On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 17:48:58 GMT, hkhenson@rogers.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 07:19:30 GMT, hkhenson@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
>wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>I have also been given authority to send out as many interrogatories
>>as are justified under the circumstances.
>
>snip
>
>Thanks for the help people have been giving behind the scenes. Time
>has come to put these out for comments.
snip
Filed version, thanks for all the help
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1: During debtor's appearance before your court on September 15, 2000 debtor was handed the "Defendant's copy" of the indictment for Case No: Hem 014371 by a female Sheriff officer. Do you recall this? Yes_____ No______SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2: The first entry in the court's computer records for this case on 9/1/00 is "Release with: LETTER FROM DA TO APPEAR7" [sic]. The debtor has been told by court personnel that "Defendant's copy" is the "letter to appear" and in normal practice is mailed to the defendant giving notice of the arraignment before this entry is made in the court's computer records. Is this your understanding of normal court practice as of September 2000? Yes_____ No______
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Assuming debtor was handed the "Defendant's copy" in court on September 15, 2000, on the day of the arraignment, would the entry "Release with: LETTER . . . " in the court's computer records be false information? Yes_____ No_______
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4: If the debtor had failed to appear September 15, 2000 for arraignment in your court, would that have been cause for you to issue an arrest warrant for "failure to appear"? Yes_____ No_______
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5: The indictment was signed with the initials TWG. In September 2000 would this be DDA Tom Gage? Yes_____ No______
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6: In the time period from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2001 did you or anyone on your staff talk or otherwise communicate about debtor Henson or his case outside of court sessions with any of the following: DA Grover Trask Yes_____ No______ Alan C. Oberstein Yes_____ No______ DDA Robert Schwarz Yes_____ No______ Elliot Abelson Yes_____ No______ Samuel Rosen Yes_____ No______ Judge Walker Yes_____ No______ Judge Wallerstein Yes_____ No______ Gerald Feffer Yes_____ No______ Tony Greer Yes_____ No______ DDA Leonard Mandel Yes_____ No______ DDA Kevin Ruddy Yes_____ No______ DDA Bernie Skiles Yes_____ No______ Jim Harr Yes_____ No______ Gilbert Nishino Yes_____ No______ Joseph M. Wojcik Yes_____ No______ Robert A. Davis, Jr.Yes_____ No______ Barry A. Reimer Yes_____ No______ Mike Rinder Yes_____ No______ Ken Hoden Yes_____ No______ Any other person not named? Yes_____ No______
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 7: For those above names checked yes, provide an approximate date and the subject of the communication. Attach extra pages, letters or documents if necessary. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Before case Hem 014371 was assigned to Judge Walker there was a meeting about the case in your chambers. Do you remember this meeting? Yes_____ No_______
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: It was reported to the debtor by his lawyer after the above meeting in chambers that you had expressed "fear of Scientology" and would not take the case for that reason. Do you remember saying this or something essentially equivalent? Yes____ No______
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 10: What experience caused you to express the above fear? ________________________________________________________________________
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 11: After Judge Walker recused himself from the case, an outside retired municipal court judge (Wallerstein) with little experience in criminal cases was brought in. Was this because none of the local judges, including you, would take case Hem 014371? Yes____ No______
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 12: If the answer to the above question is no, what is you understanding of the reason at the time? _________________________________________________________________
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Do you consider the above reason valid today? Yes___ No_____
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Do you know who recommended Judge Wallerstein? Yes___ No_____
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 15: If the answer to the above question is yes, who recommended Judge Wallerstein? ___________________________________
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 16: If you do not know who recommended Judge Wallerstein, do you know who would know who recommended Judge Wallerstein? Yes____ No______
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 17: If the answer to the above is yes, what is the person's name and position? _________________________________
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 18: How were the services of Judge Wallerstein obtained? _________________________________
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 19: At the close of the trial (Hem 014371) Judge Wallerstein admitted in front of many people remaining in the courtroom that he knew Scientology lawyer Elliot Abelson. (Abelson, a former Gambino family lawyer, was in obvious constant contact with DDA Robert Schwarz, coaching him during the trial as he did in the Mark Bunker's case in Chicago.). Were you aware, before Judge Wallerstein was brought in, that he knew Scientology attorney Elliot Abelson? Yes___ No_____
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Were you aware of Judge Wallerstein's previous activities as an arbitrator in the entertainment business? Yes___ No____
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Before being assigned to the Henson trial, was Judge Wallerstein questioned about his previous arbitration dealings with Scientology or Scientologists? Yes___ No____ Don't know______
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 22: If the answer to the above is yes, did Judge Wallerstein say he had previous arbitration dealings with Scientology or Scientologists? Yes___ No____
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Are you aware that Judge Wallerstein sealed parts of the record that were in conflict with his minute order of April 19,2001 where he ruled on a defense motion introducing evidence the same day? Yes___ No____
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Were you aware in the year 2000 of communication(s) from Alan C. Oberstein or Gerald Feffer or other attorneys representing any aspect of Scientology to Grover Trask or members of the DA's office: Yes___ No____
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 25: If yes on the above question, state particulars. ___________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 26: What information have you learned about Henson or the Henson case that is not covered in any of the above interrogatory questions? _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________
Interesting development.
