[The DA's office gets my postings almost as soon as they are made. I don't know if they read the net themselves or OSA (scientology) delivers them.] Dear Judge Wallerstein: The Scientologists see the decision in my case as a great victory over one of their critics. I think a much larger number of people will come to see the result as a serious miscarriage of justice and an assault on free speech. I don't believe any of us fully anticipated the effects of your pretrial rulings on restricting testimony about the deaths of Ashlee Shaner, Stacy Moxon Meyer and Lisa McPherson, or restricting testimony on Scientology beliefs and practices. Mr. Harr stuck to the letter of your rulings and once even stopped DDA Robert Schwarz from having read into the record a reference in exhibit 23 to Stacy Moxon Meyer ("for the latest victim"). But the effect, as you can see from the below declaration was to mislead the jury into thinking that my use of "destroy them utterly" (quotes in my posting) was a threat when it was understood by virtually all alt.religion.scientogy readers to be a reference to Scientology's fair game threats and practices against critics. The below declaration may be filed in court early next week, with a motion to reconsider JNOV. Unfortunately, this is non-standard practice, so I have to go pro se to file it. If it would be permissible for Jim Harr to come back in for sentencing on May 16 after substituting out so I can file this, I would greatly appreciate someone from your office telling him so. Thank you very much, Keith Henson
[DRAFT] DECLARATION OF KEITH HENSON
IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION TO RECONSIDER JNOV
PEOPLE v. HENSON HEM014371
I, Keith Henson, declare: The information set forth in this declaration is known to me personally. If called upon to testify in court as to the truthfulness of the facts set forth in this declaration, I would do so. 1. In the just completed trial, defense was forbidden by the court under Evidence Code 352 from raising issues of Scientology beliefs or practices, such as "fair game" or TR-L (Training Routine Lying) and also from mentioning the reason Henson was picketing, the deaths which occurred in May and June of 2000. 2. As a result of the first restriction, defense was not able to dispute the testimony of Ken Hoden on the stand, even though defense knew Mr. Hoden was not telling the truth because this would have led right into TR-L, a Scientology belief or practice. 3. As a specific example (and defendant is relying on memory of testimony rather than a transcript) Mr. Hoden claimed to have known for 25 years the woman (Helen Burke) who was shot in the Portland facility of Scientology in 1996. His testimony was that her unborn baby had been shot through the head and that Scientology had not taken threats by the assailant (Godeka) seriously after threats had been made. Defendant knew both statements were untrue and told his lawyer in court because defendant had closely followed this tragic story as it unfolded. Exhibit A is the initial report of the shootings, Exhibit B reports the safe birth of the woman's child, Bridget, a few months after the shooting, hardly something which could have happened if the unborn child had been shot through the head! Exhibit C reports sentencing Godeka, judged guilty but insane. Exhibits A and C mention that Godeka was under a court order at the time of the rampage, strongly implying Scientology *had* taken Godeka's threats seriously. But the biggest omission from the testimony is that Godeka was a Scientologist, who had spent a lot of money on Scientology and who wanted $50,000 from Scientology for "ruining his life." Scientology has had far more trouble with current and former Scientologist becoming violent than critics becoming violent. Defendant understood (perhaps incorrectly) from his attorney that he could not point out Hoden's testimony was false because any defendant's testimony as to why Hoden was lying would lead directly into fair game, TR-L and other Scientology beliefs and practices, and delving into such subjects would have been a violation of the court's order. 4. The same violation of the court's orders would have resulted from defendant trying to explain Exhibits 23-23A, which has the quoted words "destroy them utterly." This, as Exhibit D (search results for these words of over 1000 web pages from www.google.com) shows is a common paraphrase of the last three words of Scientology's "fair game policy" (". . . if possible, of course, ruin him utterly."). Quoting an opponents words is a time honored tradition in public debate and these words were instantly recognized as a Scientology reference by those participating in debate on the news group in which the posting was made (they were used unquoted in another posting exhibit by "Bev" to which the defendant responded ". . . the latter task seem[s] easier"). This reference to the "fair game" threat *by Scientology* toward critics (who are also known as enemy or "suppressive persons" in the fair game policy) almost certainly was seen by the jury as a threat against Scientologists *by the defendant*. This perception could not be corrected because of the court's restrictions about mentioning Scientology beliefs or practices under Evidence Code 352. Even allowing the jury to see the un-redacted version of the posting would have been exculpatory, since the next paragraph makes clear that my means to "destroy them utterly" was a series of pickets. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on April 27, 2001 at Palo Alto, California.