On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 23:18:32 +0200, Michael 'Mike' Gormez <mike@psychassualt.org> wrote:

>In article <3d5da904.92618755@news2.lightlink.com> , hkhenson@cogeco.ca
>(Keith Henson) wrote:
>
>>Judge Whyte wanted to know just what the point of the incarceration
>>would be. Rosen said to be sure I would comply with the injunction.
>>Judge Whyte was interested in what I had done to worry them, Rosen
>>replied by bringing up NOTs 56. I am sorry to say I lost it right
>>there and broke out laughing, apologized to Judge Whyte.
>
>I don't understand you. Can't you at least try to be serious about this?

No, I am sorry, but I *can't* be serious about NOTs 56. The judge understood what broke me up a few minutes later, when I told him *I* wrote NOTs 56, though in fact he already knew it when Rosen started blathering on about it. If you can manage to take the output of the travesty engine seriously, "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din."

Mind you, the posting they made the big deal out of explains where NOTs 56 came from, though I didn't claim in that post to have written it.

>I mean, the fuckers have you grosso modo by the balls, and still you
>have to piss off the judge. If it isn't the judge you're irritating the
>jury.

Hey, I can irritate a jury without saying a word. That's what happened in Hemet. Of course, the judge's rulings in the motions in limine were such that I couldn't say anything anyway.

Judge Whyte ruled in favor of the cult's request to have a hearing because he felt I "facilitated" people finding (a fair use document) where they can read the rest of NOTs 34. At this point he had already inflicted huge damage on me just by insisting that I have to show up or he (strongly implied) will rule for the cult. I *lost* this round before Rosen got to NOTs 56 so it makes no difference whatsoever if I irritate him or not. The only question I have is if I should go all out for creating a record for appeal/amicus brief in other cases or just ignore the whole silly business.

Judge Whyte was also irritated at me for "tweaking" them. But good lord folks, that was not even on my mind when I posted a.r.s history for the benefit of new people in the news group. If I want to tweak them, I post about (*) rooting in the cat box or having someone examine his butt every morning for xenu tattoos.

>For god sake Keith, this is your life they are taking away, bit by
>bit, it ain't no funny sandbox story anymore. When will get this through
>your skull? Don't you care anymore because you've figured you'd never be
>able to return to the US and so you think 'fuck you all'?

I will be able to return to the US only after the cult has been had been neutered by cutting off the lawyers--which means taking all the money from them or at least putting the whole thing in receivership. That may not happen in my lifetime in which case I am indeed an exile. So be it.

In spite of fighting them with humor (like NOTs 56) what is really going on is the entirely serious defense of the US government from a domestic terror organization and for that matter, democracy and our way of life. Trust in the government largely depends on trusting the courts.

Unfortunately, the courts are highly influenced by money--a worry I heard Sandra Day O'Connor speak about at Stanford a few years ago. Indirectly (usually) but unless you have money to pay for expensive lawyers, your chances of winning are vastly reduced.

Scientology has taken this weakness of the legal system/courts further than anyone except perhaps the tobacco industry. They use the courts as weapons against those they decide are "enemies." In almost all circumstances the courts force you to spend money if someone is willing to spend it on lawyers to go after you. Sure, in my case, they have spent 30-50 dollars for every dollar I have spent, but when they spend over a million and have by their own notes budgeted another $350k, using the courts as a weapon to destroy the lives of people is very effective. You have to look no further than Bob Minton to see that.

The problem is, people loose respect for courts when they see serious injustice going down. And respect is all the courts have. Will the courts wake up to being used/abused by the cult? I have more hope for Judge Schaeffer than Judge Whyte, but the two of them should talk to each other, and perhaps bring in Judge Silverman. As I put it to Judge Whyte, *someone has to do it."

Keith Henson

PS if you can deal with two 1.5 meg files, ask for them in email.