Greetings, Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open
Communities, Fair Housing in Los Angeles. and Fair
Housing Foundation!

It's rather lengthy but there's an interesting declaration
filed lately covering some very intimidating and -- what I
would have to consider racketeering -- activities going on
in San Jose.  I'm curious whether your offices would grant
an opinion -- nothing legal, and nothing official, mind you
-- on the activities of the Church of Scientology and its
lawyers described within this declaration.  It's a matter
of curiosity for me.

I've been reviewing the "Fair Housing Act" of 1968 and find
that there are numerious aspects of ideological hate being
applied here against Mr. Keith Henson and Ms. Arel Lucas
and I'm curious whether a non-layman's opinion would agree
with my ignorant assumtions.  Some case law where Christian
Identity members have engaged in such behavior against black
residences makes me think that these activities violate the
Act.  And I've found some Aryan Nations members also getting
punished under the Act for _exactly_ the same activities as
are described herein.

There are three points of issue involving threats of
physical violence which are part of the Act, if I'm not
mistaken.  Since Mr. Henson's been followed, photographed,
video taped, his children attacked, and himself physically
assaulted, with the Church of Scientology also picketing
his clients and employees, it looks to me as though all
three points of the "threat definition" apply which would
give the Fair Housing Act grounds to be applied.

The Church of Scientology also maintains a web site at which contains hate literature
against Mr. Henson and also contains photographs of he and
his colleagues taken covertly.  I'm in the process of
downloading the Church of Scientology's entire web site
for my organization's own records.

Thank you, and I apologise in advance for the length of this
request, but I really could use a learned opinion.

Fredric L. Rice
The Skeptic Tank

Hello Keith;Now I know what the term, 'rat bastard' refers to.thomloveKeith Henson wrote:

> > It was an interesting day. Sam Rosen came to town to depose my wife on
the 2004 bankruptcy exam. She had a new lawyer who was simply amazed at
the proceedings, and even more on how much RTC is blowing on this
business. Over two days, Mr. Rosen is surely billing them (counting travel time) for 4 ten hours days. Counting the cost of the reporter and
Hogan's accolyte, Ms Holmes, at an absolute minimum my bankruptcy case cost
RTC *this week* over $25,000. That is more than they are likely to get out
of the entire chapter 13, but this is about TR 1.1 on (*) and scientology
by Mr. ($490 an hour and no discounts) Rosen and not about economics.

Helena Kobrin seems to be working out of Hogan's office, and was acting
downright vicious when (outside the deposition room) I saw her and made a
comment about the conference room being bugged (the judge said Kobrin
can't depose us). Well, they bugged the IRS, why not me? If she is there
tomorrow, I will have to ask her how many murdered space aliens she has
discovered since she recently went "OT." I get the impression from how
bitter she was that she might be close to cracking. Well, Helena, there
are lots of people on the outside who will help if you decided you have
had enough of being sec checked and kicked by wheezy. I can even
introduce you to some agents if you want immunity.

Mr. Rosen, in trying to take a whack at me admitted certain minor criminal
acts of scientology. It will be *most* interesting to see if that shows
up on the transcript.> > One gross item to report about Samual Rosen of Paul, Hastings. During a
break we were both in the bathroom. Seems Rosen doesn't wash his hands
afterwards. You might want to reconsider shaking hands with lawyers from
that law firm if this is a common habit for them.

On a final note, Rosen dug out a declaration of my wife which had come
from Graham Berry's bankruptcy case in LA. He claimed to have the
authority to ask my wife about anything she had produced for in my
bankruptcy (which he likely did). But this was not produced in *my*
bankruptcy, but in support of Jane Scott seeking a protective order in an
entirely different case. The two lawyers on our side could not imagine a
lawyer pulling a stunt like this and, in spite of us telling them, never
did grok that it was from another case.

I suppose Rosen will claim it got mixed up in the papers, but the cover on
it was "exhibit Z" with a cover sheet unlike anything we have done for any
legal cases. I am going to get my lawyer to put an objection to this
gross proceedural abuse on the record tomorrow and file a complaint with
the bar association.
The declaration (which I never posted before) is good enough to attach.

> Keith Henson

Note: The following is faithfully reproduced verbatium.  The
incorrect sentence numbering was provided by Ms. Lucas to the
courts. - flr


      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


      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

      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 associated.

      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

      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 ha
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
       Executed this 15th day of November, 1999, at Palo Alto,
                                                Arel Lucas