Declaration of Arel Lucas (wife of Keith Henson)

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2000 10:13 am
Location: Sweden

Declaration of Arel Lucas (wife of Keith Henson)

Post by catarina » Sat Apr 28, 2001 10:38 am

From ARS:


I, Arel Lucas, declare as follows:

1. I am over the age of 18 years and a resident of Santa Clara County.
I have knowledge pertaining to the instant action and, if called upon to be a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.

2. My husband is Keith Henson, who has been sued, harassed, physically attacked and otherwise abused by the so-called "Church of Scientology"
(COS) over the past several years.

3. I believe that, should Jane Scott be drawn into deposition and her records successfully subpoenaed by any arm or arms of COS, she will find herself, as well as her family, business associates and friends, subject to the same kinds of harassment, loss, insult and attack I have suffered, as summarized briefly below.

4. In the spring of 1998 I was completing the requirements for my MLIS degree, facing the stress of starting a new career, while having
exhausted my savings paying for my education, buying a house with my husband in 1996, and trying to keep up the household expenses while
Henson was out of work and I had only a half-time job at low pay. Henson was bankrupt from his legal problems with COS, but unrepresented in his bankruptcy and therefore without good advice as to how to conduct it. I elected to resign my half- time job, finish my thesis equivalent, and accept temporary full-time positions in my new
field. Due to my concentration on finishing school, I had paid little attention to my husband's harassment by the various arms of COS or to the details of his bankruptcy. Because I have a prenuptial agreement and was not involved in his bankruptcy or legal actions, in the last few months of sleep-deprived effort to conclude my schooling, I asked Henson not to discommode me with his problems. I did not even know, for instance, until I found evidence of it while reading postings on the Internet following his trial, that he had been set upon and beaten by scientologists and their hirelings while exercising his right of free speech by picketing one of their places of business.


5. My rude awakening came in May 1998 when I had a hiatus in my work schedule and decided to attend part of Henson's trial during RTC vs.
Henson, the damage determination phase. I had to leave the courtroom several times to avoid screaming while RTC attorney Samuel Rosen
vilified my husband with prevarication and fabricious insinuation. While seated in the courtroom I saw but did not hear what those who heard later elucidated as a threat uttered by Rosen to my husband's then attorney, Graham Berry, "I'll break your face in." (Rosen later repeated the threat in open court on the pretext of recounting anger over what he called a "joke" of Berry's, actually a legitimate argument that I heard on behalf of a request to the judge. Judge Whyte did not sanction Rosen despite this loud repetition.) The judge had already found my husband guilty of copyright violation in this case, and I cannot see that any argument of "fair use" has been allowed during any phase of the proceedings, including the appeal.

6. Having experienced countenance of a threat in the courtroom, knowing that a videotaped deposition of Henson was tampered with to present him in the worst possible light, hearing vicious fabrications forcefully pressed to the jury, seeing the bullying by Rosen of Henson and Berry (who offered his services far below normal rates for a limited period I believe from about April to about June or July of 1998 ), and other outrages, I broke out laughing hysterically during
one of the hearings and was nearly put out of the courtroom by the judge. By this time the jury had found for $75,000 in damages against my bankrupt husband.

7. Because RTC took it on themselves to prosecute Henson for contempt of court, I was anxious that he might be jailed, and sent out emergency messages to friends. I found it nearly impossible to describe the systematic attempts to destroy Henson to friends and family. I could see that they thought I was exaggerating. Slowly I tried to understand these events myself. As to the contempt charge, I believe he was framed by COS. Henson had made no secret that he uploaded every day's transcripts to his FTP site on the Internet. He even told the court clerk. Therefore it was easy for Rosen to frivolously ask the judge to seal a portion of the proceedings on the
last day, then begin billing for prosecuting Henson for contempt as soon as Henson, unaware that it contained sealed material, uploaded
the day's transcript on diskette to the Internet. (Neither Henson nor Berry was familiar with local custom that at that time did not label diskettes as containing sealed material, and Henson did not read what he uploaded, having been in court himself. The practice of the court changed immediately after this incident.) I was in court that day, and could not see any reason to seal any portion of the proceedings. I read Rosen's body language as he denied (under oath) knowing when Henson uploaded the sealed material, and believe he lied. I believe that Rosen began billing that evening, proceeding to bill RTC for more than $96,000 to forcefully present a case for prosecution for criminal contempt (carrying a 2-year sentence), as described in detail by Rosen
in testimony elicited by Berry. Since RTC had so far won at every turn, altered Henson's videotaped deposition while placing the cost of a copy of the alleged original videotape out of a bankrupt man's reach ($2,000), and were paying a New York attorney $490 an hour to put Henson in jail, I expected at any moment that my husband would be imprisoned and I would have to support my daughter and myself. I was also encumbered with a mortgage on a house I could not borrow against, nor sell or rent without becoming homeless and losing all the equity as well as expenditures in my home. Given the carefully-crafted press image of the organization, neither Henson nor I could have foreseen the ferocity with which this "Church" was seeking to destroy our lives.

