From - Sun Apr 29 18:25:04 2007
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:36:35 -0700
From: "Arel Lucas" 
To: "Keith Henson" <hkhenson@rogers.com>
Subject: They Did It Again, Harder, Harder!

When I was at Tucson High School during the last century, there was a
cheerleading cheer for our teams.  I seldom went to games (more
basketball than football), but of course those cheers get under one's
skin.  One such cheer was "Hit 'em Again!  Hit 'em Again!  Harder!
Harder!"  (I guess that was essentially a football cheer.)

Well, only a couple of weeks before the next scheduled hearing here in
Prescott, they've done it again.

But first a word to (not from) our sponsors.  As usual, this email is
going to a "blind-copy" list to preserve your privacy, as well as to
Keith using an address that is public.  If it hadn't been for your
interventions with phone calls and whatever other means you used,
Keith might not have survived his four days in jail here as well as he
did.  Whoever printed out pages from an Internet site (the local
authorities say it wasn't Detective McClain, who had assured me that
Keith would be extradited in "a couple of days") made sure they were
only the hate pages published by the "Church" of $cientology, despite
the fact that on that day putting his name into Google produced that
site as not #1 but #18.  This was clearly inciting to abuse and
inculcating keepers with disinformation while he was in a holding cell
watching them read these hate-filled lies.  It seems likely that the
intention was to spread the lies on those pages to the prison
population to do Keith harm.  This was after an unlawful arrest
(without warrant) and detention (not taken before judge for more than
64 hours after arrest because the arrest happened--most likely timed
like the one in Canada--on a Friday afternoon).

However, your support intervened, found us a lawyer, and changed the
attitude of Keith's keepers toward both of us.  After dismissing me as
the spouse of a perp and suspicious therefor, they suddenly started
handling me in a very gingerly manner on the morning of the Monday he
was released after a long day of legal maneuvering during which the
judge and county attorney here discovered that no felony could be
alleged (but had been implied).  Giving me side glances the while, the
person at the "jail desk" told me that they'd had international calls
and a lot of calls in general.  We are very grateful for your support,
both financial (which is still paying for Keith's attorney) and vocal.

As I wrote you in one of my last communications, one of the first
documents offered to the local county attorney in support of
extradition was a fraudulent warrant probably created before but dated
September 15, 2000.  It was supposedly authorized by the judge whose
way was cleared to preside over the trial of the accused in case
HEM014371, but not only did this document not make its way to the
docket, but that judge--in violation of judicial ethics and law--did
not disclose his previous involvement in the case.  The warrant is not
only not viable, it is evidence of attempt to entrap, fraud, contempt
of court, violation of judicial duties and probably several other
crimes.

So now they come back with a thicker wad of papers submitted to the
local authorities, one of which is another warrant, this one
essentially blank!

Once again it's from Riverside, checked as a misdemeanor, with the
HEM014371 case number on it, characterized as a "Bench Warrant for
Failure to Appear."  It is in the name of the "People of the State of
California" (if I were still in the state of my birth, I would object
to my name being taken in vain) "vs Henson, Keith."  It lists several
charges, the last of which is probably 422.6 (we received a bad copy),
of which the defendant in HEM014371 was convicted, but no one of which
is actually the "failure to appear" statute.  It is addressed "to any
peace officer of this state" and says that the defendant had "been
ordered to appear on [blank]."

The date of scheduled appearance is blank!

Then there is more boilerplate to the effect that the defendant should
be arrested and "that he be given bail," which the next line says is
"Set at $0.00."  Following some language about how misdemeanors may
only be served during the daytime if no judge's initials appear (which
they do not), the language is "Given under my hand, with court seal
affixed by order of the honorable [blank], judge of said court."  For
one thing, this is from the Riverside Court, not Hemet, despite the
fact that this is given as a Hemet case, and it was in Hemet that the
defendant was tried and "convicted."

For another, the place for the name of the judge is blank!

The seal is affixed, and the same signature that appeared on the
September 15, 2000, warrant appears here.  What are the chances of
that?  Did the judge's clerk follow him to Hemet from Riverside
(whence the fraudulent warrant was apparently issued)?  Is the
signature fraudulent?  Is there only one person in the Riverside
Courts who both has access to these warrant forms and is in the pay of
$cientology?  Did $cientology and/or the County of Riverside think
that two fraudulent warrants were better than one?

