On 20 Oct 2001 09:32:46 -0700, gizmo99@valise.com (Frieda Wellington) wrote: >Mark W Brehob <brehob@eecs.umich.edu> wrote in message news:<9K%z7.186$Zh4.2828@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>...
>> I know everyone else has only good things to say about this letter. But
>> I'll throw my $0.02 in on the other side. Try to look at this as a judge
>> who believes the system (mostly) works.
>>
>> Keith Henson <hkhenson@home.com> wrote:
>> > Dear Ms Sonksen:
>> > I received the Clerk's transcript late last week. Thank you for
>> > sending it.
>> <clip>
>> > 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.
>> If you and Mr. Harr are not willing to swear, under oath, that you _know_
>> the transcript is incorrect, I don't see why anyone should take this too
>> seriously.
There are several people who are willing to swere under oath about what happened in the court that morning. >This looks like a preliminary letter. My guess is that both it and the response
>will go into the file of Keith's political refugee case. If the response
>does not have an adequate explanation or correction, _then_ the declarations
>under oath will come into play.
>> > 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.
>>
>> Do you have evidence that it is missing? Whas the court in session that day
>> but no transcript exists? Are there pages missing? Explain exactly what is
>> missing and how you know it is missing.
The reporter's record for that day starts after the motion was ruled on. These critical pages were just not provided. An effort is being made to obtain them if they still exist. >> <clip>
>>
>> > 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."
>> Wow. That sounds paranoid. Provide evidence if you have any. The unfolded
>> paper, for example, is some of that evidence. But I didn't see a whole lot
>> otherwise.
>I agree that Keith's letter was a bit thin on details and could have been
>expressed better. The tricky part is how to show proof of the unfolded paper.
>If you don't trust the courts, and as is the case here, things just go
>"missing", there is no way that sending in the unfolded paper would be a smart
>thing to do. It would go straight to the shredder, as the DDA should have
>done with it right after it came out of the typewriter some months ago (from
>his viewpoint).
The point is well taken. I have the paper with me here in Canada. I could provide a video of the paper holding it at various angles to show it was not folded. There is a standing offer to the court to provide it for inspection. >How would you present the evidence of the unfolded paper? Keep in mind that
>Keith even put this accusation (it is a felony) in one of his motions for the
>criminal case and it was ignored.
Yep. The court does not want to be seen as corrupt so they are not about to look into this issue. Now, a higher court might decide that this need to be checked out--perhaps. >> > 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.
>> 2nd sentence in this paragraph is just about perfect.
>> > Sincerely,
>> > H. Keith Henson
>> I would, rather than assigning motive, simply state the issues with the
>> court record. Don't use the word "tampering". You don't have _proof_ of
>> tampering. Rather, state that you and your lawyer, _know_ that parts of the
>> record are missing. Provide any proof you have and state a willingness to
>> so swear before the court as needed.
Should the court even *care* that these papers are in the appeal record? No. Should the DA. No. Are the scientologist concerned? You bet they are! And DDA Robert Schwarz fought hard for them to keep these papers out of the record. Is that proof he was highly influenced by the cult? No, but it is strong evidence. After being admitted into the record by the judge in the case, the papers go missing in the appeal record, the minute orders of the day don't mention the judge's ruling, and the transcript is trimmed to exclude the part where the judge rules the papers into the record. You can say the cult was not involved in tampering with the records of the court if you like, but as I mentioned this was the *second* time court records were falsified in this case. The cult is not bothering to put a fig leaf on their control of the DA/courts at this point. Why should they? They get away with murder by intimidating the government. Keith Henson