To bring you up to date, I filed a letter Monday with the Court
asking Judge Whyte to recuse himself because he or his clerk are 
likely to be called as witnesses.  Judge Whyte could have acted on 
that letter and recused himself on his own motion, but he decided it 
would be better to have me make the motion, and kindly pointed me to 
the correct section of the United States Code.  His clerk informed me 
late Tuesday afternoon.  So here it is Wed. morning, and I have these
printed up on the *nicest* crisp legal paper you can imagine. 

Hacking the legal system is *fun*, much like finding bugs in software.

Keith Henson

PS, I would have called it a motion to recuse, but hey, who am I to 
argue with *Benders Federal Forms*?  They call it a motion to dismiss. 
---------

Thomas R. Hogan, SBN 042048
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN
60 South Market Street, Suite 1125
San Jose, CA 95113-2332
(408) 292-7600

Roger M. Migrim
William M. Hart
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER
399 Park Avenue Thirty-first floor
New York, New York 10022-4697
(212) 318-6000

Helena K. Kobrin, SBN 152546
7629 Fulton Avenue
North Hollywood, CA 91605
(213) 960-1933

Attorneys for Plaintiff
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER

H. Keith Henson
799 Coffey Ct.
San Jose, CA 95123
(408) 521-0614

pro se

                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a     )  Case No. C-96-20271RMW
California non-profit corporation, )
        Plaintiff,                 )
                                   )
        v.                         )       MOTION TO
                                   )       DISMISS
H. KEITH HENSON, an individual,    )
        Defendant.                 )
                                   )
____________________________________

        Defendant shows that the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
is disqualified from presiding as judge at the trial of the
above numbered and entitled cause under the provisions of
Title 28, United State Code, Section 455, due to his
knowledge that he or his clerk are likely to be called as a
material witness in the proceeding, as more fully set forth
in the affidavit attached hereto and made a part hereof.

        Wherefore, Defendant moves that the Honorable Ronald
M. Whyte declare himself disqualified to sit on the hearing
of this cause and that another judge be assigned to hear
this action.

Dated April 9, 1996
                                                                  
                                        H. Keith Henson
                                        799 Coffey Ct.
                                        San Jose, CA  95123
[boilerplate parties copy cut]

                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a     )  Case No. C-96-20271RMW
California non-profit corporation, )
        Plaintiff,                 )       
                                   ) AFFIDAVIT--IN SUPPORT
                                   ) OF MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
        v.                         ) JUDGE [28 USCS SECTION
                                   )       455(a)]
H. KEITH HENSON, an individual,    )      
        Defendant.                 )
                                   )
____________________________________

        I am the Defendant in the above numbered and
entitled cause.

        Judge Ronald M. Whyte or his clerk are likely to be
called as material witnesses in the above numbered and
entitled cause and is therefore disqualified to act in the
above numbered and entitled cause under the provisions of
Title 28, United Stated Code, Section 455(a)(iv). 

        Plaintiffs filings in this case makes note of events
involving Judge Whyte or his court throughout. 

        Judge Whyte is known to have been aware of the only 
substantive matter Plaintiffs raise (the letter to Judge
Whyte of March 26, 1996 posted to the Internet on March 30,
1996).  Judge Whyte did not object to letter when defendant
presented himself to Judge Whyte's clerk after the TRO
hearing for Grady Ward (C-96 20207 RMW) on March 29, 1996. 
This may not imply approval, but it certainly is a material
fact in determining Defendants state of mind and motive at
the point Defendant posted letter. 

        Additionally, Defendant would like to bring up the
point that while Defendant could not show Judge Whyte to be
biased toward Plaintiffs in his rulings, Judge Whyte has not
been effective in enforcing Court orders of many months
standing for the Plaintiffs to relinquish the fruits of the
writ of seizure Judge Whyte later decided was an
unconstitutional violation of Mr. Erlich's rights in case 
C95-20091 RMW. 

        Unfortunately, Judge Whyte is far from being the
only Judge who has had great problems in bringing Church of
Scientology Plaintiffs into line. 

Dated April 9, 1996

                                        H. Keith Henson
                                        799 Coffey Ct.
                                        San Jose, CA  95123
      
Sent by email to
hkk@netcom.com