Title: Vacate Motion to Judge Bascue
Author: hkhenson@netcom.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:25:15 GMT

This is draft, folks, so fixes could be worked in, but it is late draft,
so send them by email and before about 11 am PST.  Keith Henson

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

pro se

                      SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
                        COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
 
GLENN BARTON                       )  Case No. BS 047684
                                   )  Department 52
        Plaintiff,                 )
                                   )       EX PARTE
        v.                         )       MOTION TO
                                   )       VACATE
H. KEITH HENSON, Pro Per           )
        Defendant.                 )                        
____________________________________

          Defendant prays the Court vacate the order in this
case issued on Oct. 31, 1997 due to the outrageous abuse of the
Court's order by the plaintiff.

          Defendant did not bring this matter back to this Court
earlier because he wanted to see what facts were alleged in Mr.
Barton's November 1, 1997 citizen's arrest of defendant while
defendant was peacefully picketing on public property near the
Shrine Auditorium.  Defendant remained, at all times possible
(and to the best of his knowledge) at the Court proscribed
distance from Mr. Barton, and off Shrine property.  Earlier in
the day there had continual attempts by Mr. Barton to surprise
defendant by popping out of entrances of scientology
establishments.  (See Deana Holmes affidavit, Exhibit 1.) 

          However, on November 26, 1997 when defendant appeared
in Dept 81, Municipal Court, there were no charges filed.  
Possibly this was because defendant was never told by Mr.
Barton, a representative of Mr. Barton, or the police that he
was under arrest.  Since defendant had been forced to take time
off from work and travel to Los Angeles for this arraignment,
defendant decided to exercise his constitutional right to
peacefully picket scientology buildings on Hollywood Boulevard,
some miles from the two locations described in the order of this
Court.

          Defendant picketed the Scientology building at
Hollywood and Ivar for about 20 minutes, during which Mr.
Ableson (one of the two Scientology lawyers in your Court on
Oct. 31) showed up.  (Recent and related letter by Mr. Ableson
attached as Exhibit 2.)  Defendant then left and drove west. 
Seeing another Scientology building (of which defendant had not
previously been aware) at about 6700 Hollywood, defendant
stopped to picketed there.

          After about 20 minutes, Mr. Barton arrived with one or
more private investigators, i.e., hired thugs, and Mr. Ableson. 
Defendant backed away to let Mr. Barton enter.  Mr. Barton
pursued defendant past the entrance of the Scientology building
to the corner.  At a point where defendant was on public
property, several feet out in the street, one of these thugs
informed defendant he was placing defendant under citizen's
arrest on the pretense that this Court's order applied at times
Mr. Barton was clearly not entering or leaving, but was pursuing
defendant.  When defendant stated such was an absurd application
of the Court's order and started to leave, defendant was jumped
from behind, and choked to near unconsciousness, his video
camera and picket sign were knocked to the ground, and his car
keys were wrenched from his hand.  Defendant has video tape of
the events up to the point he was choked and the camera knocked
from his grasp.  (Exhibit 3)  Defendant believes a Scientology
operative who can be identified in the last few minutes of
Exhibit 3 taped the attack and that the Court could, if it so
desires, order Scientology to produce this tape.

          When the police arrived, Mr. Ableson, using his
authority as a lawyer and officer of the Court, further abused
this Court's order by convincing a police supervisor that this
Court's order extended to the abusive situation Mr. Barton had
precipitated.  Defendant was taken into police custody for the
second time.

          Defendant believes the order this Court issued Oct.
31, 1997 was obtained by perjury.  Defendant's background 25
years ago with homemade fireworks and explosives threatens
nobody.  There is no evidence of fear of defendant by Mr. Barton
in the photographs of plaintiff made Sept. 13th by defendant and
which are in this Court's possession.  Neither is there evidence
of fear when Mr. Barton *passed* the doorway into the
Scientology property and *approached* defendant while defendant
was picketing.  There is no reason for Mr. Barton to feel
physical danger from a person with a picket sign in one hand and
a large video camera in the other.  Indeed, such a person is not
well equipped to defend himself.

          Defendant believes the actions of Mr. Barton (actually
Scientology) are a gross misuse of the Court's order.  Mr.
Barton and his counsels misled the Court to get the order, and
they misled the police twice in its application.  They are using
the Court's order as a sword against defendant and not as a
shield.  Defendant speculates that as soon as defendant started
to picket, Scientology's lawyer Abelson had Mr. Barton travel to
the location and inject himself into the picket so as to
intentionally create a seeming violation of the Court's order. 
This is the intentional use of the Court's order for aggression
and deprivation of civil rights, not the protection for which
the order was intended.  The Court's order is being put to the
very use which the Court specifically, and on the record,
forbade plaintiff.

          There are sound public policy reasons to protect, even
to encourage, peaceful protest. 

          Unless the order of this Court is vacated, defendant's
constitutional right to peacefully protest the sometimes
*lethal* quack medical practices of Scientology will have been
destroyed.  (Exhibit 4, July 21, 1997 Newsweek article, "A Death
in Clearwater" and Exhibit 5, NYT front page article Dec. 1,
1997.)  

          Defendant therefore request this Court vacate its
order of October 31, 1997.  If it lies within the power of this
Court, defendant also requests that charges (Exhibits 6 and 7)
arising out of the improper use of this Court's order be
dismissed and defendant's arrest records, photographs and
fingerprint records be ordered expunged.

          Defendant apologizes to the Court for any shortcomings
in form or material in this pleading, and will accept the
guidance of the Court if the Court feels the need for additional
information or affidavits.

          To the extent there are statements of fact in this
motion, they are submitted under penalty of perjury under the
laws of the State of California.

          Respectfully submitted,

          H. Keith Henson, in Pro per.
          Dated December 1, 1997