On Sat, 18 Aug 2001 07:01:02 GMT, [email protected] (Chemehuev) wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Aug 2001 16:37:51 GMT, [email protected] (Diane
>> >they'd already started deliberations and the judge could only
>> >answer questions about the law.
>> What question did the jury ask? Couldn't Henson's
>> attorney have challenged the testimony on cross-
>The judge appears to have ruled that the answer to your question
>is "No." Henson was not allowed to explain why he was protesting
>the crime syndicate; he was not allowed to explain why the crime
>syndicate's spokespeople were perjuring themselves; he was not
>allowed to explain the crime syndicate's "fair game" policy; he
>w3as not allowed to explain the nature of the criminal
>organization that has set itself out to destroy him utterly; he
>was not allowed to acquire a defense attourney who was willing to
>take him as a client; since it is Scientology "scripture" to
>"ruin" innocent people "utterly," Henson was not allowed to
>explain that his incorrect, out-of-contest quote from Hubbard
>("destroy them utterly") was written by Hubbard, not himself.
>What one sees is a judge who colluded with organized crime and
>the county DA's office to not just deny a citizen due process,
>but to also punish Henson for the horrible crime of exercizing
>his Constitutionally-recognized right, as well as his God-given
>duty, to protest criminal behavior.
This is not entirely true, as the testimony of the prosecution witnesses could presumably have been debunked by their own internal inconsistencies as well as their purely contrafactual nature. For example, Hoden lied about the Portland case, claiming that Jairus Godeka shot a woman's unborn baby through the head. The baby was born perfectly healthy. Just that lie alone would have put Hoden's testimony into considerable doubt, especially if pursued by an aggressive line of questioning on the order of "So, you lied about that. Now what OTHER lies have you told us today?" Considering the whole basis of the case was the witnesses, and especially Hoden, casting his credibility into doubt might very well have been enough to create the "reasonable doubt" needed for an acquittal. Now I'm Monday-morning-quarterbacking here, and it's possible from the transcript that Harr was not as completely pitiful as it seems at first glance. In either case, regardless of whether Harr is an idiot, I believe it was an error of law to withhold the testimony of Henson's witnesses, as well as to allow the DA to doctor the evidence and present such dishonestly redacted Usenet posts that they effectively amounted to forgeries. It's entirely possible the transcript will show something entirely different than I envision. However, for some reason the court does not seem willing to release the transcript, perhaps wishing to block any attempt at an appeal. This would of course be illegal and flatly unconstitutional, but regard for the highest law of the land has never seemed to be the concern of this corrupt court. ptsc