In article <MPG.154794a552ab7485989755@news.earthlink.net>, Qpdbddpqb@aol.com says... > Someone please post the address and directions to the
> courthouse. Jury selection for the trial begins tomorrow
> and should be very interesting.
>
> The process should start at 9:00 am (expect delays) and will
> most likely take 2 or 3 days to complete. The trial would
> then take place on Monday. This trial will be a must see
> for anyone interested in legal issues between religions and
> their critics.
>
> Post directions from the 10 freeway.
>
> Qwog
Never mind. Here's the info for all concerned: Hemet County
Hemet County District Attorney
910 North State Street, Hemet, CA 92543
(909) 766-2370 The courthouse is at:
880 N. State St. Take the 10 east from LA or west from Palm Springs and beyond to the 79 (in Banning). Go south to the Ramona Expressway and go left. Make a right shortly afterwards where the 79 continues. It then turns into State St The courthouse # is 909 766 2310 The case is in Rm H4
Case # HEM 014371 Jury selection is closed to the public. This is too bad as the questions that each attorney asks prospective jurors gives great insight into each side's plan of action. I hope Keith will make a detailed list of questions asked by the SCI attorneys and web them. For those who wish to attend I'm not sure if there will be people writing down license plate #'s or taking pictures or videos or if there will be PI's from the SCI side following anyone suspected of being sympathetic to Keith Henson or critical of Scientology. My suggestion is to be prudent and park several blocks from the courthouse and walk. This way you can see if anyone follows you when you attempt to return to your car during breaks or after the days proceedings. Report any suspicious activities immediately to deputies at the courthouse. The public has the right to free and unencumbered access to any trial proceedings. Jury selection for this trial will take at least 2 days. I suspect the trial will begin on Monday, but it could begin Friday afternoon if the attorneys aren't after milking the entire pool. Don't forget this is a jury trial and these jurors are honest, hardworking wogs. They have to sacrifice their time and money to sit on a case. They are not stupid and can sense if a charge is trumped up and unfair. They won't take a multitude of objections from either side well. The defense gets to cross examine every witness that Scientology puts on the stand. This is where Keith can win the case, no matter what limits the judge has put on the defense. Establishing timelines and who heard what from whom and how they heard it and whether they were coached are good starting points. Here are some good questions to ask: 1. Are you aware you are under oath? 2. What does that mean to you? 3. Do you realize that you must tell the truth? 4. What is you definition of the word "truth"? 5. How did you first hear about Keith's supposed threat? 6. Through hearsay? 7. Did you read the actual post? 8. Who showed you the actual post? 9. Were you shown any other posts? 10. What do you do for a living? 11. Why are you afraid of Keith Henson? 12. Why did what he supposedly wrote scare you? 13. Do you believe him capable of carrying out a nuclear threat? 14. What evidence about him leads you to conclude he can? 15. Is your evidence not hearsay? 16. Have you been coached by your attorneys on how and what to testify to in this trial? 17. Have you ever lied before? 18. What is a lie? 19. What do you know about Keith Henson? 20. How did you obtain your opinion of him? 21. Can you support your claims with documents? 22. What are these documents? 23. Who issued them? 24. Did you witness Keith picketing at you place of employment? 25. What was he doing? 26. What was he holding in his hands? 27. What did it say? 28. How do you know he was picketing? 29. How did you know the person you saw was Keith Henson? 30. Who is your boss at your place of employment? 31. Has he/she given you any instructions as to what to say or not say during this trial? 32. Please explain to us why you feel so strongly about Keith Henson? 33. Have you ever discussed Keith Henson with any of your coworkers? 34. Had you ever heard of Keith Henson before July __ 2000? (the date the charges were filed) 35. Who initiated the complaint? 36. Have you been coerced into testifying today? 37. Is testifying here today a part of your employment responsibilities? 38. How much money do you make a month? 39. Are you being paid to testify? 40. Has anyone threatened you with disciplinary action if you do not testify in this case? 41. Who have you discussed your testimony in this case with? 42. What officers of your corporation have discussed your appearance in this case with you? 43. Have any of them told you what to say or not say in regards to your testimony in this case? 44. Have you been a witness in a case before? 45. Tell us about it. 46. Are you telling us the truth, or the truth as it is for you? 47. What is the difference? 48. Do you think Keith Henson is a bigot? 49. Do you think he is part of a hate campaign to destroy you? 50. Does Keith Henson hate you personally? 