MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP
ATTORNIiY$ ATLAW
ONE WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-3383
T:IRLBPHONE (213) 629-7600
FACSIMILE (21.3) 624-1376
Graham E. Berry (State Bar #128503)
Attorneys for Petitioners
FACTNET, INC. AND LAWRENCE D. WOLLERSHEIM
SUPERIOR COURT OFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ESTATE OFCase No. 20885
L. RON HUBBARD, aka Date: May 7, 1997
LAFAYETTE RONALD HUBBARD, Time: 8: 00 a.m.
Place: Room 355
Deceased.Hon. Barry Hammer
EX PARTE PETITION FOR STAY
IN PROCEEDINGS AND
SUSPENSION OF POWERS OF
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
PENDING FILING OF, INTER
ALIA, ONE OR MORE OF THE
FOLLOWING:
(1) PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF
NORMAN F. STARKEY AS
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF
NEUTRAL ADMINISTRATOR
CTA
(2) PETITION FOR SURCHARGE
OF NORMAN F. STARKEY AS
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
ON GROUNDS OF EXTRINSIC
FRAUD, CONVERSION,
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY
DUTY, CONCEALMENT,
MATERIAL
MISREPRESENTATION AND
CONSPIRACY
(3) PETITION TO DETERMINE
TITLE TO AND REQUIRE
TRANSFER OF PERSONAL
PROPERTY OF ESTATE
[PROB. C. 9860]
( 4 ) MOTION THAT THE
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE ESTATE BE
INSTRUCTED TO INTERVENE
IN RTC ET AL. V.
FACTNET AND OTHER
RELATED CASES
(5) PETITION FOR
RESTRAINING ORDER TO
PROTECT HUBBARD FAMILY
MEMBERS, AND OTHER
MATERIAL WITNESSES,
FROM INTIMIDATION AND
HARASSMENT
[FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH
SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF
GRAHAM E. BERRY, EXHIBITS
THERETO AND PROPOSED ORDER]
Petitioners, FACTNET, INC., a Colorado not-for-profit IRS
Section 501(c)(3) corporation ("FACTNET") and Lawrence D.
Wollersheim ("Wollersheim"), collectively "Petitioners," request
this Court, ex parte, for an order staying any further proceedings
herein, including but not limited to any discharge of the personal
representative of the above-referenced estate, Norman F. Starkey,
and suspending the powers of Norman F. Starkey, pending
Petitioners' filing of, inter alia:
A. A Petition to Intervene as Interested Parties;
B. Pursuant to Probate Code 88500-8525 and 9614, a
Petition for Removal of Norman F. Starkey as Special Administrator
and Executor and for Appointment of Neutral Administrator, CTA on
the ground that inter alia, he has committed fraud, waste,
embezzlement and mismanagement;
C. Petition for Surcharge of Norman f. Starkey as
` 2
Personal Representative of Grounds of Extrinsic Fraud, Conversion,
Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Concealment, Material Misrepresentation
and Conspiracy;
D. A Petition to determine title against Norman F.
Starkey, et al. and/or his successor as Personal Representative of
the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, in connection with certain claimed
copyrights and trade secrets which are defined below as "the
Disputed Works";
E. A Petition to Determine Title and to Require
Transfer of Personal Property of the Estate [Prob. C. 9860];
F. Motion that the Personal Representative of the
Estate be Instructed to Intervene in RTC et al. v. Factnet and
Other Related Cases;
G. An order that the entire file in these proceedings,
and all related proceedings including, but not limited to the
Coroner's files, be referred to either the San Luis Obispo District
Attorney, the United States Attorney or the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, for appropriate investigation and action;
H. An Order for Expedited Discovery, including the
immediate depositions of certain persons including but not limited
to David Miscavige, Norman F. Starkey, Dr. Gene Denk, Sherman D.
Lenske, Esq., Lyman B. Spurlock, Ray Mithoff, Marty Rathbun,
Michael Rinder, Pat Broeker, Anne Broeker, Steven Pfauth, Daniel J.
Przybriski, Vicky Aznaran, Joseph A. Yanny, Esq., Earle Cooley,
Esq., R. Vaughn Young, Andre Tabayoyan, Diana Voegeding, Gerry
Armstrong, Kim Douglas, Terri Gamboa, Rick Aznaran, the San Luis
Obispo Coroner at the time of death and all involved official
personnel, Mary Sue Hubbard, each of the children and family
-- 3 --
members of L. Ron Hubbard and such other persons who may be deemed
appropriate, and the immediate production of all the originals of
all relevant documents.
I. A Restraining and Protective Order and an order that
neither Norman F. Starkey, nor any of the Hubbard Successors as
defined hereunder, contact any members of the Hubbard family,
including but not limited to Mary Sue Hubbard, the various Hubbard
children, in-laws, and grandchildren, or any of the material
witnesses herein including but not limited to Patrick Brocker,
pending their depositions herein;
J. That Norman F. Starkey be ordered to provide
addresses for service of each of the L. Ron Hubbard family members,
heirs and other "interested persons" and to use his best efforts to
facilitate service on the same, and review and advise by a truly
independent counsel by the same.
K. Such further and other interim and permanent relief
as the Petitioners may request, or the Court may deem just, proper
and appropriate, such as the imposition of an interim constructive
trust over the property comprising the estate at the time of death
or during the years immediately preceding the death of L. Ron
Hubbard.
TABL~OF CONTENTS
Paoe
SUMMARY OF THE PETITION ....................5
INTRODUCTION .........................6
STANDING ........................... 8
THE DISAPPEARANCE OF L. RON HUBBARD ..............12
THE PURPORTED PRE-TESTAMENTARY ASSIGNMENTS
AND OTHER FRAUDULENT AND PURPORTED DEALINGS
WITH THE DISPUTED WORKS ....................14
THE SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES OF
L. RON HUBBARD'S DEATH AND PURPORTED EXECUTION
OF THE ALLEGED LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT
PURPORTEDLY DATED JANUARY 23, 1987 .............. 18
THE IMPROPER, UNETHICAL, FRAUDULENT AND CRIMINAL
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE OF L. RON HUBBARD ........ 22
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .............28
SELF DEALING BY THE EXECUTOR HEREIN ..............28
HUBBARD'S SUCCESSORS HAVE A LONG HISTORY
OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT, TORTIOUS CONDUCT
AND OF ABUSE OF THE COURT SYSTEM GENERALLY .......... 29
SPECIAL PROTECTIVE ORDERS, AND EXPEDITED
DISCOVERY ARE REQUIRED HEREIN ............ , ....32
NO PREJUDICE TO THE ESTATE ..................34
MISCELLANEOUS .........................35
CONCLUSION .................... ...... 36
TABLE OF A~ORITIES
Paae s~
Cases
Allard v. Church of Scientology,
58 Cal. App. 3d 439, 129 Cal. Rptr. 797 (1976) ...... 29
Christofferson v. Church of Scientology,
57 Ore. App. 203, P.2d 577 (Ore. 1982) ..........29
Church of Scientology of California v. Wollersheim,
96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1162 (1996) ........... 11
Church of scientology v. Armstrong,
232 Cal. App. 3d 1060 (1991) ............. 29, 30
Church of Scientology v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue,
83 U.S. Tax Ct. Rpt. 381 (1984) ............. 29
Religious Technology Center v. FACTNet, Inc.,
901 F.Supp. 1519 (D. Colo. 1995) .............11
Religious Technology Center v. FACTNet, Inc.,
907 F.Supp. 1468 (D. Colo. 1995) ..............*
Religious Technology Center v. Lerma,
_
897 F.Supp. 260 (E.D. Va. 1995) ............. 11
Religious Technology Center v. Scott,
660 F.Supp. 515 (C.D. Cal. 1987) ............. 11
Religious Technology Center v. Scott,
869 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1989) ...............11
Religious Technology Center v. scott,
not published (9th Cir. 4/11/96
(D.C. No. CV 85-0711-AWT(Bx)) . .............11
Relgious Technology Center V. Wol!ersheim,
796 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir. 1986) .............. 11
Religious Technology Center v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1992)
........
united states v. Hubbard,
474 F.Supp. 64 (1979) ................29, 30
United States v, Matter,
840 F.2d 118 (lst Cir. 1988) ............... 29
-ii-
Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology,
535 F.Supp. 1125 (U.S.D.C. Mass.) 1982) .........29
Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology California,
92 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3831 (1992) ........... 11
Wol!ersheim v. Church of Scientology of California,
260 Cal. Rptr. 331 (Cal. App. 1989) ........... 11
Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology,
212 Cal. App. 3d 872, 260 Cal. Rptr. 331 (1989) ..... 29
PETITIONERS ATLLEGE AS FOLLOWS:
SUMMARYOFTHE PETITION
This Petition exposes a massive criminal conspiracy and
fraud, not only upon the Petitioners' herein, but also upon this
Court, the Hubbard family and the judicial system itself, by the
very same Church of Scientology that conducted the largest ever
known criminal infiltration of the United States government and
that has been adjudged guilty of numerous other criminal, tax and
tortious misconduct, not only in the United States but throughout
the western world.