This is truly contempt of court!

There is an interesting affidavit from deputy district attorney Jeanne
Roy which admits that the defendant in HEM014371 was picketing, a fact
that was prohibited from mention during the defendant's trial due to
motions in limine.  Yet when Judge Walker (the second judge in the
case) tried to bring up free-speech issues delays ensued and finally
Walker was forced by the prosecution to recuse himself because he knew
a prosecution witness (a sheriff deputy who had reported that the
defendant was harmless).

Roy also states that the "threat" of which the defendant was
"convicted" was "so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific
as to convey to said person a gravity of purpose and an *immediate
prospect of execution*."  As we all know, the alleged "threat"
involved a joke topic on a Usenet newsgroup, and consisted of a
posting apparently by the defendant pointing out the fallacy of
stating that a "Tom Cruise missile" lobbed from, say, France (a venue
mentioned in other postings) would probably miss its target, that
modern missiles are more accurate.  What is "immediate," "specific,"
"unequivocal," or "unconditional" about that response to someone
else's joke?  No posting ever mentioned,  nor did anyone confront the
"victims" brought forward by $cientology, who were, by the admission
of the Sheriff Department, supposed to have been selected by
$cientology management "at random" from their claimed population at
"Gold" of 735.  How specific is it that the whole mile-long compound,
never claimed to be a church before OR after the case or in any other
context, was said to have been threatened by a statement that was not
only in the context of a joke but only apparently saying that a "Tom
Cruise missile" might not miss?  (Again as we all know, the Cruise
missile has been doing a very good job lately of "nuking" the "Church"
through his ridiculous behavior.)

Oh, but the same judge who issued the fraudulent warrant and did not
disclose it said it was a believable threat that a single person could
launch a block-long, several-ton intercontinental ballistic missile of
the sort jokingly under discussion, and then informally "sealed" his
remark by telling the court reporter not to transcribe those
proceedings.  There is no such thing in law as informally sealing
court proceedings.  The judge was breaking the law by not providing
legitimate written documentation of the "seal," and so was the court
reporter who now wants $200 and a court order to transcribe the record
from that day.

I really have to wonder if District Attorney Rod Pacheco (Riverside
County) knows what is going on in the name of the office over which he
presides, or if he knows what was done routinely by his predecessor
Grover Trask, such as entrapment of defendants by failure to give
notice of arraignment, and apparently conspiracy with a local Kult to
convict defendants using $cientology-written warrants and papers.  And
attempt to extradite using $cientology-supplied papers.  Or did the
County of Riverside not only generate but store two (count 'em!)
fraudulent documents that didn't reach the docket?  Deputy DA Roy
swears under oath that extradition "is not sought for any private
benefit or gain"?  Can that truly be alleged when the Kult is clearly
behind every attempt since 1998 to put a Keith Henson in jail?

My final question is how long the Governor of California has to sign a
warrant that is clearly only to the internally perceived benefit of
the "Church" of $cientology?  Whereas a letter from the Sheriff of
Riverside County stated that a Governor's Warrant was "still in the
process" of being obtained (February 22), the statement to the
Governor of California (alleging picketing and other "threats") was
not actually sent until March 23.  By the scheduled date of the next
hearing (May 8), 90 days will have passed since Keith's arrest in
Prescott.  How long can Keith be kept on a string here waiting to see
how much influence the Kult of $cientology has over the Governor of
California?

The answer is that the Governor of California has until either May 3
(90 days from the date of arrest) or May 6 (90 days from the date of
his first hearing) to sign the Governor's warrant, depending on
whether the local authorities agree that, given the unlawful arrest
and detention, the date of arrest should apply.

If you haven't already written, called, or faxed the Governor of
California, please do so now.  Once again, thank you for your kind
support!

"Hit 'em Again!  Harder!  Harder!"  (but not physically, of course!)

(Watch www.operatingthetan.com for the latest group of documents and a
new photo, soon to come.)

Arel