[I could really use some help on this, especially from people who would be willing to put there comments in legal declarations. I need to do this quickly too. Keith Henson.]
Plaintiff Ken Hoden hereby answers the interrogatories propounded by defendant H. Keith Henson as follows:
Defendant has propounded a number of interrogatories that have multiple sub-parts, and has misnumbered some of the interrogatories. In order to avoid confusion, plaintiff will place a number in parentheses after defendant's Special Interrogatory Number that corresponds to the consecutive number of each discrete question.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1(1)
List the last 5 positions you have held in Scientology organizations and the approximate dates you held these positions. Include time in the RPF as a "position."
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1 (l)
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request has nothing to do with the subject matter of this adversary proceeding or with the subject of extrinsic fraud as to which defendant was given permission to propound interrogatories.
[HEREAFTER ***MACRO***]
Plaintiff further objects that defendant has not defined the term "RPF." As far as plaintiff is familiar with a term, "RPF," he states that it is not a position, but rather an ecclesiastical program for "religious" workers and he objects that any question about that program violates his right of privacy and his First Amendment rights. Without waiving these objections, plaintiff states that he was employed by "Church" of Scientology International from 1988?2003. He worked in the public relations area for six months, then worked in the legal area for six months. After that, he was the General Manager of Golden Era Productions from 1989 to late 2003. From 2004 to the present, he has held a position as a supervisor for "Church" of Scientology Western United States.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.2(2)
If you have been in the RPF previously to the above, what dates?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.2(2)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects that defendant has not defined the term "RPF." As far as plaintiff is familiar with a term, "RPF," he states that it is an ecclesiastical program for "religious" workers and he objects that any question about that program violates his right of privacy and his First Amendment rights.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.3(3)
If you have been trained on courses using this (material recovered in an FBI raid of July 8, 1 977) or similar material, what dates'?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.3(3)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, plaintiff states that he has never seen the material set forth in the interrogatory and has never trained on any course using this material or similar material.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.3(4)
Were you coached for your testimony against debtor?
RESPONSE TO SPECIALINTERROGATORY N0.3(4)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects to this question to the extent it calls for information which is subject to the attorney?client privilege, attorney work product, or any other applicable privilege. Without waiving these objections, plaintiff states that he was not coached for his testimony. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.4(5)
Debtor picketed Scientology's operation at Gilman Springs January 6, 1998. After that picket you sued debtor to prevent further picketing at Gilman Springs in the Riverside courts. The case was assigned to Judge Cunnison and dismissed at the first hearing on a non?suit motion. Who paid for your legal bills for that case?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.4(5)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects to this question to the extent it calls for information which is subject to the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or any other applicable privilege. Without waiving these objections, plaintiff states that any bills for legal services he received in that case were paid for by his employer, "Church" of Scientology International ("CSI"), which shared plaintiff s great concerns over the harassing and potentially dangerous conduct of defendant towards plaintiff and the rest of its staff. Those concerns were particularly strong in light of Mr. Henson's threatening postings about such things as sending missiles to attack CSI's facilities and his bomb-making activities, concerns that were later confirmed as well founded by a jury that convicted Mr. Henson of violating my civil rights and those of two other "Church" staff members.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5(6)
At the hearing in the above case, you testified for several pages; then Judge Cunnison questioned one of your attorneys, Kendrick Moxon (as quoted in the interrogatory) .... "Frequented" would indicate participating or at least reading online but the above testimony indicates you only read printouts. Please explain the inconsistency.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5(6)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, plaintiff states that the interrogatory asks plaintiff to explain what defendant claims is an inconsistency between plaintiffs testimony and a statement made by an attorney three years earlier. Plaintiff can only speak for his own statements, and what he said was accurate. Plaintiff does not know what Mr. Moxon intended to convey with any statement he made. However, plaintiff was regularly reading postings that were made to the alt."religion".scientology newsgroup, and he does not believe his statement is inconsistent with that of Mr. Moxon. SPECIAL INTERROGATORV SECOND NO. 5(7)
Did the decision to move this equipment (construction machinery moved on May 17, 2000 with which Ashlee Shaner collided) after dark have anything to do with the next day's being "stats day"?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY SECOND NO. 5(7)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects to this question to the extent it calls for information which is subject to the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or any other applicable privilege. Without waiving these objections, plaintiff responds that this accident related to construction activities that were being run by a contractor and subcontractors hired by CSI to perform construction work. None of these people were "Church" staff. While plaintiff was not involved with running this construction project, he can state, however, from personal knowledge, that the construction project had nothing to do with reporting "statistics." SPECIAL INTERROGATORY SECOND NO. 5(8)
Were you involved at all in the decision to move this equipment after dark?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY SECOND NO. 5(8)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, plaintiff responds "No."
