Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Another Unfortunate Day In Court For H. Susan Henderson

"Our town deserves to know what is going on. We are not going to suppress the news." - Susan Henderson, Mt. Wilson Observer (March 2007).

Yesterday was another bad day in court for Susan Henderson. Having just recently lost in her legal imbroglio with Katina Dunn over the dissolution of Deuxamis Publishing, Inc. (something that resulted in a settlement involving $10s of thousands of dollars in penalties plus the loss of the right to the storied Sierra Madre name "Observer"), Susan again returned to those hallowed halls of judgement in hopes of having any and all information from the trial legally suppressed by the Superior Court of the State of California. Susan apparently feeling that in her case the findings of this court were something not to be shared with the public as is usually the case in free societies. Quite obviously the Founding Fathers would not have been amused.

But what could very well have been a dramatic day in court went south rather quickly for the peppery and purposeful publisher. According to several eyewitnesses (who phoned The Tattler with their exclusive reports), the Judge sent out a Research Attorney to deal with Ms. Henderson's issues. This Court employed lawyer then gathered together the few immediately concerned and quickly ushered them out into the hall for a little heart to heart. A five minute conversation ensued, after which all returned to the courtroom. At which time this Research Attorney informed the visibly crestfallen Ms. Henderson and all who cared to listen that the trial was already over and that there was absolutely nothing more to be done here.

And that was it. As one eyewitness to the event later put it to me, "They basically told her it was finished."

Now in her preparation for this non-event, Ms. Henderson, once again acting as her own attorney, prepared a 7 page document detailing what she felt were the reasons why this Court should put the kibosh on all the evidence and findings from the Deuxamis Trial and hide them someplace dark and forbidding. That is, if she could have gotten the Court to listen. And I do have in my hands a copy of this extraordinary document. I won't post all of it here today, but will pull out a couple of salient phrases that I found to be somewhat interesting.

"Comes now Defendant Henderson to this court requesting the following extraordinary relief."

I like that language! Comes now Defendant Henderson to this court. The only thing missing was a "Hear Ye" or two. Comes now Sir Eric to this Mac to write stuff for his blog. And then Ms. Henderson continued:

"1. Defendant preys to this court for an order prohibiting Plaintiff and/or her attorneys and other representatives from disseminating information obtained via Form and Special Interrogatories."

Now I am no lawyer, though I do hold a B.A. in History from an obscure New Jersey State College sometimes snidely referred to as "The Harvard on the Highway." And even I know that one never "preys to this court." Prey is something the lion is about to turn into a rump roast. Do you think it wise to call the Judge a rump roast? I don't. You'd assume that a Berkeley educated attorney would have known that. There are five requests for "orders prohibiting," and all of them use the sadly inappropriate "preys."

Then comes this rather perilous statement:

"I, H. Susan Henderson, am the Defendant in the above referenced matter and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the following is true and correct."

And in the very first statement after this perjury bit she shares the following:

"Information was leaked to the Sierra Madre Mayor who announced at a televised Council Meeting that the City of Sierra Madre should be hesitant to continue its contract with the Mountain Views-Observer because he had received information that an 'adverse ruling against the paper' had been made that would effect the contractual relationship between Grace Lorraine Publications, Inc., owner of the MVO and the City of Sierra Madre."

You know, for Susan's sake it was probably a good thing that the Court refused to deal with this document because, as anyone who witnessed the City Council meeting in question can tell you, that is one big old stinking heap of hoot she's peddling.

There are 5 other hopelessly reasoned attempts here at explaining why the Court should suppress the details and findings of this trial, and in them the words "blog" and "internet" are used 4 times. I can only wonder what that is all about. Maybe Susan will take some comfort in knowing that Sarah Palin doesn't much like blogs, either.

You know, I am starting to believe that Susan Henderson is really upset about there being some new competition in town. And I am beginning to think that what this is really all about is her apparent belief that being the publisher of the Mountain Views Observer somehow affords her the privilege of having a monopoly on the dissemination of information here, and that anybody not sharing in this leap of faith is somehow engaged in a conspiracy to discredit her. And that she actually thought senior California Superior Court officials would join her in this is, well, just not reality based.

