Re: Henson's and the Riveside Appeals court.

From: hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Henson's and the Riveside Appeals court.
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 05:53:22 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
Message-ID: <3c58d9c8.127290713@news2.lightlink.com>

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:30:08 GMT, hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson) wrote:

>
>Being in Canada it often takes quite a while to get court matters
>through the mail and sometimes they get lost entirely. But I have a
>nice collection for you that I will post on this thread.
>
>Keith Henson

# 2 in a series.

H. Keith Henson
2237 Munns Ave.
Oakville, ON L6H 3M9 Canada
905-844-6216
hkhenson@cogeco.com

In Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
(Hemet)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff,
vs.KEITH HENSON Defendant. ))))))))))))))))) Case No: Hem
014371NOTICE UNDER RULE 12(b)(1)Date: N/ATime: N/APlace: N/A

Rule 12(b), 2002 California Rules of Court, Augmenting and correcting the record reads as follows:

(b) Omissions

(1) If a clerk or reporter omits a required or designated portion of the record, a party may serve and file a notice in superior court specifying the omitted portion and requesting that it be prepared, certified, and sent to the reviewing court. The party must serve a copy of the notice on the reviewing court.

(2) The clerk or reporter must comply with a notice under (1) within 10 days after it is filed. If the clerk or reporter fails to comply, the party may serve and file a motion to augment under (a), attaching a copy of the notice.

Defendant in pro per requests that the clerk's record be augmented to include any material in the case file, particularly but not limited to the amicus brief of Arnold Lerma, and the motion, declaration, and exhibits filed on April 18, 2001 and admitted to the record on April 19, 2001.

Defendant further requests that the omitted portions of the reporter's transcript, particularly hearings on motions in limine be prepared, certified, and sent to the reviewing court.

Defendant suggests that the court may wish to correct on its own motion the minute order of April 19, 2001.

Respectfully submitted,

H. Keith Henson

Dated January 7, 2001

[ As an aside, I found out today, Jan 30, that Judge Wallerstein did not agree that rule 12(b) says what it clearly does. He wrote a letter (which I have not seen yet) to the presiding judge at either Hemet or Riverside and said that it was in the hand of the appeal court and not his place to respond to me at all. The appeals court also returned the copy of this notice the law requires to be served on the appeals court, but I think they figured out that was their error. It is a bit weird to be more up on the court's rules than they are. hkh]