H. Keith Henson 799 Coffey Ct, San Jose, CA 95123 408-521-0614 Hon. Ronald M. Whyte, Federal Judge Northern District of California San Jose, CA 95113 April 3, 1996 No. C 96-20207 RMW Hand Delivered Open Letter to Judge Whyte Dear Judge Whyte: When I presented myself to your clerk in your courtroom last Friday (per the promise in my letter of March 26) your clerk indicated that (not being a defendant) I did not have standing in the case. I believe the matter of standing has changed with the publication on the Internet of the list of the things Mr. Grady Ward is required to present at Mr. Hogan's office on April 6, 1996, and to which he must file "lawful" objections by April 4. The particular which seems to be a violation of *my* rights under Federal law is: >13. Any and all documents relating to communications with the following >individuals relating to the Advanced Technology: > >a. Alex DeJoode >b. Dennis Erlich >c. Steven Fishman >d. Johan Helsingius >e. Jeff Jacobsen >f. Keith Henson >g. Tom Klemesrud >h. Arnaldo Lerma >i. Peter Mante >j. Ron Neuman [misspelled] >k. Robert Penny >l. Felipe Rodriquez >m. Karin Spaink >n. Shelly Thomson >o. David Touretzky >p. Lawrence Wollersheim I have written a *great deal* about Scientology and the "AT" materials in the past 14 months. Most of it has been public postings, but some has been private email--some of that to Scientologists. At times I have quoted parts of this in very private mail to others critics such as Mr. Ward. It would do a great deal of damage to my reputation if this material were to fall into the hands of the RTC, and cause pain to or possibly even endanger some of my Scientologist correspondents-- since they are largely forbidden to communicate with outsiders. I do not remember if I have corresponded with Mr. Ward in this mode or not. Now, having settled an Electronic Communicatons Privacy Act suit with Riverside County for a substantial sum of money, and having followed the Steve Jackson vs The United States Secret Service case, I know that lawful access to stored electronic communications requires a court order or warrant. (See section 2700-2707 of Title 18 USC.) As a matter of fact, there are 100-200 individuals who may have cause to sue RTC and its law firms under section 2707 due to the unauthorized access to electronic mail. The RTC gained access without proper court orders to take stored electronic communications during the Erlich and Lerma seizures. Your becoming familiar with these laws may not be a wasted effort since it is quite possible that the case will be filed in this Court and related. There is considerable evidence that RTC *did* improperly access private stored electronic communications and used this information to harass numerous individuals shortly after each of these seizures. I believe that RTC should be required to show cause as to why they should have an order to violate the privacy of the stored electronic communications of each of these people. Since these people are publicly identified, it would seem appropriate for them to be permitted to argue in your court, perhaps by mail, against the exposure of their private stored electronic communications (if any). At the very least, you should appoint a special master to examine any private email which is turned up in this or other cases involving Scientology/RTC. I cannot help but to draw your attention to three of the last four items on the list since you have been concerned about an abusive deposition of Mr. Ward. >34. All shredders. > >35. All scanning equipment. > >36. All locks which you place on any cabinet or other container in which you >have placed Scientology materials. Now, if Mr. Ward owns a shredder, what possible point of evidence is there for him to turn it over to the Plaintiffs? Is it to prevent him from maintaining security on trash from his home for the duration (no doubt many years) of this lawsuit? And a scanner. Do the Plaintiffs want to deprive Mr. Ward of the tools with which he defends himself? I presume I would not have heard about this abusive list if Mr. Ward had not been able to scan and post it. Unless he has managed to find legal help, Mr. Ward is acting pro se. Giving up these pieces of *office equipment* would make his defense much more difficult, perhaps impossible. Finally "locks"? I doubt Mr. Ward *ever* had any of this "AT" tripe, but if he had, are they proposing to pull a "bag job" while he is being deposed? Thank you in advance for your consideration of these matters. Very Truely Yours, H. Keith Henson PS Please excuse the informality of using a letter instead of proper legal form. Due to the short time involved, none of the people on this list have time to engage a lawyer to properly complain about the violation of their rights under Federal laws.