The immediate issue before this Court is very short and
simple. Should Norman F. Starkey, the executor and personal
representative of the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, in which there are
numerous irregularities apparent from the face of this Court's
record itself, and in which there has been no activity since 1989,
be suspended from acting herein, and should these proceedings be
stayed, pending Petitioner's filing of various petitions that
relate to who really does own, and therefore can properly sue to
enforce, the various copyright and other intellectual property
rights allegedly created by L. Ron Hubbard and allegedly owned by
him at the time of his death? The answer screams out to be yes.
A stay and order of suspension herein, has to issue, if
only to preserve the status quo and the public's confidence in the
judicial system, in the particularly egregious and outrageous
circumstances surrounding the L. Ron Hubbard Estate copyright
-- 5 --
ownership issues being presented for adjudication herein.1/
INTRODUCTION
1. L. Ron Hubbard ("Mr. Hubbard") was the founder of
the Church of Scientology and its related entities ("the
Scientology Organization") which claims that he is the author of
certain published and unpublished works. The Scientology
Organization claims to now own those copyrights and trade secrets
in connection with these published and unpublished works, even
though many have been subsequently re-assigned to Mary Sue Hubbard,
Norman Starkey and others are in the Public Domain. The
Scientology Organization, through its wholly controlled entities
Religious Technology Center, Inc. and Bridge Publications, Inc.,
have sued Petitioners alleging copyright and trade secret
violations in connection with certain of Mr. Hubbard's alleged
published and unpublished works (the "Disputed Works"). Religious
Technology Center, et al. v. FACTNet, et al., USDC DCCO 95-K-2143.
Mr. Hubbard's Successors (as defined below) claim that he validly
assigned the Disputed Works to them by way of successive written
assignments in the years 1982 through 1986. However, these
Petitioners believe that their subsequent Petitions,
authorities, evidence and argument will lead this Court to
overwhelmingly conclude that the copyrights that will be in
issue before this Court, are actually owned by members of the
Hubbard family and not by the Hubbard Successors as defined in
paragraph 3 below. See Memorandum of Points and Authorities,
Berry Decl. Exh. C, pp 9 to 14. It logically follows that if
Hubbard's Successors do not validly own the Copyrights, or
Disputed Works, then all of the assignments and licensing
agreements are null and void, RTC and BPI will have no
standing in the RTC v. Factnet litigation and RTC and BPI will
have even greater exposure to numerous persons for unlawful
searches and seizures and malicious prosecution.
- 6 -
assignments were notarized by David Miscavige. Both David
Miscavige and Norman Starkey were Trustees of Religious Technology
Center defined below as one of Mr. Hubbard's Successors. Berry
Decl. Exh. O. Mr. Hubbard's personal attorney, Sherman D. Lenske,
Esq., was also the agent for service of process for Religious
Technology Center, Inc. and serving two clients with multiple non-
waivable conflicts of interest. Berry Decl. Exh. P. Mr. Miscavige
is now the Chairman of the Board of Religious Technology Center and
Norman Starkey is one of his subordinate officers within the
Scientology Organizations and its Sea Organization.
2. In addition, Mr. Hubbard's successors claim that
even if such written assignments were not effective, null, void,
voidable or even fraudulently procured, then the Disputed Works
were effectively bequeathed by Mr. Hubbard to the Hubbard
Successors by testamentary provisions contained in his Last Will
and Testament allegedly executed on January 23, 1986, the day
before he died, while he was being injected with psychiatric and
other drugs, and six days after he suffered a crippling stroke
which impaired his cognitive capacity.
3. The Hubbard Successors include, but are not limited
to: The Scientology Sea Organization, Religious Technology Center,
Inc. ("RTC"), Bridge Publications, Inc., ("BPI"), Author Services,
Inc., ("ASI"), Church of Scientology International, Inc., ("CSI"),
Church of Spiritual Scientology, Inc., ("CST") and certain of their
directors, officers, and employees, staff members and public
members including but not limited to David Miscavige, Norman F.
Starkey, Lyman B. Spurlock, Ray Mithoff, Marty Rathbun, Michael
Rinder, Greg Wilhere, Pat Broeker, Anne Broeker, Steven Pfauth,
- 7 -
Daniel J. Przybriski, Mary Sue Hubbard and the children and the
other heirs of L. Ron Hubbard.
4. Mr. Hubbard, and the Hubbard Successors,
claimed/claim to own the copyrights and trade secret rights in and
to the Disputed Works. The Disputed Works were valued by Norman
Starkey, the current executor herein, at twenty-five million
dollars in 1987 and are believed, since then, to have produced many
hundreds of millions of dollars in income accruing to the benefit
of the Hubbard Successors, but none of which directly inures to the
benefit of L. Ron Hubbard's testamentary and statutory heirs such
as his last wife Mary Sue Hubbard and Mr. Hubbard's children. In
1993, RTC's IRS form 1023 filing reported a four year income from
royalties in the Disputed Works in the approximate annual amount of
$42 million. Thus, the dollar amount of the massive fraudulent
conspiracy that appears to have occurred herein is approximately
$462 million.
STANDING
5. Petitioners have standing, as Interested Persons, to
initiate the appointment of a neutral executor and, among other
things, to file a petition to determine title in connection with
the ownership of the copyrights and trade secrets, or the Disputed
Works, because the copyrights and trade secrets, or the Disputed
Works, were allegedly owned by Mr. Hubbard, either before or at the
time of death and the Petitioners, among others, are now being sued
for their alleged wrongful misappropriation and infringement of the
Disputed Works. Moreover, according to the alleged Last Will and
Testament of L. Ron Hubbard, the Disputed Works were actually owned
-- 8 --
by Mr. Hubbard at the time of death, and they should have passed
pursuant to statute(s) to Mary Sue Hubbard and the children of L.
Ron Hubbard.U In addition, at the time of death, Mr. Hubbard's
wife of 34 years, Mary Sue Hubbard, had an undivided community
property interest in, among other things, the Disputed Works.
Notwithstanding, and allegedly, the day before his death, when he
obviously lacked cognitive capacity, and in an instrument
organized, drafted and witnessed by the Hubbard Successors and
beneficiaries, Mr. Hubbard changed his will to benefit the Hubbard
Successors who also witnessed that last will. Under that will, and
its subsequent improper and unlawful administration, the Disputed
Works were fraudulently transferred by and to the benefit of
Hubbard's Successors, one being Norman F. Starkey, the executor and
personal representative of the estate herein, assisted by
Mr. Hubbard's own personal attorney Sherman D. Lenske, Esq.,
thereby creating an issue of fact and law for proper resolution and
disposition by this Court on a Petition for Quiet Title and a
Petition for Appointment of Neutral Administrator, CTA., or
otherwise in the necessary, proper and mandated exercise of this
Courts general supervisory and equitable role in the proper
administration of this estate, and power to investigate, redress
and punish any prior improper administration of this estate. Berry
Decl. Exh. C, p. 29, ~32.~/
6. Contrary to the arguments of the Hubbard successors
~/See Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Berry Decl. Exh. C,
pp. 9-14.
3_/ See generally, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Berry
Decl. Exh. C, p. 15-37, Berry Decl. Exh. D.
