On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:05:25 -0800, thad <thagg@excite.com> wrote: >Keith Henson wrote:
>> DA Motions -- one of four
>>
>> I don't belive I have ever heard of a case where a District Attorney
>> has DA'ed the police saying they are incompetent to recognize a crime
>> when it happens. I must say this opens another defense argument. If
>> the police can't tell if some act is a crime, how is a poor citizen to
>> know?
>>
>> I would appreciate it if some of you with a little more time than I
>> have research these cases and see if they are what the DA clams them
>> to be. Thanks.
>>
>> Keith Henson
>Keith,
>
>I'll see what I can find out about these cases. I'm as shocked as you
>are that the DA is trying to limit the testimony of the police, after
>all, it's the judgement of the police officers that is what the entire
>justice system depends upon. Police are not just random eyewitnesses;
>they are trained to observe, to judge, to act upon that judgement -- and
>they are held accountable for those observation, judgements, and actions
>every single day of their working lives.
>
>I have a couple of questions.
>
>1) What is the process that these in limine motions go through? Have
>you received a response from the judge on the previous motion, restricting
>pretty much all mention of Scientology?
The motions are before Judge Albert J. Wojcik. He has not yet found one way or the other on any of the DA's motions. He will hold a hearing on them April 9, a week before trial. Below is a quote I wrote about my first impressions of Judge Wojcik on September 15 of 2000. "The judge is very conservative looking, dark hair, starting to gray at the temples. He is one who brooks no nonsense (oh man). "My case is called in jig time. On Graham's advice, I ask the arraignment to be continued for ten days. The young sleek DA at the table says that's ok with him, but he wants a restraining order to keep me 300 *yards* from the cult's compound and away from this list of people. At first, the judge says that's wider than the *road*, how can he keep me off a public road? The DA insists, says I can go some other way, and the judge gives in. Of course, this means that all direct routes to Interstate 10 are blocked to me because the cult's property goes all the way to Sanderson, the only road to the north, and that four-lane highway is less than 300 yards wide! I ask specifically if this means I cannot exercise my first Amendment right to picket out at gold and he verifies this, if I don't like it I will be arrested and arraigned on the spot." I should add that Judge Wojcik did not understand the implication of his order and a month or two later when Graham was in my car, he called James J. Harr, my other lawyer, who told the Judge we were stuck out north of town due to his order. Judge Wojcik cleared up the order at that point so I could drive in from Interstate 10. >2) Do you feel, at this point, that it might have been better not to have
>waived your right to a speedy trial, at this point? It seems that as time
>has gone on the Conspiracy of Scientology and the DA have found more and
>more ways to limit your testimony -- while I've yet to have seen any
>advantage to your side for the delay. I realize that this is water under
>the bridge at this point; but do you have any comments for future cases
>that may come up?
There were multiple reasons this got delayed. When the case was assigned to Judge Walker, he decided he wanted to hear the First Amendment issues first rather than have them brought up after the county had put a bunch of effort into presenting a case. Then because my lawyer and the DA could not agree on a list of stipulations (I think I posted them and many were just rediculous) it was to go to trial. Then a week before trial, Tony Greer's son was killed in a car wreck. At that point Judge Walker offered to recuse himself even though he thought he could be impartial because it came to his attention that he knew Deputy Greer well. I had no objection, but after consulting with a "higher up" DDA Robert K. Schwarz came back and said Judge Walker had to go because he might be biased in my favor due to knowing *their* witness. Go figure. This business of the cult using the law to harass critics is getting out of hand. Read the transcript of Mark Bunker's trial. Sure they are not that likely to win, but at a minimum this trial will cost me a lot of time from my consulting business. I happen to know more than I should about certain matters involving Riverside officials, but will not go into them until the situation ripens a bit. Incidentally, the cult might have run through all the PIs in Southern California. They had a guy on a telephoto camera last weekend taking pictures of me and some other people (or was it aliens?). I walked up behind him and and caught him on film and talked to him a bit. He was kind of embarassed to have been caught. He claimed not to be a PI, but to be a bail bondsman. I told him I would post his mug on the net, and I will soon as I get the film back. >Good luck with everything.
Thanks! Keith Henson PS It might not hurt if any of you wanted to send an amicus brief to be included in the case. I have seen Arnie's in the case file, and since the judge gets the file, I presume he reads such things. If you post your brief, the DA and the cult can hardly say they didn't know about them. Take a look at Arnie's for the form. >thad