This motion has to rank high in outright foolishness. They are asking the court to seal two Usenet posts *still up on Google.*

Now I don't know how Judge Whyte would react to being asked to seal some articles (with a few words crossed out) ripped out of a major newspaper, but effectively that's what he is being asked to do. Mind you the cult has not made a DMCA claim against Google to get these posts deleted. I don't think it is because they learned a thing last time, but that even they know there just isn't any justification to do so.

No matter how foolish this order is, I expect it to be granted because I can't show up in person or nor do I see any point in paying counsel to show up and protect the court from doing something this monumentally silly. In fact, there are certain advantages to me if it does. It is amazing what lawyers can do to waste the $350,000 they "expect to spend" on me. (Rosen's notes, exhibit 185, Lisa hearings.)

At the bottom of this post I point you to the two exhibits they are trying to have sealed.

**********

Helena K. Kobrin, SBN 152546
MOXON & KOBRIN
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90010
(213) 487-4468

Samuel D. Rosen
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER
75 East 55th Street
New York, NY 10022-3206
(212) 318-6000

Attorneys for Plaintiff RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California non-profit corporation, Plaintiff,

v.

H. KEITH HENSON, an individual, Defendant.

CASE NO. C96-20271 RMW(EAI)

EX PARTS MOTION FOR ORDER SEALING EXHIBITS 13 AND 14 TO MCSHANE CONTEMPT DECLARATION

DATE: August 2, 2002 TIME: 9:00 a.m. CTRM: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte

TO DEFENDANT H. KEITH HENSON:

Plaintiff Religious Technology Center ("RTC") hereby moves the Court for an Order sealing Exhibits 13 and 14 to the Declaration of Warren McShane. The Declaration and all Exhibits thereto have been lodged with the Court pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5.

As grounds for the requested relief, RTC states that this case was litigated under the protection of a Confidentiality Order (Docket No. 102) prior to the enactment of L.R. 79-5. Defendant Henson has now violated the Court's Permanent Injunction, and RTC seeks the ability to bring Henson's violations before the Court under the same protection that was afforded throughout the case to its confidential, unpublished copyrighted work that was the

[page 1]

subject of this copyright action.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

RTC has filed a motion seeking issuance of an Order to Show Cause as to why defendant Henson should not be held in civil contempt for a violation of the Permanent Injunction entered by the Court on June 16, 1997, and makes the following showing as to why a portion of its Exhibits should be sealed:

o The contempt motion is based, in part, on Henson's Internet posting of a portion of RTC's unpublished, copyrighted work, NOTs 34, that was the subject of the copyright trial held in 1998. The motion is also based, in part, on another Henson posting soliciting another of RTC's copyrighted works, NOTs 56, and including references from NOTs 34 in that posting.

o In the underlying copyright case, the Court issued a Confidentiality Order allowing the NOTs work, other unpublished, confidential works, and infringements thereof, to be filed under seal.

o Further recognizing the highly confidential nature of NOTs 34, during the trial, the Court cleared the courtroom during testimony concerning NOTs 34 (Docket No. 358), and subsequently issued an Order keeping sealed the portions of the trial transcript where NOTs 34 was discussed. (Docket No. 525.)

o As part of the current contempt motion, RTC wishes to file two postings by Henson that contain portions of NOTs 34

[only one of them does--hkh]

and are the basis for the contempt motion at bar. However since the Confidentiality Order was entered, Civil L.R. 79-5 now requires that leave of Court be obtained to file materials under seal, even where a Court has issued a Confidentiality Order. The reasons of confidentiality and proprietary rights in NOTs 34 that prompted the Court to issue the Confidentiality Order in the underlying case still exist today, as set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Warren McShane, filed in support of this motion for sealing.

[page 2]

In the circumstances presented here, there is good cause for the Court to permit the filing under seal of Henson's Internet postings that are the subject of the motion for contempt, as required by Civil L.R. 79-5.

RTC is unable to contact Mr. Henson by telephone because he has fled to Canada. It is serving copies of these papers on him in the following ways:

[This about not being able to contact me is dishonest or a fraud on the court. My phone number here has been on dozens of filed and posted documents over the past *year*. hkh]

o by mail to his post office box in Palo Alto;

o by e-mail to him.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, RTC requests that the Court issue an Order sealing Exhibits 13 and 14 to the Declaration of Warren McShane.