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY SECOND NO. 5(9)
Whether or not you made the decision, did you face discipline for that decision?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY SECOND NO. 5(9)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects that this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in that it does not define "discipline." Without waiving these objections, plaintiff responds "No."
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.6(10)
On May 23,2000, debtor discussed on private "net chat" picketing Gold Base over Ashlee Shaner's death. On May 24, 2000 Scientology attorney Alan E. Oberstein met with the Riverside County District Attorney Trask regarding possible legal actions the County could take against the debtor. Were the two above events connected?
RESPONSE TO SPECIALINTERROGATORY N0.6(10)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects to this question to the extent it calls for information which is subject to the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or any other applicable privilege. Without waiving these objections, plaintiff responds "No."
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.6(11)
If not and you know, why did Alan E. Oberstein meet with the Riverside County District Attorney Trask in regard to debtor?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.6(11)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects to this question to the extent it calls for information which is subject to the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or any other applicable privilege. Without waiving these objections, plaintiff states that defendant was making postings threatening to send missiles to attack the "Church", and was engaging in general harassment and threats against the "Church". Plaintiff therefore wanted to find out what, if anything, could be done to stop Mr. Henson's threatened conduct before he caused any harm to our staff or property.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.7(12)
May 25, 2000, debtor announced on alt."religion".scientology he would be picketing the Gilman Springs location over the death of Ashlee Shaner. May 26,2000 debtor picketed the Gilman Springs location over the death of Ashlee Shanen The location seemed to be deserted. Where did the order to stay out of view come from? RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.7(12)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects to this question to the extent it calls for information which is subject to the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or any other applicable privilege. Without waiving these objections, plaintiff states that he and the Security Chief made the decision to keep staff away from areas where the debtor was present, as the debtor has a history of violence and bomb-making, he had been making threats to destroy plaintiff s "Church" and against its facility and staff specifically, including the use of missiles, and he did not want to expose his staff to danger.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.8(13)
May 30,2000, debtor picketed again, coming upon a chaotic scene of construction people hurriedly leaving after just starting work. Debtor speculated at the time that he had been followed all the way to Tucson and back. If you know, was he?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.8(13)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects to this question to the extent it calls for information which is subject to the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or any other applicable privilege. Without waiving these objections, plaintiff has no knowledge of defendant traveling to Tucson and back, and he has no knowledge of an incident as described in the Interrogatory, although he recalls seeing a posting to the Internet by defendant around the May 2000 time period making similar statements. SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.8(14)
If no, how were you warned and by whom?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.8(14)
See response to Special Interrogatory No. 8(13).
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.9(15) About three weeks before June 25, 2000, a ground squirrel got into the wires in a transformer vault and was exploded, knocking out power to part of Golden Era. Did the affected buildings include a home, office or other facility used by David Miscavige?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.9(15)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects to the use of the word "exploded" as not correctly characterizing what occurred. Without waiving these objections, plaintiff responds that power was temporarily disrupted to the north side of the Golden Era property.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.9(16)
Were any reports or policies written on preventing a recurrence?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.9(16)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, plaintiff responds "No."
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.9(17)
Were you involved in any way with such reports or policies? RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.9(17)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, see response to Request No. 9(16).
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.9(18)
Was a policy of regular inspections of the vaults instituted?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.9(18)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, plaintiff responds that there has always been a policy and practice of regular inspections of the electrical vault, and that policy and practice did not change as a result of this incident with a squirrel.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.9(19)
Was Stacy Moxon Meyer assigned to the group responsible for inspection?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.9(19)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, plaintiff responds "No."
