I haven't got the slightest idea of what is going on here. This may be the court setting an earlier date on acting on a request than it had decided before. I have no idea if this is good or bad, but it seems extremely unusual. Incidently, my wife thinks Leslie Holmes, mentioned at the very end and who is Hogan's junior partner (she got her law degree since my case was filed) is a scientologist. I have not thought so, just figured she was going lite goth. But if anyone has an idea about how to check this out, please let me know. Last fall someone sent me some papers from Hogan's office including copies of an RTC voucher and a check for just a bit over $46,000. Some of it might have been for Grady Ward's case, but it does give you the feeling for how much they are spending on me--Hogans firm is only one of four and not the most expensive. Keith Henson ------------------- FILED
JUL 12 2001 RICHARD W. WIEKING CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NO. C-01-20493-RMW CLERK’S NOTICE DATE OF MOTION: AUGUST 3, 2001 Submitted on the Papers - No oral argument In re: H. KEITH HENSON, Debtor. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on the Court's own motion, RTC'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW REFERENCE TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, in the above entitled case, has been calendared for the date set forth above. The matter will be deemed submitted on the papers and no oral argument will be held. No appearance is needed. If any motion is moved by the court's own motion, papers must still be filed in accordance with the originally noticed date and the Local Rules of this court. Except upon stipulation of counsel and a proposed order approved by the Court. THIS COURT WILL *NOT* CONSIDER ANY LATE PAPERS. The moving party shall give written notice to counsel for all parties of the date of the hearing after receipt of this notice. Following service, the moving party shall file a certificate of service with the Clerk of this Court DATED: July 12, 2001 BY: [signature] JACKIE VIERRA Courtroom Deoutv for Honorable Ronald M.Whyte -------- [p. 2] Copy of Order mailed to:
Elaine M. Seid
MCPHARLIN SPRINKLES & THOMAS LLP Ten Almaden Blvd., Ste. 1460 San Jose, CA 95113
Thomas R. Hogan Leslie Holmes LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN Ten Almaden Blvd., Ste. 535 San Jose, CA 95113
Samuel D. Rosen PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 399 Park Avenue, 31st Flr. New Yoric, NY 10022-4697 [end of page] -------- Thomas R. Hogan, SBN 042048 LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN Ten Almaden Boulevard, Suite 535 San Jose, California 95113 (408) 292-7600
Helena K. Kobrin, SBN 152546 MOXON &. KOBRIN 3055 Wilshire Boulevard. Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90015 (213) 4§7-4468
Elaine Seid, SBN 72588 MCPHARLIN, PRINKLES & THOMAS, LLP Ten Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1460 San Jose, California 95113 (408) 293-1900
Samuel D. Rosen PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY & WALKER, LLP 399 Park Avenue, 31st Floor New York, New York (212) 318-6000
Attorneys for Creditor RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
In re H. KEITH HENSON, ) Case No. CO I -20493-RMW Debtor. ) (Case No. 98-51326ASW-13) — PROOF OF SERVICE [end of p. 3] ------ I am employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is Ten Almaden, Suite 535, San Jose, California 95113. On July 16, 2001, I served the foregoing documents described as: CLERK'S NOTICE on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows:
Stanley A. Ziotoff 300 S. First Street, Suite 215 San Jose, California 95113-1305
Devin Derham-Burk Chapter 13 Trustee 2105 South Bascom Avenue, Suite 280 Campbell, California 95008
Robert Gebhard Assistant US Trustee U.S. Trustee's Office 280 South First Street, Suite 268 San Jose, California 95113
H. Keith Henson/V. Arel Lucas P.O. Box 60012 Palo Alto, California 94306
[X] BY MAIL
( ] I deposited such envelope in the mail at San Jose, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. [X] As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Jose, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on July 16, 2001, at San Jose, California. I ] STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. IX] FEDERAL: I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. [signature] Leslie Holmes