An unfettered press is important, and that is why free speech is a cherished and Constitutionally protected right in this country. Competition in the news marketplace is how ideas are tested and strengthened, and in the end only the people can decide what information is truly worthy of them. Courts were not put here to help individuals hide information that they find inconvenient, but rather to help preserve our precious freedoms. Case closed.

28 comments:

  1. Perhaps she graduated from Sierra Madre City College? Did anyone look into that?

    ReplyDelete
  2. What is the mascot of SMCC? The bull?

    ReplyDelete
  3. And what further misdeeds could H. Susan Henderson be desperate to conceal, besides fibbing about her resume?

    ReplyDelete
  4. On January 9th, the sierramadretattler.blogspot.com posted the verdict of Dunn vs. Henderson.
    On January 13th Fay Angus read the official verdict at public comment at the council meeting.
    This was to get the truth out to the people of Sierra Madre. Sir Eric and Fay were responding to the fact that on Dec. 30th, immediately after this verdict was handed down to Henderson, she left the Pasadena Courthouse, went straight to the Kiwanis' meeting and told all the folks there that she had WON her case with Katina.
    Susan knew damn well, she didn't win.....so why did she tell the people at Kiwanis that she did?
    Why?
    I wonder if she went to Kiwanis yesterday after the judge turned down her request to keep the facts from the public? Anyone know?
    Susan, damn it! If you hadn't have gone and lied to all those people, it's possible your court case would not have been made public.....YOU MADE IT PUBLIC. YOU DID IT!!!!!
    By the way, Susan, if you are reading this....your column this week in "your" paper was disgusting....the last paragraph was sick.
    You should be ashamed, but of course, you won't be.
    I'm glad you lost.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Correction,
    the official filing of the papers was on Dec. 30, the second day of the trial was Dec.9th that Susan left the courtroom and told the Kiwanis.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am curious about the people whom Susan Henderson would surely refer to as "my staff," and why they continue to work for someone who has proven herself to be a liar and a thief. I have met City Editor Dean Lee at city hall, and he seems a nice enough fellow.
    What tales are spun in their ears by Henderson to convince them to stay?
    What are their values regarding the profession of journalism?
    Perhaps they are simply cynical, or thrilled to be in print at any cost, or enjoy the frisson of excitement rubbing elbows with a con artist. If that is not the case, they should secure their futures in more reputable newspapers.
    Over the years I've seen Henderson motoring around town in a Mercedes or BMW, and I cannot figure out why dedicated workers continue to support Henderson's penchant for a Luxury Lifestyle. I've gone online and viewed her many accolades on the golf course.
    Free Dean Lee! Free Dean Lee! Free Dean Lee!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Susan you lied and lost and lied some more. Like the judge said, "It's over."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Susan's position is indefensible - wonder how far her "charm" will go now. When that fails, I'm sure more bullying on her part will ensue. Combined with her climbing on the cross - "I'm being persecuted!" - the best PR move for her right now is a publicized baptism and avowal to repent her sins and follow the ways of our Lord.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am dumbfounded at her foolishness. It's pretty simple. This woman has no credibility. Perhaps that's why she does so well among certain segments of our community.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Foolishness being the operative
    word. Susan has now crossed the
    line into comedy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Roia!
    You've been going to the Kiwanis meetings?
    LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

    ReplyDelete
  12. I keep telling people this, but they just won't listen. It's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover up. And no, I am not a crook.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Susan Henderson owes money to many, many people, among them Ana Ramirez. Ms. Ramirez is a housekeeper who works in Sierra Madre, including at my home. Ms. Henderson also hired her in the spring and summer of 2007. Ms. Henderson still owes Ms. Ramirez $700 for working her parties and cleaning her house.
    Ms. Ramirez' son, Mario, has telephoned Ms. Henderson for the money dozens of times over the last year and a half. Ms. Henderson yells into the phone "Me No Money!" and hangs up, according to Ms. Ramirez.
    Small Claims Court is out of the question, because Ms. Ramirez was paid in cash, and she has no check stubs to prove she worked for Ms. Henderson.
    Ms. Ramirez is an excellent housekeeper who works very hard. She was quite crushed that this happened, and I felt terrible because it occurred due to a referral from me.
    She was also upset because she told me the Henderson household was "party, party, party" and off to places such as Hawaii and Mexico, and yet, there was no money for the housekeeping she provided.
    I have compensated Ms. Ramirez in other ways, including finding her another job via a nice neighbor. However, Ms. Henderson should know I did not pay her $700 cleaning bill, as I am guessing she expected, and that debt is still outstanding to Ms. Ramirez.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Me no money." That is just so ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  15. My outrage at the humiliation of Ana Ramirez by Susan Henderson kept me going through the travails of this lawsuit, and will continue to motivate me through whatever lies ahead in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Katina,
    I'm so sorry this happened to Ana,to you and to every poor soul who ever crossed paths with this Henderson.
    I suspect there have been many Ana's and Katina's in this woman's life of cheating and lying.
    Thanks for finally exposing her for what she is, thanks for sticking up for all the Ana's and Katina's she has hurt and cheated in the past.
    God Bless you, friend.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Katina, thank you so much for continuing in this exhausting fight for the truth! We are all grateful to you, for the beautiful community paper you created, and for your commitment to justice.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Not very nice of you all. Very sad an undeserving. A fine woman going through something very tragic.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ms. Ramirez that is...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anyone, after reading these legal documents and first hand posts concerning this Henderson woman's activities, would be crazy to have any involvement with her at all.
    She's big time trouble, none of us need.

