EX PARTE PETITION
MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP
[email protected]$NS AT LAW
ONE WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-3383
TELEPHONE (213) 629-7600
FACSIMILE (213) 624-1376
Graham E. Berry (State Bar #128503)
Attorneys for Petitioners
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 20885
(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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF THE PETITION ....................5
THE PURPORTED PRE-TESTAMENTARY ASSIGNMENTS
THE SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE IMPROPER, UNETHICAL, FRAUDULENT AND CRIMINAL
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .............28
HUBBARD'S SUCCESSORS HAVE A LONG HISTORY
SPECIAL PROTECTIVE ORDERS, AND EXPEDITED
NO PREJUDICE TO THE ESTATE ..................34
Allard v. Church of Scientology,
Christofferson v. Church of Scientology,
Church of Scientology of California v. Wollersheim,
Church of scientology v. Armstrong,
Church of Scientology v. Commissioner
Religious Technology Center v. FACTNet, Inc.,
Religious Technology Center v. FACTNet, Inc.,
Religious Technology Center v. Lerma,
Religious Technology Center v. Scott,
Religious Technology Center v. Scott,
Religious Technology Center v. scott,
Relgious Technology Center V. Wollersheim,
Religious Technology Center v. Wollersheim,
united states v. Hubbard,
United States v, Matter,
Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology,
Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology California,
Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California,
Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology,
PETITIONERS ATLLEGE AS FOLLOWS:
SUMMARY OF THE 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/
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.
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
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).
(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 .
(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 HIS ALLEGED LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT PURPORTEDLY DATED JANUARY 25, 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.
IN 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 DEALING BY THE EXECUTOR HEREIN
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 OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT, TORTIOUS CONDUCT AND OF ABUSE OF THE COURT 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 -
[L. Ron Hubbard] 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.
SPECIAL PROTECTIVE ORDERS, AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY ARE REQUIRED 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.
NO PREJUDICE 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 -
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 -
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request this Court to grant the ex parte orders sought herein. DATED: May 5, 1997
MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP
PROPOSED PROOF OF SERVICE OF EXPARTE ORDER
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
Mary Sue Hubbard
Diana Meredith DeWolf Hubbard Ryan
Mary Suzette Rochelle Hubbard
Arthur Ronald Conway Hubbard
Katherine May Hubbard Gillespie
Norman F. Starkey
Religious Technology Center, Inc.
Bridge Publications, Inc.
Church of Spiritual Technology, Inc.
- 37 -
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Organized Crime Civilian Response®. This web site is not connected with the Scientology® organization or any of its fake fronts in any way.
Write to the Organized Crime Civilian Response(Webactivism) with your opinions, information, or corrections. If you or your loved ones have been hurt by Scientology, or you have a loved one under the influence of Scientology, contact us for information, moral support, and assistance.
Property Fraud in India