It is well worth reading the last 6 lines of this filing by the judge in my bankruptcy case. If you wonder why the cult is going to exceptional effort to get rid of him, you will see that he has their number.

Keith Henson

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT Filed July 8, 2002

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re ] Case No. 98-51126-ASW

H. Keith Henson, ] Chapter 7.3

Debtor ( s ) .

ORDER
SPECIFYING CERTAIN ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
AT PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE OF JULY 10, 2002
AND CLARIFYING MEMORANDUM DECISION OF APRIL 22, 2002

Before the Court are two matters initiated by Religious Technology Center ("Creditor, a creditor of H. Keith person ("Debtor' ) , the debtor in this Chapter 13 case. Creditor has objected to confirmation of Debtor's Chapter 13 Plan, alleging that it is not feasible and has been proposed in bad faith; Creditor has also died a motion to dismiss the Chapter 13 case with prejudice or convert it to Chapter 7, alleging that Debtor filed bankruptcy in bad faith. Trial of both matters 7.s in the process of being scheduled and a pre-trial conference is set for July 10, 2002.

So that the pre-trial conference may be as productive and efficient as possible, counsel should be prepared to address certain issues that are peculiar to this matter, in ad

[page 1

other relevant issues that counsel may wish to raise. Unique issues have developed over the course of this Chapter 13 case; which commenced nearly four and a hall' years, ago and has not been typical consumer bankruptcy case -- for example, events rave included the following:

Discovery was unusually protracted and contentious, involving many motions by Creditor to compel Debtor and others to respond, with complaints by Debtor of past, present, and anticipated future harassment toward himself and others. All of. Creditor's discovery motions were granted at least in part, some subject to protective orders providing that the identities of those with whom Debtor and his wife did business be disclosed only to Creditor's outside counsel (as opposed to inhouse counsel) for litigation purposes, and not to Creditor itself. At a status conference in March 2001 when discovery appeared to be nearly or wholly complete, the Court urged counsel. to give serious consideration to settlement. In April 2001, Creditor filed a motion for recusal of this Court, based in large `' part upon the Court's remarks in encouraging settlement -- that motion was denied in June 2001. Creditor applied to the District Court for leave to appeal or a writ of mandamus, and for withdrawal of Debtor's Chapter 13 Case from the Bankruptcy Court, to be handle by the District Court -- none of that relief was granted. Creditor then sought a writ of mandamus from the Ninth Circuit, which. was denied in December 2001 . In May 2002, Debtor failed to appear for sentencing in a criminal matter, went to Canada, and announced that he intended to

[Page 2]

stay there while seeking refugee status. In August 2001, Creditor filed a motion for dismissal of Debtor's bankruptcy cps` under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, which was denied in January 2002

In March 2002, Creditor riled a motion to reopen discover and depose Debtor in Canada; Debtor opposed that relief on various grounds, including a claim that Creditor might harass Debtor's employer if the employer's identity was disclosed. On April 22, 2002, a memorandum decision was issued granting that motion to the extent of permitting Creditor to issue interrogatories to Debtor, with a protective order: ''As has been done throughout this Case, the court will order that the identity of Debtor's employer must ' disclosed by Debtor, but only to Creditor's outside counsel who are not members of the Church of Scientology or members of Creditor, and such information is not to be used for any purpose other than this litigation.

In June 2002, Creditor asked the District Court to withdraw the reference of Debtor's Chapter 13 case from the Bankruptcy Court, which motion appears to remain pending at this time. FN l

The unusual posture of this case gives rise to several issues. that should be addressed at the pre-trial conference, as follows

1/ Should scheduling the trial or pry remaining pre- trial preparation be deferred until Creditor's motion for withdrawal of the reference has been finally determined?

2/ If the parties disagree on the answer to that question, do they wish to brief legal issues under a schedule to be established at the pre--trial conference, or merely present argument

[page 3] at the pre-trial conference or later about practical considerations?

3/ Is Debtor definitely going to appear for trial or definitely not going to appear, or is his position not certain?

4/ If Debtor promises now that he definitely will appear for trial, can it properly be ordered now that, it he fails to appear, the extreme sanction of automatic judgment for Creditor will be imposed? Should a briefing schedule, be established for disputed Iegal issues concerning that. point?

5/ If Debtor does not promise now that he definitely will appear for trial, should a preliminary ruling be made on the legal issue of whether trial can or should proceed without Debtor actual presence, so that both parties can avoid the possibility of spending time and money unnecessarily on pre-trial preparation? If so, what briefing schedule should be established?

Counsel need not brief any of these issues for the pre-trial conference, but should be prepared to address them orally.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/8/02

ARTHUR S. WEISSBRODT

FN 1

Creditor's motion to withdraw the reference complains, inter alia, that this Court has discriminated against Creditor's attorneys on the basis of religion because the April 22, 2002 memorandum decision denies access to information about Debtor's employer to members of the church of Scientology. As the April 2002 memorandum decision points out, such restrictions have been