8. The reason I was unable to refinance or dispose of my home was not only that my husband was in bankruptcy and could not rent his primary
residence without losing his home exemption, but also that RTC stealthily put a lien on our home for the equity amount by sending notice of the lien to an old address where we had not lived for more than a year and a half. They knew well where we lived (not only because this was the address of the lien, but also) since they had given the address to process services who had pestered us day and night until sometime after Berry had temporarily agreed to be Henson's attorney. They claimed the lien while Henson was in bankruptcy and they knew that he was bankrupt. This lien, along with Henson's bankruptcy, because I have a half interest in the home, ruined my credit. RTC confiscated not only money in our household account at Wells Fargo Bank, half of which was mine, but also stole a savings account of one of Henson's children not living with us, still held in trust since we had procrastinated sending her the paperwork to change ownership of the account. (No money had ever been withdrawn from the
account by Henson, and payments into it had stopped some time in 1997 when he had lost his main client.) Although earlier, during the trial
and hearings for contempt of court, I had visions of our daughter's college education going down the drain from lack of finances, the appearance of this lien seemed to seal our financial fate, since it had been my intention to sell or rent the house to finance college for her.

9. My father was proud of my finishing my degree (I am the first of my family to graduate from college, much less get an advanced degree.)
and insisted that I attend my graduation ceremonies and made the trip to San Jose to attend himself. During this occasion I refused to sing the national anthem or to salute the flag, since I no longer believe in justice in this country after my experiences in court. During my
father's visit I apprised him of Henson's legal and financial problems. Since my father had been somewhat aware of these matters before his visit, he took the occasion to inform me that he had
removed me from his will.


10. To me it was adding insult to injury that, following their placement of a lien on our home, confiscation of our household money and attempt to put my husband in jail, COS sent picketers with signs libeling my husband to picket our home. The sidewalks are narrow in front and to the side of our home, which is on a corner. In order to get by the pickets and not step on often muddy ground or into the bushes planted around the house by previous owners, it was necessary to rub shoulders with people carrying signs calling Henson a "bigot" and bearing a printed photograph taken of him by a detective or stalker. Despite their attempts to hide their faces, I took photographs of some of these picketers. I wonder if these were some of the same people who drove a local dentist to fire his employee of 8 years because she would not join him in his new-found "religion." This was the action of scientologists; yet they stigmatize my husband, the most tolerant person I have ever known, as a "bigot" because he dares to expose the COS as an intolerant, dangerous and criminal conspiracy
rather than a religion. At times I felt a prisoner in my own home. At other times I tried to confront them, but found them armed with lies
seasoned with truth, such as the time I tried to tell them about a physical attack on Henson and they countered by saying he had bitten one of the attackers, as though that had precipitated the violence instead of being a result of having a thug's arm across his nose and mouth, preventing him from breathing. This technique of building an
elaborate lie or insinuation from a tiny fragment of truth is a potent weapon in COS's arsenal against its critics, and can be found again and again in their legal papers, courtroom tactics, publications and stories told to their brainwashed followers who picket or "handle"
picketers who come to their places of business. Several times I returned home from work to find that police had been called by neighbors and were speaking with the picketers on the sidewalk or
street in front of or to the side of our home. Our neighbors have furnished me with declarations regarding these picketers should I need them in seeking protective orders in my husband's bankruptcy proceedings.

