MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor. Is this the - can the People mark this down, write the questions down to address?
THE COURT: I'll give you a copy.
MR. SCHWARZ: Give me a copy? Thank you. People will take a copy.
THE COURT: Do you want a copy, too?
MR. HARR: Please, your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right.
THE CLERK: Can I ask one more question, Judge? I apologize. I wasn't here. When the People amended the complaint this morning, is there a physical document, or is that just oral?
THE COURT: Just by interlineation.
THE CLERK: And there won't be any physical document forthcoming?
THE COURT: No.
THE CLERK: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: See you in the morning.
MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you.
MR. HARR: Thank you.
(Proceedings adjourned.)
HEMET, CALIFORNIA - FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 2001
MORNING SESSION
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. SCHWARZ: Good morning, your Honor.
MR. HARR: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Hoden?
THE DEPUTY: He may be outside, your Honor. Would you like him up on the witness stand?
THE COURT: Please. Good morning, sir.
THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir.
THE COURT: How are you this morning?
THE WITNESS: Doing fine.
THE COURT: You understand you're still under oath in this case?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: All right, Counsel.
MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Good morning, Mr. Hoden.
A: Good morning.
Q: A couple of points that we didn't get to, and quite frankly I didn't ask you. Number one, when you were up at the board with respect to the Golden Era -- you don't have to get up yet -- is Golden Era a part of the Church of Scientology?
A: Yes, it is. It's the division of the church that deals with
the audio/visual materials for the church. It makes
all the instructional films, and videos, and tapes for all of the
Churches of Scientology around the world.
Q: Now, you indicated that there was a studio; do you do any
outside work?
A: No, this is just -- we just do work for the church, in other
words, just church films, church videos, church tapes. And we don't do
any outside work for anybody else.
Q: Now, you indicated that you were the general manager
yesterday; are you a Scientologist?
A: Yes, I am.
Q: How many people work at Golden Era?
A: We have about 750 staff.
Q: Are they all Scientologists?
A: Yeah, they're all members of the church. It is a church
facility. It is the part of the church that does that type of
activities. They're all church staff.
Q: Okay. You also mentioned that there were some tunnels that, as
your testimony was, that Mr. Henson, or the defendant, was running back
and forth with. I want to put something on the board for you.
THE COURT: Have you shown that to Counsel?
MR. SCHWARZ: Yes, he has a copy. Thank you, your Honor.
Q: Can you tell me what this is a depiction of?
A: That's a picture of our main underpass under the highway. We
have two. That's the main one.
Q: Okay. And is this an accurate depiction of your main
underpass?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: It is. Now, I called it a tunnel before, but it's not truly a
tunnel, it merely goes under the Highway 79; is that true?
A: Yeah. It's an underpass that allows people on the south side
of the property to get to the north side, so they just walk through
there. Like, you can see the hills in the background, and a chapel off
to the right, and there's other buildings off to the left as you go
through. So as you walk through, there's a series of steps you walk up.
That way staff don't have to walk across the highway, because the cars
zip through there.
Q: Right. Now, on the board can you please stand up and show the
jury where the main tunnel is?
A: Okay, sir. Okay. The main tunnel's right here. So as you're
looking at that picture, you're looking from this direction here, and
the little building that you see the little blue thing up on the top
that's sticking up there, the steeple, that's this building right here,
that's the chapel. So you walk through this way, and then you either go
to this building. These are music studios here -
Q: That's okay, Mr. Hoden. So that's where the yellow marker is,
is the main tunnel?
A: Main tunnel.
Q: Okay. Now, you indicated before -
THE COURT: Can the witness be seated?
MR. SCHWARZ: Yes, your Honor.
Q: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to leave you standing.
A: It's all right.
Q: Try to remember next time. Your testimony yesterday was that
Mr. Henson was hanging over the tunnel and jeering; correct?
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, leading.
MR. SCHWARZ: I'm just -
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you.
Q: That he was leaning over the tunnel and jeering and whatnot;
when you first saw Mr. Henson, the defendant, which tunnel was he at, or
which underpass?
A: I can just point to it?
Q: Yes, please.
A: This one here. This is where the first five or six or ten days
he would stay, over this -- this side, or when the people would walk
through he would run to the other side. Or vice versa, if they were
coming this way he would stand here, and as they were walking through
the tunnel he would run over to this side. So this was the major tunnel
that he was at.
Q: Okay. From the road can you see whether or not there is an
underpass?
A: No. You can't really tell unless you knew it was there.
There's a little rock wall that's there that would designate it, but if
you didn't know that that rock wall was where the tunnel was, you
wouldn't really know.
Q: You indicated just now, you testified that he was there for
the first ten days; what happened then?
A: Well, what happened was as the people would walk through -
THE COURT: Excuse me, did you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe so.
THE COURT: Maybe I don't.
MR. SCHWARZ: I'll re-ask. I'll rephrase.
Q: Your testimony was before, just a few seconds ago, that he was
there for the first ten days?
A: Yes, approximately.
Q: At that tunnel?
A: That's right.
Q: Now, what did you mean by that, "the first ten days"?
A: Well, it was roughly ten days. And what I meant is, what we
would do is, to avoid having our staff, placing our staff in a position
where he might throw a bomb over or might throw something on top of them
to hurt them or something, what I did is whenever he was out here I
would have the staff walk around this way, and they would go through our
second pedestrian, our secondary pedestrian under-tunnel - underpass,
I'm sorry.
Q: Okay. Well, just a second. I'm putting on the overhead for the
record what's been previously marked as People's Exhibit Number 29. Can
you tell me what that's a picture of?
A: That's our secondary pedestrian underpass.
Q: And that's what you just mentioned?
A: Yes.
Q: Is this an accurate description or depiction of that tunnel?
A: Yes.
Q: And did it look like that on the -- between May, 2000 and
September of 2000?
A: Yes. It's been that way for the last six years.
Q: Okay. Now, if you can get back up on the -- stand up again,
I'm sorry.
A: Yeah.
Q: Now, if you can continue with what you were saying before.