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.9(20)
What was the name of the chief electrician for the Gilman Springs property on June 25, 2000? RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.9(20)
***MACRO***
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.10(21)
June 25,2000 (Sunday morning), within minutes after Stacy Moxon Meyer was electrocuted while apparently inspecting a transformer vault, you and a female public?relations person approached Barbara Graham and David Rice, who were picketing, and tried to get them away from the gate by inviting them to breakfast. This is, by ordinary standards, unusual behavior. Please explain.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.10(21)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects that this question is vague and ambiguous as he has no idea whose standards defendant considers to be "ordinary standards." Without waiving these objections, plaintiff states that his normal practice was to sit down with people and communicate with them about issues that came up. Often, he would invite people onto the "Church" property and meet with them. However, given the overt hostility of Barbara Graham and David Rice for the Scientology "religion", as evidenced by their prior picketing of the "Church" and their Internet postings that plaintiff had seen, he was unwilling to invite them onto the property to discuss their views, so he politely asked them to join him for breakfast in town. This was not "unusual behavior" for plaintiff or a departure from his "ordinary standards." SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.11(22)
Were you held responsible in any way for the electrocution death of Stacy Moxon Meyer?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.11(22)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, plaintiff responds "No." Her death was an accident, as verified by the police and the coroner.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.11(23)
Was anyone else held responsible?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.11(23)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects that this question is vague and ambiguous as he does not know what defendant means by "held responsible." Without waiving these objections, plaintiff responds "No." Her death was an accident, as verified by the police and the coroner.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.11(24)
Who held you or others responsible?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.11(24)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects that this question is vague and ambiguous as he does not know what defendant means by "held responsible." Without waiving these objections, see responses to 11(22) and 11(23).
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.12(25)
July 3,2000, debtor was accosted on the road that runs through the Gilman Springs property by private investigator and Scientologist Ed Richardson and another person who might have been another private investigator. Debtor had to jump into the roadway and get motorists to call the police to escape their aggression. What is the name and, if you know, the address of the second person? (If licensed, provide also the state and license number.)
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.12(25)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, plaintiff states he is unaware of an incident of the nature described in this interrogatory or of any incident in which debtor was accosted by anyone. Plaintiff also does not know the name of a person that worked with Ed Richardson.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.13(26)
That second person was caught on tape August 14,2000(transcript posted on alt."religion".scientology August 18, 2000) threatening debtor's daughter.
If you know, what instructions were Edwin Richardson and that other person (above) given in regard to debtor?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.13(26)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects to this question to the extent it calls for information which is subject to the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or any other applicable privilege. Without waiving these objections, plaintiff can state that Mr. Richardson is a former police officer and was acting in a security function to protect the "Church" and its staff from the threatened acts of defendant and others, including the possibility, as suggested by his postings, that he might throw a bomb over the fence onto "Church" premises or commit other violent acts.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.14(27)
Debtor was arrested late on July 19, 2000, as a "citizen's arrest" and then "un-arrested" because you, the complainant, would not sign the arrest papers. Explain why you would not sign and the circumstances around this event.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.14(27)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, plaintiff states that he testified about this incident in defendant's trial. As explained there, defendant had been taken away from the "Church"'s property in handcuffs in a police car. Plaintiff understood the police officer had arrested defendant and therefore there was no reason for plaintiff to make a "citizen's arrest" of defendant.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.15(28)
In debtor's original indictment, Bruce Wagoner, HUI, Dezotell, Michael, Gilchrist, Dana Reid and Muriel Dufresne are named. Why were these 5 picked from the 735 people you stated worked at the Gilman Springs property?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.15(28)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects to this question to the extent it calls for information which is subject to the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or any other applicable privilege. Without waiving these objections, plaintiff states that all of the staff of the "Church" at the Golden Era property were harmed by defendant's acts, but the district attorney only wanted to have five victims who would be the complaining witnesses and were willing to testify, so these individuals were chosen.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.16(29)
At that time, what were their positions at Golden Era and where are they now?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.16(29)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, plaintiff states that, at the time of defendant's arrest, Bruce Wagoner worked in the legal department of Golden Era Productions, Hilary Dezotell and Muriel Dufresne worked in the public relations area for Golden Era Productions, Michael Gilchrist worked on film production for Golden Era Productions, and Dana Reid worked on maintenance for Golden Era Productions. Plaintiff has no knowledge of the current whereabouts of these persons at the current time, other than his coplaintiffs, Bruce Wagoner and Hilary Dezotell, who work at Golden Era Productions.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.17(30)
Shortly before debtor's criminal trial, the last three were removed and you were substituted as a "victim." If you know, explain why the substitution and who directed that it be done.
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.17(30)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects to this question to the extent it calls for information which is subject to the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or any other applicable privilege. Any knowledge that plaintiff has on this subject arises from discussions with counsel.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.18(31)
Friday, April 20,2001,following testimony about your hunting down debtor's patents, Internet postings, and mention in a multi-person biographical sketch, you testified under oath at debtor's criminal trial:
Q: Thank you. Now, the last question that I have for you is this: Why did you?? why did you go through all the trouble of doing that? A: Well, I didn't want to make the same mistake again. Q: What mistake is that?
