, it has *nothing* to do with whether or not the "victims" (meaning the perpetrators of this criminal manufacturing of evidence against Keith) have a "belief" in the policies of the organization, it has to do with the fact that the policies of the organization *order* the *manufacturing* of crimes of "enemies". This is a *manufactured* crime developed according to those policies. There is a big difference between "religious beliefs" and criminal policies that are acted upon. The "beliefs" can be left entirely out of the case, the *policies* and *actions* cannot.