A: Okay. So what we do is, we'd have the staff go through here,
and then they would have to go this way and this way. And one, it caused
tremendous inconvenience, because from here to here, we've measured it,
they would have to walk all the way around this way was almost more than
half of a mile. At that time it was in the heat of the summer. Some days
would get up to over 112 during the July period when he was out there
almost every day.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, is there -
MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: It answers the question.
MR. SCHWARZ: Yeah, it answers the question.
Q: So you were talking about -- let's talk about that red line.
What does it depict, sir?
A: That's the route that the staff would walk. And usually it
would be used three times a day, because you would have breakfast here,
you would have lunch here, and you would have dinner
here.
Q: What does "here" mean, please?
A: I'm very sorry. That's our dining hall. So we would serve six
meals a day, two breakfasts, two lunches, and two dinners, usually 350
people at one, 300 at the other. So it was a lot of people. So all of a
sudden when people would come out to eat, after they were done eating
they would then go back to their job. Let's say they work in a studio,
or they went to the chapel, they would normally walk right through the
tunnel en masse. It was quite a few people, several hundred, because
you'd have about 100 on this side, 200 on this side. They would all walk
through the tunnel at the same time. He would stand at the top of the
tunnel, because he would time his time, he was there when people were
coming out of dinner, lunch or breakfast -
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, no foundation for how he -
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHWARZ: That's fine.
Q: Did you observe him at certain times?
A: Oh, yes.
Q: And did those times coincide with the times of your meals?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Okay. So now let's get back to the original question.
A: Okay.
Q: You indicated before that it was -- he was there for the first ten days over the primary underpass?
A: That's right.
Q: What happened after -- why the first ten days? What happened
after the first ten days?
A: Well, what I did is I had the staff, as I said, walk this way.
And then he would stand there and nobody would come, through the tunnel.
And he, after about a two-day period he would see the staff through the
trees walking this way.
THE COURT: Excuse me.
THE WITNESS: And what he did is, he ran down -
THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Hoden. What was the question? The
question is what happened after the ten days?
MR. SCHWARZ: Yeah, what happened after the ten days.
THE COURT: Can you answer what happened after the ten days?
MR. SCHWARZ: Please tell them, okay?
THE WITNESS: Well, the people started taking this route, that's
what happened. And the other thing that happened is that he stood here
for a day or two looking for people, couldn't find any people, and then
saw them walking down here. He would, like, walk along the highway
looking for them, and then he saw them coming through the tunnel here.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Okay. After he discovered that there was
another tunnel, what happened?
A: Well, then what would happen is he would stand at this tunnel.
And if he didn't see the people walking he would run
down this -
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): What did you observe Mr. Henson doing?
A: Running back and forth between the two tunnels. In other
words, he would stand over this tunnel that people couldn't walk
through. They would start to go this way, he would run down here to this
tunnel.
Q: You saw that?
A: I saw that. And then what he would do is he would run across
the street as they came out the other side, and he would run across,
back and forth here, trying to prevent the people coming through the
tunnels.
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, conclusion on that last part.
THE COURT: Sustained. That statement will be stricken.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Okay. Mr. Hoden, just try to - just talk
about your observations.
A: Okay.
Q: Now, you're talking about running back and forth; how long did
this last?
A: This went for between three and four weeks.
Q: You can sit down. I'm sorry, sir.
A: This went for between a three to four-week period.
Q: Okay. Now, when he would go to the tunnels was it the same type of conduct that you described before
where he was jeering, cat-calling, et cetera?
A: Yes. Or trying to lean over the tunnel. My fear was that he
would throw something over the tunnel.
Q: Okay. Now, we have a red line, you indicated that it was the
distances between having to go from one tunnel to the next; how do you
know the distances?
A: Well, I know the property very well. I walked the property,
measured it on a map.
Q: You measured it?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Now, given the fact that the defendant was doing this
kind of conduct, did that impede your daily affairs?
A: Oh, tremendously so.
Q: How so?
A: Well, let's say after dinner if we were going to have chapel,
in other words, all the people would just normally go through the tunnel
over to the chapel. And they couldn't do that. The back part of the
chapel -
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARR: Ask that that be stricken as well.
THE COURT: Motion granted.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Okay. Mr. Hoden, now, just how did it impede
your affairs? What steps were taken and what was the cause of whatever
steps were taken? Can you let me know that?
A: Yes, I could.
Q: Okay.
MR. HARR: Your Honor, that's a multi-part. I ask that be done one
step at a time, please.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHWARZ: Fine, your Honor. Absolutely.
THE COURT: Ask your question, please.
MR. SCHWARZ: I'll rephrase.
Q: Now, what steps were taken? Because you talked about safety.
What steps were taken, what other -- given Mr. -- I'll rephrase
completely. Given Mr. Henson's activities, what steps did you take to
protect the safety that you talked -
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, that presumes -
MR. SCHWARZ: He's already testified to safety.
THE COURT: Please. What is your legal grounds, Counsel?
MR. HARR: Conclusionary.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): All right. Given Mr. Henson's activities
were there any steps taken?
A: Yes. The two chapel rooms that were closest to the highway
were always closed off and evacuated. We couldn't use that portion of
the chapel because it was close to the highway. It was about from this
wall to about that wall. That's how far the road was from the chapel
area, and we were afraid that he was going to throw something up there.
So those two church worship areas that were closest
to the road had to be closed off, and we couldn't use those for a period
of almost two months. That was one thing that I did do.
Q: Thank you.
MR. HARR: Your Honor, I would ask that the record please reflect
a distance that the witness has described, a space but not a distance,
if we could please -
MR. SCHWARZ: That's true, your Honor. Do we have a map, or the -
THE COURT: No.
MR. SCHWARZ: We don't.
THE COURT: I'm sorry.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): So how much would you estimate between you
and the end of the wall, sir? What would your estimation be in round
figures?
A: Fifteen yards.
Q: Okay. Fifteen yards?
MR. HARR: If that's his testimony.
MR. SCHWARZ: If you wanted to disagree.
Q: Let's get away from that. We also -- yesterday you talked
about that you -- some of your fear came from this Great Chicken Mambo
book that I gave to you yesterday. Given the time constraints -- may I
approach, your Honor, with the copy?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHWARZ: Let the record reflect that I am handing a copy of
the book that's been previously authenticated, The
Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition by Ed Regis.
