From: demystify@freedom.net
Subject: Re: Henson's Run is Not Important.
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 01:31:47 -0700
Message-ID: <tg9ng1mtbsnf9f@corp.supernews.com>
On Thu, 17 May 2001 21:19:12 -0700, Keith <kewyatt@apexmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 May 2001 20:23:44 GMT, Chemehuev@doj.gov.ca (Chemehuev) wrote:
>>Wrong. The crime syndicate tried to frame him for "failure
>>to appear," but da 'ho accidently warned him. In the crime
>>syndicate's second attemt, neither Henson or his attorney
>>was informed that Henson was required to attend a hearing
>>concerning the sentancing.
>Oh My God, Henson was ordered to appear for sentencing and you want to turn
>around and say this is a Scientology frame up! You are so ignorant it is not
>funny.
No, actually he WASN'T told to appear for sentencing. The court docket
contained only a jnov hearing that he wasn't required to attend. The
decision to turn it into a sentencing hearing (without notice to the
defendant OR his lawyer) was made on the spot in court.
It's not legal for a court to change the calendar without notice, let
alone to change it and then charge the defendant with a "crime" for not
knowing about it.
Does the term "manufacture crimes" ring a bell to you?
Just another factoid for the courts of Canada to look at in determining
that the Riverside County court system is corrupted by the criminal
cult.
>>Nice try, troll, but once again your bullshit has been
>>refuted.
> I'd say you are the one running around spreading bullshit.
I'd say you're so deep standing in it that you can't smell it any more.
From: elrond1@home.com (Gregg)
Subject: Re: Henson's Run is Not Important.
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:44:55 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
Message-ID: <3b0a30ca.165044709@news2.lightlink.com>
>No, actually he WASN'T told to appear for sentencing. The court docket
>contained only a jnov hearing that he wasn't required to attend. The
>decision to turn it into a sentencing hearing (without notice to the
>defendant OR his lawyer) was made on the spot in court.
There was some confusion about this, I probably contributed to it
myself. Jim Harr called a day before and tried to find out if the
court had a copy of the sentencing report. They denied having it, and
since the law requires it to be provided to the defense 48 hours in
advance, Jim told me I could not be sentenced that day, effectively
taking it off calendar. After I talked to Jim, I called Garry Davis
who told me the report had been hand delivered to the court on May 10.
In court the judge was slightly embarrassed about the court not
getting a copy to Jim, and for telling Jim they didn't have it when he
tried to get one. So the Judge called a recess and gave Jim 20
minutes to read a 40 some page document with attachments which made it
252 pages!
A copy of this *public* document should be in my hands today. I hope
I can get it scanned so those who are not local to Hemet can see it as
well. There is one part, a letter from Abelson, which might be
actionable.
>It's not legal for a court to change the calendar without notice, let
>alone to change it and then charge the defendant with a "crime" for not
>knowing about it.
It isn't legal to indict someone and withhold notice to appear either,
but DA Tom Gage did it. The attempt to entrap me for failure to
appear was back in September of last year. (So sue me Tom.)
>Does the term "manufacture crimes" ring a bell to you?
Would another term be "simulation of a felony"?
> I'd say you're so deep standing in it that you can't smell it any more.
Best description of scientology so far today. :-) Keith Henson
