H. Keith Henson
2237 Munns Ave.
Oakville, ON L6H 3M9 Canada
905-844-6216
hkhenson@home.com October 17, 2001 Frita Sonksen
Hall of Justice
Appeals Division
4100 Main Street.
Riverside, CA 92501
909-955-1565
Dear Ms Sonksen: I received the Clerk's transcript late last week. Thank you for sending it. I have been racking my brains to find a diplomatic way to inform you that the transcript of my case has been altered from what happened at the trial. This may be an impossible task. On April 18, 2001 my lawyer, Jim Harr, filed a motion, a declaration by Frank Oliver, and a thick exhibit detailing abusive practices of Scientology, particularly those of paying witnesses for false testimony, training Scientology agents to lie ("outflow false data"), and policies for abuse of enemies of Scientology through the courts. The judge ruled against Mr. Harr's motion early on April 19. Since these three documents had been stamped "received" the previous day rather than filed, and Mr. Harr and I wanted the material preserved for the appeal record, Mr. Harr asked the judge right after he ruled if the motion and related material had been filed. The judge consulted with the clerk and, over the objection of DDA Robert Schwarz, stated on the record that it had been filed. DDA Schwarz was obviously acting for Scientology to keep this very damaging material out of the public record. If my recollection of these events, along with Mr. Harr's and my published report made at the time are correct, then the Clerk's transcript is incorrect in a number of places. Mr. Harr's motion of April 18, 2001, Frank Oliver's declaration of that date and the attached exhibits are all missing. Also there is no mention of the judge's ruling on the motion in the minute order of April 19, 2001, though rulings on other matters for that date are recorded. I cannot verify what the judge said from the court reporter's transcript because that part of the trial transcript is simply missing from what I was provided. Could it be that this portion of the trial transcript was left out in order to be consistent with the missing documents and ruling? I have historical reasons to be concerned. This case started with an attempt to frame me for failure to appear. Charges were filed on September 1, 2000 for an arraignment on September 15, 2000. That date "just happened" to be the same as a date already set for my deposition in a civil case, Hurtado v. Berry. The deposition (by Scientology) was pointless (implying other motives) since I knew nothing that could possibly relate to Hurtado. The court in Hemet did not follow the correct procedure to notify me of the arraignment. I was later given the copy that should have been mailed to me. I still have it. It has never been folded. The very first entry in the case print for 9/1/00 is "Release with: LETTER FROM DA TO APPEAR7" [sic]. This was false information placed in the court records because I was not in custody, nor was I even in the county that day. The entry on 9/12/00 for payment of 50 cents was Scientology buying a copy of the one page case record for filing in my bankruptcy case for a hearing the next day. Thus through complete mischance in Hurtado and my bankruptcy case I found out about the arraignment. This negated an obvious attempt by the DA (and possibly the court itself) in concert with Scientology, to use falsified court records to frame me for "failure to appear." So this is not the first time the court record in this case has been tampered with to my disadvantage. Court records going missing or being changed is a common feature of Scientology cases all over the world so I was not particularly surprised to discover missing and incomplete documents when I looked through the Clerk's transcript. If this were a regular appellate court my counsel or I would be filing a motion to augment the appellate record to add the excluded documents and perhaps for a protective order on the case file contents. I cannot find anything in the local Riverside rules equivalent to this. Several concerned lawyers are now reviewing my possible options. This letter is to create a public record, to put the court on notice about the altering of the court's records, and to seek its assistance in correcting what has occurred. Sincerely, H. Keith Henson