[page 4]

effect throughout this case -- the first protective order was issued in November 1998 and has been applied in substantially similar form many times since without objection by Creditor. Accordingly, the Court will note for the record that access is not restricted because of a professional's religion, but merely when a professional is not wholly independent from the client. The Court's intent has always been that protective orders would permit access to protected material only by those who were, understood agreed to constitute "outside counsel'; Creditor's attorneys Elaine Seid of Mcpharlin, Sprinkles & Thomas LLP; Samuel Rosen of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & walker LLP; 'Thomas Hogan of Law Office of Thomas R. Hogan; and the members of their respective firms. For example, at a hearing on September 1, 1999, Debtor asserted that Creditor's attorney Helena Kobrin was not "an outside counsel", so the Court asked Ms. Kobrin what percentage of her firm's work was done for Creditor or any "related organization" -- she replied the it was "a high percentage" of more than half, and the Court then found that she "may not be inhouses, but she's as close as they get", so she should not receive information covered by the existing protective order limiting access to outside counsel. Creditor did not object to excluding Ms. Kobrin from those given access, e-then at the hearing or later. Again, at a hearing of December 6, 1999, Debtor's wife did not want information about her employer given to Ms. Kobrin -- the Court pointed out that Ms. Kobrin was not among those permitted access by the existing protective order, and Creditor's attorney Thomas Hogan agreed that the order could be applied to information about the wife's employer. Similarly, at a hearing on July 6, 2000 concerning Debtor's residence being inspected by Creditor's appraiser, Debtor's attorney stated that t did not want anyone "associated with" Creditor in his house -- the Court asked Mr. Hogan if the appraiser was "in any way associated with the Church of Scientology", and Mr. Hogan said he was not, "we recognized that and that's the first thing we asked". Given the background of this case, it is somewhat disingenuous of Creditor to complain now that freedom of religion is denied by the same kind protective order that has always been applied without any objection from creditor,

In any event, the Court clariifies its memorandum decision of April 22, 2002 to provide only that the identity of Debtor's employer (s) shall be provided to Creditor's outside counsel : Mr. Hogan, Ms, Seid, and Mr. Rosen, and the members of their respective firms who are working on this case and not to anyone else -- such information is to be used only for this litigation

Creditor's motion to withdraw the reference is also disingenuous in describing this Court as being unable or unwilling to try this matter. This Court has always been prepared to proceed to trial once discovery was completed,- that has taken an inordinately long time, due in part to the amount of discovery sought by Creditor and in part to the failure of Debtor and other: to respond promptly, but that situation has not been caused by the

[page 5]

Court. Creditor, on the other hard, while professing an eagerness to go to trial and complaining of delay, has taken an extraordinary amount of discovery for a Chapter 13 case and has spent over an additional year now attempting to extricate itself from this Court by seeking recusal, mandamus, and withdrawal of the reference.

Yesterday, Keith Henson posted a copy of a letter he sent to the judge in the McPherson case. This resulted in a stunningly childish response from Deanna and Tigger. They seem to consider this case their own private property and don't want anyone else intruding on it. With Mirele incensed into TYPING IN ALL CAPS and Tigger echoing her, they seem to be assuming the position of authority as to who may write the judge and what the judge should have access to. It reminds me of the squabbles my friend's kids get into, and they are 6 and 8 years old. If the big one is petting their cat, the little one may not without the bigger one screaming to mom about it. While she is petting the cat, it is HER cat. Commands to share the cat result in tantrums, tears, and a slamming bedroom door. Mirele's furious and rather mystifying response to Keith's contribution displays a rather similar attitude. It is HER case, and Keith is tresspassing. Then, of course, another mooing voice is heard...why, Tigger has to jump in on the fun, like the little playground pal who's job it is to stand behind her friend in a playground argument and say, "Yeah! What she said! Yeah!" I'm waiting for the third shoe to drop (on Marcab that's what we say) and for Starshadow to chuck in her two cents. It ain't complete until Starshadow sings...

It's pretty clear that the ol' green-eyed monster jealously's at work here. Here's a guy who, despite being bankrupted and forced to flee the country, remains irrepressibly upbeat and unbroken from his Canadian lair. This guy is not only one of Scientology's more spectacular failures to date, he is also the smartest guy I know, and prominent in the critical "community."

On the other hand, the people seeking to suppress his efforts to expose the cult are a handful of middleaged nobodies who obviously envy Keith's status. Why anyone would be jealous of a guy who's been the target of a serious attempt to crush him is beyond me. It borders on sick! Look, thanks to Scientology, he is bankrupt. He is in Canada, the other choice being the not-option of sitting in a Riverside jail cell waiting for Scientology's ax to fall. He is away from his family, he missed his father's funeral, he has basically sacrificed everything he holds dear to the fight against this cult. So did Bob Minton, and we know how the Buttersquash Bunch reviled him even before he started dancing to DM's hornpipe.

What is it about dedicated cult warriors that gets these women so riled up? Is it the fact that these critics have actually put their lives on the line while the Buttersquash Bunch hasn't the nads? They sit on their fat asses for hours passing judgement on others here, unharrassed, unmolested, safe in their little rooms. A visit from OSA would probably give them a bad case of the vapors as well as a soiled pair of pants.

Brave people have always been the target of the jealous and spineless. That these women think they even have earned the right to criticize their more effective and devoted compadres is laughable. That they think they should assume the position of "Censor to the Judge" is chutzpah! Why do they think the judge needs a self-appointed censor. Can't she just roundfile the stuff she doesn't want to read? They're not really doing all this screeching out of concern for the case, despite what they say. Nope, it's just that they see others intruding on what they consider to be their "turf," and they don't like it, Mirele in particular.

It's "her" case! After all, she is the self-appointed "official" Lisa McPherson webmaster. Hebbins, if Keith's offerings are of any use, her status would plummet, like the little kid who won't let her sister pet the kitty because it's her kitty and she's afraid it might like little sister better.

Well, the show goes on. If anyone is able to stop laughing at the ridiculous posturing long enough to observe the social dynamic undercurrent running here, they will get a valuable demonstration of hominid social behavior and status positioning in action. --
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
http://members.cox.net/bwarr1/index.htm

"$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign: terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business opportunity.

$cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide." -Chris Leithiser