On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:24:36 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (kEvin) wrote:
>I don't have a lot of time, but here are a few things that caught my
Much thanks to all who helped out. The links didn't paste. If you want to see them, they are at:
. . . . more indications of corrupt activity in the Riverside Courts.
To put this report in context, the same three cult members who were witnesses at my trial in Hemet sued me as a civil action (Exhibit A) in the Hemet court. This was mid August 2001. Tax-exempt corporate money paid for the suit since they are all poor as church mice--in fact, one of the copies of the suit I was sent had extraneous letters (Exhibit B) from Samuel D. Rosen attached in error. (Mr. Rosen was then with the major law firm Paul Hastings, and bills $615 an hour.)
As I mentioned previously there were a remarkable number of odd events in the course of Hemet legal actions in this civil case, one of which was a hearing where the judge--who had not been impressed with the cult's arguments before--read "his" prepared statement supporting the cult into the record with his hands shaking. My lawyer told me the judge was clearly in a stressed and emotional state and thought the statement had been written by the cult since the judge (Commissioner actually) clearly did not understand the legal issues in "his" statement.
Incidentally, my timely-filed objection (Exhibit C, August 31, 2001) to a commissioner's hearing the case should be in the court file unless the file has been tampered with. To my best knowledge, the objection was not ruled on; it was simply ignored by the Hemet court.
Shortly after that hearing the judge found me to be liable for statutory damages, based on the summary judgment, for $75,000, enough costs to bring the total up to about $100,000, plus having a permanent injunction issued, which has been served on others to prevent anyone else from picketing the cult's armed and razor-wire-encircled paramilitary compound near Hemet. (Exhibit D, Tabayoyon Declaration.)
The permanent injunction is the result of corruption or incompetence since it is a black-and-white issue that California courts simply do not have the authority to issue a permanent injunction in a limited case. ". . . the relief sought is "a type that may be granted in a limited civil case" (i.e., relief other than a permanent injunction . . . .)" (Comment in Exhibit E. Limited cases are under $25,000 and limit kinds of relief.)
I appealed on this and other grounds. Because it was a limited case, the appeal went to the Riverside Superior Courts Appeals section, the same court (and initially the same judge) who had dismissed my appeal of my conviction for picketing, a misdemeanor under California Penal Code 422.6.
The cult's lawyers argued to both the trial court and the Appeals court that I should be denied the right to file an appeal. On January 21, 2003, in response (Exhibit F) to the court's order to show cause, I quoted the U.S. Supreme Court decision DEGEN v. UNITED STATES, (1996) which stated:
"A court's dignity derives from the respect accorded its judgments. That respect is eroded, not enhanced, by excessive recourse to rules foreclosing consideration of claims on the merits."
The Supreme Court granted Degen's appeal, remanding the matter to the trial court.
I also cited the Polanski case, the same case the appeals judge cites below. A few weeks ago I heard something from a cult source that indicated the case had been decided, so I asked a friend to check the court files. This is not the first time the Riverside courts have failed to provide notice, negating my ability to exercise certain basic rights, including the right to request reconsideration.
This second *provable* failure to provide notice of proceedings repeats the previous failure by the same court to provide proper notice of the original indictment. There is a cult induced *pattern* in the Riverside courts for violating my civil rights and my ability to respond within the rules of law. According to my friend, they didn't even bother to file a proof of service that I had been mailed a copy of the order, which is quoted below.
CASE TITLE DEZOTELL, V. HENSON, CASE NO. 003381
Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Henson's Notice of Appeal based on the disentitlement doctrine is GRANTED.
In his opposition defendant relies on cases such as Doe v. Sup. Crt. (Polanski (I 990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1409, which held that a fugitive may defend a civil action brought against him by appearing through counsel. However where the fugitive initiates the relevant proceeding, the disentitlement doctrine applies equally to civil and criminal cases. (Doe, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at 1403.
Accordingly, this appeal initiated and maintained by a fugitive must be dismissed.
The fax I have of this entry in the court file is unsigned and undated.
My civil right to due process has obviously been violated in this matter. I can't even ask for reconsideration because the court hid the outcome from me for so long. Additionally, the judgment of the Riverside court is against precedent and even in the absence of malevolence would be clear error.
The appeal judge hangs his ruling on the world "initiate." From the Polanski appeal,
" Doe's reliance on disentitlement doctrine cases is misplaced. In each, the relevant proceeding was initiated by the fugitive. fn. 3 In the matter before us, it was Doe who initiated the lawsuit, bringing Polanski into the civil arena of the California court system."
There is no legal precedent for considering an appeal to have been "initiated" by the appellant.
Degen appealed a lower court's decision. Had the Supreme Court followed the logic of this appeal ruling, the court would have found that Degen's appeal was a new case and denied his appeal on "initiated" grounds. Instead Degen's appeal was *granted.*
Degen's appeal ruling would never have been made at all, much less in favor of Degen if appeals were considered a "new action." I.e., the Supreme Court considered Degen 's case to be part of the original filing against him, not a new matter.
The appeal ruling against me was flimsy in its argument and corrupt in its execution. From its own records, the court never even provided notice in a successful attempt to avoid a request for reconsideration of its clearly flawed order.
The cult's motivation and policies (see paragraph 34) leading to the corruption of justice are easy to understand. They oppose free speech about them for the simple reason that exposure ruins their market for exorbitantly expensive fraudulent psychological and medical "treatments." ("Fixed donations" for the entire course exceed $360,000.)