- 9 -
this Estate is not closed. Indeed, Mr. Starkey's attorney herein,
Charles E. Ogle, Esq. states in a October 4, 1989 letter to the San
Luis Obisbo County Sheriff that rathe Probate estate was closed by
order of the . . . court dated January 2, 1989. However,
Mr. Starkey has not been discharged as Executor and, therefore,
still remains as Executor until his discharge.m Berry Dec.
Exhibit A. Moreover, the Court file in this Batter contains no
filing of any receipts from the distributee under the will and no
order of discharge of Norman F. Starkey, a native of South Africa
whose U.S. residency status at the time of his appointment as
Executor herein is currently unknown. Probate Code 12250, 12251,
San Luis Obispo Local Rule 11.1109.
7. Petitioners respectfully submit that the Court's own
file herein evidences such systematic and serious irregularities,
and the documents filed herewith reveal such inexplicable
inconsistencies, and the contents of this Petition raise such
serious issues that this Court must, in its equitable jurisdiction
at the very least, grant the interim relief requested herein, and
among other things, itself select truly independent counsel for
each of the immediate Hubbard family members and hold a public
evidentiary hearing at where, among things, their testimony is
required and cross-examination permitted. Notwithstanding any
arguments by the current executor and personal representative,
Norman F. Starkey, and others of the Hubbard Successors that
Petitioners have no standing herein, that the Estate has been
closed and that "nothing more need be said" regarding the
administration of this Estate. Berry Decl. Exh. E.
8. Wollersheim, in a case referred to as Wollersheim I,
- 10 -
prevailed in tort litigation against Hubbard's Successors, and has
an outstanding unsatisfied judgment in the approximate amount
(judgment plus interest) of six million dollars. Hubbard's
Successors have since filed four subsequent actions against
Wollersheim and Factnet. Two of those cases, known as Wollersheim
II and Wollersheim V, directly involve the Disputed Works
purportedly belonging to Mr. Hubbard and either assigned by him
prior to death, or improperly transferred by him, contrary to
various statutes, by his Last Will and Testament, to the Hubbard
Successors, and without any evidence of waiver of statutory rights
by those otherwise entitled to the Disputed Works (e.g. Mary Sue
Hubbard, the Hubbard children and other heirs of L. Ron Hubbard and
others with a Claim to be an heir).~
9. During the pendency of Wollersheim I, the Disputed
Works were administered by the Church of Scientology of California.
Norman F. Starkey, David Miscavige, Mr. Hubbard, and the Hubbard
Successors engaged in various fraudulent dealings and transfers of
the DisputedWorks in an effort to evade any judgment in
The five lawsuits between Scientology, Wollersheim, and
FACTNet have produced at least fourteen (14) significant legal
decisions: Religious Technology Center v. wollersheim, 796
F.2d 1076 (9th Cir. 1986); Religious Technoloqy Center v.
Scott, 660 F.Supp. 515 (C.D. Cal. 1987); Religious Technology
Center v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1989); Wollersheim v.
Church of Scientologv of California, 260 Cal. Rptr. 331 (Cal.
App. 1989); Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology California,
92 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3831 (1992); Religious Technology
Center v, Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1992); Religious
Technologv Center v. Lerma, 897 F.Supp. 260 (E.D. Va. 1995);
Religious Technology Center v. FACTNet. Inc., 901 F.Supp. 1519
(D. Colo. 1995); Reliqious Technology Center v. FACTNet. Inc.,
907 F.Supp. 1468 (D. Colo. 1995); Church of Scientology of
California v, Wollersheim, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1162
(1996); Religious Technology Center v. Scott, not published
(9th Cir. 4/11/96 (D.C. No. CV 85-0711-AWT(BX)).
- 11 -
Wollersheim I being satisfied out of any assets constituting the
Disputed Works. The facts in this regard are set forth in Exhibits
H and I to the Supporting Declaration of Graham E. Berry.
10. On June 22, 1987, Petitioner Wollersheim was a named
petitioner herein for an order permitting the filing of a claim
pursuant to Probate Code 720. Norman Starkey, one of the Hubbard
Successors, immediately rejected this claim in the amount of $2.1
million. The claim was against both L. Ron Hubbard and various of
the Churches of Scientology, including the Hubbard Successors.
Norman F. Starkey was/is a high ranking corporate officer of one of
the Scientology Organizations and its Director/Trustee. Despite
this irreconcilable, non-waivable and undisclosed multiple conflict
of interest, on June 22, 1987, Mr. Starkey rejected this claim by,
among other persons, Wollersheim. Wollersheim has just been
apprised of what was done through the wrongful and fraudulent
administration of the Hubbard Estate, to fraudulently deprive him
of his rights as a judgment creditor, and he has immediately moved
for redress through and by the filing of this Petition.
11. FACTNET (short for Fight Against Coercive Tactics,
Inc.) is a non-profit, tax exempt Colorado Corporation which
maintains a library and electronic archive to promote the assembly,
organization and dissemination of information about a variety of
coercive psychological systems. Wollersheim is the Executive
Director of Factnet.
DISAPPEARANCE OF L. RON HUBBARD
12. In or about 1980, Mr. Hubbard went into seclusion
and secretly resided in various locations including a ranch near
- 12 -
Creston, California where died on January 24, 1986.9
13. Mr. Hubbard's said seclusion was caused, in large
part, by the pendency of numerous civil actions, and the threat of
criminal and IRS actions, in which he was named, or to be named, as
either a defendant, or as one of the defendants. David Miscavige
became head of a scientology operation (Project All Clear)
organized by the Hubbard Successors, which was intended to remove
Mr. Hubbard as a defendant in any legal proceedings so that he
could emerge from seclusion. See Berry Decl. Exh. D, p. 4, fn. 5.
While in isolated seclusion, Mr. Hubbard was constantly attended by
Patrick and Anne Broeker. His principal, and sole, means of
communication with the outside world, and the Scientology
Organization, was allegedly through David Miscavige. At the
time, David Miscavige was a senior executive in ASI. Following the
fraudulent transfer of the Disputed Works, David Miscavige became
the head of RTC, the head of the Scientology Organization itself
and is one of Hubbard's Successors. At all relevant times herein,
Norman F. Starkey was a subordinate officer to David Miscavige
within Scientology's chain of command, and as such, Norman F.
Starkey was David Miscavige's "junior," received orders from David
Miscavige, reported to him and was subject to horrendous
disciplinary consequences should he not strictly comply with David
5/ For example, see Program LRH Security, Berry Decl. Exh. U.
6_/ Notwithstanding, the former President of RTC, Vicky Aznaran,
has provided testimony under oath that David Miscavige told
her that he never saw L. Ron Hubbard personally during this
entire period. Furthermore, Robert Vaughn Young will testify
that he went to the ranch where L. Ron Hubbard died, with
David Miscavige; Robert Vaughn Young was told that David
Miscavige had never visited the ranch before that night.
- 13 -
Miscavige's wishes and whims. For example, in 1986, David
Miscavige was apparently chairman of the Board of ASI and Norman
Starkey was Executive Director of ASI.
14. In 1979, 1982 and 1983, Mr. Hubbard executed various
testamentary instruments and trust agreements making certain
provisions for his family, among others. Subsequently, David
Miscavige severed all communication between Mr. Hubbard, his wife
and family and orchestrated the execution of a new will and trust,
purportedly signed one day before death, and its subsequent
improper administration, which resulted in a fraud on Mr. Hubbard's
wife, family, this Court and other Courts. Mr. Miscavige furthered
these wrongful actions by arranging for the appointment of his
subordinate officer, Norman F. Starkey, as Executor for the Estate
despite the conflict of interest and breaches of fiduciary duty
arising from his positions as, among other things, a Trustee of RTC
which was a beneficiary of the estate and to which were
fraudulently conveyed certain assets of the Estate including the
Disputed Works.
PURPORTED PRE-TESTAMENTARY ASSIGNMENTS
AND OTHER FRAUDULENTANDPURPORTEDDEALINGS
WITH THE DISPUTED WORK~
15. Beginning in 1982, David Miscavige claims to have
personally witnessed and notarized assignments of the Disputed
Works to the Hubbard Successors which include himself. However, as
7--/Various photographs of David Miscavige, Norman Starkey and Pat
Broeker, and some of their statements, are attached to the
Berry Decl. as Exh. U.
- 14 -
referenced in paragraph 18 herein, former RTC President Vicki
Aznaran has testified that David Miscavige had said to her that he
never personally saw L. Ron Hubbard during these years. In any
event, these various assignments, on their face, and in light of
various surrounding circumstances, raise various serious issues of
validity and capacity (for both Mr. Hubbard as to cognitive
capacity and David Miscavige because of his inherent multiple non-
waivable conflicts of interest) including improper notarization,
fraud, duress, undue influence, inurement, conspiracy to defraud
creditors, etc. Berry Decl. Exh. C, pp. 21-28.
16. Attached to the supporting Declaration of Graham E.
Berry, as Exhibits J to N, are copies of:
(a) Assignment Agreement (L. Ron Hubbard/RTC).
Exhibit J.
(b)Churchof Spiritual Technology letter dated May
21, 1987 and attaching certain agreements. Exhibit K.
(c) Copyright license agreement between Church of
Scientology of California and L. Ron Hubbard, effective as of April
1, 1982. Exhibit .
(d) Assignment Agreement between L. Ron Hubbard and
Religious Technology Center purportedly made May 16, 1982.
Exhibit M.
(e) Assignment Agreement between L. Ron Hubbard and
Religious Technology Center relating to trade marks. Exhibit N.
17. These exhibits, among other things, raise the
following observations, issues and questions. Exhibit J states
that it was entered into on May 16, 198_. However, just below
L. Ron Hubbard's signature on page 6, the document states that it
- 15 -
was notarized on May 10, 1982. The notary public is David
Miscavige. At the time, David Miscavige was a Trustee of RTC which
is the beneficiary of the alleged assignment agreement. At the
time, Norman F. Starkey, the Executor of the L. Ron Hubbard Estate
was also a trustee of beneficiary RTC. In addition, David
Miscavige was Chairman of the Board of ASI and Norman Starkey was
his subordinate as Executive Director of ASI. The function of ASI,
among other things, was to administer Mr. Hubbard's copyrights.
Berry Decl. Exh. O. The document also contains an addendum which
states that it is effective January 19, 1982 and modifies the
document which purports to be notarized on May 16, 1982. This
Agreement raises a number of issues including: the purpose of the
addendum beingattached since it has no effect on the Agreement and
is not incorporated by reference; why the original Agreement of
January 1, 1982 was modified only 18 days later; and why the "2s"
on pages 6 and 7 of the Agreement appear to have been originally
"7's" that were fraudulently altered. Bearing in mind that L. Ron
Hubbard died in 1986, this appears especially noteworthy.
18. The same document (Exhibit J) is attached to a
letter from one of Hubbard's Successors (CST) to the IRS dated
May 21, 1987. Berry Dec. Exh. K. This letter raises even more
serious questions regarding the suspicious circumstances of L. Ron
Hubbard's death, the execution of the various purported assignments
and agreements, and the testamentary disposition of the copyrights
and other items of intellectual property. In the letter, one of
Hubbard's Successors states to the IRS that they made a mistake
when they submitted the assignment agreement "Mr. Hubbard proposed
to enter into with RTC on May 10, 1982 . . . in fact, Mr. Hubbard
- 16 -
and RTC did not execute the proposed agreement." In summary, it
now appears that this agreement, notarized by David Miscavige,
concerning assets that belonged within the L. Ron Hubbard Estate,
was never executed while L. Ron Hubbard was alive and that
therefore Hubbard's Successors, including David Miscavige and
Norman Starkey (the Executor herein) and Sherman D. Lenske, Esq.
have engaged in numerous acts of perjury and fraud relating
thereto.
19. Berry Declaration Exh. L is a copyright license
purportedly executed by L. Ron Hubbard on May 10, 1982 but, unlike
the other documents, was not notarized. Under the circumstances,
this also raises questions for judicial inquiry.
20. Berry Declaration Exh. M purports to be a
"assignment agreement (LRH/RTC ((Marks) dated on its face 18 May,
1982. Again, the handwritten "2" of 1982 on page 10 appears to be
a modified or fraudulently altered "7".
21. Berry Declaration Exhs. J, L., M and N raise
particular concern when, in connection to the proposedPetition for
Quiet Title, Petitioners will include testimony, given under
penalty of perjury, that David Miscavige possessed blank sheets of
paper bearing the signature of L. Ron Hubbard. Furthermore, a
prior president of RTC, Vickie Aznaran, who later escaped from the
Rehabilitation Project Force at Hemet and sued Scientology, has
testified under penalty of perjury that David Miscavige told her
that he did not see L. Ron Hubbard from 1980 through to the date of
his death. This raises serious questions of extrinsic fraud and
serious questions as to the validity of various documents,
including those relating to the Disputed Works, and now being
- 17 -
relied upon RTC, BPI, David Miscavige and Norman Starkey who each
had integral roles in the apparent fraudulent conduct relating to,
among other things, the fraudulent handling of the Disputed Works
in connection with the Estate herein. In addition, Vicki Aznaran
also testified under penalty of perjury that she knew that David
Miscavige had entered a false notarized document into the probate
estate of L. Ron Hubbard.
22. Berry Declaration Exh. N is pertinent to the
questions raised in the preceding paragraphs. Pages 1, 2 and 3 of
Exhibit N are identical to pages 1, 2, and 3 of Exhibit J.
However, page 4 of Exhibit N is drastically different than page 4
of Exhibit J. Moreover, page 5 of Exhibit N, although different in
content, ends in exactly the same place as page 5 of Exhibit J.
Page 6 of Exhibit N is identical to page 6 of Exhibit J, but with
the exception of the fact that it isn't signed by L. Ron Hubbard
and it doesn't have the date of the notary public filled in.
Obviously, these are matters for serious consideration, not only by
the Court but also by a questioned document examiner, especially
because of the improbability of a page of a document being revised,
retyped and still having the exact words in the exact sequence at
the exact place on the final page of the document.
THE SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES OF
L. RON HUBBARD'S DEATH ,AND PURPORTED EXECUTION
OF ~ ALLEGED LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT
pURPORTEDLY DATED JANUARY25,1987
23. For many years prior to his death, Mr. Hubbard
ingested various drugs, many of them allegedly hypnotic and
- 18 -
psychiatric drugs, and other medications which were administered by
certain assistants of Mr. Hubbard, such as a certain Andre
Tabayoyon and Kim Douglas, whose testimony will be submitted with
the Petitions sought to be filed herein. One of Mr. Hubbard's own
sons has also testified to these facts in prior proceedings.
24. During the two years before his death, a Dr. Gene
Denk was in constant attendance upon Mr. Hubbard on a full time
basis. Dr. Gene Denk is understood to be a duly licensed
California physician.
25. Approximately two weeks before Mr. Hubbard died,
Dr. Denk left Mr. Hubbard's side in Creston, California and went on
a gambling trip to Reno/Lake Tahoe, Nevada accompanied by his wife,
Terri Gamboa, Rick Aznaran, and David Miscavige. In essence, it
appears that L. Ron Hubbard's medical support was intentionally
withdrawn from him. Prior to this gambling expedition, David
Miscavige was reported in prior testimony as stating, in effect,
"the IRS indictments are about to come down. The only thing that
will save us now is if the Old Man dies." During their absence in
Reno, Nevada, Mr. Hubbard suffered a crippling stroke. Upon
information and belief, Mr. Hubbard received no medical attention
from any physician licensed to practice in California, until Dr.
Denk returned from Reno, Nevada. Dr. Denk had prescribed and
administered a number of drugs to Mr. Hubbard, including the
psychiatric drug Hydroxyzine (Vistaril) which is usually
administered in combination with other hypnotic, psychotic and
sedating narcotics and restricted drugs. Indeed, the Coroner's
report indicates that there were "ten recent needle marks" in "the
right gluteal area" of the dead body. According to Dr. Denk's
- 19 -
statement to the Coroner, Mr. Hubbard also had a "long history of
chronic pancreatitis" (which is primarily cause by alcoholism) and
a recent history of "dysphrasia." According to the Coroner,
Dr. Denk also told the Coroner "of decedent's clinical history
which supported a possible neurological problem;" thereby raising
issues of cognitive capacity which Mr. Hubbard's personal
representatives such as Norman F. Starkey, Sherman D. Lenske, Esq.,
and Earle Cooley, Esq. should have brought to the attention of this
Court. Berry Declaration, Exhibit A, "Investigation," "Report on
"Toxicology Report"
Post Mortem Examination,
26. Mr. Hubbard's 1979, 1982 and 1983 testamentary
instruments made no disposition of any copyrights which cannot, as
a matter of law, be transferred by will. In addition, Mary Sue
Hubbard had/has a fifty percent community property interest in each
of these copyrights.