Q: Can you tell me in that book -- and Counsel has a copy, your
Honor, for the record -- can you tell us in that book or read a portion
of that book that concerns you?
A: Yes, I can.
Q: And please tell us the pages you're reading from.
A: Well, on page 49 there was a section here that concerned me.
Should I read this?
Q: Well, you're going to have to tell us the paragraph that
you're on.
A: Okay. I'm on the top of page 49, second paragraph going down.
Q: Okay. Starting with the word?
A: Starts with "After."
Q: Okay.
A: "After awhile Keith and Caroline had become semi-professional
explosives experts. Quote, 'We were accomplished pyromaniacs,' Caroline
said. 'We were mostly always going out into the desert and setting
things off, mostly just bombs,' end of quote." At that time the book
indicates Keith was married to Caroline.
Q: That's fine. What else?
A: There is another little section further down. "This was
supposed to be a mock atomic bomb, and indeed it worked pretty well. 'It
made an incredible fire ball and mushroom cloud,' Caroline said. 'I
mean, it was really impressive.' Caroline and Keith,
though, had no trouble topping that one. They came back the next week
with a device that would not only look like an a bomb explosion, it
would actually work like one. The real atomic bomb had an implosion lens
detonator, and so too would Caroline and Keith's. The core of the bomb
would be a mixture of ammonium nitrate and diesel oil. They mixed this
up easily in their garage, and the only problem would be getting it to
explode on command. 'Ammonium nitrate is just hellishly difficult to set
off unless you have tons of it together,' Keith said. 'You have to
confine it and give it a pressure shock. It's a real pain to get it to
blow up properly.' But he knew how to do it, of course. So he took a
200-pound lard can and put three pieces of prim cord inside, looping
them around so that they completely covered the bottom. Then he poured
the ammonium nitrate into the can, inserted sticks of dynamite all
around the perimeter, ran the prim cord fuse up to a blasting cap on top
of it. The cap would fire the prim cord, which in turn would set off the
dynamite, which would crush the mass of ammonium nitrate until the
necessary pressure was reached. A true implosion --I' I'm sorry. "A true
implosion device just like the atom bomb. Caroline and Keith thought
that their new bomb would be so powerful that they took the precaution
of putting it behind a hillside so that it would be out of anyone's
direct line of sight. So they set it up, lit the fuse, ran like hell,
and jumped in the jeep. This is how he learned about the forces of
nature. A shock wave blast them forth like the world was coming to an
end right there in southern Arizona. It was a misty,
rainy day, and the ambient moisture condensed out in an expanding shell
as the compression traveled out from the center. It was stunning.
Everyone agreed that it was a very loud explosion, one of the best
recreational bombs ever seen."
Q: And is that it that concerned you?
A: There was one other that I was concerned about.
Q: Page, please?
A: This is on page 105.
Q: Starting with what paragraph, sir?
A: Well, there's two paragraphs. There's one down here -- let's
see, one, two, three -- fourth. It starts with the word "It."
Q: Okay.
MR. HARR: I must have -- could I ask if he -- I'm sorry. I don't
mean to interrupt, Mr. Hoden, I just -- where are we on this?
MR. SCHWARZ: Where are we, Mr. Hoden?
THE WITNESS: All right. I'm -- page 105, I'm starting at the
eighth line from the bottom with the word "it."
MR. HARR: Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHWARZ: You're welcome, Counsel.
THE WITNESS: All right. "It took them three hours of dissection
just to reach and identify all the major instructions involved. This was
Keith Henson's first suspension. So he had the dirty scrub duties,
mopping up ice water, vacuuming up bone chips, dumping fluids down the
drain, real blood-up-to-the-elbow stuff, he said." And this is in connection to a line above it where it says with the
word, "in fact." "In fact, Keith was now so excited about cryonics --"
MR. HARR: Again, I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you, sir,
but I'm not following that. I think we got to here. We're taking this
out of order, and I'm not following. Here we go.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Would you please -- mind reading that again,
please?
A: Sure. "In fact, Keith was by now so excited about cryonics
that he wanted to see a suspension firsthand. So when he got the call
from Arthur McCoombs at Alcore, he flew down to Riverside in his full
surgical dress by the time the patient was wheeled into the operating
room." And this is regarding cutting up dead bodies and freezing them.
MR. HARR: We don't need the -- excuse me, your Honor, that's
editorial comment, I believe.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Do you know what cryonics is?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: What is the basic premise of cryonics, sir?
A: What they do is -
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHWARZ: Goes to his -- exception, your Honor.
Q: As of the date the defendant first showed up to picket at
Golden Era in 2000, what did you know about him?
A: I knew that he hated the Church of Scientology, wanted to destroy the Church of Scientology. He had stated so
numerous times in the past, so I knew that he had that state of mind
when he came there.
Q: Okay. And -- but what information did you have about him?
A: I had various postings that he had posted on the internet in
the past. I had various other documents that were sent to me. I had one
-- I had this book, which even he -
THE COURT: Excuse me, sir. He's just asking what information.
THE WITNESS: I had this book, and I had other documents, and I
had postings that were put on the internet by Keith Henson.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Okay. Now, where did you get the
information? Where did you get the book first of all?
A: This was sent to me by our church in Los Angeles.
Q: Okay. Now, let's talk about those postings. I think now would
be a good time.
MR. HARR: Your Honor, can I approach the bench on this? I think
this will just take a minute -
THE COURT: All right. You want the reporter?
MR. HARR: Please, your Honor.
(The following proceedings were held at sidebar.)
MR. HARR: Your Honor, I don't have any problem obviously with him
on the exhibits that we have authenticated. And I know that's where he's
going with this. But in light of this late development, redaction issue,
I don't want to get too far before we get to resolve that issue. And it
was my understanding that he wasn't going to offer
these until at least noon or at least after the break so we can maybe
further discuss the issue.
THE COURT: He's not going to offer the items into evidence,
anyway. We can -- if -- if during the break the Court determines that
they are not receivable or that you cannot -- that there is a bar
against your using the others, the Court will make its decision then.
