On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:03:20 GMT, hkhenson@rogers.com (Keith Henson) wrote:

snip

I was slightly amused to find:

NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF NOTICE OF APPEAL UNDER THE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE

in my mail today.

"On December 5, 2002, Respondents filed their motion requesting that Appellant's Notice of Appeal be dismissed based upon the disentitlement doctrine as Henson is a fugitive, presently living in Canada.

"Per a minute order by the Honorable Sharon J. Waters, dated December 17, 2002, Appellant Henson had ten (10) days from the date of the minute order to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss.

"On January 6, 2003, the court received Appellant Henson's request for an extension of time to file an opposition, which was granted in a minute order on January 8,2003, and he was given an additional ten (10) days from January 8t" in which to file a response. Since January 18th fell on a Saturday and the following Monday was a holiday, Henson had until the end of Tuesday January 21St to file his opposition.

"No opposition was filed or received by Respondents.

"Thus, Respondents respectfully request that this Court grant the Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Notice of Appeal by executing the Proposed Order filed on January 6, 2003."

(signed Jan 23)

I.e., they didn't check with the court that the response had been filed on time and scientology didn't tell them I had posted the reply on Jan. 21.

So I called them today and they admitted they got my copy after the usual mail delays from Canada and sent me their reply.

DAVIS & WOJCIK
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
ROBERT A. DAVIS, JR., State Bar No. 160357
JOSEPH M. WOJCIK, State Bar No. 177296
1105 E. Florida Ave.
Hemet, CA 92542
Telephone: (909) 652-9000
Facsimile: (909) 658-8308

LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOT J. ABELSON
ELLIOT J. ABELSON, State Bar No. 41846
8491 West Sunset Blvd., Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90069-1911
Telephone: (323) 960-1935
Facsimile: (323) 650-0398

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Appellees
Hilary Dezotell, Ken Hoden, and Bruce Wagoner

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Appellate Division

HILARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE WAGONER,

Plaintiffs and Appellees,

v.

H. KEITH HENSON,

Defendant and Appellant

Appellate No. 003381
CASE NO. HEC 009673

RESPONSE TO "REPLY [sic, OPPOSITION] TO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT H. KEITH HENSON'S NOTICE OF APPEAL BASED ON THE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE DECLARATION OF H. KEITH HENSON"

Appellant H. Keith Henson mailed a "Reply [sic, Opposition] to Motion to Dismiss Defendant H. Keith Henson's Notice of Appeal based on the Disentitlement Doctrine Declaration of H. Keith Henson" which was received by the Respondents on January 27, 2003 and is dated January 21, 2003. While Henson's paper is titled as a declaration, it is filled with argument and irrelevancies including Henson's background and timeline which he says he will be filing with the Immigration and Refugee board in Canada. Therefore, strictly on its form alone, the declaration should be rejected as improper and the motion to dismiss granted.

Further, Henson's "reply" was not served timely. On January 6, 2003, the court received Appellant Henson's request for an extension of time to file an opposition, which was granted in a minute order on January 8, 2003, and he was given an additional ten (10) days from January 8th in which to file a response. January 18th fell on a Saturday and the following Monday January 20th was a holiday, therefore Henson had until the end of Tuesday January 21st to file and serve his opposition. No Opposition was received by the end of January 21st although Plaintiffs' counsel's fax number is on all papers.

[This is just BS. The law states you have to serve the other side, but mail is acceptable service. They know I am here in Canada and mail just takes a long time to get to the States. There is *no* requirement to fax stuff.]

Notwithstanding its improper form and lack of timeliness, Henson's "reply" is still faulty and does not overrule the clear case law supporting the dismissal of the appeal under the disentitlement doctrine. Two of the cases that Henson cites are actually inapplicable for his situation. Henson refers the court to Doe v. Superior Court (Polanski) (1990) 222 Cal.App. 3d 1406, 272 Cal.Rptr. 474. However, the Doe case concerned a defendant in a civil matter who wanted to appear via his attorney because he was a fugitive and did not want to return. The court noted that scenario is different than when the fugitive is the one who initiated the proceeding, such as in an appeal. In Henson's case, he did appear via his attorney in the civil action, it was not until he initiated an action (his appeal) that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine must be followed.

Henson also referred the court to Degen v. U.S. (1996), 517 U.S. 820, 116 S.Ct. 1777. However, again, Henson has miscited the case and it does not in fact support his position. Degen was a civil forfeiture case where the government sought to forfeit properties purchased from drug money. The government attempted to have the defendants answer stricken and a summary judgment entered against him because he remained outside of the U.S. but the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's entry of the summary judgment so that Degen could defend the forfeiture action without being present ///

in the country. In doing so, the Supreme court also said: We have sustained, to be sure, the authority of an appellate court to dismiss an appeal or writ in a criminal matter when the party seeking relief becomes a fugitive...

We have held federal courts do have authority to dismiss an appeal or writ of certiorari if the party seeking relief is a fugitive while the matter is pending...

We have said an appellant's escape "disentitles" him "to call upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims."

Degen v. U.S. (1996), 517 U.S. 820, 823, 824, 116 S.Ct. 1777, 1780, 1781

The last case which Henson referred to was Estate of Scott (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 590, 310 P.2d 46, which was cited in Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Notice of Appeal. That case is applicable to Henson's situation and it says that a fugitive from justice has no right whatsoever to seek "assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of his state."

In February 2002, the Honorable Judge Sharon Waters of the Appellate Department of the Riverside Superior Court dismissed Henson's appeal of his criminal case based upon the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Thus, Respondents respectfully request that this Court grant the Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Notice of Appeal by executing the Proposed Order filed on January 6, 2003.

DATED: January 28, 2003 Respectfully submitted,
DAVIS & WOJCIK

______________________________________
JOSEPH M. WOJCIK
Attorney for Plaintiffs and Appellees
Hillary Dezotell, Ken Hoden and
Bruce Wagoner

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

What surprises the heck out of me is that they didn't say a word about my citing testimony from the Nuremberg Trials.

Either they don't have a clue about the historical significance or they don't care. Rosen must be out of the loop because he would have had a fit.

Keith Henson