Today Ida printed out this and took it over to deliver it to the Hemet court.
A court clerk after showing it to a bunch of others flat out refused to accept an interrogatory for the judge in a federal bankruptcy case.
Outright refusal to accept service of an interrogatory in a Federal case by a county *judge* is something I never imagined.
Maybe Ida will post her account.
Keith Henson
From: hkhenson@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Help with Interrogatories
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:31:02 GMT
Message-ID: <42fcd6c5.95220622@nntp.broadband.rogers.com>
>No. I have some acquaintances who served papers. Each state has
>its own little rules to begin with, or interpretation of rules.
>In Texas, you can serve somebody at home, work, or anywhere
>you can get them, a lot of people dodge. It can be a bitch to catch
>up with them.
I am sure that handing the paper to the clerk of the court where the judge sits is effective service. I am going to take yesterday as notice of service even though Ida put the papers in the mail today and that adds 3 days under the federal rules.
If he didn't run off a copy while they had the papers in his office, he can go on the net to see what is in them.
snip
>Mailing it as suggested probably is legal and workable, but check
>the rules. Its best if you can find somebody who has served
>notices for a living. They can tell what the court accepts locally.
It is a federal case, so federal rules apply.
It just astonishes me that a *judge* would refuse service of papers. Good grief, refusing service of papers done under the authority of a federal judge just looks awful. It makes a statement I am not sure he would want to make if he had thought about it a little.
Other than being scared of the cult (no law against *that*) I didn't think judge Wojcik did anything way out of line. Now I have to wonder.
Keith Henson
From: hkhenson@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Help with Interrogatories
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:59:57 GMT
Message-ID: <43007217.134988677@nntp.broadband.rogers.com>
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:44:37 -0400, Mike O'Connor <mike@leptonicsystems.com> wrote:
>In article <42fcd6c5.95220622@nntp.broadband.rogers.com>,
> hkhenson@rogers.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
>
>> It is a federal case, so federal rules apply.
>>
>> It just astonishes me that a *judge* would refuse service of papers.
>> Good grief, refusing service of papers done under the authority of a
>> federal judge just looks awful. It makes a statement I am not sure he
>> would want to make if he had thought about it a little.
>
>Do such papers have to be served by a lawyer, officer of the court,
>licensed server guy or some such? Or assuming the papers themselves are
>proper, can anyone you authorize serve them? I guess my question is, was
>the service technically proper?
The rules differ depending on the court. But for federal courts you can mail interrogatories and it is assumed they get there in 3 days--added to the 30 days they have to answer. If you hand deliver them, the clock starts right then.
Keith Henson
From: idaj007@aol.com
Subject: Re: Help with Interrogatories
Date: 10 Aug 2005 21:20:54 -0700
Message-ID: <1123734054.283384.160070@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Today at l0:AM I went to the Hemet Court House to deliver the Interrogatory papers . The clerk looked at them and said they were not acceptable. The case number was wrong. She then looked up Keith's case number (very concerned that it might not be Howard Keith Henson (Born July l942 ) that I was referring to> I asked if she thought there would be two with a similar case tried in Hemet. She just shook her head. She then took the papers and while I waited about twenty five minutes they were reviewed by her superiors and one other she mentioned. She then said if she would receive such papers they would just be filed and that was it. She then gave me instructions on how to go to the Criminal Court in Murrieta, Ca. She told me this type case was no longer heard in Hemet.
In that these papers were meant for her and the other one for the Judge who are both here in Hemet I felt they should not have been refused. So tomorrow I shall mail them with signed receipt requested on delivery.
Ida J. Camburn
"You must have crossed the river to tell the crocodile he has bad breath" Chinese Proverb