From: hkhenson@shell.portal.com (H Keith Henson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Letter to Hogan
Date: 17 Sep 1996 23:46:59 GMT
Message-ID: <51nd9j$smu@news1.shell>

H. Keith Henson
P.O. Box 60012
Palo Alto, CA 94396
415-520-3458 (pager)

September 17, 1996

Thomas R. Hogan
60 S. Market St., #1125
San Jose, CA  95113

Dear Mr. Hogan:

This letter has several purposes.

First is to inform you that I have moved.  Please inform your client so
they will not harass the people who bought my old place in San Jose.

Second is to inform you that ten days from the date of this letter I will
deliver a copy of the criminal instruction manual known as NOTs 34 to the
FDA.  I have read Judge Whyte's order and it seems that supplying a copy
of this material to appropriate law enforcement agents falls within fair
use.  If your clients disagree, you can either obtain an order from the
court forbidding me to disclose criminal matters, or you can wait and seek
contempt charges against me.  Either way I get something to frame.

Third, in reply to the subpoena, I have (to the best of my knowledge)
never received any postal mail from Grady Ward.  I have only received a
small amount of electronic mail from Mr. Ward, and have deleted most of
that.  Most of I received concerns the sharing of costs for depositions or
other similar matters and is of the same privilege level as communications
between yourself and Mr. Lieberman. In any case, email falls under the
ECPA, and you need a court order to get it.  I don't keep a diary, though
I am likely to regret not doing so when the time comes to write a book
about my experiences.  I have no problem in stipulating that I talk to Mr.
Ward on occasion, though I don't believe I talked to more than his
answering machine over the phone prior to Scientology filing suit against
him.  Since then, I have talked to him because the cases were related by
your client and we need to coordinate on legal matters.  I will not turn
telephone billing records over to you or your client without a court order
and a special master to sort out the calls to Mr. Ward.  I don't want
unrelated people I call to be harassed by Scientology goons.  But in any
case, I am unable to do so at this date since my phone records have not
shown up since I moved.

As far as your other requests go, the material I have falls into three

Letter to Hogan                                                                Page 2

classes.  Public postings on alt.religion.scientology (which your client
certainly has), private email, and material which is privileged because it
involves my thoughts and speculations on the case at hand.  None of the
email contains information on who SCAMIZDAT or Vorlon might be, and in any
case, it is protected by the ECPA.


H. Keith Henson
Pro se.

cc Judge Whyte, posted to a.r.s

[sent by email, a copy will be filed with the Court Sept. 20, 1996]

From: dkeith@best.com (Ex Mudder)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Letter to Hogan
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 01:25:52 GMT
Message-ID: <32473815.63566130@nntp.best.com>

hkhenson@netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
>        We have agreed that my clients may seek an order from the
>court prohibiting you from copying and or supplying NOTs 34 to the FDA
>or anyone else and that this matter will be heard by the Judge on
>October 4, 1996. You have advised that unless the Judge explicitly
>prohibits you on October 4, you intend to supply the entirety of the
>NOTs 34 to the FDA on October 5, 1996.
>        If I have anyway misstated our conversation, please advise
>immediately. Thank you for your agreement to have this matter
>presented to the court on October 4, 1996.

   Hmm...  Grady, Dennis, either of you have anything to go before the
Court on the 4th?

  I'll show to provide moral support.  And, if you want, I'll give
anyone who shows directions to the Final Five screening on the 5th ;)

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Re: Letter to Hogan                                                            Page 3
From: grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward)
Subject: Re: Letter to Hogan
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 12:48:22 GMT

Keith Henson (hkhenson@netcom.com) wrote:
: Something interesting was dumped on my doorstep today.  Not unexpected
: since I talked to Tom Hogan about it yesterday.  The only thing he
: left out is that I want the order suitable for framing, an order from
: a Federal Judge forbiding me to provide evidence of criminal activity
: to a law enforcement agency.  Keith Henson

As you may have noticed, the cult *hates* for issues to come directly
before the court -- especially to the doorstep of the District Judge --
because (1) they are less likely to succeed in using their cheap
theatrical intimidation tricks; (2) the Judge tends to want to follow
the law.

Even more important in this particular situation is to get as many
proper issues before Judge Whyte because since he is handling so
many "related" cases simultaneously, he is in a position to piece
together the total picture from each separate act of intimidation,
and criminality.  In other words, the criminal and abusive acts by
the criminal cult that may not exceed the Judge's threshold of
perception individually, may collectively trigger, as we say on
a.r.s, a cognition.