    ReplyDelete
  21. To the Anonymous who posted at 2:44 this afternoon:
    Congratulations - you are at the first level of a relationship with Susan Henderson, however long that has been or will be.
    The second level occurs when you respond with help of any kind - from sympathy to money. This level could last a long time.
    You reach the third level when you start asking questions or need some kind of help or repayment and she tells you to go f*** yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Subsidize My Love"

    ReplyDelete
  23. Miss Henderson lost a court case. Big deal. That doesn't give everyone the right to slander her or even point fingers. I doubt most of you have FIRST HAND knowledge of these procedures. Nor do you have the legal background necessary to evaluate the evidence. And I doubt most of you would dare to sit across from Miss Henderson and discuss or debate this case. This is your way of casting stones without fear of repercussion. As for her court filing asking for supression of records, the last time I looked, that was perfectly legal. Any of you would have the right to do this. However, good luck. The reasons have to be stronger than Miss Henderson presented. Her judge obviously agreed.
    The thing I hate about blogs is they give the "editor," and anyone who wants to respond, the chance to say anything they feel like ... whether it is right ... or whether it is wrong.
    Newspapers, magazines and broadcast outlets aren't allowed to do this. They have to be fair, and offer carefully checked facts. Do you know the facts? I don't.
    Let's remember two things. One, remember what mom told us -- there are always two sides to a story. All I'm hearing is hearsay, and certainly not both sides. Two, don't judge least you be judged. Tomorrow, YOU may be the one being slandered and abused by this blog. Think about that. P.S. I have nothing to do with this case.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "The thing I hate about blogs is they give the "editor" and anyone who wants to respond, the chance to say anything they feel like...whether it is right...or whether wrong."

    Wow. Freedom of speech gives you that bad of a rash, eh? You should try North Korea. I suspect you won't run into this problem when you're living there.

    "Newspapers, magazines, and broadcast outlets aren't allowed to do this."

    You really don't run into this level of naivete every day of the week. How does one remain this childlike so far into life?

    ReplyDelete
  25. To The Blogger who wrote on January 14, 7:22 p.m.
    Check the court documents, there are the FACTS. Check the San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Examiner. Just Google "Executive Director Democratic Party Susan Henderson." Enough said. In one of the stories, Angela Alioto said Henderson should have been fired. She was allowed to resign and save face, yet kept up the same B.S. 14 years later!
    And - sorry, I don't care to sit across from Susan Henderson. Last year, she told me she was an attorney. At Starbucks two months ago, she was bragging about being a big shot with the Democratic Party.
    Since today is Martin Luther King Day, let me offer one of my favorite quotes of his:
    "...the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."

    ReplyDelete
  26. You know, if you shoplift more than $400 worth of stuff, you can be charged with Grand Theft and spend time in jail. Miss Henderson is smarter than that, isn't she?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't know what diminishes Susan more, her loss in court or the transparent stupidity of her post-trial spin.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anon 1:07 P.M. - "Big deal" you say. So, have Ms. Henderson take $40,000 plus from you, and your business, and rip off a housekeeper you know. Big deal, right? $40,000 plus is peanuts to you? It's okay to rip off housekeepers? It's okay to lie about your resume?

    ReplyDelete