11. My neighbors have also recounted in their declarations how they were approached during this time period by a private detective in the employ of COS (Eugene Ingram, wanted in three states and England for impersonating a police officer, carrying a concealed weapon and other crimes, as I understand it), who attempted to blacken my husband's character to them. They requested that he leave their premises.

12. During this same period of time, Henson was followed to the business sites of his clients, and they were picketed and harassed as well. Accounts of these events may be found in declarations by Henson and his clients submitted in Henson's bankruptcy proceedings, since COS pretends to disbelieve the financial necessity for Henson's bankruptcy. I believe he has also recounted how he found a World Wide Web site by operatives of COS, possibly libelous, that vilified him. I had told Henson that I believed his difficulty getting employment or clients might be due to some activity of COS. However, short of wiretapping, spying on our home or monitoring our email--still very real possibilities as far as I am concerned--we could not understand how it might be done. Eventually Henson found a notice of a World Wide Web site about him on a newsgroup. It included a photograph taken of him in a client's parking lot that had to have been taken by stealth, by whatever COS operative followed him there. Given that prospective employers and clients, particularly in Silicon Valley, routinely search the Web to screen applicants, it was clear why he was having trouble finding employment, despite being a highly competent computer consultant with satisfied clients. On a trip to the post office,
Henson also found posters on light and telephone poles with a photograph, defaming him and referring the reader to the Web site. Henson retrieved some of these posters and photographed at least one of them in situ as posted. Another possible reason for Henson's difficulty finding work is that his honesty and integrity require him
to fully disclose his legal problems with COS to prospective employers who seem seriously interested in him. Henson tells me that some are
simply terrified by their knowledge of the tactics of intimidation carried out by COS against all critics and anyone with whom they are

13. By the end of June 1998, both Henson and I were unemployed and using credit cards to buy groceries. I accepted the first job that was
offered to me, one I disliked and that was little related to my chosen field of archivist, with a company that closed unexpectedly in September. Through much of the summer, I avoided the pickets by coming home after dark, often without dinner, after I had determined that our daughter was all right. She had been badly frightened during the
school year by process servers aggressively seeking Henson when he was not home, often after Berry had given notice of his representation.
One evening a process server so tormented us by knocking and yelling and returning hour after hour, that my daughter and I retreated to the
attic of our darkened house to finish her homework. I fell into a deep depression noted by friends who answered my emergency calls, but could
not afford medical care since we have a very high deductible on Henson's professional medical insurance policy. The friends who saw my mental and emotional state will not be asked for declarations to that effect since I do not wish to see them intimidated by COS. Throughout the summer and into part of this year, Henson and I ignored our personal needs, including needed medical testing and prescriptions, for financial reasons. By the time I was able to see my doctor about other matters this year, I was told my depression would not be treated since it was an appropriate response to my situation. This was an
unsolicited opinion on the part of my physician, since I had not complained of depression. Knowledge of my situation had apparently come mainly from the Internet, knowledge of my emotional state from observing me.


11. I believe it was in September that I came home to find what looked like legal papers on the ground in my back yard, evidently thrown over
the fence or tossed in at the gate. Not wanting to touch the papers since they had not been legally served to me personally, I asked Henson to contact his bankruptcy attorney about them. Discovering that they represented a subpoena to depose me, they sought a protective order so that I would not be forced to disclose personal information about myself, my friends, family and business associates to scientologists who would spread their attack to these others. Instead,
the judge merely ordered that COS attorneys might not disclose personal information to COS. Since Henson's attorney did not know that Helena Kobrin, then acting as attorney for RTC, was a scientologist and employee of the Office of Special Affairs (OSA, in charge of internal security and department of dirty tricks for COS), he assented to her deposing me.

12. Since I had already researched attorneys in the spring, anticipating COS's attack on me, I sent an agreed-upon retainer to my chosen counsel, all the money I had been able to save up over the summer during periods when both Henson and I were working. I have since had to place further legal expenses on a credit card, and am
still paying that off slowly.

