Letter to Serg. Secor

13 Apr 2001


H. Keith Henson
Box 60012 (302 College Ave.)
Palo Alto, CA 94306

April 13, 2001

Sergeant Secor Deputy Judge Hemet Station, Riverside Sheriff Dept.

By Fax (909) 791-3410

Dear Sergeant Secor and Deputy Judge:

This is a follow-up to the interesting conversation we had at the Hemet Station last Monday regarding my trying to report criminal conduct on the part of certain members of the District Attorney’s office. I don’t expect an answer, but note the cc list.

Your arguments against taking a complaint fell into three areas.

First, the attempt to get me arrested for failure to appear failed due to me accidentally finding out about the arraignment. Thus no harm was done and therefore there was no crime.

This makes no sense to me. Attempted bank robbery and attempted murder are crimes, even if no harm has been done. Further, Section 622 of the Penal code specifies that perpetrators are to be sentenced to one half of the sentence for the crime if they try and fail to commit some crime. I am, for example, charged with 422/622 in the case against me. Also note, I was reporting a crime under Section 132 of the Penal Code, which states that providing false information to a court is a felony and does not require that any harm to come from it.

Second, that the “Release with: LETTER TO APPEAR” which is on the court’s computer record of my case has no significance because it might refer to “some packet of documents being released.”

Monday afternoon I went into the computer records of the court to see what was said in other cases. Within the next ten ascending case numbers from my case I found other examples and variations such as “Release with: BAIL.” I asked the court clerk what this notation meant and she stated that it was the status of the person against whom the complaint was lodged, and further explained that the “LETTER” is always the defendant’s copy of the four-part carbonless complaint form. She made the point that the legal effect of this notation was the same as a *sworn statement under oath* that the defendant had notice either by being handed the complaint form in person or it being mailed. On questioning she said the defendant’s copies (LETTER) went out by regular mail.

This verifies the opinion of several lawyers I have consulted that this notation in the computer records would have been ample cause for any judge to issue an arrest warrant had I not shown up for arraignment September 15, 2000. As I attempted to show you (and was rebuffed) I *have* the “defendant’s copy.” It was (in error to be sure) handed to me in the court the day I was arraigned. It has no fold creases which is physical evidence that it was never mailed. Between the note in the court’s record, and the unfolded and never mailed “defendant’s copy,” I have *physical evidence* that false information was introduced to the court in violation of Section 132 of the Penal code. Also, this was done under color of law which enhances the crime, and could make it into a Federal case.

Further, I claim at least one Deputy DA conspired with Scientology lawyers Moxon and Paquette who had set up a bogus *videotaped* deposition several days before the complaint issued. The arraignment was set for the same date as the deposition in a case called Hurtado v. Berry. Even though there was no reason for me to be deposed in that case, I had agreed to the deposition date of September 15, 2000 on August 25, 2000, six days before the complaint was issued. It was my trying to get a protective order in the Hurtado deposition which caused this scheme, and in fact the entire Hurtado case, to go off the rails.

Conspiracy is covered in Section 182, which reads in part:

182. (a) If two or more persons conspire: (1) To commit any crime. (2) Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime, *or to procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime.*

Normally, a scheme--failed or not--to get someone arrested for failure to appear would be far fetched to the point of laughter. However, it is a *religious precept* of Scientology that all their critics are criminals, no matter how hard the Scientologists have to work to make them criminals. There are at least a dozen exposed examples, the most spectacular one being the author of “The Scandal of Scientology,” Paulette Cooper. Scientology agents stole letterhead paper with Ms. Cooper’s fingerprints on it, sent themselves a bomb threat, and turned the bomb threat letter over to the FBI. Ms Cooper was indicted by a grand jury on the basis of this faked evidence. Eventually she was exonerated when an FBI raid on Scientology in the late 70s turned up extensive files on this and similar planned operations against Ms Cooper. Other and more recent examples are listed in the attached letter to the FBI.

Your third reason for not taking a complaint, that the Sheriff’s office is forbidden by law from taking complaints about criminal conduct on the part of the district attorney, is one which--if true--brooks no argument.

Please let me know if this protection extends to the Sheriff’s office taking a complaint under Section 182 against Moxon and Paquette. They attempted to require me to be in a far away deposition at the same time as the arraignment.

Because of the dates, they could not have set it up after the arraignment date was fixed. Thus the information flow had to be from Moxon and Paquette to Deputy DA Tom Gage in order for him to sign and file the complaint September 1, 2000 which resulted in overlapping arraignment and deposition dates for September 15, 2000.


H. Keith Henson

cc FBI
Attorney General
News media


The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Any text written by other authors which may be quoted in part or in full within this exposure of the Scientology cult is provided according to U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates which may be reviewed at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html If you're an author of an article and do not wish to allow it to be mirrored or otherwise provided on The Skeptic Tank web site, let us know and it will be removed fairly promptly.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank