Yesterday afternoon the jury asked a question about exhibit #23, which is the one where I am replying to Magoo (back when she was still in Scientology): ********** Mistmagoo55 <mistmagoo55@aol.com> wrote: >>ubject: Henson loses appeal to Ninth Circuit
>>From: Public_Record@newsguy.com
>>Date: 6/26/00 7:16 PM Pacific
>>Henson loses appeal to Ninth Circuit
> Time to get a life...don't ya think?
You have a point. The only way I can get clear of this scientology mess is to "destroy them utterly." So: This week I will be back picketing gold base. Correct me if I am wrong, but you picketed my house 5 days and my wife's place of work 3 days, so you get 8 days of picket for this plus however much seems appropriate for the latest victim. Keith Henson PS, please don't send any more counter picketers who are subject to epileptic attacks or fainting spells. ************* In trial Jim Harr stopped Robert Schwarz from having Wagoner (I think) read the last five words, "appropriate for the latest victim" into the record because it would have been a violation of the court's order not to mention the women who have been killed out at gold (specifically Stacy Moxon Meyer since this was written two days after she was electrocuted and before her name was known.) The other thing is that no mention of fair game was to be permitted by the court. Well, it is a slight misquote, but does anyone here doubt for a second that I was referring to the last three words of the fair game policy "of course, if possible, ruin him utterly" in what I put in quotes? Using the opposition's words when you respond is the *very heart* of political debate and had no relation to any kind of real world threat. I was using this well known quote to point up the ugly reality of scientology. It seems possible the jury is making my (slight misquote) of *Hubbards* words into a threat against scientology / scientologists, when, of course, it is a threat *by them* against critics! I am going to ask Jim Harr to put in a motion for a mistrial this morning based on DDA Schwarz violating the court's orders. We planed my defense on the assumption that we could not use either fair game or any mention of the reasons I was out picketing last summer. DDA Robert Schwarz violated *both* of the court's orders in exhibit #23. Keith Henson