On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 02:37:08 GMT, hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson) (Arel actually) wrote:

>
>I just can't seem to get it through my tattered mind that they can
>basically do pretty much anything they want. I'm reminded of a
>quotation that I saw recently in the *New York Times*, that "What we
>have in the United States is a legal system. What we need is a
>justice system."

snip

[We now have a paper copy of the transcript of the contempt hearing. It will be posted soon as someone can get it scanned in and OCRed. Arel typed in some Excerpts hkh]

[Kobrin examines Rosen so he won't have the inconvenience of asking himself questions: (p. 82) Arel]

Q: Okay. Do you have bills that reflect the time that you put in?

A: I have bills for the months of June, July and August, and for the month of September through today, and projected indeed through tomorrow.

...

Q: And do those bills that were tendered to RTC reflect services only for this contempt proceeding?

A: No. *We submit a bill each month to RTC for all matters involving Mr. Henson, and that includes the bankruptcy proceeding among other things.*"

[Arel--Now what other matters involve *RTC* (NOT $-ology) besides the bankruptcy and this contempt preceding? How did he bill People v Henson? To RTC? How did he bill his services for the civil case? Note his comment a bit later:]

"Q: Did anyone else besides you work on the contempt proceeding?

A: Yes. . . . well, you and your firm, Moxon & Kobrin, put in some substantial amount of time in developing drafts of certain of the papers . . . which I then reviewed and edited."

[Arel--And a bit later, Stan is cross examining: (p. 88)]

"Q: There wasn't any person charging a lesser rate per hour that could handle such a hearing?

A: No. Because, see, the education curve in getting even somebody from my own firm--in fact, I have my time sheets and you'll see that, unlike any normal case, I handled all of this myself. What you're hearing in terms of bills to the client is all my time, because the learning curve to take somebody else from my firm and get them up to speed to be able to participate in this in a meaningful way after everything that's happened would be far more--it would cost the client far more."

[Arel--P. 78: McShane is on the stand, being cross examined by Stan:]

" . . . and my job specifically is to protect our scriptures. There are--the majority of the Scientology scriptures are publicly available.

There's a percentage that are not, and they're only for the eyes of parishioners who have spiritually matured to be able to see them and understand them. So when you have your materials, your scriptures stolen and made available to the public, not only do you have a lot of misunderstanding that goes along with what those scriptures mean, the ridicule that goes along with it, but also a lot of work and effort goes into trying to protect them, to get them off the internet when they appear, and I can't tell you how much work goes into doing that.

Q: . . . is there any direct, economic disadvantage to RTC other than having to hire attorneys to come in for that motion? . . .

[p. 79]A. Sure. I mean, there are splinter movements out there, wheat they call freezone splinter groups that--

THE COURT: Let me stop you for one second. Maybe I can cut this short. Is RTC, other than seeking its attorneys' fees to enforce the order . . . seeking any other economic damages . . . ?

Mr. Rosen: No, sir."

[Arel--This cut McShane short. He'd run off the end of his script, obviously.]

[Arel--pp. 101-102: I'm on the stand with Rosen cross examining, and he has been trying to elicit something of what I saw in Keith's NOTS 56. I gave him a few buzzwords, but he seems to want more:]

Q: Can you recall . . . is there any sentence of this document that you looked at a couple of hours ago that you can recall and recite to us?

A: I don't remember particular sentences. What I remember is that the document appears to me to be about body thetans that are half blown and symptoms of hysterical laughter and other types of laughter that a person who is being audited or other types of symptoms that a person who is being audited with display.

Q: [trying to cut me off] Okay.

A: [playing to increasing audible discomfort that I deliberately don't look at] And so there are some audit techniques that are put forward to take care of the B.T.'s and something about how B.T.'s and clusters reside outside the person and one has to figure out where these B.T.'s and clusters are physically, whether they're inside the person, outside the person, beside the person. That's what I particularly remember is ther was a sentence that was something about you have to determine where the B.T.'s are and this is, this is part of the auditing process."

[Arel--p. 113 (last page) Whyte is about to go out the door to his chambers. Still on the record, he stops and says,]

"THE COURT: Could I look quickly at NOTS 56?

MR. ROSEN: (Handing.)

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you."