This is impressive. Keith Henson
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES O. CRIPPS AND JAMES J. HARR
JAMES O. CRIPPS State Bar No. 31518
JAMES J. HARR State Bar No. 95032
133 N. Buena Vista, Suite 1
Hemet, CA 92543
Telephone: (909) 925-5024
Attorney for Keith Henson
RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.) Case No. HEM014371
)
Plaintiff )
) OBJECTIONS TO PROBATION
vs. ) OFFICER'S REPORT DATED MAY 8,
) 2001
KEITH HENSON )
) Date: July 20, 2001
Defendant ) Time: 8:30 a.m.
) Dept: H-4
----------------------------------
Keith Henson, defendant in the above-entitled action and
hereinafter "Defendant", by and through his attorney, hereby objects
to Probation Officer Gary Davis' report dated May 8, 2001 ("the
report"), as follows:
1. Defendant's attorney is substantially misquoted on page 10
of the report, lines 37 through 42. The report states, "On behalf of
the defendant, Mr. Harr states the defendant is "remorseful" in terms
of making threats to individuals, as opposed to the church as an
entity relating to Count III." This is a grossly inaccurate quote
because the Defendant and his attorney have always maintained that the
Defendant did not threaten any of the alleged victims or the Church of
Scientology. What Mr. Harr really said was, "To the extent that the
alleged victims may have perceived that the Defendant threatened them,
the Defendant is remorseful."
2. Page 1 of the report states that the date of the offence
is May 26, 2000 to July 21, 2001. Count III alleges that the offense
occurred on or about July 1, 2000 through September 1, 2000. The
Defendant does not know why this report states date other than those
set forth in the complaint.
3. Page 3 of the report says the circumstances of the event
were taken from "Reports of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department
4DR00201037". Since the "facts" set forth in the aforementioned
Sheriff's report are dramatically different from what is relevant to
sentencing, the Defendant asserts that the "facts" set forth in the
report are of no use to the court in sentencing. A good portion of
page 3 of the report is dedicated to what "Gavina Idda" did or said,
including the picture with the satellite coordinates that the court
deemed inadmissible. Perhaps the most glaring example is at page 5 of
the report, where it says: "Under Penal Code 11418.5(a). a threaten to
use weapons of mass destruction, with or without the intent or ability
to carry out that threat, is a felony or misdemeanor." Who cares?
This is not an issue in the case. At page 6 we find, "Mr. Richardson
indicates that the defendant is not a stable person and he was
previously under psychiatric care." There is no indication that the
author of the report tried to substantiate it. At page 8 of the
report, Mr. Richardson is again quoted: "Mr. Richardson concluded by
stating that he has been in many dangerous situations in his
professional career, and unequivocally, in this matter the concern and
fear seen amongst the staff and Golden Era is real and warranted."
Mr. Richardson is not a "victim", he did not provide this information
at trial, and his unsubstantiated hearsay is clearly inappropriate for
sentencing. We are not going to waste the court's time outlining all
of the unsubstantiated and irrelevant facts in the "Circumstances of
the Offense" portion of the report. A final example is the information
about the defendant taking GPS coordinates is unsubstantiated at trial
and denied by the person who allegedly had the GPS equipment. It is
clear that the court cannot rely on this position of the report in
considering sentencing.
4. The author of the report accurately states at page l5 of
the report that the defendant is opposed to a grant of probation if it
includes search terms of this personal property or residence for the
detection of explosives or any other contraband. The Defendant is not
concerned that law enforcement authorities will find any unauthorized
material. His concern is that certain Scientologists and their agents
would exploit local law enforcement agencies to conduct unwarranted
searches, in furtherance of their Fair Game approach to detractors.
Since probation searches are not based on probable cause, and in light
of the Defendant's prior experience with certain Scientologists and
their agents, Defendant is convinced that probation, particularly
formal probation, will merely be a harassment tool to silence
legitimate and constitutionally protected free speech.
Nevertheless, the Probation Officer recommends five years of
formal probation. The Probation Officer provides no statutory basis
that would authorize the Court to impose five years of probation, and
we believe that three years would be the maximum, in an appropriate
case, based on Penal Code section 1203 a. The Defendant asserts that
this is not such a case.
Additionally, the Defendant has made it clear that he would
not accept terms of probation, such as a term 4, to submit to a search
of person, auto and residence. In fact, the Defendant may not be
appearing at this sentencing because he is seeking refugee status in
Canada based, at least in part, on the proceedings in this case. How
about term 7 not to have any direct or indirect contact with the
victims or any property owned or controlled by the Church of
Scientology? This term is too vague for the Defendant to understand,
and would undoubtedly be construed to include lawful Internet posting
and picketing. Is the Probation Officer prepared to list the hundreds,
if not thousands, of properties that Scientology owns and/or controls
throughout the world so that the Defendant will be on notice of where
he might not be able to go? This would certainly be a requirement in
order to put the Defendant on notice of where he might lawfully go in
various countries where Scientology has a presence. Additionally, the
Defendant is apparently in Canada, and intends to remain there for the
foreseeable future while his refugee status is resolved. Even if his
refugee status is denied at some point the Defendant has, and probably
would, resume residence in Palo Alto, California, which is not in
Riverside County. Therefore, Riverside County can try to hand this
formal probation football off to another county, or put a substantial
inconvenience on the defendant by having him report to Riverside
County.
We believe that it is important to clearly state the
Defendant's position about probation. The only way that certain
Scientologists will believe that the Defendant is not threatening,
harassing and annoying them will be for Defendant's probation to
consist of placing the Defendant in solitary confinement, tied to a
chair, naked, gagged, blindfolded, and wearing boxing gloves. This
would be the minimum necessary to insure that he can't speak, see
anyone, launch or hide nuclear weapons, use a computer or hold a
picket sign. Otherwise, he will be in violation of probation because
the Defendant will continue to try to stop certain Scientology
activity in a lawful way. Since this makes him an enemy and
suppressive person under the Fair Game Doctrine, the Defendant has to
be stopped under that doctrine by any means necessary. The "victim
statements" in the report and the letter of Mr. Abelson on behalf of
certain Scientologists support this position.
Respectfully submitted this ___ day of July, 2001 in Hemet, California
______________________________________
JAMES J. HARR, attorney for
KEITH HENSON