(Que theme for Twilight Zone) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) Plaintiff, ) VS. ) CASE NO. HEM014371 KEITH HENSON, ) Defendant. ) REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL PROCEEDINGS Proceedings held before the Honorable Robert H. Wallerstein Judge of the Riverside County Superior Court May 16, 2001, Department H4 APPEARANCES: For the People: OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY BY: ROBERT SCHWARZ Deputy District Attorney 910 North State Street Hemet, CA 92543 For the Defendant: CRIPPS & HARR BY: JAMES J. HARR Attorney at Law 133 North Buena Vista Suite 1 Hemet, CA 92543 Reported by: MARY C. FULLER Official Reporter C.S.R. No. 9967 HEMET, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2001 11:16 A.M. DEPARTMENT H4 HON. ROBERT H. WALLERSTEIN, JUDGE --000-- THE COURT: Good morning. I MR. SCHWARZ: Good morning, your Honor. MR. HARR: Good morning, your Honor. THE COURT: Where's the defendant? MR. HARR: He isn't here, your Honor. And based on the motion that's been filed for me to be relieved in that case, I'm really not in a position to offer anything on his behalf. THE COURT: No, Counsel. The Court is not going to grant that motion until this is over. The Court is deeply distressed that Mr. -- that the defendant has failed to appear. The Court therefore will forthwith issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the defendant in the amount of $25,000. We will proceed without him. First with respect to the motion for reconsideration which allegedly precluded the defendant from introducing evidence of Scientology tactics including, but not limited to, fair game. The Court would like to hear from counsel if you have anything to say about that motion -- or to add to that motion. MR. HARR: I didn't draft the motion. I don't have any authority to act on his behalf today. THE COURT: Excuse me, Counsel. You are not relieved as counsel. And you filed this motion. And I expect that counsel will address the motion. MR. HARR: I did not file that motion, your Honor. It's pro se. THE COURT: No. I have one here that was filed on the 18th of April under your heading (referring to a document). MR. HARR: I thought we were arguing -- this was filed May 7th. That was already denied, I thought. THE COURT: It was. MR. HARR: And then this motion was filed on the 7th for reconsideration. And that was drafted by the defendant. THE COURT: The Court will not even consider that motion. The motion to be relieved as counsel is denied through the sentencing portion of this trial. All right. Counsel, do you wish to be heard with respect to the sentencing? MR. SCHWARZ: May I be heard with respect to the pro se motion? THE COURT: I'm going to deny it. MR. SCHWARZ: But I would ask that it be stricken from the record and not even be -- it was improperly filed as a pro se while Mr. Harr was representing him. And I ask that it not be included in the court's file. THE COURT: Counsel, the Court can't throw something out that has been stamped and in the file. And counsel knows that well. The Court will not consider the motion in that, number one, it is not in compliance. The defendant has an attorney that is representing him. So the motion is off calendar as being inappropriately and improperly filed. MR. SCHWARZ: So with respect to sentencing the Court wishes to proceed with sentencing? THE COURT: Absolutely, Counsel. MR. SCHWARZ: Okay. Well, I'm sure the Court has had the time to read the probation officer's report. THE COURT: I sure have. So that you understand, I've read the probation report, the attachments to the probation report, some other letters that the Court has received, other correspondence from people who are interested in this case. That being said, go ahead. MR. SCHWARZ: Okay. Well, to begin with, your Honor, the People are in agreement with the probation officer Mr. Davis -- his recommendation that the defendant serve 200 days of county jail straight time and that he be placed on formal probation for five years, that he have search terms - THE COURT: Excuse me, Counsel. Does this Court have authority to place a misdemeanant on probation for five years? MR. SCHWARZ: Yes, your Honor, it does. The Court is entitled, even on a misdemeanor, to place someone on probation for five years. Yes, it does under the Penal Code. I don't know the section. If the Court wishes, I could research it. But it's been done many times. THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. MR. SCHWARZ: -- that he be placed on five years of probation and that he have search terms, that he be ordered to pay restitution, that he stay away from all Church of Scientology locations whether they're anywhere in California or anywhere in the United States, your Honor. I think he poses a real threat. To give the Court an example that I did not raise during the course of the trial -- but Mr. Henson is engaged in activities that in short are simply reprehensible. During the course of the trial he took photos of myself I believe in an attempt to intimidate me and my investigator. I got a phone call from somebody in Iowa telling me they were looking at a picture of me. Also during the course of the trial while fair game and any mention of deaths on Gilman Hot Springs Road (sic) was to be excluded during the course of the trial, Mr. Henson, while he didn't participate, his wife and cohorts saw fit to protest outside of - THE COURT: Excuse me, Counsel. Just limit your -the statements to Mr. Henson. I don't care about his wife and friend. They can do anything they want. And they're not subject to this Court's jurisdiction. And if they want -there's no indication that Mr. Henson encouraged them or instructed them or forced them