27. Immediately prior to Mr. Hubbard's death, Dr. Denk,
Pat Broeker, Anne Broeker, Steven Pfauth, Ray Mithoff, and possibly
others, were in attendance with Mr. Hubbard. All of them are
within the group defined herein as Hubbard's Successors as defined
in paragraph 3 herein.
28. Upon information and belief, neither Mr. Hubbard's
wife, Mary Sue Hubbard, nor any of his children were present at the
time of his death, were not advised of his ailing health and
imminent demise, and the Hubbard Successors purposefully deprived
the Hubbard family of the opportunity to be with him at his death
bed. One day before he died, with his cognitive capacity in
serious question, Mr. Hubbard purportedly signed a new will and
trust agreement providing, among other things, for purported
- 20 -
transfers of the Disputed Works to the Hubbard Successors, and
which made certain lesser testamentary provisions for Mr. Hubbard's
wife and certain of his children. Significantly the inherently
suspect alleged last minute will, for the very first time,
purported to unlawfully transfer the Disputed Works to the Hubbard
Successors notwithstanding the community property interest of his
wife who had been married to him when each of the Disputed Works
were allegedly written by Mr. Hubbard alone.~ David Miscavige
and Dr. Denk misrepresented the significance of the differences
between the purported January 23, 1986 Will and the earlier
testamentary instruments. Berry Decl. Exhibit A, Investigation
Report, page 4, 2nd full para. Clearly, those misrepresentations
of David Miscavige and Dr. Denk misled the coroner into concluding
that there was no reason or motive to suspect foul play and
therefore no need to investigate further. Upon information and
belief, David Miscavige, Norman Starkey, and others participating
provided no opportunity for any of the Hubbard Family members to be
involved in these events.
29. The Coroner was unable, and not permitted, to
conduct an autopsy of Mr. Hubbard's body. Mr. Hubbard's death was
not reported to the authorities for many, many hours until attorney
Earle Cooley, Esq. had traveled from Boston, Massachusetts to the
ranch at Creston, California, had assessed the situation and then
notified a funeral home which became suspicious as a result of the
delay in reporting the death, and alerted the Coroner. Berry
The provisions of the 1986 will are generally described on
pages 6-8 of the draft Memorandum of Points and Authorities
attached to the supporting Berry Declaration as Exhibit C.
- 21 -
Declaration, Exhibit A, page 3.
30. Following the brief investigation on January 25,
1996, the body of L. Ron Hubbard was released to the custody of
David Miscavige "Representative of the Author Services in Los
Angeles." Berry Decl. Exh. A. "Investigation," page 4. The body
was immediately cremated, within 24 hours of death, and the ashes
scattered at sea. See generally, Berry Decl. Exh. S. Extracts
from "A Piece of Blue Sky."
THE IMPROPER, UNETHICAL, ,FRAUDULENT AND CRIMINAL,
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE OF L. RON HUBBARD~
31. The following issues of fact, for judicial inquiry,
are raised primarily by documents on this Court's file:
(a) Attachment 8 to the Notice of Death of L. Ron
Hubbard filed February 5, 1986, contrary to its contents, was not
served on all of Mr. Hubbard's heirs.
(b) Norman Starkey's February 5, 1986 declaration
evidences the inherent multiple conflicts of interest of David
Miscavige, senior executive in ASI and subsequently senior
executive in RTC, Norman Starkey's superior in the Scientology
Organization and ASI, a trustee of RTC, in the various roles he
assumed in relationto the pre-testamentary purported assignment of
the Disputed Works and the purported testamentary transfer of the
Disputed Works to the Hubbard Successors of which he was one. In
addition, David Miscavige had previously removed Mary Sue Hubbard
as Controller of Scientology and had in effect placed her under
9/See also, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Berry Decl.,
Exh. C, pp. 9-14. Berry Decl. Exh. D.
- 22 -
house arrest and constant surveillance through three household
staff members who report to David Miscavige. This situation
continues today. Indeed, less than one week, ago fearful that
Petitioners would manage to contract Mary sue Hubbard, David
Miscavige and/or others of Hubbard's Successors had her telephone
number changed. Surveillance was increased and Suzette Hubbard was
moved from her home to Scientology's Celebrity Center where
Hubbard's successor would be able to more effectively prevent
Petitioners from contacting her, arranging her "joinder" or serving
her.
(c) As Executor and Personal Representative of the
L. Ron Hubbard Estate, Norman Starkey himself had multiple material
and undisclosed conflicts of interest arising from his position as
a trustee of RTC (a principal, and later the sole, beneficiary of
the Estate), a subordinate Scientology officer to David Miscavige,
by virtue of his position below David Miscavige at Authors Services
and his inferior rank with the Scientology Sea Organization, and
his former corporate and ecclesiastical position(s) in relation to
Mary Sue Hubbard and other Hubbard family members and heirs.l~/
(d) Mr. Hubbard's estate planning attorney,
Sherman D. Lenske, Esq.'s February 4, 1986 declaration, is in
material contradiction of more recent declarations he has filed in
connection with litigation involving the Petitioners andothers.
in addition, Sherman D. Lenske, Esq. had undisclosed multiple and
non-disclosed conflicts of interest in that he is also the
registered agent for service of process on RTC, one of the
10/ For example, see Berry Decl. Exh. U.
- 23 -
principal, and later the sole, beneficiaries of the Estate of L.
Ron Hubbard. Sherman D. Lenske, Esq. was/is also an attorney for
RTC and received/receives benefits from RTC in the form of fees,
etc. Sherman D. Lenske, Esq. is an attorney at law practicing
within the jurisdiction of the California Courts.
(e) Although Mr. Hubbard alleged in his January 23,
1986 will that Alexis Hollister was not his heir, in his December
15, 1979 will he recognized her as an expressly disinherited
"heir." According to the Probate files herein, no notices or
documents herein were ever served on Ms. Alexis Hollister. In
addition to Alexis Hollister, L. Ron Hubbard also disinherited his
eldest son. According to the investigative writings of Mr. Jon
Atak, both of these disinherited children "were later paid
settlements ....Secret provisions were made for" other family
members. Berry Dec. Exh. S, p. 356. None of these settlements or
other provisions were entered into with involvement, knowledge or
approval of this Court and no receipts have been filed in relation
thereto.
(f) The February 4, 1986 declarations of Mary Sue
Hubbard, Arthur Ronald Conway Hubbard, Diana Meredith DeWolf
Hubbard Ryan and Mary Suzette Rochelle Hubbard raise serious and
fundamental issues concerning their receipt of any legal counsel,
let alone independent legal counsel, regarding their statutory
rights in the Disputed Works, and their receipt of any bequests
provided for them under the terms of the January 23, 1986 Trust
Agreement and the previous wills and trust agreements. Upon
information and belief, at least one of these family members was
not permitted to read the declaration, the will, the Trust
- 24 -
Agreement, or any other papers relating to the death and probate,
was ordered to sign them, by a representative of David Miscavige,(
who also held full power and authority over Norman F. Starkey), and
has received no disposition of any property under the will and
Trust and has made no knowing waiver of any rights relating
thereto. The only benefit that child has received has been
$190,000 which was paid from Mary Sue Hubbard's own funds. Upon
information and belief, Mary Sue Hubbard resides in virtual house
confinement accompanied, at all times, by at least three employees
of Hubbard's Successors personally approved by David Miscavige and
Executor Norman F. Starkey, receiving orders from them and
reporting to them.
