Section 132 of the California Penal code.

From: DaHatter <bitbucket@lindner2k.com>
Subject: From Keith Henson
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 21:58:41 -0700
Message-ID: <3AD29301.F67507D8@lindner2k.com>

Someone else will cover the hearing today, I have another topic. Last few days my digging around in the law books turned up Section 132 of the California Penal code. In short, this says the putting false information before a court is a felony. Posted on behalf of HKH: I have been thinking for a long time about the evidence left by the attempt by the DA and the Scientologists lawyers to get me arrested for failure to appear. I had the clerk print out a copy of the court's docket sheet where one of the first items is "Release with: LETTER FROM DA TO APPEAR7" After court, I took this sheet of paper over to the DA's office and told them I wanted to talk to someone about this entry as a violation of Section 132. I told them it was not true, since I was not in custody. The secretary didn't want to deal with it at all, but she got some investigator type to look at it. He in turn said a violation of this section of the law would have to be investigated by the Sheriff. Ok, off to the Sheriff's office, got there about 11:30. It took about an hour and a half for them to round up a sheriff deputy. 'She turned out to be Deputy Judge. I mentioned her last summer as one of the Sheriffs who showed up at Golden Era when Richardson and Petty were giving me a lot of abuse and forcing me out on the highway. I started in on why I was there and after a few minutes she went back and got Sergeant Secor. Sergeant Secor did his best to convince me that the statement had nothing to do with me, but might have referred to some document being released. But he went on, that even if I had clearly shown that the DA forged the information in the courts file and Section 132 applied, the Sheriff's department could not investigate a DA who was committing a crime of this nature. Sorry, can't help. In reply to my question of where I should take this violation of Section 132 to, Sergeant Secor said the Attorney general. (I think we have heard this before.) I was about to take off for home into a driving rain (after a long conversation with my lawyer) when I decided this line of investigation had not been run into the ground. So off Barb and I went to the courthouse. Barb stayed in the line at the clerks window while I went asking at a help section. They found me a terminal hooked into the Riverside computers and showed me how to get into the system. I started going up from my case number and looked at the first page of about a dozen cases. Sure enough, within a few case numbers of mine I found "Release with: BAIL" and another "Releases with: Letter to Appear." I asked the person who had helped me with the terminal what this notation means and indeed the "Release with: Letter to Appear" is one of the standard ways that they refer to the status of the person being charged. She said one of the four part charging papers (defendants copy) *is* usually the "letter to appear" and that this sheet is either given to the person as they are being released or mailed if they were previously given a citation and released when arrested. The thing is, I *have* the "Defendant's copy." It was handed to me the first day I came to court and it has no creases in it from being folded and mailed. Keith Henson.

From: H. Keith Henson <hkhenson@pacbell.net>
Subject: "Fairure to appear" and Hi Robert Schwarz
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:05:39 -0700
Message-ID: <6pb5dt8c7ke8ua68iomnr1b9blqcjnojfp@4ax.com>
Someone else will cover the hearing today, I have another topic. Last few days my digging around in the law books turned up Section 132 of the California Penal code. In short, this says the putting false information before a court is a felony. I have been thinking for a long time about the evidence left in the attempt by the DA and the Scientologists lawyers to get me arrested for failure to appear. I had the clerk print out a copy of the court's docket sheet where one of the first items is "Release with: LETTER FROM DA TO APPEAR7" After court, I took this sheet of paper over to the DA's office and told them I wanted to talk to someone about this entry as a violation of Section 132. I told them it was not true, since I was not in custody. The secretary didn't want to deal with it at all, but she got some investigator type to look at it. He in turn said a violation of this section of the law would have to be investigated by the Sheriff. Ok, off to the Sheriff's office, got there about 11:30. It took about an hour and a half for them to round up a sheriff deputy. She turned out to be Deputy Judge. I mentioned her last summer as one of the Sheriffs who showed up at Golden Era when Richardson and Petty were giving me a lot of abuse and forcing me out on the highway. I started in on why I was there and after a few minutes she went back and got Sergeant Secor. Sergeant Secor did his best to convince me that the statement had nothing to do with me, but might have referred to some document being released. He also said no judge would issue an arrest warrant on the basis of this note in the file because there was no indication I had been notified. (My lawyers, all of them, think otherwise.) But he went on, that even if I had clearly shown that the DA forged the information in the courts file and Section 132 applied, the Sheriff's department could not investigate a DA who was committing a crime of this nature. Sorry, can't help. In reply to my question of where I should take this violation of Section 132, Sergeant Secor said the Attorney General. (We have been *there* before.) I was about to take off for home into a driving rain (after a long conversation with my lawyer) when I decided this line of investigation had not been run into the ground. So off Barb and I went to the courthouse. Barb stayed in the line at the clerks window while I went asking at a help section. They found me a terminal hooked into the Riverside computers and showed me how to get into the system. I started going up from my case number and looked at the first page of about a dozen cases. Sure enough, within a few case numbers of mine I found "Release with: BAIL" and another "Releases with: Letter to Appear." I asked the person who had helped me with the terminal what this notation means and indeed the "Release with: Letter to Appear" is one of the standard ways that they refer to the status of the person being charged. She said one of the four part charging papers (defendants copy) *is* usually the "letter to appear" and that this sheet is either given to the person as they are being released or mailed if they were previously given a citation and released when arrested. She indicated that this note in the court's files is equal to a sworn statement that the person has been notified by hand or by mail. (not certified mail usually) As mentioned above, I was not in the county on Sept. 1, so it had to be by mail. The problem for the DA's office is that I *have* the "Defendant's Copy." A court official gave it to me the first day I came to court (Sept. 15, 2000) after getting accidental notice of the charges and arraignment date. I have been careful with it, so it has no creases indicating it was ever put in an envelope and mailed to me. How could screw up so bad? I think they have been taking lesions from certain shellfish.

To Robert Schwarz--I know you are reading the net or someone does it for you. You should look at the OSA 101threads about a Scientology run operation which violated a dozen or more federal laws and went way over the FBI interest threshold. In the last week or so, one of the participants (Tory/Magoo) has come forward and has been recounting what she did in those days and implicating people left and right, including Gavino Idda who appears in my case. Idda was the "Internet expert" who presented net postings allegedly from me to Deputy Rowe. You are hanging the case against me on material provided by the most prolific forger in all of history, one who forged about *ten thousands* postings in *my* name. But that is not the point of my public note to you. *Think* about it. People, even people who have been in scientology for *30* years, can wake up to the criminal acts they have been doing, and, like Tory, make amends. This is especially true when they are exposed to the truth from the Internet. The amends include implicating people. The chances are even better for the non-scientologists they are using to turn on them, like Cipriano and Apodaca. Consider what would happen if Kendrick Moxon (for example) turns on the group which sent his daughter to her death. You know, the "accident" case Scientology (with a little help from the DA's office) has been trying to keep a lid on. There are people who have talked to me about helping you and have the power to do it. All you have to do is ask. Keith Henson. PS, the offer is open to Tom Gage and others as well. First one can cut a deal, the rest might not be so lucky.