to do anything. MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Let's limit ourselves to what we have. MR. SCHWARZ: I appreciate that, your Honor. And I will do that. Your Honor, the defendant also during the course of the trial or at about that time also saw fit to post the names of my support staff on the internet, your Honor, in what we believe is an attempt to intimidate our office from vigorously prosecuting this case. This is but one thing that the defendant has done outside of what the Court has already read demonstrating that the defendant is a dangerous person, your Honor, and has no respect for this Court. And the fact that he's not here today demonstrates that fact. So we would ask that the Court follow the probation officer's recommendation that he serve a moderate amount of time in custody straight time and follow it up with five years of probation under the terms and conditions of which the probation officer recommended. I should let the Court know that the victims in this case through counsel wish to be heard as well. Nevertheless -- and I will submit on those comments, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I'll listen to anybody that wants to talk to me. MR. ABELSON: Good morning, your Honor. My name is Elliot Abelson. And I represent the Church of Scientology. THE COURT: We've met before. I think we met in Los Angeles when I was on the bench there. MR. ABELSON: Yes, sir. THE COURT: I have read your letters and the letters you attached to your letter. And I've read and perused the attachment consisting of some 21 exhibits. MR. ABELSON: Well, then you probably - THE COURT: Is there anything else you want to add to that? MR. ABELSON: No, sir. I think it's all there. Thank you. THE COURT: Anybody else wish to be heard? (No response) THE COURT: Counsel. MR. HARR: Your Honor, I called the court clerk yesterday to try to get a copy of the probation report. THE COURT: You haven't gotten one? MR. HARR: I haven't seen it. It wasn't delivered to me. I haven't tried to bury my head. As far as I know, the defendant hasn't seen it either. THE COURT: Well, you certainly are entitled to it. Was he not given one? MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, Mr. Davis is here in court. THE COURT: Mr. Davis. MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, the way the process works is unless private counsel calls the probation department and specifically requests a report sent to his office - THE COURT: Well, I think it's -- MR. DAVIS: -- what our policy is -- THE COURT: -- patently unfair to keep him from reading a copy. MR. SCHWARZ: I don't think that that's what happened, your Honor. THE COURT: No. No. I didn't say that it happened. I said it would be patently unfair to keep him from reading a copy. So I want him to read a copy before we proceed any further. That's what I'm saying. MR. SCHWARZ: Okay. THE COURT: You just shifted him one. How long do you need, Counsel? You can be seated, Mr. Davis. MR. HARR: At least 20 minutes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Take 20 minutes. MR. HARR: I believe the statute is I'm entitled 48 hours in advance, and if requested I can have it prior to that. It's statutory. THE COURT: Do you want me to postpone sentencing? MR. HARR: I have no authority from my client to do that. THE COURT: When do you want to do it, Counsel? MR. HARR: I'll read the report, your Honor. Once I read that, I'll try to make a straight answer to that. THE COURT: Sure. MR. SCHWARZ: The only thing I would add about the 48-hour rule, your Honor, is that the statute just says that it has to be made available. It's date-stamped on the 10th for the Court. So that is making it available. The Court had the copy for now in excess of six days. MR. HARR: I called the court yesterday, and they said it wasn't available. THE COURT: They didn't know. I apologize to you, Mr. Harr. But you've got it now. MR. HARR: I have it now. THE COURT: You need 20 minutes? MR. HARR: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: You've got 20 minutes. Call me as soon as you're ready. (Recess in proceedings from 11:26 to 11:52 a.m.) THE COURT: Counsel, the Court has -- over this recess the Court has considered the issues in this matter and seriousness of Mr. Henson's failure to appear here. For that reason, I think we're going to suspend the sentencing proceedings without going any further. And the reason is the Court wishes to find out, first, where Mr. Henson is, second, to have him apprehended, and, third, to find out the reasons that he has failed to appear here today. After the Court hears all of that, the Court will be in a better position to make a determination as to what the sentence would be. MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. SCHWARZ: -- since that's the Court's concern, Mr. Davis has something to say with respect to that. THE COURT: Mr. Davis. MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, on May 11th I received a voice mail from the defendant to the effect that he had no restrictions and that he was going to Canada, however, he would be back Sunday. Yesterday he called me and told me he did not receive the court report, neither had his attorney, and the matter was taken off calendar. I listened to him and told him to contact your attorney and make him aware of your thoughts and feelings. He told me I have been talking to my attorney. He didn't receive a copy of the report, so the case is being continued. THE COURT: We'll just have to wait and see. MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, I also have -- Mr. Henson posted on the internet that I will not be in Riverside May 16. In fact I would have to be a complete idiot to be in Riverside May 