(g) Although Mr. Hubbard's last will acknowledges
express provision for his wife and certain of his children under
the terms of the Trust, Norman F. Starkey, the estate's executor,
later claimed, in the Report of Executor and Waiver of Accounting
filed December 15, 1988, that the final Trust provided for the
distribution of the entire Trust estate to RTC, other Scientology
entities and the Hubbard Successors who/which include the various
witnesses and notaries to the relevant assignment and testamentary
instruments. No evidence is on the Court file as to any waiver or
consent by the Trust beneficiaries to such a transfer in its
entirety. Furthermore, there is no document on the Court file
evidencing that Mary Sue Hubbard and each of the Hubbard heirs
(whether disinherited or not) had been apprised of their statutory
rights in connection with either their community property rights,
inheritance rights or any other rights in connection with the
copyrights, Disputed Works and other intellectual property assets
- 25 -
of Mr. Hubbard. In addition, there is no evidence that any of them
knowingly waived those rights after receiving truly independent
legal counsel. L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard were married
for 34 years and all of the Disputed Works were written during the
marriage and subject to Mary Sue Hubbard's community property
interests. Notwithstanding, paragraph 11 of the Report to Executor
waiver of Accounting filed December 15, 1988 that "the whole of the
estate is decedent's separate property." Nothing further has been
filed in relation thereto.
(h) In 1987, the executor, Norman F. Starkey,
valued the copyrights at $25 million. Upon information and belief,
those copyrights and other intellectual property assets, which
include the Disputed Works, are producing income to the Hubbard
Successors of annual amounts many times that figure. Accordingly,
the potential fraud upon the Estate, Mr. Hubbard's family, the IRS,
the Federal and State government, and the Petitioners herein,
involves many, many hundreds of millions of dollars. Indeed, in
1993, RTC filed a IRS 501(c)(3) application reporting approximate
annual royalty income from the Disputed Works in the amount of $42
million. Thus, the potential amount of this massive fraud, over
the relevant eleven year period, is at least $462 million.
(i) On February 4, 1986 Daniel J. Przybriski filed
a declaration herein as to the disposition of Mr. Hubbard's
purported life's work to the Church of spiritual Technology, on eve
of his death, seven days after suffering a crippling stroke while
on the hallucinogenic drug Vistaril and without receiving immediate
California licensed medical attention, while continuing to receive
hallucinogenic and psychiatric drugs, and having "a possible
- 26 -
neurological problem" as reported by Dr. Denk to the Coroner.
(j) On May 9, 1986, executor Norman Starkey
executed a petition for extension of time to file an inventory of
the purported copyrights (including the Disputed Works) within the
estate. Norman Starkey claimed that the extension of time was
required "to analyze the legal basis of the copyrights, which are
the Disputed Works in connection with which Petitioners are being
sued by RTC and BPI (two of Hubbards' successors).
(k) The probate court files include the filings of
dozens of creditors' claims, alleging serious tortious misconduct,
and totalling, in the aggregate, many hundreds of millions of
dollars. According to Norman F. Starkey's Report filed herein on
December 15, 1988, these various claims were later withdrawn on
various dates in December 1986 without any indication of how those
claims had been settled. Indeed, not all of the claimants,
potential claimants and relevant litigants, (such as Gerry
Armstrong and Lavenda Van Schaick) are even included in Norman F.
Starkey's relevant report. In fact, and on information and belief,
the Hubbard Successors entered into three group settlements in
Boston, Florida and California and paid a sum of between $5 and $25
million in connection with the settlement of these various claims.
This Court's authority was not sought in this regard. Indeed, no
papers, reports or authority were filed or sought in this regard.
In addition, the various settlement agreements contained provisions
which, as far as the attorneys were concerned, represented
egregious breaches of fiduciary duties and ethical conduct.
32. On April 10, 1987, Norman F. Starkey filed an
Inventory and Appraisement specifying a total L. Ron Hubbard estate
- 27 -
value of $26,305,706 of which the posthumous copyright and other
intellectual property claims were valued at $25 million.
33. On December 5, 1986 Warren McShane, one of Hubbard's
Successors, and a subordinate Scientology officer to Norman F.
Starkey, executed a declaration for filing in this matter relating
to the posthumous copyrighting of certain of the Disputed Works.
N~MORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
34. A Memorandum of Points and Authorities, in draft
form for filing in other litigation, is attached to the Supporting
Declaration of Graham E. Berry as Exhibit C. This Memorandum of
Points and Authorities is also directly applicable to the ex parte
interim relief requested herein and this Honorable Court is
respectfully requested to read and consider the same as being part
of the Ex Parte Petition and expressly incorporated herein.
35. As described in supplement to the draft legal brief
attached to the supporting declaration of Graham E. Berry, Esq. as
Exhibit D, there are numerous inconsistencies, discrepancies and
unorthodox actions of executor Norman F.~ Starkey which give rise to
overwhelming inferences of extrinsic fraud and/or other serious
misconduct of a possible criminal nature and committed in
connection, among other things, with the death of L. Ron Hubbard,
the administration of this Estate, the administration of the
Disputed works and the litigation against Petitioners.
~ELF DEALINGBYTHEEXECUTORHEREIN
36. Petitioners are in possession of, and will
subsequently file, copies of Copyright Transfer Certificates,
- 28 -
involving the Disputed Works, reassigning ownership of the
copyright from L. Ron Hubbard to Norman F. Starkey. In addition,
names of Hubbard family members are being removed, in Orwellian
fashion, from certain of the Disputed Works and changes are being
made to the Original in various other ways.
HUBBARD'S SUCCESSORS HAVE A LONG HISTORY
OFCRIMINALCONDUCT.TORTIOUSCONDUCT
ANDOFABUSEOFTHECOURT SYSTEM GENERALLY
37. The orders sought herein by Petitioners are also
appropriate and necessary because of the Hubbard Successors' long
history of criminal fraud and obstruction of justice. For example,
in 1970 a French government investigation into scientology
concluded that the Church of Scientology was "nothing in reality
but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from
its adepts by...blackmail...[and] with its "Fair Game" doctrine
harassed and abused those not in the Church it perceives as
enemies."11// Berry Decl. Exh. T, p. 2. In 1978 L. Ron Hubbard
11/ Scientology claims it canceled the Fair Game Policy in 1976.
However, scientology's "Fair Game" Doctrine has been
subsequently recognized and discussed in a number of cases,
including CHurch of ScientoLogy v. Armstronq, 232 Cal. App. 3d
1060, 1067 (1991). See also, wollersheim v. Church of
Scientology, 212 Cal. App. 3d 872, 888-891, 260 Cal. Rptr. 331
(1989); Allard v. Church of Scientology, 58 Cal. `. 3d 439,
443 n. 1, 129 Cal. Rptr. 797 (1976); United States v. Katter,
840 F.2d 118, 125 (lst Cir. 1988); Van Schaick v. Church of
Scientology, 535 F.Supp. 1125, 1131 n. 4 (U.S.D.C. Mass.)
1982); Christofferson v. Church of Scientology;, 57 Ore. App.
203, P.2d 577, 590-92 (Ore. 1982). Some of Scientology's
other illegal activities are described in Church of
Scientology v. commissioner of Internal Revenue, 83 U.S. Tax
Ct. Rpt. 381, 429-42 (1984); United States v, Hubbard, 474
F.Supp. 64, 70-77, 79, 83-84 (1979). The concurrently filed
appendix of authorities contains a copy of these decisions.
- 29 -
was sentenced, in absentia, to four years in prison, and a 30,000
Franc fine, for fraud. Berry Decl. Exh. V, p. 1. In 1979, nine
senior Scientologists, including L. Ron Hubbard's own wife, Mary
Sue Hubbard, were convicted and sentenced to federal prison for
crimes including "theft of U.S. Government documents, obstruction
of justice, and other "fair game" related activities against the
government of the United States, a known enemy of the Church of
Scientology." This litany of crimes was set forth in a 264 page
stipulation of evidence. Berry Decl. Exhs. U and T, page 1. This
massive criminal operation was the largest ever known infiltration
of the United States Government. See generally, U.S.v. Hubbard,
474 F.2d 64 (D.C.D.C. 1979). This Scientology operation was part
of Scientology's Snow White Project which is still being carried
out to this day. See generally, Berry Decl. Exh. X.