13. Although I found temporary employment between being laid off in September and my deposition in early December, I was unemployed at the time of deposition and for several months thereafter. Nevertheless, belying the hostility evident in their demeanor and questioning, Kobrin and her "paralegal" Alan Cartwright kept offering me breaks in the deposition with the excuse of wanting me to be comfortable. They also took so long a lunch that I was forced to speak severely to the secretary at the deposition site to make her retrieve them. These were deliberate tactics to force me to expend more legal fees, since I had
brought my attorney to deposition knowing that his 13 years of litigation with COS would be helpful to me. Indeed, he was able to identify--on the record--Kobrin as not only a scientologist but also an employee of the OSA, and her "paralegal" as an employee of the OSA
and in fact her superior (despite the judge's order not to pass on information to scientologists). I have since seen Cartwright's
signature on a document from the OSA in circumstances indicating his employment by that organization (an exhibit to the Cipriano
declaration), thus confirming my attorney's affirmation. These two proceeded to hostilely interrogate me for five hours, seeking to entrap me while displaying copies of documents I did not know they had and did not remember, since my credit union had not informed me of their subpoena. (It is their policy to rely on the courtesy of attorneys who routinely inform credit-union patrons of subpoenas, unlike COS operatives, who have no courtesy.) The records they had subpoenaed went back to 1995, the year previous to any involvement by Henson in the matters for which he had been prosecuted, and before I had much more than heard of scientology. They also included records of my Visa credit card from the credit union, and they questioned me
about my other credit cards, prompting me to try later to replace those cards because I suspect COS may abuse my credit; that was how I found out Henson's bankruptcy and COS's lien had ruined my credit. COS also obtained our daughter's account records because the credit union does not allow minors to have accounts, and hers had nominally
included me as a trustee. Despite the judge's order not to pay attention to any amount under $100, they displayed for identification, for instance, a copy of a check from me for $60 to our daughter's recently deceased music teacher for a month's fees. I had to explain the presence of a deposit of a $100 check from Henson's parents to him into our daughter's account. (It was a Christmas gift that we decided to pass on to her for her college fund.) When I truthfully explained checks from me deposited into our daughter's account as the result of borrowing from her piggybank when I could not get to an ATM,
Cartwright laughed at me mockingly. I could not then and still cannot afford to pay for the transcript of this deposition or copies of the
bank records they subpoenaed.

14. Throughout my involuntary involvement with RTC's attempt to have my husband's bankruptcy dismissed, their documents have insulted me by
their negligent and casual errors in addressing or referring to me. In one document they indicated I had a "wife," an error obviously due to modifying a document in which Henson was cited. It is clear to me that their attacks on me are merely adjuncts to their vicious and
continuing attempts to ruin Henson, and that I am peripheral to this action since they suspect I might support Henson financially or emotionally. This is the context in which COS also desires to commence attack on Scott. In "fair game" policy documents of COS made available to me by friends, this practice has been explained as including not
only the effort to destroy someone believed to be inimical to COS, but also effecting the ruin of anyone who might provide financial, psychological or emotional support to the "enemy." One question RTC's people repeatedly pressed on me both in deposition and in letters to my attorney was whether I agreed with Henson's expenditures in
picketing COS. They were not satisfied with my answer that I did not know, as a domestic partner with a prenuptial agreement, whether he had made expenditures of this kind, and therefore could not answer a question as to whether I agreed or disagreed. My attorney also argued that this question was improper. It clearly has nothing to do with Henson's bankruptcy, and was only importuned to elicit an answer from me that would admit support of Henson's activities critical of COS.


15. I received notice in May from my new bank, chosen because I had their word that they would notify me, that my account had been subpoenaed. Once again, I received no notice from RTC in the form of a copy of the subpoena (although the bank did send me a copy), or any consumer notice. I do not know what documents are in the hands of RTC
or what use they will make of them. I have had to cash all my paychecks for 1999 in an attempt to protect my employers from harassment as Henson's clients have been harassed. COS's interest in
my work history is exemplified by the fact that, the very day I replaced my resume on my Web site for professional reasons after many months during which I explained its absence by citing COS harassment, RTC downloaded it and submitted it in proceedings against my husband. I consider it likely that COS had placed a watch on my site.

