Not missing, SEALED

From: hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson)
Subject: Not missing, SEALED
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:02:04 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
Message-ID: <3bfc0723.52926764@news2.lightlink.com>

I have been extremely reluctant to accuse the judge in my case in Hemet of wrongdoing. However . . . . . Keith Henson H. Keith Henson
2237 Munns Ave.
Oakville, ON L6H 3M9 Canada
905-844-6216
hkhenson@cogeco.com November 21, 2001 Judge Sharon Waters
Riverside County Courthouse
Appeals Division
4100 Main Street.
Riverside, CA 92501 Re People of the State of California v. Keith Henson
Appellate No. 003226, Case No. HEM014371 Dear Judge Waters: I am writing you based on the information contained in Elliot Abelson's letter of November 2, 2001. This letter presumes that if he is permitted to communicate with you, I can as well. I hope you have seen my letters to your clerk, Frita, particularly the one of Oct. 18, 2001. In that letter I complained about altered records in this case. It is the recollection of at least three different people and a contemporary Internet posting that on the morning of April 19, 2001 Judge Wallerstein ruled against a motion to reconsider but did say on the record that the motion, declaration and exhibit he had ruled on had become part of the record--over the strong objections of DDA Robert Schwarz. Since this material is important, if not critical to the appeal, it was a matter of considerable surprise to find it was missing from the clerk's record and that the section of the transcript where the ruling occurred was also missing. A lawyer friend of mine who had expedited obtaining the trial transcript was alerted to the missing material in the transcript. He wrote a letter to Amanda Fagan CSR--copy enclosed. In spite of the letter, and several attempts to reach her by phone, my lawyer friend was unable to make contact. I had another friend try and eventually he located her. He sent me email late yesterday:

Keith, Amanda Fagan returned my call and here's the content of the call. I asked her why she did not answer the mentioned letter and she says she never received it. Per her request I read the letter to her. Here's the long and short of it. She says the missing portion is not "missing" but rather the judge ordered it sealed.

In my letter to your clerk dated Oct 18, I asked the following:

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.

As I understand it, the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over these matters. I would greatly appreciate your unsealing the transcript. I would also appreciate it if you could find out why neither my lawyer nor I were notified of the sealing of this critical part of the transcript, and what reason the judge had for sealing part of the transcript in the first place. It was, as I recall, only about his ruling and minor procedural matters. If the memory of several people who were in the court that day serves, you will also find the Judge's minute orders for April 19, 2001 are in conflict with the transcript. Since I last wrote to your clerk, I have noticed one other item missing from the record, an amicus brief by Arnoldo Lerma. This is the fourth or fifth incident in this case of court records being tampered with. If this concerns you, Riverside now has its own branch of the U.S. Attorney's office. Talk to Dan O'Brien, 276-6210. I have talked to him and he is aware of the cult's high level of "influence." Posted to the news group alt.religion.scientology to create a public record. Under penalty of perjury I state that copies of this letter were mailed to the below addresses and that the contents of this letter are factual to the best of my knowledge. Very truly yours,

H. Keith Henson

CC District Attorney Office
Appellate Department
4075 Main St.
Riverside, CA 92501

Law Offices of Elliot Abelson
8491 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 1100 (actually a mail box)
Los Angeles, CA 90069-1911

From: "Android Cat" <androidcat99@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Not missing, SEALED
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:00:02 -0500
Organization: Sandor Arbitration Intelligence at the Zoo
Message-ID: <3bfd2eab$1@news2.lightlink.com>
"Brent" <bstone@kudonet.com> wrote in message news:5l9qvt4bhsi7ojiucuq5p3p1qkj0e901g4@4ax.com... > On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:02:04 GMT, hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson)
> wrote:
> >I have been extremely reluctant to accuse the judge in my case in
> >Hemet of wrongdoing. However . . . . . Keith Henson
> How in the heck can they "seal the record" FROM the defendant and
> the appellate courts? I can see sealing the records from the public
> in cases of things like national security (or preventing the public
> from contracting pneumonia for hearing about Xenu :-), but there is
> no indication of even a reason for sealing this record.
>
> I would think that there would have to be a motion to seal part of
> the record, with both sides allowed to give arguments before records
> can be sealed. What possible reason can there be for "sealing" the
> fact that motions were submitted? In any case, simply DELETING
> portions of the court records is NOT how records are sealed. The
> portions that are sealed are well-marked in the transcript as
> sealed, and the transcript still reflects accurately what happened
> in the case. What happened here is simply forgery of court records.
It must be a typo. It was probably supposed to be "stealing the record". Ron of that ilk.