A: Well, we had an earlier situation where we had what might appear to be silly or foolish or joking type threats. And as a result somebody got killed. Somebody got shot. And I didn't want that to happen again. And I was not going to make that mistake again, and I was determined not to make it again. Q: What are you referring to?
A: Referring to the fact that a man one time took a little tiny tank and wound it up like this, and put a little sign on it and said, "Next time it will be real." And it chugged through the front door of our "church", of one of our "church"es. Q: Where? A: Portland, Oregon.
Q: Then what happened?
A: All right. We took it to the police, explained to them that this is a threat. They said there was nothing they could do, looked like just a joke. He walked in later, shot Helen, who I've known for 25 years, shot Helen, bullet went through her shoulder, through her baby's head in her womb ...."
Were you aware (at that time) that the bullet was not fired by a critic of Scientology but by a disgruntled, refund-seeking Scientologist, Jerius Godeka, and that the bullet did not go through the baby's head? ("...[T]he fetus was unharmed," The Oregonian, September 26, 1996.)
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.18(31)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, plaintiff states that his testimony as given was truthful and was based on information he obtained in Portland directly from the victim of this incident concerning what had occurred. Part of that information was that the perpetrator was a critic of the "Church" who had made threats against the "Church" earlier. Defendant's statement that he was a disgruntled, refund-seeking Scientologist is false. In addition, the quote from the article is false, as the baby was born brain damaged and died a few months after it was born as a result of its injury.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.18(32)
Do you now regret your perjury under oath?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO.18(32)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, plaintiff states that he committed absolutely no perjury. The statement quoted by defendant from The Oregonian is inaccurate based on knowledge I personally acquired in Portland after the incident occurred.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.18(33)
Were you aware at that time that debtor could not refute your testimony (which he knew to be wrong) because he had been denied witnesses and was forbidden to speak in his defense?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.18(33)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, plaintiff states that he does not agree with defendant's characterization of his trial, and it is plaintiff's belief and understanding that the Riverside Superior Court afforded defendant a fair trial. Defendant apparently disagrees because he does not like his attorney's choice not to have him testify or the fact that he was convicted of violating plaintiffs civil rights.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.19(34)
Did any of the events of the years 2000 or 2001 ?? deaths, pickets, trial or related-result in "ethics" actions against you?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.19(34)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, plaintiff states
"No.°,
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.19(35)
If yes, be specific:
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.19(35)
See response to Interrogatory No.19(34). SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.21(36)'
The plaintiffs in this action sued the debtor in the fall of 2001. The cost of the suit was
' Defendant did not include a Special Interrogatory No. 20 in the interrogatories he propounded on plaintiff. over $20,000. Did some part of Scientology pay your legal bills for this suit?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.21(36)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects to this question to the extent it calls for information which is subject to the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or any other applicable privilege. Without waiving these objections, plaintiff states that any bills for his legal services in that case were paid for by his employer, CSI, which shared plaintiff s great concerns over the harassing and potentially dangerous conduct of defendant towards plaintiff and the rest of its staff. Those concerns were particularly strong in light of Mr. Henson's threatening postings about such things as sending missiles to attack CST's facilities and his bomb-making activities, concerns that were later confirmed as well founded by a jury that convicted Mr. Henson of violating plaintiffs civil rights and those of two other "Church" staff members.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.21(37)
If yes on the above, what pan?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.21(37)
See response to Special Interrogatory No. 21(36).
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.22(38)
Are you aware that Robert Del Bianco, the Canadian private investigator hired by a plaintiff in this suit has been charged with assault against the debtor?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.22(38)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, plaintiff states that he has no idea who Robert Del Bianco is or what defendant is talking about.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.23(39)
What do you know about the hiring of private investigators in Canada to "investigate" the debtor?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.23(39)
***MACRO***
Without waiving this objection, plaintiff states that he has no idea what defendant is talking about.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.24(40)
Why were you (and your wife) in the RPF in the fall of 2004?
RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY N0.24(40)
***MACRO***
Plaintiff further objects that defendant has not defined the term "RPF." As far as plaintiff is familiar with a term, "RPF," he states that it is an ecclesiastical program for "religious" workers and he objects that any question about that program violates his right of privacy and his First Amendment rights.
Dated: November 2005 Respectfully submitted,
David J. Cook SB#060859