MR. HARR: Okay. And I'll just -- I can use the evidence, the
exhibits that are already marked to at least inquire, right? Because
those have been authenticated. But the full information, we may not have
the issue if I can do that.
MR. SCHWARZ: Well, can we talk about this at the break? Because I
have information that says otherwise.
THE COURT: Well, let's just leave it status quo at this point.
We'll take it up at the break.
MR. HARR: Thank you.
MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of
the jury.)
MR. SCHWARZ: I don't know if this is going to show up.
THE COURT: Counsel, are you -
MR. SCHWARZ: I was going to show him this -
MR. HARR: That will be publishing it.
THE COURT: Show it to him, not to anybody else, please.
MR. SCHWARZ: Okay. My apologies to the Court. May I approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Mr. Hoden, I'm handing you what's been
previously marked as People's Exhibit Number 24A, which is a -- which
has been previously authenticated as a true and correct copy of Mr.
Henson's posting on the -
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, the attorney is testifying.
MR. SCHWARZ: I'm stating it for the record, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): -- which has been previously authenticated
by the Court -
THE COURT: Wait a minute, Counsel. All right. Go ahead.
MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor.
Q: Can you please -- do you recognize it?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And how do you recognize it?
A: Well, this is a document that I saw, you know, previous to Mr.
Henson coming out here.
Q: Okay. And where did you get that document from, or a copy of?
A: This was sent to me from our church in Los Angeles.
Q: And can you please -- now, did that document give you concern?
A: Yes, it did.
Q: And can you read the part that gave you concern?
A: Okay. Keith Henson writes here, he says, "The annihilation of
the Church of Scientology and all its fronts is a worthy goal." I
thought -- that was alarming to me, somebody would want to annihilate my
church.
THE COURT: Excuse me, sir, just tell us which part alarmed you.
THE WITNESS: That part alarmed me.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHWARZ: Okay. Thank you. Do you have Number 15, Madam Clerk?
15A? May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHWARZ: Should I continue to ask permission? Thank you.
Q: I'm handing you what's been previously marked as People's 15A
for identification, which has also been previously authenticated by the
Court as a true and correct copy of what was posted to the internet by
Mr. Henson.
THE COURT: No, sir, that is incorrect. That has not been
authenticated as a true and correct copy. Counsel misstates.
MR. SCHWARZ: May the People approach?
THE COURT: That is a portion -
MR. SCHWARZ: A portion. A relevant portion. The relevant portion
-
THE COURT: No, sir. That is a portion.
MR. SCHWARZ: A portion.
THE COURT: Please reframe your question.
MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you.
Q: Can you please -- do you recognize it?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: What is it?
A: This is a document that was written by Keith Henson on the
16th of June, 2000.
Q: When did you first see it?
A: I saw this a few days after it was written.
Q: How did you come to see it?
A: It was sent to me by our church in Los Angeles.
Q: Would you please read to the jury the -- that portion of that
document that caused you to be concerned?
A: Yes. "If you do want to help picket, it is an impressive sight
to see them getting under cover like roaches when the kitchen light is
turned on."
MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you. May I approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Let the record reflect that I am handing the
witness what's been previously marked as People's Exhibit 8A for
identification. It is a true and correct copy of a portion that has been
previously authenticated as true and correct copy of Mr. Henson's
posting on the internet. Do you recognize it, Mr. Hoden?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: How do you recognize it?
A: Well, because I remember having read it.
Q: Okay. What is it?
A: This is a document that was written by Keith Henson on the
23rd of June, 2000.
Q: And when did you first see it?
A: Would have been within -- probably the 24th. Usually I would
receive these the day after he would post them on the internet.
Q: How did you come to see it?
A: Well, it was sent to me from the church in Los Angeles that
monitored this internet site.
Q: Would you please read to the jury that portion of the document
that caused you to be concerned?
A: I will. "They are now using the west underpass slightly,
possibly when I am on the east underpass. The disruption in traffic from
one side of the highway to the other must be killing their stats."
Q: Is that it?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Thank you.
MR. HARR: Your Honor, I apologize for this. I thought there might
-- this might be misread. I'm not sure what he said at the beginning of
the second sentence that he just read, the word starting with "the," I'm
not sure what he said.
THE COURT: All right. Would you repeat it for the -- Madam
Reporter, would you reread it?
(Record read.)
MR. HARR: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHWARZ: Are you satisfied?
MR. HARR: Yes, I am, thank you.
MR. SCHWARZ: May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHWARZ: Let the record reflect that I am handing the
defendant -- or the witness, rather, what's been previously been marked
as People's Exhibit Number 20A, which is a true and correct copy of a
portion of a document that Mr. Henson has authored.
THE COURT: The document was previously authenticated.
MR. SCHWARZ: That's correct, your Honor.
Q: Do you recognize it, sir?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: What is it?
A: This is a document that was written on the 3rd of July, 2000,
and it's signed, "Keith Henson from the Hemet front."
Q: And would you please read that portion of the document that
caused you to be concerned?
A: Yes. "I stopped on my way out to collect more addresses near
one of the two clam bed apartments." He refers' to Scientologists as
clams.
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, he's not reading now.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Just read the document.
A: "I stopped on my way out to collect more addresses near one of the two clam bed apartments. There will be
another post on what to do with the addresses. Either they leave those
buses there one heck of a long time, or they are under orders not to
load as long as I am there. Am I that dangerous even without a picket
sign?" That's what he says.
Q: Now, while you were reading you indicated what "clam bed --"
how do you take that? What does "clam bed" mean?
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Do you know what "clam bed" means?
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Have you ever heard of the term "clam bed"?
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Have you ever heard of the term?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And how is it used?
A: It's a derogatory -
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, relevance.
MR. SCHWARZ: It's explaining the document.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. HARR: No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: I take it you are laying the foundation?
MR. SCHWARZ: I'm laying it right now, your Honor.
Q: So have you ever heard of the term "clam"?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: And what is the term referred to?
A: It's a derogatory term referring to Scientologists.
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, no foundation.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): How do you know that -
MR. HARR: Request that that be stricken.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): How do you know that?