From: hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Not missing, SEALED
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 18:36:38 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
Message-ID: <3bfd3450.130039011@news2.lightlink.com>
On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:42:13 -0800, Brent <bstone@kudonet.com> wrote: >On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:02:04 GMT, hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson)
>wrote:
>>I have been extremely reluctant to accuse the judge in my case in
>>Hemet of wrongdoing. However . . . . . Keith Henson
>How in the heck can they "seal the record" FROM the defendant and
>the appellate courts? I can see sealing the records from the public
>in cases of things like national security (or preventing the public
>from contracting pneumonia for hearing about Xenu :-), but there is
>no indication of even a reason for sealing this record.
Of course there was a reason, the accommodate scientology. Schwarz and Abelson were desperate to keep the Frank Oliver exhibits out of a court record where they could be cited. Desperate enough to induce the judge to alter the record of what happened (in the minute order for that day) and to order the court reporter to seal part of the record and make no indication that it had been sealed. The court reporter did it, but there is no way she would have been happy about it. It is a guess that someone in the court was intercepting her mail when Dan Leipold wrote her urgently about the missing material. When my agent tracked her down and read Dan's letter to her, she told him what had been done. What the judge tried to do was to change history. And if OSA had managed to kill or incapacitate me in jail in Riverside or succeeded in killing me while being arrested in Oakville he would have gotten away with it. The cult didn't bother to put a fig leaf on their control of the poor judge in this instance--which was why I was concerned about the cult going after the judge. (He is 75, so there are many ways he could die and it be considered "natural.") Unless he did it alone, I think Penal Code Section 182 (conspiracy) and Section 132 (forging or altering court records) applies. This can't have been just a favor his old buddy Abelson, so there must have been heavy inducements. It would have been easy to transfer money from the cult to the judge and not have it look suspicious because the judge does a lot of private judging and two scientologist could pay him lots for a fake case. BTW, is there a reason why someone 75 is still working? >I would think that there would have to be a motion to seal part of
>the record, with both sides allowed to give arguments before records
>can be sealed. What possible reason can there be for "sealing" the
>fact that motions were submitted? In any case, simply DELETING
>portions of the court records is NOT how records are sealed. The
>portions that are sealed are well-marked in the transcript as
>sealed, and the transcript still reflects accurately what happened
>in the case.
What was sealed--with no indication, no notice and no hearing--was the part before the jury was brought in where the judge ruled on our motion to reconsider, Harr's question about it now being part of the record, Schwarz's objection, and the judge saying it could not be undone. Well maybe not, but he sure tried to hide it. >What happened here is simply forgery of court records.
Right. They maybe could have gotten away with it by trying to make it look like an error. But the minute order of that day does not reflect what is in the transcript he sealed. Sealing the transcript is prima facie evidence that a court record, the minute order, was indeed forged--by the judge and (I don't see how to avoid this) his clerk. We now have about 6 hoping mad lawyers. I don't know how the US Attorney will react to them reporting this business with the judge. But I bet you the cult will go after *him* in an ever more complicated attempt to contain this mess. Keith Henson PS Here is Dan's letter which never reached the court reporter:

Leipold, Donohue & Shipe, LLP
960-A West Seventeenth Street · Santa Ana, CA 92706
Telephone (714) 796-1555
Fax (714) 796-1550
email DLEIPOLD@lds-law.com October 19, 2001 Amanda Fagan,CSR
4100 Main Street
Riverside, CA. 92501 RE: People of the State of California v. Henson, Case No. HEMO14371 Dear Ms. Fagan: If you will recall, you transcribed this matter at the request of our office for Mr. Henson several weeks ago. Upon careful review of the transcript it has been noted that an important in limine hearing that occurred on the morning of April 19th and was recorded by you is not present in the transcript. This hearing was in reference to a motion filed by Mr. Henson's attorney the day before and heard that on the 19th before the jury was brought in. Please promptly review your notes in this matter and provide us with the full, certified transcript of this in limine hearing. I have calendared my file for the receipt of this transcript for 10 days from the date of this letter. I wish to thank you for your anticipated prompt, professional cooperation in preparing this vital transcript.
Very truly yours, LEIPOLD, DONOHUE & SHIPE, LLP

Daniel A. Leipold DAL/
H. Keith Henson
2237 Munns Ave.
Oakville, ON L6H 3M9 Canada
905-844-6216