The scope of their spending to oppose free speech was accidentally exposed early in 2002 when an honest judge in the Lisa McPherson wrongful death suit (Florida) forced the cult's lawyers to file as exhibits 185 and 191 their notes about expenses that had been mentioned in testimony about settlement talks with a third party, Bob Minton.
(Up to that time Mr. Minton, a wealthy retired international banker, had been funding the McPherson case. Incessant private investigation of Mr. Minton, his family and friends, expensive and unending legal proceedings, and court demands forced him to withdraw his support and join the cult in attacking Judge Schaeffer. She was later driven from the case by accusations of bias in the manor describe by J.P. Kunar in "'Fair Game': Leveling the Playing Field in Scientology Litigation" [The Review of Litigation, Summer, 1997].)
The expenses discussed in these exhibits totaled almost $35 million. Summation entities stated spending over a million on me, and that they expected to spend another $350,000. Considering a previous claim to have spent two million by the cult (Rosen, September 13, 2000 before the bankruptcy court in San Jose) this may be seriously understated, but, in any case, $350,000 would go a long way to corrupt justice in Riverside County (by investigating judges, their friends, and other court and county officials for blackmail or other embarrassing material if nothing else).
I have certified hard copy of these exhibits, or they can be obtained directly from the Florida court.
The cult is more than willing to spend money on attacking judges and corrupting the process of justice. (See American Lawyer December 1980, SCIENTOLOGY'S WAR AGAINST JUDGES.)
This illogical and unnoticed Riverside appeal ruling is only the latest incident in a long string of serious irregularities and criminal acts involving Riverside County officials dating back to *before* I started picketing the cult's paramilitary compound in 2000. It included filing false records with the court (notice of service of the original indictment) and tampering with court records (Judge Wallerstein illegally sealed testimony in conflict with his minute orders to delete evidence the cult was desperate to have expunged from the appeal record).
I don't believe that the courts and government agencies in Riverside County are corrupt in all matters, but, where the "classically terroristic" cult is concerned, people who protest the abuses of the cult suffer unchecked abuse from the courts. The Riverside legal system effectively denies their First Amendment right to speak out against the cult's abuses. The corruption in Riverside is deep enough that the courts acting for the cult, will not permit fair hearings for constitutionally protected activities.
Los Angeles is not much better. The LAPD has been rebuffed on "political grounds" multiple times in attempts to get DA's office to take decisive actions against the cult or their agents. [Police source deleted] The LAPD was aware back in 1995 that Tom Klemesrud had been drugged with chloral hydrate--a drug controlled by statute--by a female cult operative in the course of committing another crime (attempting to frame Mr. Klemesrud for murder). Under the federal drug statutes, she and cult leaders all the way to David Miscavige could have been sentenced to 40 years behind bars if the LAPD had been willing to "lift the tail of the skunk."
The details on the "Blood Attack" story are here.
Since that article was written, Mr. Klemesrud had a medical procedure that used chloral hydrate. He subsequently executed a declaration (attached) stating that he is certain he was drugged with this specific drug on January 14, 1995.
Conventional investigation and prosecution against the cult is personally so risky that none of the lawyers or investigators who have experienced the cult's abuse first hand would do it again. People don't fear the cult so much as they fear the courts and justice system which the cult has made into an expensive but very effective weapon against any who would oppose or expose them. The cult crushed even the IRS under a mountain of litigation, thousands of lawsuits, many against individual agents, spending an estimated $125 million over two decades.
A crushed IRS overruled Congress and the Supreme Court to grant the cult unprecedented tax advantages. The IRS even bound itself contractually to discriminate in favor of the cult. The "closing agreement" to get the IRS out of cult litigation has cost the US tax payers at least two billion dollars to date. On January 29, 2002 Judge Silverman, sitting by designation on the Ninth Circuit and ruling on a Jewish couple's attempt to get a similar tax break, condemned the cult's unique status thus:
"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.1 The remedy is not to require the IRS to let others claim the improper deduction, too."
In a footnote, Judge Silverman even provided the precedent cases for suing the IRS in this matter. No one has accepted the invitation extended by Judge Silverman for the simple reason that no lawyer has been found who is willing to take the risk of having his professional life destroyed by the cult. (As was done to Graham E. Berry.)
Where the cult is concerned, the courts are worse than useless because government investigators correctly fear that the courts will be used against them. If anything is to be done, it will require unconventional methods [deleted] or by invoking the current no-nonsense approach toward paramilitary terror organizations cloaked as "religions." This would be a politically popular course of action--as a recent survey filed in court by the cult demonstrated:
"CLEARWATER - Earlier this spring, as the Church of Scientology prepared for its biggest trial in recent history, professional researchers combed Tyrone Square Mall asking Pinellas residents what they thought of the church.
"'A cult,' said person after person.
"'Scam,' said one. 'Crooks,' said another.
"The researchers, hired by the church, questioned 300 people. Their findings were grim: Four out of five had unfavorable things to say about Scientology."
Very Truly Yours,
H. Keith Henson
PS. Incidentally, the above phrase "classically terroristic" was found to be reasonable for *Time* Magazine to have used it in their 1991 article, on January 12, 2001, by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Docket Nos. 98-9522(L), 99-7332(CON)).