A: I've heard people jeer it out and say it out to Scientologists
before. It's a derogatory term.
Q: Okay. So from that reading of that posting when it refers to
"clam bed," how did you take it?
A: Well, one -- several things. One, he's gloating about the fact
that -
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, relevancy about "gloating."
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): I'm asking you, Mr. Hoden, please listen to
the question, how did you take the term "clam bed"? What did that mean
to you?
A: It was an insulting term. I felt insulted. I'm sorry.
Q: The term "clam bed" itself as opposed to "clam"?
MR. HARR: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: He's answered the question.
MR. SCHWARZ: Okay. Thank you. May I approach,
your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHWARZ: Let the record reflect that I have handed the
witness a copy of -- or what's been previously marked as People's
Exhibit Number 9A for identification, which is a -- which has been
previously been authenticated as a portion of a document that is -- that
Mr. Henson had authored on a posting.
THE COURT: I'm sorry? That Mr. Henson what?
MR. SCHWARZ: Mr. Henson wrote.
THE COURT: It's been authenticated. The document -
MR. SCHWARZ: Is authenticated.
THE COURT: This is a -
MR. SCHWARZ: A copy.
THE COURT: -- a portion of a document -
MR. SCHWARZ: I said "portion," your Honor.
THE COURT: -- that has been previously authenticated by the
Court.
MR. SCHWARZ: By the Court.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. SCHWARZ: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Do you recognize that document?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: What is it?
A: This is a document that was written by Keith Henson -
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, the witness has no independent
knowledge of that. It's already been discussed.
THE COURT: Sustained. I'm sorry. Overruled.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): What is it?
A: This is a document that was written by Keith Henson on the 4th
of July, 2000.
Q: When did you first see it?
A: I saw this on about the 5th of July, next day.
Q: How did you come to see it?
A: It was sent to me by our church in Los Angeles.
Q: Would you please read to the jury that portion of the document
that caused you to be concerned?
A: "This morning I got out there before 7:00 a.m. I was not early
enough to follow the buses back to the two clam apartments. But all four
went by my picket signs within a ten-minute period close to 7:00 a.m.
The buses made another run after this. I followed one of them over to
the apartments on Kirby and found one at the Fruitvale apartment as
well. The first one tried to shake me off, hard to do in a bus, and
stopped for a while at a gas station to call. They sure are paranoid."
Q: Thank you. Madam clerk, can I have what's been previously
marked as People's Exhibit Number 6? Thank you.
THE CLERK: Counsel, I'm sorry to interrupt. Can I just ask, 6 and
13 were to be admitted as redacted versions?
THE COURT: No, they're marked.
MR. SCHWARZ: This is one of the redacted versions. And I am going to have Counsel only read that portion which has
not been redacted by the Court.
THE COURT: You mean the witness?
MR. SCHWARZ: The witness, your Honor, I apologize.
THE CLERK: Okay. Sorry to interrupt.
MR. SCHWARZ: May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHWARZ: Let the record reflect that I am handing Mr. Hoden a
copy -- what's been previously been marked' for identification as
People's Number 6, which is -- has been previously authenticated by the
Court as a true and correct copy of what was posted to the net by Mr.
Henson.
Q: Now, Mr. Hoden?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: The Court has already redacted a portion of this. So I would
ask that you only read this line.
A: Okay.
Q: Okay? Do you recognize that document?
A: Yes. This is a document that's signed by Keith Henson and is
dated on the 7th of July, 2000.
Q: And what is it?
A: Well, it's a document -
Q: Okay. Thank you. When did you first see that document?
A: I would have seen this on the 8th of July.
Q: And how did you come to see it?
A: Sent to me from the church in Los Angeles.
Q: Now, would you please read the one line that I pointed to you?
A: Okay. "And a good topo map. The approach is clear from the
south."
Q: Did that give you cause for concern?
A: Yes, it did.
Q: Why?
A: I was afraid that they were talking about sending missiles to
attack the church, and he was referring to a route where a missile could
come and hit either our chapel or one of the other buildings from the
south, because there's no mountains to the south, where a topography map
would measure where the mountains are or are not.
Q: So "topo map" means to you topography map?
A: That's correct.
Q: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, may I have Exhibit Number 2? May I
approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Mr. Hoden, I'm now handing you what's
previously been marked as People's Exhibit Number 2, which has been
previously authenticated by the Court as a true and correct copy of what
Mr. Henson posted to the net; do you recognize it?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: What is it?
A: It is a document that was signed by Keith Henson dated on the
9th of July, 2000.
Q: And when did you first see it?
A: I saw this on the 10th of July, 2000.
Q: How did you come to see it?
A: It was sent to me from the church in Los Angeles.
Q: Now, would you please read the document to the Court and for
the jury?
A: Do I read the part that's yellowed, or what parts do you want
me to read?
Q: Well, just go ahead and read it in context. Read the entire
document since the entire document has been -
MR. HARR: Your Honor, that's been represented as having been
posted by Mr. Henson, and there are those things on the left edge that
we have discussed previously.
MR. SCHWARZ: Yes.
Q: For the record, please, when you're reading -
A: Indicate which is which?
Q: Which is which. Which is not by Mr. Henson, and then the
portion -- when you get to the portion that was written by Mr. Henson,
would you please state that for the record?
A: Okay, good. All right. So the first portion reads as follows:
"I've already got the permit and a Harpy eagle, bag limit two Scieos --"
Scieos, I'm not sure how they pronounce it, "two Scieos," I think it's
an abbreviation for Scientology -
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor.
MR. SCHWARZ: Just read it, please.
THE WITNESS: "I've already got the permit and a Harpy eagle, bag
limit two Scieos per day. If D.M. goes jogging in
his pink bunny suit, I'll give him a two-minute head start before I slip
the eagle. Wouldn't do him any good, an 18-pound eagle traveling at 40
miles per hour will strike -- traveling at 40 miles per hour will strike
with great force, and their talons are bigger than a Kodiak bear."
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Now, please read the portion that Mr. Henson
wrote.
A: "Oh, great. Now --" a symbol "-- has to watch for eagles as
well as cruise missiles."
Q: Okay. Can you please describe the symbol?