In 1984, Hubbard Successors were denied equitable relief
in Church of Scientology v. Armstrong, 232 Cal. App. 3d 1060
(1991). See also, Berry Decl. Exh. T, p. 2. In 1986, the first of
the Wollersheim cases was decided against the Church. In 1988, the
current President of the Church of Scientology International, Rev.
Heber Jentzsch, and a large number of Scientology officials were
arrested in Spain and charged with various serious crimes. Rev.
Jentzsch was later released on one million dollars bail and
millions of dollars of Church funds were frozen pending trial. The
case is still pending.
In the 1990's, the Church of Scientology became the first
- 30 -
Church in Canadian history to be convicted of criminal conduct1-U
Again, in 1993, a Canadian Court ordered the Church of Scientology
to pay one million dollars in damages to attorney Casey Hill, who
the Church had "set out to destroy."
In 1991, the Church of Scientology sued Uwe Geertz and
Steven Fishman for defamation in connection with allegations of
Scientology related instructions to commit murder, suicide and
financial fraud. Indeed, a number of ex-Scientologists provided
testimony implicating David Miscavige in serious criminal frauds,
violence and tax fraud. Defendants produced overwhelming evidence
of the truth and/or substantial truth of the allegations of
Scientology related instructions to commit murder, suicide and
financial fraud. consequently, the Church dismissed its own
defamation case, on the eve of trial and ultimately succeeded in
having the Court records temporarily sealed. At the same time, it
entered into a Secret Settlement Agreement with Dr. Geertz's
D'Amato Brisbois & Bisgaard. Pursuant to this
attorneys, Lewis,
fraudulent conspiracy, Scientology attorneys Elliot Abelson, Esq.
and William T. Drescher, Esq. "convinced" Robert F. Lewis, Esq. to
steal his own clients' files and to "deep-six" them, without the
client having any knowledge of the settlement.
In 1996, the former head of the Church of Scientology in
France, and other Scientologists, were convicted of second degree
murder and fraud in connection with their involvement in the
suicide of a French Scientologist. Berry Decl. Exh. V. In January
!27 See also, Scientology, Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, Time
Magazine, May 6, 1991. Berry Decl. Exh. W. New York Times,
March 9, 1997. Berry Decl. Exh. X.
- 31 -
1997, Florida prosecutors joined a large police investigation into
the mysterious death of a Scientologist who had suffered a
psychotic break.1-~/ Berry Decl. Exh. V. Again in January 1997, a
Court ordered the closure of the Church of Scientology in Greece
because of its "medical, social and ethical practices that are
dangerous and harmful." Berry Decl. Exh. V.
In January 1997, an Italian Appellate Court sentenced 29
members of the Church of Scientology to various terms of
imprisonment for criminal conduct. Berry Decl. Exh. V. Then, on
March 29, 1997, another Italian Court commenced the trial of
seventy-five leaders of the Church of Scientology "on charges
including fraud, tax evasion and illegal practice of medicine."
Berry Decl. Exh. V.
These are just a few of many examples of the many
hundreds of government reports, and judicial decisions, regarding
the long history of criminal conduct, tortious conduct, the abuse
of the court system generally, and the obstruction of justice by
Hubbards' Successors, including some of the persons who are the
focus of the orders being sought by Petitioners herein.
SPECIALPROTECTIVE ORDERS, AND EXPEDITED
DISCOVERYAREREQUIRED HEREIN
38. In addition to the matters set forth in the above
discussion of the Church of Scientology's criminal history, the
need for special protective orders herein is supported by, inter
alia, the destruction of Exhibits and Depositions herein pursuant
13/ In Scientology, a person suffering from a psychotic break is
known as PTS-Type 3, or a potential trouble source type 3.
- 32 -
to Order dated May 1, 1996, after questions began being asked
regarding the involvement of David Miscavige in these matters.
Petitioners, among others, had raised such questions in connection
with the litigation the Hubbard successors had filed against them
regarding the Disputed Works. Earlier, during the pendency of
Wollersheim I and Wollersheim II litigation, the Executor herein,
Norman F. Starkey, also arranged for evidence in the San Luis
Obisbo County Coroners' files to be destroyed. Berry Decl. Exh. A,
October 4, 1989 letter from Ogle & Merzon to Sheriff Williams.
39. David Miscavige and the other Hubbard Successors, as
a result of informal notice of these proceedings, have engaged in
activities clearly intended to intimidate and harass testamentary
witness Pat Broeker. Berry Declaration, Exhs. Q and R. The same
investigators, such as Eugene Ingram, were also deployed by David
Miscavige to intimidate certain federal government officials.
Berry Declaration Exh. X.
40. Limited discovery in relation to the proposed
Petition for Appointment of Neutral Executor, CTA and the Petition
for Quiet Title, will include depositions of Mary Sue Hubbard and
each of the surviving Hubbard children and relatives. In addition,
there must be depositions of all, or some of, David Miscavige,
Norman F. Starkey, Dr. Gene Denk, Sherman D. Lenske, Esq., Lyman B.
Spurlock, Ray Mithoff, Pat Broeker, Anne Broeker, Steven Pfauth,
Daniel J. Przybriski, Vicky Aznaran, Joseph A. Yanny, Esq., Earle
Cooley, Esq., R. Vaughn Young, Andre Tabayoyan, Diana Voegeding,
Gerry Armstrong, Kim Douglas, Terri Gamboa, Rick Aznaran, the San
Luis Obispo Coroner at the time of death and all involved official
personnel and such others who may be deemed appropriate, and the
- 33 -
immediate production of all the originals of all relevant
documents. Accordingly, Petitioner's request an order that the
Hubbard Successors, including but not limited to Norman F. Starkey,
not have any communication of any nature with Mary Sue Hubbard or
any of the surviving children or family of L. Ron Hubbard, pending
the taking of discovery herein and the disposition of Petitioner's
Petition for Appointment of Neutral Executor CTA and Petition for
Quiet Title. In this regard, the Court is referred to Exhibits Q
and R to the supporting Declaration of Graham E. Berry, which
indicates the surveillance, intimidation and harassment of crucial
witness Pat Broeker by Scientology private investigator Eugene
Ingram -- acting on behalf and in the interests of David Miscavige.
Upon information and belief, another crucial witness, Anne Broeker,
has been held in solitary confinement in Scientology's
Rehabilitation Project Force at the Scientology base at Hemet,
which is also under the command of David Miscavige and Norman
Starkey. In addition, David Miscavige and Norman F. Starkey are
believed responsible for initiating the security measures
responsible for initiating the security measures, referred to
paragraph 28(b) herein, regarding Mary Sue Hubbard and Suzette
Hubbard. This is an obvious attempt to thwart and obstruct justice
and these proceedings.
NOPREJUDICE TO THE ESTATE
41. It is understood that there has been little or no
activity, involving the Court, Norman Starkey and this matter, for
a number of years. Accordingly, the interim relief requested
herein should cause no prejudice at all to the Estate of L. Ron
- 34 -
Hubbard
MISCELLANEOUS
42. In accordance with Local Rule 11.401(c), Petitioners
inform the Court that no Special Notice has been filed.
43. Petitioners will file their aforementioned Petitions
on or before May 30, 1997, unless otherwise ordered by this
Honorable Court.
44. Petitioners propose to serve other potential
interested parties in the manner set forth in draft proof of
service attached hereto.
45. As described in paragraph 13 of the supporting
Declaration of Graham E. Berry, notice of this Ex parte petition
will be provided to Norman F. Starkey's attorneys of record no
later than 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 6, 1997 and a confirming
declaration shall be submitted to the Court in accordance with San
Luis Obispo Local Rule 11.401(a). In addition, Petitioners will
Federal Express a copy of this Petition and Supporting documents to
Norman F. Starkey's attorneys of record herein for delivery on
Tuesday, May 6, 1997. For the Court's convenience, this Ex Parte
Petition is being filed on May 6, 1997 along with a courtesy copy
for immediate delivery to Chambers.
- 35 -
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully
request this Court to grant the ex parte orders sought herein.
DATED: May 5, 1997
MUSICK, PEELER&GARRETTLLP
PROPOSED PROOF OFSERVICE
OFEXPARTEORDER
Ogle & Merzon
770 Morrow Bay Blvd.,
Morro Bay, CA 93443-0720
(805) 772-7353 ph.
