IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CASE NO. 00-16517
H. KEITH HENSON Defendant/Appellee v. RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER Plaintiff/Appellant,

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California at San Jose The Honorable Ronald Whyte
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT, MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL



H. Keith Henson, pro se
Box 60012
Palo Alto, CA 944306

I have been notified that the court is considering ruling on this case without oral argument. I respectfully requests the court to permit me to present a short oral argument and to offer to the justices assigned an opportunity to question both me and my lawyer Graham E. Berry. This case has so many bizarre twists that it seems almost impossible that all points of controversy could be resolved from the papers alone. This is also a motion to introduce relevant material from the Scientology/Graham Berry and Henson sagas subsequent to my filing the Rule 60 motion in the district court. I know it is unusual for an appeals court to take into consideration material which is not part of the record below, but the court has the power to do so if there is good cause. The good cause is that the material relates directly to the administration of justice and the public’s confidence in the justice system. The Scientology harassment of Mr. Berry started before he was my lawyer, continued through the period relevant to my Rule 60 motion, and continues to this day. Abuse of process legal actions taken against Mr. Berry have driven him from his business, taken his home, his car, and the current efforts of scientology are concentrated on driving him out of the legal profession. I believe there is strong evidence that certain state courts and the State Bar itself have been corrupted. I am well aware that these accusations sound like they are coming from a novel written by Gore Vidal and John Grisham, but given the long history the Ninth Circuit Court has had with insane Scientology cases, you might be inclined to examine the evidence, and perhaps even to take action. While the appeal before this court only relates to the period in which Mr. Berry represented me in RTC v Henson, actions in the previous and subsequent periods show a pattern of behavior, often called "fair game" on the part of Scientology. The Cipriano declaration--which is part of the record in this case--demonstrates this clearly. The attached Exhibits A from Mr. Davis at the State Bar where he whitewashes ("fully investigated" and "files closed") the Cipriano and Wager disclosures and the reply (Exhibit B) from Graham Berry are included to show how serious (and public) this has become. There are common elements and unique material in all three of the related motions (Exhibits C, D, E) from Robie and Matthai in the Hurtado v. Berry case (now dismissed). There is a "smoking gun" part of the Wager deposition quoted in Exhibit F, my letter to Judge Marcus, and the entire text is supplied on diskette along with Vol 2 and 3 of the Cipriano declaration. Exhibit G is my recent letter to the FBI after being advised by US Attorney David Calloway. Of course, "fair game" activities against me continue apace. Exhibit H is an amazing motion by the prosecutor (in a case filed for Scientology by the Riverside County prosecutor) to exclude testimony of one of their own witnesses, Deputy Tony Greer, in a case against me for excercising my First Amendment rights in a public forum. "Threats" (if any can be construed from the evidence at all) were certainly much milder than those permitted under the First Amendment in the recent ruling of this circuit on the anti-abortion web site. Exhibits I and J are motion and opposition to exclude my witness from testifying on important matters in the above case, exhibit K is an extremely rare motion to disqualify the entire District Attorney’s office for being under the influence (if not total control) of Scientology. As I mentioned in my last papers filed with this court, Scientology’s fair game practices are getting entirely out of hand--far beyond what a democracy can tolerate.
Respectfully submitted,

H. Keith Henson