DAVIS & WOJCIK
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
ROBERT A. DAVIS Jr., Ca State Bar No. 160357 JOSEPH M. WOJCIK, Ca State Bar No. 177296 1105 E. Florida Ave. Hemet, Ca 92542 Telephone: (909) 652-9000 Facsimile: (909) 658-8308
Elliot J. Abelson, Ca State Bar No. 41846 LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOT J. ABELSON 8491 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, Ca 90069-1911 Telephone: (323)960-1935 Facsimile: (323)650-0398
Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Hilary Dezotell, Ken Hoden, and Bruce Wagoner
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE - HEMET BRANCH
HILARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
H. KEITH HENSON,
Defendant.
CASE NO. HECO09673 APP003381
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT H. KEITH HENSON'S NOTICE OF APPEAL BASED ON THE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE
TO ALL PARTIES AND A T TORNEYS OF RECORD: Appellant having failed to file his opposition to the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal within the time ordered by the court, Respondents by and through their attorney of record respectfully request the court to grant Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Appeal and enter the Proposed Order attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
DAVIS & WOJCIK
Dated: 1/6/03
Joseph M. cllc Attorneys for ent
[snip boilerplate]
CASE NO. HECO09673 APP003381
[PROPOSED]
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT H. KEITH HENSON'S NOTICE OF APPEAL BASED ON THE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE
The motion of plaintiffs Hilary Dezotell, Ken Hoden and Bruce Wagoner to dismiss defendant, H. Keith Henson's Notice of Appeal Based on the Disentitlement Doctrine came on Exparte Hearing on December 27, 2002 before this Court in Department 06, The Honorable Judge Ronald L. Taylor presiding. Having considered Plaintiffs' motion for dismissal of appeal based on the disentitlement doctrine, all papers submitted in support thereof and having received no opposition thereto, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
The Defendants appeal in this matter is hereby DISMISSED.
Dated:
THE HONORABLE RONALD L. ,TAYLOR, JUDGE OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
[My response filed today]
H. Keith Henson
176 Henry St. #45
Brantford, ON N3S 5C8
519-770-0646
416-528-2789
hkhenson@rogers.com
January 13, 2003
The Honorable Sharon Waters
Appeals Division
4100 Main Street.
Riverside, CA 92501
909-955-1565
Dear Judge Waters:
I am putting this urgent plea in the form of a letter instead of a motion because I have no idea of how to respond to a proposed order I received last Friday, January 10, 2003. The proposed order is the attached REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF ORDER . . . and (PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING . . . It came to the Munns Street Address in Oakville, Ontario. The Order and the Request were mailed to my old address more than two weeks after I gave notice of my address in Brantford to the court and the opposing attorneys. These papers request that Judge Taylor at the Hemet Branch dismiss the appeal.
I have seen the motion to the trial court dated December 5, 2002 to dismiss my appeal, and I have seen the appeal court's show cause order to respond to a motion I have not seen which arrived here later than the date on which I could respond (see my REQUEST FOR EXTENTION OF TIME TO RESPOND, REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION dated January 1, 2003). I have not seen either a motion to dismiss in the appeals court, nor an order to respond to the trial court motion of December 5, 2002 from the trial court.
By the rules I *cannot* respond to a motion in the trial court without dismissing my attorney and becoming pro se in that court. Since the case is on appeal (pro se) I don't know if the trial court even has the authority to let me change attorneys there. My attorney has assured me that a motion in a trial court to dismiss an appeal is entirely outside of due process and would be ignored. She also told me it is impossible for a court of limited jurisdiction to issue a permanent injunction and that the cases have gone as far as to say that that issue can even be raised on appeal for the first time, even on the appellate court's own motion. (Ash v. Hertz Corp (1997) 53 CA4th 1107, 1112, 62 CR2d 192,195 and Rest. 2d Conflict of Laws Section 97, comment "d")
In their motion of Dec. 5, 2002, opposing counsel states that a permanent injunction was issued by the trial court (see my REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE dated January 3, 2003). If the trial court has exceeded its authority in this matter (on top of the other shocking irregularities in my cases in Riverside County) I am not as confident as my attorney that the courts will abide by due process or even the law where the Scientology cult is involved. I need to know from this appeals court if the trial court *can* issue the proposed order dismissing my appeal.
I have tried several times to get through on the phone to clarify what has been filed in the courts, but have had no luck trying to find a person to talk to through the voice mail system. My lawyer has had serious medical problems and I have had great difficulty reaching her as well.
I would very much appreciate a call (collect is fine) from your clerk. I need to know if the motion to dismiss the appeal before Judge Taylor can be granted or if the Scientology attorneys are just trying to confuse me. I also need to know if there is a similar motion before the appeals court I can respond to.
Very truly yours,
H. Keith Henson
Cc Karen Novorr
Opposing counsel
Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board