Little history here.

The contempt hearing which starts in a few hours was originally set up for Sept. 13, 2002. At great effort I obtained counsel for that hearing. The previous Friday the court called me and said they were moving it back a week. I later found out it was to accommodate Rosen and the RTC lawyers who have another motion, one to remove me from bankruptcy before Judge Whyte which is being heard at the same time.

I complained in a fax sent Sept 9 about the change which cost me counsel because the lawyer I was going to use could not make that date.

Judge Whyte made the below order, which he signed on Sept 13. It was filed Sept 17, and mailed to me that day. By a miracle the postal system got it here in 3 days, about 5 hours before the hearing starts--which is just a bit short for a lawyer to "enter an appearance" and request the hearing date be set at a time they can be there.

Given that the court knows my phone number and has sent faxes here to me before, using international mail to inform me of an order that becomes moot in three days is--intentional or not--a serious abuse of process by the court itself.

This sequence of events will be presented by my immigration lawyers here to the Immigration courts.

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CA LUOTNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11

NO. C-96-20271-RMW RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, ORDER RE FAX RECEIVED Plaintiff, SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 14 v. 15 H. KEITH HENSON, 16 Defendant. 17

18 On September 9, 2002, defendant H. Keith Henson sent a letter and an "emergency ex parte

19 motion to prevent spoliation of evidence" by fax to the chambers of Judge Ronald M. Whyte.

20 Faxing materials to chambers is not a substitute for filing documents with the clerk's office.

21 Accordingly, the court will take no action on the fax submission.

22 Although Mr. Henson is representing himself in this action and does not at present have the

23 benefit of counsel to assist him, he is still required to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

24 Procedure, the Civil Local Rules, and all other rules and procedures applicable to civil proceedings

25 in this court. The court is encouraged that defendant has obtained counsel to represent him in this

26 matter. Counsel should promptly enter an appearance on defendant's behalf. If the revised hearing

27 date is inconvenient for counsel, the parties should meet and confer in order to reach agreement on

28 ORDER RE SEPTEMBER 9, 2000 FAX C-96-20271-RMW TER

1 a modest adjustment to the hearing schedule, if necessary, to accommodate counsel's schedules, or if

2 agreement cannot be reached, to bring the matter before the court. As matters stand, however, the

3hearing will remain scheduled for September 20, 2002, a date selected by the court for the court's

4 convenience and based on the court's calendar and the need to address other matters.

5

6 DATED: 9/13/02

RONALD M. WHYTE 7 United States District Judge