A: It's got two -- two parenthesis with a star or an asterisk in
the middle.
Q: Okay. Have you ever seen this symbol before?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: And do you know what it represents?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: What does it represent?
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Have you ever seen -- okay. You've testified
that you've seen the mark before?
A: That's correct.
Q: Have you seen it in other documents?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: And over the course of however you've done it, what do you --
what does that symbol mean to you?
A: Refers to the leader of the church.
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHWARZ: I'll rephrase.
Q: You've indicated that you've seen the -- you've seen the
markings before; where else have you seen that marking?
A: On other postings on the internet by Keith Henson.
Q: Okay. Have they ever been defined?
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, that's conclusionary. There's
been no authentication.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Aside from Mr. Henson what have you seen
about that -- that symbol?
A: I've seen that symbol used by other people to refer to the
spiritual leader of the church. In other words, it's a symbol that they
-- the people who attack the religion or hate the religion use to refer
to the -
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, conclusionary on the last part.
THE COURT: Sustained as to the last part.
MR. SCHWARZ: Okay.
Q: So you're saying that they have used that with respect to --
they've used the symbol -
THE COURT: Sorry, Counsel, the symbol has been used?
MR. SCHWARZ: Correct.
Q: The symbol has been used to refer to the ecclesiastical leader
of the church?
A: That is correct.
Q: And his name is?
A: Mr. David Miscavige.
Q: So when you read that document, when you read what Mr. Henson
writes, how do you take it?
A: Well, he's trying to kill the head of the church and knock off
the head of the church. In other words, it's -- I don't know. It would
be like -
MR. HARR: Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you. You've answered the question. I
appreciate that. One moment, your Honor. Can I have Number 17, please?
May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHWARZ: I'm handing what's been previously been marked as
People's Exhibit Number 17 for identification, which has been previously
been authenticated by the Court as a true and correct copy of what Mr.
Henson posted to the net.
THE COURT: The entire?
MR. SCHWARZ: It's the entire document, your Honor.
Q: Now, there are portions of the -- of that document that are
not entirely Mr. Henson's?
A: That's correct.
Q: So please read the document -- first of all, do you recognize
it?
A: Yes, I do.
MR. HARR: Your Honor, I don't -- sorry to interrupt Counsel, but
I believe with the squiggly deals on the left-hand
margin, again I would indicate Mr. Henson did not post -
MR. SCHWARZ: I'll instruct the witness.
THE COURT: Disregard the squiggly deals.
MR. SCHWARZ: Well, your Honor, I think what Counsel meant to say
was he just wants me to inform the Court that part of it's not his.
Q: So first of all, do you recognize it?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: What is it?
A: It is a document that's signed by Keith Henson, and it's dated
on the 11th of July, 2000.
Q: When did you first see it?
A: I saw this on the 12th of July.
Q: And how did you come to see it?
A: Sent to me from the church in Los Angeles.
Q: Okay. Now, would you please read the document and indicate
what is not Mr. Henson's by the -- by the greater than signs, and then
when you get to the portion of the document that was written by Mr.
Henson, would you indicate it for the jury.
A: Okay.
Q: Is that fair?
A: Sure.
Q: Okay. Please do it.
A: "The range of a pluton M.R.B.M. equal (deleted for purpose of
national security.) C.E.P. on the platform equal (deleted for purpose of
national security,) although I imagine probably
around 750 yards." And then Mr. Henson says, "No way. Modern weapons are
accurate to a matter of a few tens of yards. The terminal guidance ones
are good to single digits," signed, "Keith Henson."
Q: Thank you. Have you ever heard the acronym M.R.M.B.?
A: Refers to some sort of missile. I don't know what the letters
stand for -
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Have you ever heard of it?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And to your understanding what does it refer to?
A: It's a missile.
Q: Okay. Thank you. May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: Excuse me, Counsel.This might be an appropriate time
for us to take our morning recess. The Court and Counsel have some
things to take up, and we're going to give you a little extra time this
morning. Let's get back here at about 10:20, please. Don't discuss the
case. Leave your books right where they are. We'll see you in about 22
minutes. Thank you. And Mr. Hoden, you are excused for the time being.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: You folks are free to leave if you wish.
(The jury exited the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Mr. Schwarz, the Court is concerned with the fact that
the People have redacted portions of the previously authenticated
documents to where they only state what apparently what the People want
to present to the witness. The jury has been led to believe, the Court
believes, that those are the only portions of the document the Court
will permit absent some authority -- excuse me, Counsel.
MR. SCHWARZ: I haven't said anything.
THE COURT: -- will permit the defense to cross-examine this
witness with the unredacted copies.
MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, as we spoke in chambers, if the Court
will allow me just a minute, I don't know where my -- I can't find my
authority which I brought to court for whatever reason, because I showed
it to Mr. Harr, that Mr. Harr doesn't have -
THE COURT: He can cross-examine with the Los Angeles Times,
Counsel.
MR. SCHWARZ: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: And he can indicate that the previous documents have
been authenticated in their entirety.
MR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor -
THE COURT: And cross-examine the witness subject to objection
from Counsel as to any aspect of those redacted documents.
MR. SCHWARZ: I -- the People respectfully disagree with the Court
to one portion that needs to be addressed by the Court, even though the
Court understands my disagreement. There are portions in those
documents, your Honor, where the Court has already
ruled in limine with respect to the deaths, also with respect to fair
game. And so your Honor, if Mr. -
MR. HARR: I already represented I won't go there.
MR. SCHWARZ: Okay. And if the Court will allow me to get my
authority, I will give it to you before the Court's -- before the jury
returns.
THE COURT: Well, it would be pretty difficult for me to prohibit
you from doing that, wouldn't it?
MR. SCHWARZ: It would be.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. SCHWARZ: I'm just asking for the Court to address that before
the jury returns so -
THE COURT: Then you'd better get here about -- soon enough so
that we can address it before the jury comes back at 10:20.
MR. HARR: Your Honor, if I might just -- I believe I probably am
saying something maybe that doesn't need to be done. But my previous --
my memory's failed me. Evidence Code 356, when part of an act,
declaration, conversation or writing is given in evidence by one party,
the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party?
