After this page was initially published, it was drawn to my attention that warrant three, the only warrant which accompanied the actual request for extradition and hence the only warrant the state will argue is relevant, omits to cite the relevant section of the California Penal Code that Henson is accused of violating by allegedly failing to appear. However, it cites section 664,

"664. Every person who attempts to commit any crime, but fails, or is prevented or intercepted in its perpetration, shall be punished where no provision is made by law for the punishment of those attempts, as follows:..."

Why is there even a reference to this section of the Penal Code?



The opinions expressed on this page are exclusively those of the author. Neither Keith Henson nor Arel Lucas were given the opportunity to provide any input with respect to the content of this page, nor were they consulted prior to posting it.

One Misplaced Package

The main page of this web site describes the failure of the State of Arizona to provide crucial documents to Henson and his attorney in a timely manner. Instead of providing the documents to Henson's attorney, court staff sent them to a different attorney. Of course, as much as one hopes that such important legal processes proceed without errors, mistakes do happen. But I am left wondering why, if this was an innocent error, were both Henson and his attorney refused copies of these documents when they requested them prior to Henson's May 8 hearing, especially since the attorney who wrongly received the documents promptly contacted the Prescott court house and informed Prescott court staff of the "error".

If the cult of Scientology and its agents had not been repeatedly convicted of infiltrating police forces, court houses, and other government bodies, I would probably have assumed that this was an innocent, if unfortunate, error. But, the cult and its agents have been convicted of such crimes on numerous occasions. This error may not be innocent at all.

Two Decks of Cards

Imagine, if you will, that you have two identical decks of cards, separated into piles of red and black.

From the red pile, you count 14 cards. From the black pile, you count 41 cards. You take these 55 cards, shuffle them long enough that you are sure they are properly mixed, and then deal 17 cards face down.

How likely is it that all 17 cards are black, that they do not include a single red card?

This is actually fairly easy to calculate, although the numbers get a bit large. The likelihood that the first card is black is 41/55. The likelihood that ther first two cards are both black is 41/55 (the likelihood that the first card is black) times 40/54 (40 of the remaining 54 cards are black). Similarly, the likelihood that the third card is also black is 41/55 times 40/54 times 39/53. You can see that there is a simple pattern here, and the final calculation is easy enough to produce:

(41/55) x (40/54) x (39/53) x (38/52) x (37/51) x (36/50) x (35/49) x (34/48) x (33/47) x (32/46) x (31/45) x (30/44) x (29/43) x (28/42) x (27/41) x (26/40) x (25/39)

If you remove all the common factors then do the multiplication, this works out to 1263994/569091369, which is slightly less than 1/450.

When Henson was tried in Riverside County in 2001, 14 jurors were selected from a pool of 55. Three years later, questions were raised about the possibility of jury tampering. When Henson tried to contact jury members, he located 17 members of the pool. Of those 17, not a single one was from the 14 selected jurors. How likely is that? If you think there is about 1 chance in 450 that this is a random outcome, you are absolutely correct.

You may wonder why Henson did not contact selected jurors directly. It seems the Riverside County Court lost the list of jurors.

If the cult of Scientology and its agents had not been repeatedly convicted of infiltrating police forces, court houses, and other government bodies, I would probably have assumed that this was a random, if somewhat unlikely, outcome. But, the cult and its agents have been convicted of such crimes on numerous occasions. This unlikely outcome may not be random at all.

Three Strange Warrants

Elsewhere on this web site, you can view scans of not one, not two, but three different warrants, all of which raise questions.

The first warrant is discussed on the main page of this web site. This warrant, dated Sept 15 2000, claims Henson violated (among others), California Penal Code section 1320(A), failure to appear. The Riverside County court docket clearly shows that Henson did appear before Judge Albert J. Wojcik on Sept 15 2000, and was released on his Own Recognizance. This warrant claims it was ordered by Judge Robert H. Wallerstein, the same judge who prohibited Henson from mounting a defense when his case did come to trial some seven months later, and the same judge who figures in the other two warrants.

Henson was never served with an order to appear Sept 15 2000, and only made his appearance because he learned, by accident, that it had been scheduled. On Sept 15 2000, Henson was scheduled to appear at a deposition in Los Angeles, and would indeed have failed to appear in Riverside County had he not discovered, purely by accident, that the Riverside County appearance had been scheduled.

To this day, no one has explained why Wallerstein's name appears on this warrant, or why the ludicrous "failure to appear" charge is even included.

The second warrant, which alleges failure to appear, neglects to include the date of the alleged failure to appear, nor the name of the judge who ordered it. Prior to his May 8 court appearance, these two clearly deficient warrants were the only basis for Henson's arrest and detention that had been provided to either Henson or his attorney.

At the May 8 hearing, Henson's attorney finally received the package that Prescott court staff had previously refused to provide. This package included the third warrant, which appears identical to the second except it includes the date of the alleged failure to appear, and the name of the judge who ordered it. This newly issued warrant states that it was ordered by judge Robert H. Wallerstein, the same judge who ordered the first warrant. It does not indicate when Wallerstein ordered it, but presumably he did so prior to his death in 2003. Why then was this warrant not available earlier? Where did the second, incomplete warrant come from in the first place?

If the cult of Scientology and its agents had not been repeatedly convicted of infiltrating police forces, court houses, and other government bodies, I would probably have assumed that these were the results of innocent, if unfortunate, errors. But, the cult and its agents have been convicted of such crimes on numerous occasions. These errors may not be innocent at all.