16th. And then he writes on May 15th, Tuesday, and if I apply for refugee status, I can work here with an income and remain in Chapter 13. He's talking about being in Canada. He thinks he's now going to be a refugee in Canada. MR. HARR: I don't know how we would authenticate that. THE COURT: Excuse me. MR. DAVIS: To further add he also told me the U.S. State Department was going to take over his case. And he's been in contact with the Canadian government. And they've offered him political asylum. THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Davis. I appreciate that. That even further dictates that the Court wait until Mr. Henson has been found and brought to this court at which time the Court will consider that along with the fact that he failed to appear here on the date of sentencing. MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, is the Court going to add a 1320 since he was out on his O.R. release? The Court routinely does that to the FTA - THE COURT: O.R. is revoked. There's a bench warrant issued. In fact we'll make it a no-bail benchwarrant. The Court is slightly interested in getting him back. MR. SCHWARZ: So the Court is going to add the 1320 charge? THE COURT: Yes, Counsel. MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HARR: Your Honor, could I ask one extremely stupid question. I heard what you said earlier that I'm on this until sentencing is completed - THE COURT: The problem with a stupid question is you might get a stupid answer. MR. HARR: It's my understanding that even though sentencing may be put off for a fairly indefinite period of time, I'm still his attorney. THE COURT: You're still his attorney until the sentencing is -- I will not relieve you, Counsel, at this point. If ever Mr. Henson needed an attorney, he needs it now more than he ever did before. MR. HARR: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Court's in recess. MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor. MR. HARR: Thank you. (Proceedings concluded at 11:55 a.m.) Wm. Gregg Hagglund Press Secretary Refugee Committee, Temple of At'L'An (TM) 905 844 6216 Free Keith Henson http://freehenson.da.ru http://www.keithhenson.org/


From: elrond1@home.com (Gregg)
Subject: Re: Henson sentencing transcript
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 05:13:04 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
Message-ID: <3b2c3af7.16385667@news2.lightlink.com>
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 03:31:18 +0200 (CEST), Clark_Bor@juno.com wrote: >On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:13:52 -0400, ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote:
snip >>The Judge, btw, is reportedly a fairly old guy who appears a little out of it.
>
>"Reportedly" by whom -- your criminally convicted friend Keith Henson?
http://www.martindale.com/xp/Martindale/home.xml Robert H. Wallerstein Sr. Mun. J. 11835 W. Olympic Los Angeles, California (Los Angeles Co.) Born 1926; Admitted 1962; University of California, ; Southwestern University School of Law, J.D. Other than a slight hearing loss, the judge is in good shape for his age. When he is not working for the county, he does private judging for Alternative Resolution Centers, ARC. BTW, "Clark" left clues in recent postings as to who this person is. Keith Henson From: elrond1@home.com (Gregg)
Subject: Re: Henson sentencing transcript
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 01:57:43 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
Message-ID: <3b2a1960.94502470@news2.lightlink.com>
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.40.229 X-Original-Trace: 13 Jun 2001 21:58:29 -0400, 24.141.40.229 On 13 Jun 2001 20:45:51 -0400, zinjifar@i.am (Zinj) wrote: snip >Lawyers often wear an 'idiot' mask if it will help their client.
>Keith is the best person to decide how 'idiotic' Harr is... and I doubt he's
>gonna say.
Actually, I will. Jim did the best he could with the conditions handed him, namely refusal to allow my expert witness, Frank Oliver and motions which disallowed any mention of why I was picketing and any practices or policies of scientology. Essentially this shut down any defense. Since the trial was over Jim and I have had no disagreements of any consequence. Keith Henson

From: elrond1@home.com (Gregg)
Subject: Re: Henson sentencing transcript
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 02:01:02 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
Message-ID: <3b2b1a6e.94772860@news2.lightlink.com>
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 19:44:38 -0500, Tom Klemesrud <tomklem@WCTAtel.net> wrote: >> To give the Court an example that I did not raise during the course of
>> the trial -- but Mr. Henson is engaged in activities that in short are
>> simply reprehensible. During the course of the trial he took photos of
>> myself I believe in an attempt to intimidate me and my investigator. I
>> got a phone call from somebody in Iowa telling me they were looking at
>> a picture of me.
>Mr. Schwarz got a call from the publisher of a newspaper investigating
>his conduct in this case with the intent to investigate Mr. Schwarz
>conduct of the case; and to report the findings to the Senior Senator
>from Iowa whom is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I knew about the Foreign Relations Committee, but I didn't know Judiciary was getting in the act. My, my. >This was mentions to Schwarz. He became troubled by it for some reason.
I am sure his conscience is clear. >The picture that was looked at was not public, rather it was e-mailed to
>the publisher.
>
>Is Mr. Schwarz suggesting the press's right to know is "reprehensible?"
That would be a good question to ask. Keith Henson