DATED: June 27, 2002 Respectfully submitted,

MOXON & KOBRIN

[signed by Tom Hogan for HKK]

Helena K. Kobrin

Attorneys for Plaintiff RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER

*****************************

Exhibit 13, is here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=3bdc2867.90325131@news2.lightlink.com&lr=&hl=en

It is on a thread started by STICKWORK, I replied, ptsc replied and I replied to that. The thread (from less fractious days on a.r.s) started with:

>Michael Rinder told the world on national television that
>anyone attacking Scientology is a criminal. This IS
>policy! The motive for Robert Minton to open the LMT Trust
>and take on the church is because he is a criminal and a
>liar. Thats what Scientologists believe.

> Of course, I know oodles of criminals and liars just frothing
>to take on Scientology. NOT! The cult could never conceive
>that their motive is a mirage. The only motive that I can conceive
>would best be described as 'humanitarian". And the love of a good
>scrap. Bob Minton is taking significant heat and, therby, helping
>numerous posters here. Taking enemy fire so that we can try and
>live normal lives.
>
> The real motive of Robert Minton is what gives me hope
>in the human race. We all have parts to play, and I salute
>Minton for his!!!
>
> STICKWORK Louis Freeman

Exhibit 13 reads:

********************

On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:08:45 -0400, ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:39:02 GMT, hkhenson@home.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
>
>>On 24 Oct 2001 02:56:49 GMT, stickwork@aol.com (STICKWORK) wrote:

[snipped see above]

>>I agree with Stickwork.
>>I fact it may be time to increase our efforts while they are so
>>focused on Bob. I know there are going to be pickets at the cults
>>compound near Hemet over the next few months. This causes a certain
>>dwarf obsessed with being publicly buggered to spray spit on his
>>lackeys and soil his drawers when he looks out a window and sees
>>picketers.

>>There is a distributed project underway to demask NOTs 53. That is
>>the last of the NOTs series which has not seen the light of the
>>Internet. There is justification to do it because some of the NOTs
>>are outright criminal instruction manuals. Is NOTs 53 like 34 and
>>describes the unlawful practice of medicine? Or is it like NOTs 23
>>and just more deluded raving about body thetans? (Or maybe it is
>>about TR 1.1)
>
>Such an idea has fascinating potential. Of course as has been pointed out
>previously, the vocabulary in the NOTS in general is impoverished, with only a
>few hundred words being used often. Most words are stereotypical formulations
>involving "ridges," "clusters," and similar crazy hallucinations about space
>aliens.
>
>A word list with frequency counts might be useful toward such an endeavor.

Of course I don't have any of the NOTs, though surely I could get them if I cared too. But what is needed for the project is a list of the words and a list of the words in groups of two and three. Such a list plus frequencies of the words and combinations I think could be posted without fear. A long time ago someone fed the NOTs to a chunk of dense Perl code called Travesty. Travesty makes such a list as part of the making "travesties" of the material fed to it. I can't locate it, but the real NOTs series only went to 55. If you can find NOTs 56 on the net please email it to me or repost it.

Keith Henson

************************* The above paragraph is absolutely clear that I was not asking for a "real" NOTs issue since as far as I knew the real ones only went to 55 (might only be 54, that's as high as the included copyright listings attached to this motion go).

For RTC/Scientology to file a motion about this post is outright abuse of the court, not to mention me.

For your amusement, the cult redacted "just more deluded raving about body thetans" from my comments, and "'ridges,' 'clusters,' and similar crazy hallucinations about space aliens" from ptsc's comments.

*******************

Exhibit 14 is where I reposted my original letter to Judge Whyte (with NOTs 34 cut to 3 lines and a pointer to a much commented version on Clambake). It is dated May 9, 2002 and can be found here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3cdb591a.314679427%40news2.lightlink.com

It was cut and pasted from here:

http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/scientology/grady/henson-to-whyte-3.26.96

where it has been up for the past 6 years. The letter with the same three lines can be found in a postings I made 26 Mar 1997, 30 Apr 1998, and 15 Jul 1999. There are at least a thousand other examples of these three lines on the Google alone.

They redacted the three lines of NOTs 34 down to the line

"Lerma to Judge Brinkma about the stunts pulled on Mr. Lerma in a related case." or they might have left out a page.

The post was part of a thread started by Tilman Hauser with a URL,

http://www.law.com/jsp/statearchive.jsp?type=Article&oldid=ZZZCQLOYZ0D

This is an article about the ElcomSoft case before Judge Whyte involving the DMCA and the First Amendment. The post is an example of a previous case (mine) before Judge Whyte where he also gave short shrift to the First Amendment. I suspect the cult is trying to use the relatively mild comments I made about Judge Whyte as a wedge to get him to take action against me.

There is more news from the legal front I will post on another thread.

Keith Henson