late draft. I can possibly make corrections if I delay filing this. Keith H. Keith Henson
Box 60012
Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone (650) 325-7533
Facsimile (650) 325-5246 In Pro Se

RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,) Case No.: HEM014371 ) ) Date: May 16, 2001 ) ) Time: 11:00 AM V. ) ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ) OF JNOV, MOTION TO SHORTEN __________________________________) TIME.
Defendant requests the court reconsider JNOV based on this motion and the attached declaration before passing sentence. Intent is a core element of 422.6 and a necessary element of the offense to prove for conviction. Rebuttal of core issues are not usually excludable by the court. The alternate to the prosecution's contention presented by default to the jury is that defendant did not have the "specific intent" of terrorizing, as the statute requires. The obvious intent of the defendant, i.e., the reason defendant was picketing, was to get Scientology members out of the organization before it killed more of them (such as Stacy Moxon Meyer, June 25, 2000) or more members of the public. (Defendant has had a number of people leave Scientology in response to both picketing and such actions as talking to them in person and on the phone.) The court did not permit testimony of the well documented reasons--the deaths of two women at Golden Era and those of members at other scientology locations--why defendant started to picket Golden Era in May 2000, and continued to picket, leaving the jury with only the charged default as to intent. Defendant is well aware that the employees of the film studio changed their activities in response to his presence. Indeed, it was their extreme apparent guilt reaction of papering over windows and shutting down in response to defendant's picketing after Ashlee Shaner's death (now being prosecuted as manslaughter) that influenced the defendant to seek funds over the Internet to continue to bring his message to them. The same hiding response was seem when others such as when Bruce and Kathy Pettycrew, and "Jason" picketed June 11, 2000 and by Brent Stone when he picketed alone. (Hiding--known sometimes as "blue tarp tech"--is one of the standard responses Scientologists make to being picketed. The others are to ignore, to photograph picketers, or to counter picket. Defendant has seen all of these responses within the past year. The most recent pickets in Los Angeles (March and May) were confrontational with Scientology counter demonstrators trying to block the view of picketers signs with their own-- often 3 or 4 of them to one picketer. Defendant has picketed in the San Jose area hundreds of times. Scientologists there have ignored or photographed picketers and rarely even come out to argue with the picketers though they have counter picketed defendants home both in the summer of 2000 and for an extended period in 1998 or 1999.) Defendant also believes the law was misapplied. Subdivision (c) of section 422.6 provides that no violation of subdivision (a) can occur by speech alone, unless the speech threatened violence against a specific person and the defendant had the "apparent ability to carry out the threat." Even if defendants postings were taken as implied threats against a specific person, defendant assures the court that he does not have nor has he *ever* had either an eagle or a cruise missile. Neither does he have any idea of how to obtain a highly protected eagle or semi truck sized, million dollar weapons weapons closely held by a few national governments. To claim defendant has an "apparent ability" to carry out such "threats" is beyond reason. It would be reasonable to assume defendant has the ability to throw a rock or other object over the fence at Golden Era. Though victims claimed to have such a fear, the fear has no rational basis since it was not claimed, much less proven, that defendant had made such a threat or even had implied such a threat. Any other activity such as driving on the same road behind a bus or watching apartments from a car or sidewalk are either not crimes or scientology has committed crimes against the defendant to a far greater extent than the defendant has against Scientology. The other limitation the court put on the defense under 352 was to forbid mention of Scientology policy or religious practices such as financially rewarding complainants and witnesses as in the policy letter of 1 September 1969R. Thus the defense could not raise a doubt about the testimony of the witness due to corporate policies of which Training Routine Lying, fair game, "Hating the witness," the point reward system (Section 8 of "Investigation Section," (Tab 11 of Frank Oliver's material) and paying for testimony/convictions (Tab 18, page 2, Sept. 1, 1969R) are only examples. The effect was to prevent the defendant from explaining to the jury an alternate motivation besides fear for the witnesses testimony. The same limitations prevented the defendant from explaining the paraphrase in Exhibit 23A of the last three words of "fair game" ("destroy them utterly") that were most likely interperted by the jury as a threat to Scientologists rather than reference to a threat against critics and ex members who try to practice Scientology outside of the corporate structure from the founder of Scientology. The prosecution KNEW this was a Hubbard quote rather than a threat from the interview with Tony Greer: "I read the following from an internet print out from Henson, "You have a point. The only way I can get clear of this scientology mess is to "destroy them Utterly". Henson said that was a quote from L. Ron Hubberd [sic]. As to what to do to enemies of scientology." This court is aware of other legal actions taken by Scientology against the defendant due to the introduction of what the court admitted as postings authenticated by the defendant in a bankruptcy 2004 deposition conducted by Mr. Rosen of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker. The most recent action in defendant's bankruptcy case occurred on Thursday, May 4, 2001. In that action (a hearing on a motion to recuse Judge Weissbrodt) Mr. Rosen authoritatively stated on the record that he knew defendant was going to jail for a year. A tape or transcript of this hearing will be submitted to this court as soon as it is obtained. Defendant knows that statements by lawyers are not made under oath. None the less, a statement by a lawyer with obvious close ties to the Riverside DA's office regarding sentencing made *before* a probation report has been written and submitted to the court is an unnerving thing to observe. To the extent there are statments of fact in this motion, they are, under penalty of perjury, true to the best knowledge of the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,

Keith Henson, pro se