From: hkhenson@netcom.com (Keith Henson)
Subject: Re: Letter to Hogan

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 04:50:31 GMT

Ex Mudder (dkeith@best.com) wrote:
: hkhenson@netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote:

: p/m

:   Comments:
:   1) I reccomend you delete the last last line.  Its a bit "slap in
: the face"  I kinda doubt the Judge will appreciate it.  But see if you
: can refer to it subtly in the main body.
Re: Letter to Hogan                                                            Page 5

:    2)  Not quite sure what to say about this, but you might want to
: change to less loaded words.  I swear, this is the FIRST time I have
: EVER seen a court document gloat at me.

On advice from several people I toned it down a little.  Thanks to
all of you, and next time I *will* allow more time.  Keith Henson

H. Keith Henson
P.O. Box 60012
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(415) 325-7533
(415) 520-3458 (pager)

pro se

                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

California non-profit corporation, )
        Plaintiff,                 )       MOTION TO
                                   )       QUASH SUBPOENA,
        v.                         )       MOTION TO
                                   )       MODIFY INJUNCTION
H. KEITH HENSON, an individual,    )
        Defendant.                 )

                               The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
        The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 30(a)(2)(B)
states that a person may only be deposed once in a case.  RTC
has filed multiple related cases and has already deposed the
defendants in these cases, a very extended, exhaustive, and
abusive deposition of the defendant in the Grady Ward case.
        The recently issued third party subpoena to Henson in
the Ward case seems to be an attempt to get a second
deposition of Henson in violation of the spirit if letter of
the Federal  rules.  This should be clear from the
subject matter discussed in the letter to Mr. Hogan dated
Sept. 17, and filed with this motion.  No documents are
requested to be produced which were not on the list for the
previous Henson deposition.
       Defendant request that in considering this motion for a
an order to quash the subpoena issued for Henson in the Ward
case the Court consider the well established fact that the
plaintiff's *creed* requires them to use the courts to harass
critics.  (Defendant's reply, #22.)

       Defendant also request the court consider modifying the
injunction issued by this Court against the defendant to
remove the issue of trade secret in the light of new material
supplied in the accompanying sealed affidavit.  As part of the
pendant legal action against defendant, plaintiffs disclosed
certain items.  Among those were copies of the masked versions
NOTs filed with the copyright office and available to anyone
who asks for a copy.
      Defendant immediately noticed that close to 50% of the
letters are visible.  English has a redundancy of about 50%,
and so, defendant believed, that the text could be recovered
with the help of some computer programs and a dictionary.
Re: Letter to Hogan                                                            Page 6

       Missing from the NOTs series posted world wide about
May 6 by "Vorlon" were NOTs Series 23 and 53.  NOTs 23 was
shorter, so defendant picked NOTs 23 as a test.  Defendant's
only access to NOTs 23 in any form, electronic or printed, is
solely to the masked printed copy *provided by the plaintiff.*
       Recovering the full text, or something close to the
full text, proved possible from the masked version.  Defendant
does not know if the recovered NOTs 23 contains trade secret
material or not.  (The recovered version makes no more sense
then other Scientology material defendant has seen.)  If
plaintiff decides recovered version does not contain trade
secret material, defendant intends to post fair use excerpts
of defendant's recovered version of NOTs 23 in the context of
discussing the recovery methodology.  If plaintiff decides the
material does expose whatever trade secrets are in NOTs 23,
then *none* of the NOTs which were filed with the copyright
office contain trade secrets because the *plaintiff* made them
available to the public and any one with minimal computer
skills and a little persistence can recover the text,
especially an interested and motivated competitor.
      Perhaps there is a fundamental problem caused by the
Copyright Office masking rules for registering copyright which
makes "double dipping" trade secret and copyright of English
text material effectively impossible.  This problem may be
beyond the control of plaintiff, defendant, and the Courts.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for relief as follows:

       1.  That Plaintiff be limited to one deposition per
defendant witness in all of the related copyright cases it has
filed before this court.
       2.  That the Preliminary Injunction entered in this
case be modified so as to delete any reference to trade
secrets, and

      3.  That the court find as a matter of law that
Plaintiff, because of its own conduct in registering
incompletely-masked copies of the Advanced Technology, is
estopped from claiming that said materials contain trade

Dated September 26, 1996             Respectfully submitted,

                                     H. Keith Henson
                                     pro se