THE COURT: That's what I said, Counsel.
MR. SCHWARZ: And I will bring the -
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Court's in recess.
MR. SCHWARZ: Until what time?
THE COURT: 10:20. Well, if you want to show me something you
better get back before that. You better get back at 10:15.
(Recess taken.)
THE COURT: Counsel, you have something you wanted to show the
Court?
MR. SCHWARZ: Well, your Honor, I have a -- I have an actual copy
of 356, which says that the declaration, conversation or writing -- this
is the part that was left off, "which is necessary to make it understood
may also be given into evidence." So Mr. Harr is correct with respect to
cross-examination to make it understood. But as we talked about before,
it doesn't -- he won't be able to authenticate it as to hearsay to
himself, so.
THE COURT: Well, I don't know if it's a distinction without a
difference. Let's call the jury in, please.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of
the jury.)
THE COURT: All right, Counsel.
MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you, your Honor. May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHWARZ: May the record reflect that I'm handing what's been
previously been marked for identification as 18A, People's 18A, which
has been -- which is a portion of a document that has been previously
authenticated by the Court as a true and correct copy of what Mr. Henson
posted to the net.
Q: Do you recognize it?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And how do you recognize it?
A: Well, because I've seen it before. I've read this before.
Q: And when was that?
A: This was written on the 12th of July.
THE COURT: Excuse me, do you know when you read it, sir?
THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. The 13th of July.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Okay. What's the date on that document?
A: The date on here, on the 12th of July, 2000.
Q: And how did you come to see that document?
A: This was sent to me by our church in Los Angeles.
Q: Okay. And would you please read to the jury that portion of
the document that gave you concern?
A: Okay. "I saw one of the buses turn in at the eastern most
gate. They are totally disrupting traffic in a hopeless attempt to avoid
staff seeing me. Signed Keith Henson, reporting from the Hemet front."
Q: Thank you. Thank you very much. Could I have Exhibit Number
14. May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHWARZ: Let the record reflect that the People have given
the witness a copy -- or what's been previously marked as People's
Exhibit Number 14 for identification, which is a true and accurate copy
of a posting that was -- that the Court has already authenticated as Mr.
Henson's posting.
Q: Do you recognize that?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: What is it?
A: This is a document that's signed by Keith Henson "reporting
from the Hemet front," and it's dated the 13th of July, 2000.
Q: Okay. Would you please -- first of all, how did you come to
see that?
A: This was sent to me from our church in Los Angeles on the
following day.
Q: And can you please read that portion of the document that gave
rise to your concern?
A: There is a whole page here, so I have to just go through it
for a second.
Q: That's fine. Take your time.
A: Okay.
Q: Okay. would you please read that portion of the document that
gave you concern.
A: Well, the first part talks -- should I just read this? The
first part here caused me concern at the time.
Q: Okay.
A: He says, "Serious entheta kept me busy through the heat of the
day, but I got back out there a little after 4:30. I was interested to
see buses take staff back to their apartments, but this was not to be.
It seems --" that little mark, that little symbol "-- had given orders
that the buses not be moved while an S.P. was nearby."
Q: Okay.
A: Then down here it says, "After one pass to the east end of the
complex, I stayed near the west end where the buses are parked. 5:00
p.m. and no movement. 5:30, still there. 6:00, 6:30, thug two gave up at
6:45, and Richardson followed five minutes later. 7:00 p.m. the buses
had not moved. Finally, pity for those who had been there since 7:00
a.m. got to me, though they might have moved them back to the apartments
in the small vans."
MR. HARR: Your Honor, I believe there might have been a word left
out of that. I don't mean to -
THE COURT: You will have a chance to cross-examine the witness.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Is that it?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, why did that give you concern?
A: Well, when he was monitoring us every day and then reporting
up exactly what he was doing, and then all -- when I would read the
thing I go, okay, good, he's going to sit outside the apartments where
people live from 4:30 to 5:30 to 6:30. In other words, it was almost
like, how do you plan the next day, because where is he going to be
next? And my major concern was the safety of my staff here at the
church. And the information I had based upon the thing I read is that he
was capable of setting off bombs -
THE COURT: Excuse me, sir, you've answered the question.
MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you.I appreciate that. May I approach, your
Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHWARZ: Let the record reflect that I am handing the witness
People's 10 for identification which has been previously authenticated
by the Court as a true and correct copy of what Mr. Henson posted to the
internet.
Q: Do you recognize that document, sir? .
A: Yes, I do.
Q: How do you recognize it?
A: Because I saw this document before.
Q: And when did you see this?
A: I saw this on the 10th of January -- no, I'm sorry, I didn't.
I saw this in the spring of 2000.
Q: Okay.
A: Like about February.
Q: All right. And what's the date of the document?
A: The date of the document is 9 January 2000, and it's signed
"Keith Henson."
Q: Okay. And would you please read the entire, the entire
document, but indicate to the Court the difference about what actually
Mr. Henson wrote?
A: Okay. Starts out, "A group of rag tag S.P.'s, all of different
minds and opinions, but all of one goal." And then another person says,
"What is the one goal?" "To stop the Church of Scientology illegal and
inhumane practices, or to destroy it utterly without sorrow, belief
system and all." And then Keith Henson writes, "Either would work for
me, but the latter seems like an easier task." And then it's signed
"Keith Henson."
Q: And why did that concern you?
A: Well, because exactly what it says, it says to destroy,
referring -
THE COURT: You've answered the question, sir.
MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you. May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): I'm handing you what's previously been
marked for identification as People's Exhibit Number 7; do you recognize
that?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: That document, too, has been previously authenticated by the
Court as a true and correct copy of what Mr. Henson previously posted to
the internet. Can you tell us what it is? What is it?
A: Well, this is a document that's dated the 9th of July from
Keith Henson.
Q: And when did you first receive it? Or when did you first see
it?
A: I would have seen this on the 10th of July.
Q: And who did you -- and how did you come to see it?
A: Well, it was sent to me by our church in Los Angeles.
Q: Okay. I'm taking this as a pattern, this is a pattern?
A: Okay.
Q: Is it?