16. Their latest insulting requisitions, after continuing demands made on me through my attorney were satisfactorily answered, were only alluded to in documents shown to me by Henson. In a letter to him and his bankruptcy attorney, RTC demanded documents and information from me, with no copies of this letter to either me or my attorney. Although apparently there has been an agreement between RTC and Henson's bankruptcy attorney on this issue, only a draft was sent to
my attorney, and he has told me that he has not received a copy of any court order. One of RTC's attorneys contacted my husband's bankruptcy
attorney and, according to a fax from the bankruptcy attorney shown me by my husband, threatened sanctions unless information, including
information about my employment that I have purposely kept from my husband, is disclosed to an RTC attorney who gave our new address to
the scientologists over my protest. This is further proof that I am peripheral to their attack on Henson. Since Scott is a friend of
Berry's, although she has no legal ties to Berry similar to mine to Henson, she is being placed under attack solely because she is suspected of the crime of financial, emotional or psychological
support of Berry. There is no question in my mind that deposition and subpoena are instruments of attack in the hands of the COS, without any respect at all for the justice system or its representatives, including judges, juries, attorneys, clients or clerks, as can be clearly shown by other declarations, legal actions, testimony, etc.

17. Under this threat, I sent all the information desired except for one vague demand to my attorney for forwarding to RTC's attorney. I
then had to resign from one of my positions. My disclosure to my employer of my necessity to give information to RTC's attorney, and of what Henson's clients have suffered at the hands of COS resulted in visits by that employer to an attorney, and conversations that indicated to me that I could be terminated (under a contract that
allowed termination for no cause). Under these conditions, in a job market in which every prospective employer demands information about
"involuntary terminations," it seemed best for me to resign for the good of the company and remain on good terms with my former employer.

18. Nevertheless, this sacrifice was greeted only by a motion to dismiss Henson's bankruptcy backed up by their attorney's declaration about how recalcitrant Henson and I have been to give up information that could be used to render us both jobless and homeless. I received no direct notification of this action, but just happened to pick up the family's mail the day Henson's notice came. I then asked Henson what the envelope from his attorney held. (Our family uses a post
office box since we believe COS steals our mail from our home mailbox.) If the bankruptcy is dismissed, I am concerned that federal marshals might not be discriminating in whether they seize Henson's belongings, my goods or our daughter's possessions. Such seizures would not benefit COS financially, since Henson's car and goods are
nearly worthless even at yard-sale prices, but they would no doubt demand enforcement of their judgments, even at great cost to themselves, just to harass Henson. Over our years of living together, Henson and I have accumulated cheap furniture held in common, and in order to avoid sharing my old car with him, losing all the furniture I use, losing money in the joint household account, and becoming responsible for the whole of two credit lines on which Henson borrowed to pay legal fees, I would most likely have to declare bankruptcy myself--an action I do not wish to take, since none of these legal
actions affects me directly, nor do I owe any branch of the COS any money. However, I have had to retain legal counsel to avoid being brought to deposition and hearing without representation; take time off work and job-hunting to seek documents and answer demands; and spend money photocopying documents. If I am allowed, I intend to attend the hearing COS seeks (if it is scheduled) regarding dismissal of Henson's bankruptcy, with counsel, and with a completed set of papers ready to file for bankruptcy myself. (Aside from the other considerations, there are these facts: in order not to become
homeless, Henson and I must continue to make payments on our home, which by law must include some payment of the primary loan amount. Once our joint equity exceeds the figure allowed under the Homestead Act, I expect that COS will seek to force sale of the house to press their lien against it. This action would devour all of our equity in the home, which includes all my savings except what I put into graduate school.)

19. In their motion to dismiss Henson's bankruptcy, RTC contended that I had not cooperated by furnishing them information for which I had never received a request from them. I have been able, with Henson's permission, to excavate documents from the many pounds of legal paper served on Henson directly or through his bankruptcy attorney in the last few months. As far as I can determine, they stopped sending my attorney any notice of their proceedings against my husband--in which I am now able to see there have been continuing demands for information from me--sometime last spring. Therefore, I conclude that I am being used as a pawn in their "fair-game" attempt to ruin Henson, with no regard at all given to my legal or financial status, and no consideration of me as a human being.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Executed this 15th day of November, 1999, at Palo Alto, California,

Arel Lucas

Post Reply

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests