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

Roger M. Mugrim
William M. Hart
PAUL, HA~NGS, 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, California 91605
(213) 960-1933


Attorneys for Plaintiff
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a        )  CASE NO. C96-20271 RMW
  California non-profit corporation,  )
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S             )
Plaintiff,                            )
                                      )  "MOTION TO DISMISS"      
                                      )  (IN REALITY,
                                      ) MOTION TO RECUSE)
                                      
H.KEITH HENSON, an individual,
Defendant.

        Plaintiff Religious Technology Center opposes defendant 
Henson's motion to recuse, inaccurately denominated a "Motion to 
Dismiss." Mr. Henson fails to state a colorable ground for recusal of 
the Court, and his motion should be rejected. 

        Mr. Henson bases his motion on his conclusory, and seemingly 
wholly erroneous, claim that the Court or the Court's clerk are likely 
to be called as a material witness in this proceeding because the 
subject matter of this case involves, inter alia a posting to the 
Internet of one of RTC's unpublished copyrighted works in the context 
of what Henson denominated an "open letter to Judge Whyte."  Henson 
also states that "he presented himself to Judge Whyte's clerk after 
the TRO hearing" on March 29, 1996 in the pending case of RTC V. Grady 
Ward, Case No. C96-20207 RMW EAI, and that "Judge Whyte did not object 
to letter [sic]." The court itself apparently did not speak with 
Henson or accept the letter. Henson's attempt to bootstrap his effort 
to file a non-party communication to the Court in the War a 
basis for recusal in the case against him is frivolous. All the more 
so where it is based on the premise that Mr. Henson could lawfully 
subpena the Court or that testimony other than Mr. Henson's as to his 
own conduct and state of mind is needed. 

        This  case,  of  course,  has  nothing  to  do  with  Henson's 
"presentation" of himself to the Court's clerk, nor with the
Henson  chose  to  denominate  his posting as an "open letter to Judge 
Whyte." Rather,  the case concerns Henson's actual  posting 
proprietary  materials  to the Internet and with his open solicitation 
on  the  Internet  of  additional  RTC  trade  secret  and  copyright  
materials,  coupled  with  his  threat  to  post them to the Internet. 
Neither the Court nor the Court's clerk are potential witnesses to the 
act of which RTC complains. 

        Mr. Henson also claims that this Court "has not been effective 
in enforcing court orders" requiring RTC to return materials to Dennis 
Erlich in RTC v.  Erlich,  Case No.  C 95-20091 RMW EAI.  His claim is 
both irrelevant and incorrect. RTC has, in accordanceourt's 
order,  returned  all  required  materials  to  Erlich's cou
Exhibit A, letter of transmittal. 

        This Court is familiar with the issues in this case  precisely 
because  they  are similar to those in the Ward and Erlich cases.  Mr. 
Henson's effort to recuse the Court is an obvious effort to impose  on 
judicial resources. 

        The motion to recuse should be denied.

DATED:  April 11, 1996  Thomas R. Hogan
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. HOGAN

Roger M. Mugrim
William M. Hart
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY
& WALKER

        -and-
Helena K. Kobrin

Attorneys for Plaintiff
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER