---

Protest!

News from Graham and related.
28 Mar 2001
hkhenson@pacbell.net

News from Graham and related.

First the clams got Graham's car by assuring a bankruptcy judge that his 14 year old jeep, bald tires, marginal brakes, electrical problems, and water leaks would sell for $6700. Since in bankruptcy you can't have a car worth more than $1900, they will sell it at auction to some public scn and give Graham $1900. If any of you out in ars land have an extra working car you would like to donate to the cause, let me know and I will work out the details, including getting it to LA.

Second, there is an amazing deposition of Donald Wager being passed around. In it he admits to a string of criminal actions in the Hurtado v. Berry case and related. Graham doesn't want the deposition posted because he wants to put it on a web site devoted to Scn legal paper. He really doesn't have the time to put up a proper web site (neither do I) so folks who want to work on this with Graham should let him know with a cc to me (grahameb@aol.com).

Third, the devastating effectiveness of the Wager deposition depended to a large extent on the referee, retired Judge Lachs. There are smoking guns all over the landscape. On pages 54-55 Judge Lachs agrees with crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege claimed by Graham's lawyer and forces Wager to answer over Abelson's strong objections. (They would have stonewalled forever without Judge Lachs being there.) Wager then admits paying a street person in jail for false testimony and being paid back by Moxon (page 57). He also talks about taking the street person's false testimony to the Sheriff in an attempt to get Graham arrested.

(The charges they invented and had the street person claim against Graham were absurd! The law does not go after people for the kind of SM story invented by a person who later stated--under oath--that he had accepted money in for this performance and that he wouldn't know Graham if he met him. Clams are just nuts on homosexual subjects.)

I would love to meet Judge Lachs, you can tell from the transcript he had Wager's and Abelson's number. You can practically see Abelson dripping sweat.

But why was the Honorable Steven M. Lachs refereeing this deposition in the first place?

That is where *I* come in, and a cast of thousands including Kendrick Moxon, Helena Kobrin, Graham's lawyers, and the Riverside District Attorney's office.

It is a religious precept in scientology that critics are criminals, no matter how hard OSA has to work to make them criminals.

The clams and the knowing or unknowing help of the Riverside DA's office were running this op to get me arrested at a video tape deposition in Hurtado. I fought the deposition, seeking a protective order, and because of an ambiguous statement in one of my filings, Helena and company panicked thinking I knew about the arraignment and in error gave me notice of it at a hearing on my bankruptcy case two days before the hearing/arraignment date of Sept. 15. This saga I have discussed before, it is posted on ars in the recent declaration supporting the motion to disqualify the entire DA's office.

But while trying to set up the date, Moxon went balistic over the phone when I mentioned that I would be picketing Gold that afternoon over his daughter being ordered into the transformer vault (where she was electrocuted and burned beyond recognition). Graham's lawyer was on a three way call listening in. She wrote a declaration about the conversation saying that a referee was required or fist fights would break out in the deposition room and filed it in support of my motion to quash or for a protective order.

So Judge Hart (see my first posting from Sept. 14, 2000 for details about the hearing) did not let me out of deposition in Hurtado, but because of this bad business with Moxon, he ordered that a referee (Judge Lachs) be appointed for *all* further depositions in Hurtado. (Ultimately, I was never deposed in the now dismissed Hurtado v. Berry.)

So Judge Lachs being there to force Wager to answer when he really didn't want to was a side effect of a plan (which Helena accidentally sabotaged) to get me arrested on video tape for failure to appear. The scheme reminded me of the Ms Blood scheme to get Tom Klemesrud, too complicated to stand much of a chance of working.

The clams hate us both, but I think Graham ranks higher on their list, maybe even higher than Bob, and they took horrible risks to get him. I suspect that Graham being gay (and very open about it) may motivate them. Gay people who are 1.1 on the "tone scale" can't be smart in their view and Graham whipped their ass in the Scientology v. Fishman and Geertz case. Or it could be like J. Edgar, the worst prosecutors of gays are the closet ones. The word catamite come to mind, but I won't connect it.

In any case, I am amazed at the way their attempt to get me arrested turned around and bit them in Hurtado. If there are law enforcement people reading this, I know who you should talk to about making a deal.

Keith Henson

PS, after reading this, I realized you need a book of background to make sense of it. Here is a little.

In Berry v. Cipriano, the clam lawyers (Moxon I think) asked Graham in fine detail about his sex partners back to high school. Graham mentioned Hurtado, a bi dude who was one of them. They also asked him if he had done any pro bono work. Graham had also done a little pro bono work for Hurtado well after they were involved.. Ingram hunted down Hurtado and convinced him (his parents first) that he could make a bunch of money if he took this free legal help from Moxon and sued Graham for improper pro bono legal help and being sexually involved with a client. They were hoping Graham's insurance company would pay to keep cost down. I don't remember exactly how they got from Hurtado to the street person. If you want to know more, ask in a follow-up.

---

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which copyrighted and 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. The term "Scientology"® is trademarked to the Scientology crime syndicate. This information is provided in Fair Use for the public safety in the hopes that others don't fall for Scientology's related frauds. Return to The Pickets and Protests main index page Return to The Skeptic Tank's main index page.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank