H. Keith Henson
2237 Munns Ave.
Oakville, ON L6H 3M9 Canada
In Pro Per
RIVERSIDE SUPERIOUR COURT
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Appellate No. 003226Case No. HEM014371
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
1) MOTION OF APRIL 18, 2001
2) RULING IN SKLAR VS
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
Defendant/Appellant wishes to inform the court that the Motion of April 18, 2001 and the Declaration of Frank Oliver are not missing from the Clerk's transcript (see Bates numbers 291-295). They were out of sequence and follow the minute order of May 16, 2001. The far more important (for the appeal) exhibits of Frank Oliver are missing, as is the Amicus brief of Arnoldo Lerma.
As the court may realize, the criminal case against me was highly influenced by Scientology. A good part of the reason Scientology has an intense animus against me is my legal effort starting at the end of 1998 to draw the court's attention to the "closing agreement" Scientology worked out in secret with the Internal Revenue Service in the early 1990s. I sued the IRS under Flast vs Cohen in an attempt to get the courts to review the matter.
The suit was dismissed on grounds of not having standing to sue. I appealed and the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal in a non-published opinion.
At the same time, a case was lost in the tax courts MICHAEL SKLAR; MARLA SKLAR v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL No. 00-70753. The Sklars were trying to take advantage of the extraordinary "deal" given to the Scientologists to deduct payments for religious instruction for *their* religion. They too appealed. On January 29, 2002 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the IRS in a remarkable published opinion. I quote from the dicta of Judge Silverman concurring:
"An IRS closing agreement cannot overrule Congress and the Supreme Court.
"If the IRS does, in fact, give preferential treatment to members of the Church of Scientology -- allowing them a special right to claim deductions that are contrary to law and rightly disallowed to everybody else -- then the proper course of action is a lawsuit to put a stop to that policy.
The full opinion may be found at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/27B565D1754D4E5E88256B50005F20CE/$file/0070753.pdf?openelement
Six levels of indents down in the "closing agreement" the IRS bound itself contractually to discriminate in favor of Scientology:
IV. Obligations and Undertakings During the Transition Period. A. Establishment of Church Tax Compliance Committee 3. Responsibilities of CTCC. d. Guaranty. "ix. . . . . the following actions will be considered to be a material breach by the Service: b. the issuance of a Regulation, Revenue Ruling or otherThis is yet another example of the legal anomalies which occur frequently in Scientology's massive litigation history.
pronouncement of general applicability providing that fixed donations to a religious organization *other than a church of Scientology* are fully deductible . . . ."
H. Keith Henson, pro se Dated February, 2002
On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 19:04:20 +0100, Tilman Hausherr <email@example.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:03:32 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Keith Henson)
>wrote in <email@example.com>:
>>Defendant/Appellant wishes to inform the court that the Motion of
>>April 18, 2001 and the Declaration of Frank Oliver are not missing
>>from the Clerk's transcript (see Bates numbers 291-295). They were
>>out of sequence and follow the minute order of May 16, 2001. The far
>>more important (for the appeal) exhibits of Frank Oliver are missing,
>>as is the Amicus brief of Arnoldo Lerma.
>>As the court may realize, the criminal case against me was highly
>>influenced by Scientology.
>As an example what difference such "forbidden" evidence makes, search
>for the phrase "Pushy Bottom" on the web. An exellent example how a
>corrupt judge and prosecution were trying to bend the law.
Tilman, thank you very much for locating this case. Add "Wetze" to the search string and Google sorts out only this case.
It has remarkable parallels to mine in the odd behavior of the DA's office and that the judge so gagged the defense that they were unable to put speak in court.
"The ensuing trial, presided over by Acting Justice William Wetzel, was a mockery of justice. For starters, the accuser was allowed to perjure herself on the stand regarding her S&M activities. Should Mr. Jovanovic take the stand in his own defense, he could not discuss the redacted portions of the e-mail correspondence, or any references Madame X made in phone conversations or in person regarding her involvement in sado-masochistic activities, false rape accusations, or that she claimed to have had unprotected sex with a drug-using cousin and unprotected sex with a bisexual heroin addict.
"In other words, he would not be allowed to defend himself on the stand. Would you have sex with a potential health hazard? Mr. Jovanovic would not. And as all those present at court saw from the abundance of obviously false testimony, Madame X does not take rejection lightly. In addition, the defense was prohibited from questioning the accuser about prior false accusations she made, including an incident when she, according to a family member, falsely swore out a warrant for abuse against her father and uncle after they insisted that she attend a family Christmas gathering.
"Under the pretext of the Rape Shield Law, the e-mail exchanged between Madame X and Oliver was redacted so that among other things, all evidence of a false rape allegation and all mention of Madame X's sadomasochistic activities were expunged. This of course warped the meaning of the e-mail.
"His conviction in the courtroom of Judge William Wetzel is the worst miscarriage of justice since they abolished lynching." - Steve Dunleavy, New York Post (front page article), 4/27/98