FC: Note from Keith Henson on his conviction in Scientology case

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Sat Apr 28 2001 - 10:15:37 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: IMC ungagged: Seattle collective talks about Fed court order"

    Background on how the Scientologists won a conviction of a prominent critic:
    http://freehenson.tripod.com/
    
    Background on Scientology and its fight over alt.religion.scientology:
    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/index.html
    
    -Declan
    
    **********
    
    Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 20:47:44 -0700
    From: "H. Keith Henson" <hkhensonat_private>
    To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>
    
    [snip --DBM]
    
    Dear Judge Wallerstein:
    
    The Scientologists see the decision in my case as a great victory over one 
    of their critics.  I think a much larger number of people will come to see 
    the result as a serious miscarriage of justice and an assault on free speech.
    
    I don't believe any of us fully anticipated the effects of your pretrial 
    rulings on restricting testimony about the deaths of Ashlee Shaner, Stacy 
    Moxon Meyer and Lisa McPherson, or restricting testimony on Scientology 
    beliefs and practices.  Mr. Harr stuck to the letter of your rulings and 
    once even stopped DDA Robert Schwarz from having read into the record a 
    reference in exhibit 23 to Stacy Moxon Meyer ("for the latest victim").
    
    But the effect, as you can see from the below declaration was to mislead 
    the jury into thinking that my use of "destroy them utterly" (quotes in my 
    posting) was a threat when it was understood by virtually all 
    alt.religion.scientogy readers to be a reference to Scientology's fair game 
    threats and practices against critics.
    
    The below declaration may be filed in court early next week, with a motion 
    to reconsider JNOV.  Unfortunately, this is non-standard practice, so I 
    have to go pro se to file it.  If it would be permissible for Jim Harr to 
    come back in for sentencing on May 16 after substituting out so I can file 
    this, I would greatly appreciate someone from your office telling him so.
    
    Thank you very much,
    
    Keith Henson
    
    
    
    [DRAFT]  DECLARATION OF KEITH HENSON
    IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION TO RECONSIDER
    JNOV
    
    
    PEOPLE v. HENSON  HEM014371
    
    
    
           I, Keith Henson, declare:
    
           The information set forth in this declaration is known to
    me personally.  If called upon to testify in court as to the
    truthfulness of the facts set forth in this declaration, I would
    do so.
    
           1.   In the just completed trial, defense was forbidden by
    the court under Evidence Code 352 from raising issues of
    Scientology beliefs or practices, such as "fair game" or TR-L
    (Training Routine Lying) and also from mentioning the reason
    Henson was picketing, the deaths which occurred in May and June of
    2000.
    
           2.   As a result of the first restriction, defense was not able to 
    dispute the testimony of Ken Hoden on the stand, even though defense knew 
    Mr. Hoden was not telling the truth because this would have led right into 
    TR-L, a Scientology belief or practice.
    
           3.   As a specific example (and defendant is relying on
    memory of testimony rather than a transcript) Mr. Hoden claimed
    to have known for 25 years the woman (Helen Burke) who was shot
    in the Portland facility of Scientology in 1996.  His testimony
    was that her unborn baby had been shot through the head and that
    Scientology had not taken threats by the assailant (Godeka)
    seriously after threats had been made.  Defendant knew both
    statements were untrue and told his lawyer in court because
    defendant had closely followed this tragic story as it unfolded.
    
           Exhibit A is the initial report of the shootings, Exhibit B
    reports the safe birth of the woman's child, Bridget, a few
    months after the shooting, hardly something which could have
    happened if the unborn child had been shot through the head!
    Exhibit C reports sentencing Godeka, judged guilty but insane.
    Exhibits A and C mention that Godeka was under a court order at
    the time of the rampage, strongly implying Scientology *had*
    taken Godeka's threats seriously.
    
           But the biggest omission from the testimony is that Godeka was a 
    Scientologist, who had spent a lot of money on Scientology and
    who wanted $50,000 from Scientology for "ruining his life."
    
           Scientology has had far more trouble with current and
    former Scientologist becoming violent than critics becoming
    violent.
    
           Defendant understood (perhaps incorrectly) from his attorney that he 
    could not point out Hoden's testimony was false because any defendant's 
    testimony as to why Hoden was lying would lead directly into fair game, 
    TR-L and other Scientology beliefs and practices, and delving into such 
    subjects would have been a violation of the court's order.
    
           4.   The same violation of the court's orders would have
    resulted from defendant trying to explain Exhibits 23-23A, which has the 
    quoted words "destroy them utterly."  This, as Exhibit D (search
    results for these words of over 1000 web pages from www.google.com) shows 
    is a common paraphrase of the last three words of Scientology's "fair game 
    policy" (". . . if possible, of course, ruin him
    utterly.").
    
           Quoting an opponents words is a time honored tradition in
    public debate and these words were instantly recognized as a Scientology 
    reference by those participating in debate on the news group in which the 
    posting was made (they were used unquoted in another posting exhibit by 
    "Bev" to which the defendant responded ". . . the latter task seem[s] easier").
    
              This reference to the "fair game" threat *by Scientology* toward 
    critics (who are also known as enemy or "suppressive persons" in the fair 
    game policy) almost certainly was seen by the jury as a threat against 
    Scientologists *by the defendant*.  This perception could not be corrected 
    because of the court's restrictions about mentioning Scientology beliefs or 
    practices under Evidence Code 352.
    
           Even allowing the jury to see the un-redacted version of the posting 
    would have been exculpatory, since the next paragraph makes clear that my 
    means to "destroy them utterly" was a series of pickets.
    
           I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
    State of California that the above is true and correct.
    
           Executed on April 27, 2001 at Palo Alto, California.
    
    
           Keith Henson
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
    To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Apr 28 2001 - 11:25:52 PDT