A: Oh, yes. In other words, he would be out there one day, and then -
THE COURT: Excuse me, sir.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, it is a pattern.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): It's a pattern. Would you please take your
time, read over that document, and find that portion of the document
that gave you concern. And then when you get to that can you please
inform us where you're reading from for Counsel's sake. Okay?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Take your time, please.
A: Okay. I found the spot.
Q: Can you please tell us where you're reading from?
A: Second paragraph starting with "Okay."
Q: Okay. Would you please read that?
A: Yes, I will. "Okay. I am more --" I'm sorry. "Okay, I am more
than willing to demonstrate the effect I have on Gold Base. Standing on
the west overpass, and just watching out, the foot traffic over the road
stops when I am in any place close on the road. Or watch a van back up
wildly from the west gate if I show up."
Q: Is there anything else in that document that gave you concern?
A: Yes. Seven more paragraphs down where it starts with, "You
have to go."
Q: Okay.
A: "You have to go from one side of the complex to the other,
either have to ride a van or get --" I'm sorry. "Either have to ride a
van or get clearance to go under the road from some
dude who knows where I'm at. Where I am." Sorry. "It is nuts. You should
see what happens when I go watch them load the buses. The bus just sits
there."
Q: And why does that concern you?
A: One, obviously he's monitoring the schedule of all the buses,
where they go. And number two, he enjoys going wherever our people are
to prevent us from going in and out of the property or being able to
make full use of our property.
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, conclusionary.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you. May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHWARZ: Can the record reflect that I am handing the witness
what's been previously marked for identification as People's Exhibit
19A, which is a -- which has been previously authenticated. That portion
of the document has been previously authenticated as a true and correct
copy of what Mr. Henson posted to the net.
Q: Would you please read to the jury -- or first of all, do you
recognize that document?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And what is it?
A: This is a document dated the 20th of July, 2000 signed by
Keith Henson.
Q: And when did you first come to see it?
A: I would have seen this on the 21st of July.
Q: Okay. And where did you get it?
A: This was sent to me by our church in Los Angeles.
Q: And would you please read that document to the Court?
A: Yes, sir. "I can tell when I am away --" I'm sorry. "I can
tell when I am way to the east of the plaza," parenthesis, "near the
main gate, that there are lots of people crossing the plaza and going
into the underpass. But when I get there very few people can be seen on
either side of the road. I suspect they are huddling in the underpass
until they get the all clear signal that I have moved on."
Q: And again, why did that concern you, sir?
A: Well, it concerned me because the fact that sometimes people
would get trapped, so to speak, in the underpass, because when he was
over, above it people had, you know, were afraid to come out because
they didn't know which side he was standing on -
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, conclusion.
THE COURT: Excuse me. Sustained.
MR. SCHWARZ: Okay.
Q: Did you -- I'll rephrase. Did you ever have an occasion to see
an event similar to this, what's described in this document?
MR. HARR: Objection, your Honor, relevance.
THE COURT: I don't know what that means, Counsel. Could you
rephrase the question?
MR. SCHWARZ: I'll rephrase the question. I'll rephrase the
question.
Q: You indicated that it concerned you; why -- let's just start over. Why did it concern you?
A: It concerned me because, one, he was monitoring the traffic
inside our church. That concerned me. That's not - I don't consider that
normal. In other words, people don't usually have to go to church -
THE COURT: Excuse me, sir. If you'll just tell us what concerned
you. Not -
THE WITNESS: Why.
THE COURT: And not why.
THE WITNESS: Okay. It concerned me because somebody was
monitoring everything we did in the church, and they would, wherever our
church staff would go he would follow them and be there in a threatening
fashion. That's what concerned me the most. And down to the level of
somebody just walking from one church dining hall to the church chapel,
he was there in between the chapel and the dining hall trying to prevent
that activity.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Thank you. While I'm standing here, let the
record reflect that I am handing to the witness what's been previously
been marked as People's Exhibit 25A for identification, which is a true
and correct copy, or a portion of a document that was previously
authenticated by the Court as Mr. Henson's posting. Do you recognize it?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And what is it?
A: This is a document that's written on the 3rd of August, 2000,
signed by Keith Henson.
Q: And would you please -- or when did you first see it, sir?
A: I would have seen this on the 4th of August, 2000.
Q: And where would you receive that from? Who did you get it
from?
A: Sent to me from the church in Los Angeles.
Q: And could you please read the document?
A: Yes. "As one person put it, one wog, one thousand terrified
clams."
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, was that "wog," w-o-g?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
Q. (By Mr. Schwarz): Have you ever heard the term - now, we've
already talked about clams. Have you ever heard of the term "wog"?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: So the clams we've talked about, what does that mean to you?
A: Clams -
THE COURT: We've already heard that, Counsel.
Q: Okay. So what gave you cause for concern with respect to this
document?
A: He's pointing out that he's out there and he's got one
thousand people terrified.
MR. SCHWARZ: Thank you. At this time, your Honor, we've finally
gotten through all of the postings. Thank goodness for all of us. At
this time, your Honor, the People would respectfully move to admit into
evidence People's Exhibits 24A, 15A -
THE COURT: Let's take that up at another time, Counsel, outside
the presence of the jury.
MR. SCHWARZ: Fine, your Honor.
Q: Now, you've read all these postings, and you had the Chicken
Mambo book and various other things. I'm placing on the ELMO, for the
record, what's been previously marked as People's Exhibit Number 30,
which is a certified copy of a United States patent. Can you see that?
Can you see that on your monitor, sir?
A: Yes, I can.
Q: Can you read -- can you read that?
A: Not very well.
Q: Not very well?
A: As a matter of fact, I can see "U.S. Patent," and I can see
"Method of launching payloads." I can see the words "Keith Henson." I
can't make out the date on this copy.
Q: Okay. Let's try to start at the top. Okay.
A: I can see "Date of patent, February 18th, 1992."
Q: And who is the inventor?
A: Keith Henson.
Q: Okay.
A: San Jose, California.
Q: And this is -- this would be page one?
A: Okay.
Q: This is figure one on sheet one of two?
A: That's correct.
Go to next part of transcript
Go to previous part of transcript
Back to index