(805) 772-7713 fax
Joseph A. Yanny, Esq.
Hertzog & Yanny
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1260
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Shea & Gould
c/o Jerome Fagelbaum, Esq.
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3270
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Carla Oakley, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster
Mr. Dennis Erlich
Mr. Keith Henson
M. Grady Ward (www.gradyward.com)
Mary Sue Hubbard
Diana Meredith DeWolf Hubbard Ryan
Mary Suzette Rochelle Hubbard
Arthur Ronald Conway Hubbard
Katherine May Hubbard Gillespie
Alexis Hollister
Norman F. Starkey
Religious Technology Center, Inc.
Bridge Publications, Inc.
Church of Spiritual Technology, Inc.
- 37 -
Graham E. Berry (State Bar #128503)
Attorneys for Petitioners
FACTNET, INC. AND LAWRENCE D. WOLLERSHEIM
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
| ESTATE OF L. RON HUBBARD, aka LAFAYETTE RONALD HUBBARD, Deceased. _ | ) ) ) ) ) ) ) | Case No. 20885 Date: May 7, 1997 Time: 8:00 a.m. Place: Room 355 Hon. Barry Hammer DECLARATION OF GRAHAM E. BERRY IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE PETITION OF FACTNET, INC. AND LAWRENCE D. WOLLERSHEIM [FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH EX PARTE PETITION AND PROPOSED ORDER] |
I, GRAHAM E. BERRY, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of California. I am a partner in the law firm of Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP (Musick Peeler), which has been retained by Factnet, Inc., ("Factnet") and Lawrence Wollersheim, ("Wollersheim"), to be its attorney of record herein. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein, except those stated to be made upon information and belief, and, if called upon to do so, I could and would competently testify thereto under oath.
2. This declaration is filed in support of Factnet and Wollersheim's Ex Parte Petition, inter alia, for a immediate Stay in these Proceedings, AND THE Suspension of Powers of Personal Representative Pending the Filing, inter alia, of a Petition for Appointment of Neutral Administrator, CTA, and Petition for Quiet Title.
3. I am counsel for Factnet, Inc. in the case Religious Technology Center, et al. v. Factnet et al., currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, civil action No. 95-K-2143. Attached hereto as Exhibit Y is a copy of the operative complaint therein. Attached hereto as Exhibit Z is a copy of a proposed amended answer therein, the filing of which is pending approval by the Court.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Coroner's Report regarding the death of L. Ron Hubbard.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a copy of a letter dated April 18, 1997 from me to Samuel D. Rosen, Esq., one of the counsel for the Hubbard Successors (as defined in the Petition herewith).
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a copy of a draft Memorandum of Points of Authorities in Support of Defendants' Motions to Amend the Scheduling Order [therein] and to compel the deposition of David Miscavige. That draft memorandum sets forth facts and arguments pertinent to the Petitions which Factnet and Wollersheim will file herein as interested parties in the resolution of the proper title to community property, and other intellectual property assets allegedly belonging to L. Ron Hubbard at the time of his death and allegedly improperly transferred to the Hubbard Successors.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a copy of a letter dated April 21, 1997, setting forth further facts and issues relevant to the Petitions to be filed herein by Factnet and Wollersheim.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a copy of a letter to this Honorable Court.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a copy of a letter dated April 23, 1997, from Samuel D. Rosen, Esq., one of the outside attorneys for the Hubbard Successors, directing me not to provide copies of any of these documents to the inside attorneys for the Hubbard Successors.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a copy of a letter dated April 24, 1997, from me to Samuel D. Rosen, Esq., regarding, among other things, the real reasons for excluding the inside attorneys for the Hubbard Successors from receipt of these and other related documents.
11. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibits H and I are copies of a motion to amend the judgment in Wollersheim IV and a Separate Statement of Fact.
12. Attached hereto, and marked as indicated are copies of the following documents:
(a) Assignment Agreement (LRH/RTC) (Advanced Technology). Exhibit J.
(b) Church of Spiritual Technology letter dated May 21, 1987 and attaching certain agreements. Exhibit K.
(c) Copyright license agreement between Church of Scientology of California and L. Ron Hubbard, effective as of April 1, 1982. Exhibit L.
(d) Assignment Agreement between L. Ron Hubbard and Religious Technology Center purportedly made May 16, 1982. Exhibit M.
(e) Assignment Agreement between L. Ron Hubbard and Religious Technology Center relating to trade marks. Exhibit N.
13. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit O is a copy of the Articles of Incorporation of Religious Technology Center, Inc., listing David Miscavige and Norman Starkey as two of the initial trustees on October 30, 1991.
14. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit P is a copy of a good standing certificate, issued after February 5, 1993, and listing Mr. Hubbard's personal estate planning attorney, Sherman Lenske, Esq. as the Registered Agent of the corporation and Mark Rathbun as its then president.
15. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit Q is a copy of an Internet posting regarding alleged harassment and intimidation into remaining silent of material witness herein Patrick D. Broeker by Eugene Ingram, the Church of Scientology's top private investigator.
16. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit R is a copy of a pending arrest warrant for Eugene Ingram and one of many press articles containing reports of his harassing and intimidatory activities.
17. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit S are copies of pages 344 to 363 of A Piece of Blue Sky, by Jon Atak.
18. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit T is a copy of an internet download of an affidavit of Joseph A. Yanny as to the criminal activities of the Church of Scientology. Mr. Yanny remains as one of Mr. Starkey's counsel of record herein.
19. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit U are copies of:
(a) "Program LRH Security," which related to ensuring L. Ron Hubbard avoided service of process;
(b) A photograph of Commander David Miscavige and Commander Norman Starkey at the 1982 San Francisco Mission Holders Conference. They are wearing the naval uniforms of the pseudo-military Church of Scientology;
(c) Copies of the promotion of Pat Broeker, on January 19, 1986, to a rank senior to that of David Miscavige;
(d) Copy of Pat Broeker, David Miscavige, and Norman Starkey announcing the death of L. Ron Hubbard;
(e) Copies of photographs of David Miscavige and Norman Starkey from Impact Magazine issue 27; and
(f) Copy of briefing on Religious Technology Center.
20. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit V is a copy of various Internet downloads regarding the convictions of many dozens of people around the world, in connection with Church of Scientology related criminal conduct.
21. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit W is a copy of a May 6, 1991 Time Magazine cover story entitled, "Scientology Thriving Cult of Greed and Power." This article describes some of the copyright materials that Petitioners are seeking this Court to determine the ownership of.
22. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit X, is a copy of a New York Times article dated March 9, 1997. This article describes some of the activities of Scientology hired investigators such as Eugene Ingram.
23. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit Y and Z are copies of the operative pleadings in RTC v. FACTNET.
24. I am informed and believe that Mary Sue Hubbard and the children of L. Ron Hubbard were not provided with the opportunity to visit Mr. Hubbard while he was dying, to review documents pertinent to the will and Trust, and the administration of the estate, or to seek or have any independent legal advice in relation thereto. Furthermore, that the Hubbard Successors have deprived the Hubbard wife and heirs of any meaningful benefits from the L. Ron Hubbard Estate appraised by Executor Norman F. Starkey in 1986 to be valued at approximately twenty-five million dollars.
25. On information and belief, if this Court does not issue orders restraining the executor herein, and those described in the accompanying Petition as the Hubbard Successors, from contacting Mr. Hubbard's wife and surviving children regarding these matters, then they may be intimidated into not cooperating with discovery and not coming forth with Petitions of their own upon realization of what occurred prior to the death of L. Ron Hubbard and subsequent thereto in relation to the improper administration of this probate estate and the improper disposition of its assets.
26. Notice of this Ex Parte Petition will be provided to Ogle & Merzon, AND Hertzog and Yanny, counsel on this Court's record as the representatives of Norman F. Starkey, no later than 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, May 6, 1997. Petitioners will also endeavor to Federal Express a copy of these papers to each of these two law firms for Tuesday morning delivery. In accordance with the local rules of Court, a confirming declaration as to service will be filed with this Court prior to the time of hearing.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed in Los Angeles, California this ___ day of May, 1997.
_
Graham E. Berry
A