51. What does he hate then? Why? 52. Why does Keith want to destroy you personally? 53. Do you hate Keith Henson? 54. Does everyone at your place of employment share your beliefs about Keith Henson? 55. Was Keith Henson ever an employee of your corporation? 56. How about one of its subsidiary companies? 57. Why would Keith want to nuke a film studio? 58. Does anything go on there besides filming? 59. Is there security at your place of work? 60. Why? 61. What does it consist of? 62. Is all this just because of Keith Henson? 63, Has there ever been a break-in at the studio? 64. Has there ever been any crime at the studio? 65. Do you believe Keith has the right to say critical things about people he doesn't agree with? 66. How do you know Keith posted that article on the web? 67. Couldn't it have been someone using his name? 68. Couldn't it have been a joke? 69. Is it possible to interpret it as a joke? 70. Do words really frighten you this much? Why? 71. Don't you think that Keith knows that a nuclear weapon would destroy alot of innocent people too? 72. Does Keith want to kill anyone, as long as it includes a couple of film studio people too? 73. What does Keith have against films that he would want to do this to innocent filmmakers? 74. If you think that Keith doesn't care, just as long as he can destroy you, give us factual evidence supporting this. 75. Should Keith be convicted of a crime just because you can't take a joke? 76. Do you read the NG ARS? 77. Are you aware of the posting history of all the participants? 78. Can you tell when a critic is angry? 79. Can you tell when a critic is being facetious? 80. Is it wise or prudent to judge someone by a comment taken out of context? 81. Shouldn't any statement by a person be evaluated by the larger context in which it was presented? 82. Have you been exposed or presented with this larger context? 83. Have you been allowed to see all of Keith's postings and make an informed decision for yourself as to whether of not he was serious? 84. What postings would those be? 85. Would you like to see the postings? 86. Are you a participant in the NG ARS? 87. Do you know what goes on there? 88. How do you know? 89. Why are you not a participant in this NG if it effects you so profoundly? 90. Do you know anyone who is a participant in this NG? 91. Can you participate in this NG if you wanted to? 92. Then why don't you? 93. Do you own a computer? 94. Are there computers where you work? 95. Can't you log on from work? 96. Why not? 97. What else aren't you allowed to do at work? 98. Can you accept personal phone calls from friends and family? 99. How often does this happen? 100. Do you have your own phone at your place of residence? 101. Do you have any utility bills in your name? 102. Do you pay taxes every year on your income from your job at the film studio? 103. Do you have friends outside of work? 104. What are your hours? 105. Are you totally absorbed by your duties at work? 106. Who is President of the United States? 107. Was the stock market above or below 10000 last week? 108. What country recently impounded another country's spy plane and crew? What were the two countries involved? 109. Do you read newspapers? 110. Do you watch television? 111. How did you get your job at the film studio? 112. Did you go gladly and voluntarily? 113. Do you know people who work there that are under orders not to speak? 114. Are you issued orders or do you work independently? 115. Describe what you do there. 116. Are there people who work there who are ordered not to speak, or do they do it voluntarily? 117. Have you ever been ordered not to speak? 118. Have you ever been ordered to do something you didn't want to do? 119. Has anyone you know been? 120. Are you free to come and go as you please? 121. Could you walk out of here right now alone and not be followed by anyone trying to keep tabs on you? 122. Could you quit your job today? 123. What would happen if you quit your job? 124. etc etc etc. Prove that the employees of the film studio are uninformed and live in a closed society where it is impossible for them to have rational opinions on anything not related to film studio duties. [notice I use "film studio" instead of "Scientology"; that keeps it within the bounds of the limits set by the judge. Let someone show that Gold base is simply a film studio and all sorts of inconsistencies will rear their ugly heads] The defense job is to present witnesses who have worked at the film studio who can testify that all the things this witness said yes to are lies, or half truths, or misconceptions on their part. Get all the Ex RPFers into gear and on a bus to Hemet and use them as impeachment (rebuttal) witnesses. In this way you can impeach the credibility of any Gold Base employee that takes the stand for the prosecution. But of course Keith's attorney knows this, and probably has a better plan than my little question fest above. Qwog -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to
talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to
counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others."