On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 12:56:06 GMT, hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson) wrote:
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)
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER'S OPPOSITION TO "LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF" AND REQUEST THAT PURPORTED "AMICUS BRIEF" BE STRICKEN
DATE: N/ATIME: N/ACTRM: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
Along with defendant's service of his Brief and Motion to Unseal Exhibits, he served on RTC a document entitled "Leave to File Amicus Brief, Amicus Brief re Religious Technology Center's Motion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause re Civil Contempt," by which his wife, Arel Lucas, asks the Court to accept her as a friend of the Court. Religious Technology Center ("RTC") will not waste its money or the time of its attorneys or that of this Court by dignifying that filing with an extensive response. Suffice it to say:
1. To the extent the document purports to be an "amicus brief," it is not. An amicus curiae is "one who gives information to the court on some matter of law in respect of which the court is doubtful." Earn Line S.S. Co. Ltd. v. Sutherland S.S. Co. Ltd., 264 F. 276, 279 (2d Cir. 1920). It could be said of Ms. Lucas's brief what District Judge Glasser of the Eastern District of New York said of a brief submitted by the New York Civil Liberties Union in the criminal case involving John Gotti, that she did not "come as a 'friend of the court' and provide the court with an objective, dispassionate, neutral discussion of the issues," but "as an advocate for one side . . . ." Such an amicus "does the court, itself and fundamental notions of fairness a disservice." U.S. v. Gotti, 755 F.Supp. 1157, 1159 (E.D.N.Y. 1991).
Indeed, Ms. Lucas admits in her first sentence that she is filing this "brief" to act as an attorney for Henson, a function that she is obviously unqualified to perform, and to put in alleged "evidence" that Henson himself has chosen not to submit. One court has noted that "an amicus who argues facts should rarely be welcomed . . . ." Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F.2d 567, 569 (1st Cir. 1970). As the court stated in Strasser, "a district court lacking joint consent of the parties should go slow in accepting . . . an amicus brief unless, as a party, although short of a right to intervene, the amicus has a special interest that justifies his having a say, or unless the court feels that existing counsel may need supplementing assistance." Id. Ms. Lucas has no special interest, for if she were seen to have a special interest, then any spouse of any person involved in a legal action could move to be recognized as an amicus curiae. And her "brief" provides no relevant assistance to Henson.
2. To the extent that Ms. Lucas's submission purports to be "evidence," it is axiomatic that a brief is not evidence, and Ms. Lucas has not submitted any supporting documentation, nor has she provided the Court with anything that shows that she is competent to present this information, that any of it is not hearsay, or even that any of it has the slightest relevance to whether Henson committed civil contempt of the permanent injunction in this case by certain of his Internet postings. Thus, pursuant to Rules 401- 402, 602, 801 and 802, this "evidence" should be excluded.
Thus, RTC opposes Ms. Lucas's request for leave to submit her "amicus brief" and requests that it be stricken from the record of this case.
DATED: September 18, 2002 Respectfully submitted, MOXON & KOBRIN
____________________________________
Helena K. Kobrin
Attorneys for Plaintiff RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER