CST owns ALL copyrights to everything L. Ron Hubbard ever wrote.
The very name "Church of Spiritual Technology" is a fraud, because CST is NOT a church, it is a CORPORATION, and therefore enjoys NO protection under the separation clause of the Constitution; Ref. U.S. Claims Court No. 581-88T, Judge Bruggink:
"CST is not a church...CST represents that it is a religious corporation organized to accomplish the activities of a church. Despite its name, CST is not itself a church... ."
There are other alleged tangible frauds now being associated with CST which are only beginning to come to light, and it is hoped that these documents will help uncover the breadth and depth of these possible frauds, if they exist. More and more allegations are surfacing of significantly altered literary works being sold as though they were the originals, with literally millions of dollars changing hands. Recent allegations and copyright records show that Scientology's "OT Levels" are perhaps forgeries, or possibly "versions" that have been created by CST or by their licensees or on a work-for-hire basis by people other than L. Ron Hubbard. The revenues from these "OT Levels" alone mount into multi-millions.
The documents being posted are:
1. CST Legal Papers 01 Assignment Agreement First mention of CST; fraudulent, because CST didn't exist at the time; Assignment to RTC of US rights to Advanced Technology, with option for CST to take over.
2. CST Legal Papers 02 Articles of Incorporation Incorporated by non-Scientologist lawyer Sherman Lenske, who also made himself a "Special Director" of CST.
3. CST Legal Papers 03 Bylaws The Bylaws prove that the "Special Directors" are all non-Scientologist attorneys, and have veto power over the Scientologists who are board members and officers. This document also establishes that CST is a CORPORATION, not a church. The Bylaws also claim the fictional existence of a "church" that supposedly has the same name, as the corporation, but no such "church" exists in fact.
4. CST Legal Papers 04 Przybylski Declaration A Declaration by then-Vice President of CST, urging the court to appoint Norman F. Starkey as "Special Administrator" of the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard. Starkey then went on to collect up all the copyrights belonging to Hubbard, and transferred them to CST immediately after CST received tax exemption in the IRS secret "Closing Agreement."
5. CST Legal Papers 05 Starkey Declaration Norman Starkey also urging the court to appoint him as "Special Administrator" of the Estate. This document gives rare insights into the workings of the FOR-PROFIT corporation known as "Author Services, Inc." (ASI), which is now wholly owned by CST (See "CST Legal Papers 08 IRS Closing Agreement Excerpts").
6. CST Legal Papers 06 Covenant, Advanced Technology An agreement between Norman Starkey and the corporation known as "Religious Technology Center" (RTC) granting RTC an exclusive license to use and sub-license the Advanced Technology. This Covenant was later transferred in its entirety to CST (See "CST Legal Papers 09 Assignment and Assumption").
7. CST Legal Papers 07 US Claims Court Excerpts A landmark ruling by Judge Bruggink that exposed things that had never been known before about CST, including the fact that it was founded by Meade Emory, former Assistant to the Commissioner of IRS. It also established that CST has complete power over the trademarks, even though these appear to be vested in the junior corporation, "Religious Technology Center" (RTC).
8. CST Legal Papers 08 IRS Closing Agreement Excerpts This formerly secret Closing Agreement reveals that the IRS ordered Norman Starkey to give the entirety of the FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION known as "Author Services, Inc."
(ASI) to CST "without consideration."
9. CST Legal Papers 09 Assignment and Assumption The document in which Norman Starkey transfers to CST his "right, title and interest" to and in all all Covenants and Agreements regarding the Advanced Technology.
10. CST Legal Papers 10 Copyright Transfer Record The Library of Congress Copyright Office record of a transaction transferring the 7,731 copyrights from Norman Starkey to CST.
11. CST Legal Papers 11 Assignment [to CST] The document in which Norman Starkey actually transfers to CST complete ownership of 7,731 copyrighted works of L.
Ron Hubbard. NOTE that the actual transaction takes place a day AFTER the date that the Copyright Office has it recorded as occuring on (See "CST Legal Papers 10 Copyright Transfer Record").
12. CST Legal Papers 12 Mitchell Affidavit A blistering Affidavit from Stephen Mitchell to attorney William M. Hart (of law firm Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP), but naming other interested parties, including David Miscavige (RTC), and Sherman Lenske and Lyman Spurlock of CST. It lays out in exacting detail what appears to be a tangible fraud in the advertising and selling of a book--purportedly by L. Ron Hubbard--called "New Slant on Life." As far as can be determined from the Affidavit, Hart had apparently threatened Mitchell with "substantial legal consequences" for communicating about the allegedly fraud.
Mitchell tells Hart, essentially, to put up or shut up.
13. CST Legal Papers 13 Mitchell vs. CST Appeal The most recent legal battle in the saga of CST: the same Stephen Mitchell, along with a Kathleen Carey, are engaged in a libel suit against CST which they have now appealed after it was dismissed by Judge Frances Rothschild in Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiffs Mitchel and Carey claim in their Appeal that Rothschild demonstrated clear bias for defendant/respondant CST and against the plaintiffs, and that she advocated from the bench for the defendant/respondant CST.
(Note: for background on Judge Rothschild and some of the issues that appear to be in the Appeal, try:
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/judge/index.htm For background on the original libel suit--which formerly named RTC's David Miscavige--try:
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mitchell/index.htm This web site doesn't appear to have been updated in some time, but was covering the original libel suit, and has some documents from the suit, and a lot of documentation regarding CST.
It is hoped that these documents help shed light on things that have been hidden and buried for decades.
Date: 13 Apr 2000 08:14:00 -0000 From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Legal Archives) Subject: CST Legal Papers 01 Assignment Agreement Message-ID: <3724BA4451B@127.0.0.1> NOTES:
1. This document is the first known reference to the CORPORATION known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST). In this legal document, CST is supposedly "granted" the option to take over all the rights assigned in this document for the sum of $100.00. But follow along for a moment...
2. This document is the Assignment Agreement that transfers the U.S. Rights in the Advanced Technology (exclusive of copyright) to the CORPORATION known as "Religious Technology Center" (RTC), but subject to the option of CST to take over all those rights, "in its sole discretion," as mentioned in NOTE #1 above. But follow along for a moment...
3. There is no absolutely no doubt that this document was drawn up by attorney Sherman Lenske, who has since testified under oath (in a Declaration dated November 12, 1995), that he, Lenske:
"...represented Mr. L. Ron Hubbard in all aspects of estate planning from...approximately April 1981... . All of the documents effectuating the estate plan were drafted either by me or under my supervision... . As one part of Mr.
Hubbard's estate planning, he directed that his U.S.
rights to the Advanced Technology, exclusive of copyrights, be conveyed to RTC... . [T]his objective was accomplished in May 1982 when Mr. Hubbard signed the Advanced Technology Assignment..." [This document, below.] 4. In drawing up this Assignment, Sherman Lenske gave CST the option to take over all these rights that were being assigned.
The only problem is: CST DIDN'T EXIST AT THE TIME! Sherman Lenske HAD to know that, because Sherman Lenske listed himself as "Incorporator" for CST when he, Lenske, incorporated CST AFTER this Assignment Agreement was signed. (See "CST Legal Papers 02 Articles of Incorporation") 5. This, then, is the Assignment Agreement referred to by Lenske, and allegedly executed by L. Ron Hubbard in Los Angeles on 10 May 1982--with David Miscavige notarizing LRH's signature. Later, on 16 May 1982, the Assignment Agreement was completed by the signing of Glen and Laura Marlowe as President and Secretary, respectfully, of the CORPORATION known as "Religious Technology Center" (RTC).
6. It can be concluded that Attorney Sherman Lenske, in drawing up this Assignment Agreement, and having it signed by whoever signed it, purpetrated a fraud on the signers and on the courts, since he includes in the Agreement an option for a corporate entity that does not exist, and which he well knew not to exist--since Lenske himself is the one who later incorporated CST.
7. An added confusion in this Agreement comes in the third attachment, "Exhibit 3." That attacment says: "THIS ADDENDUM is effective January 19, 1982, and modifies the Assignment Agreement--Advanced Technology--U.S. dated for reference January 1, 1982." But how could there be an addendum "dated for reference January 1, 1982," and becoming "effective January 19, 1982," for an Assignment Agreement that wasn't signed until May of 1982? The mystery deepens because this "Addendum" purports to be signed by the same three people who supposedly signed the Assignment Agreement itself.
Here is the document, plus the three Exhibits:
====================================================================== ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT (LRH/RTC) (Advanced Technology--U.S.)
This Assignment Agreement is made this 16th day of May 198__, by and between:
LAFAYETTE RONALD HUBBARD, also known as L.RON HUBBARD, whose address is c/o The Explorers Club, 46 East 7-th Street, New York, New York 10021, and whose former addresses include Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex, England; 1827 19th St., N.W., Washington, D.C.; 37 Fitzroy St., London, W.1, England;
2005 West 9th Street, Los Angeles, California; and Fort Harrison Avenue No. 210, Clearwater, Florida, (hereinafter referred to as "LRH"); and RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California non-profit religious corporation having a place of business at 6517 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90028 (hereinafter referred to as "RTC").
RECITALS A. LRH is the founder of the religion of Scientology which is based on a body of truths, and the technology for applying them, that were discovered, described and refined by LRH through research and study which have continued for more than forty years, and are contained in the writings and recored spoken words of LRH with respect to Scientology and the organizations formed to disseminate the religion of Scientology (hereinafter referred to as "the Scientology Scriptures").
B. LRH has published much of the Scientology Scriptures for the use and benefit of mankind through the religion and organization of Scientology. Included in the Scientology Scriptures is a substantial body of confidential advanced technology that has not been published by LRH, but instead has been protected and maintained as the confidential property of LRH (hereinafter referred to as "the Advanced Technology"), and issued to Advanced Scientology Organizations for their good usage. The Advanced Scientology Organizations, in turn, have made the Advanced Technology available to those who have attained, through processing, an appropriate level of development in the religion of Scientology to properly grasp and utilize the Advanced Technology, and only upon a confidential basis and with an absolute obligation to protect and maintain its confidentiality. The right to use the Advanced Technology and make it available to others has been, and is, subject to the permission of LRH.
C. RTC was formed by Scientologists, with the approval of LRH, to act as the protector of the religion of Scientology and to own, protect, and control the utilization of the Advanced Technology in the United States of America and its territories and possessions (hereinafter referred to as "the U.S.A.").
Representatives of RTC have received the Advanced Technology and Confidential materials containing the Advanced Technology in the U.S.A., under the obligation of confidentiality to LRH.
Lists of the Advanced Technology and the confidential materials are attached as Exhibit 1 (Preclear/Pre-OT Processing Levels) and Exhibit 2 (Auditor Training).
D. The purpose of this Assignment Agreement is to transfer all rights in the Advanced Technology in the U.S.A. to RTC, and to prescribe certain terms and conditions governing its ownership and use and the disposition of income received by RTC by reason of its ownership and use.
AGREEMENT 1. Recitals. The recitals are hereby made part of this Agreement and are acknowledged to be true.
2. Assignment.
a. Subject to the Option in Paragraph 3 hereof and the Right of Reversion in Paragraph 4, LRH hereby assigns to RTC his entire right, title and interest in and to the Advanced Technology in the U.S.A., including all rights to use and to license the use of the Advanced Technology in the U.S.A.
b. This assignment includes all rights owned by LRH to protect the confidentiality of the Advanced Technology and to enforce in the U.S.A. the obligations of confidentiality of those who have received the Advanced Technology in the past.
3. Option. This assignment is subject to an option granted by LRH to Church of Spiritual Technology, a California corporation (hereinafter "CST"), to purchase all of the rights assigned to RTC under and pursuant to this Agreement for the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00). This option shall be exercisable by CST at any time if CST decides, in its sole discretion and judgment, that RTC has failed to preserve and maintain the confidentiality, purity and ethical use of the Advanced Technology in accordance with the Scientology Scriptures, or that RTC's ownership of the Advanced Technology in any way places the Advanced Technology in danger of appropriation by any entity that is outside or hostile to the religion of Scientology, or that RTC has permitted and is permitting use of the Advanced Technology in any way that is contrary to the Scientology Scriptures and seriously damages the religion of Scientology.
4. Transfer if Tax-Exempt Status is Not Obtained. If at any time after one year from the date of execution of this Agreement, RTC has not obtained tax-exempt status under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and does not have a pending application for such status or an appeal from a denial of such status in which all administrative and judicial remedies have not been exhausted, RTC shall transfer all of the rights assigned to RTC under and pursuant to this Agreement to another Scientology entity having such tax-exempt status, as designated by LRH, his heirs, successors or assigns, subject to the Option in Paragraph 3.
5. Disposition of Income Received.
a. It is understood and agreed that RTC will make Appropriate charges, to be determined by RTC, for access to and training to the Advanced Technology.
b. RTC shall apply at least ninety percent (90%) of the gross income it receives by reason of the Advanced Technology to religious and charitable purposes, to be determined by the Directors of RTC, other than the support of RTC and its operations, that either are within purposes of the religion of Scientology according to the Scientology Scriptures or are for the general purpose of advancing the moral and ethical level of mankind. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, acceptable purposes for use of this income shall be:
(1) establishing and maintaining an indestructible record of the Scientology Scriptures;
(2) establishing and maintaining a museum of the religion of Scientology;
(3) establishing religious schools, scholarships and retreats;
(4) supporting other qualified organizations of the religion of Scientology; and (5) publishing, disseminating and promoting literature that is not part of Scientology Scriptures but which, in the judgment of the Directors of RTC, is in concert with the broad goals of Scientology and is worthy of support for the general benefit of mankind.
c. RTC may retain up to ten percent (10%) of the gross income derived by RTC by reason of the Advanced Technology, to support the operating and overhead expenses of RTC.
Signed in duplicate at Los Angeles, California on the date first above written.
[signature] ________________________________ Lafayette Ronald Hubbard STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF Los Angeles ) On this 10th day of May 1982, before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared LAFAYETTE RONALD HUBBARD, known to me as the person described in, whose name is subscribed to, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto put my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year in this certificate first above written.
[signature: "David Miscavige"] _____________________________________ Notary Public in and for Said County and State [seal]OFFICIAL SEAL DAVID MISCAVIGE NOTARY PUBLIC--CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Commission expires JAN 11, 1985 RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER By [signature:"Stephen Glen Marlowe"] _____________________________________ Its President By [signature: "Laura Marlowe"] _____________________________________ Its Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) On this 16th day of May 1982, before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Stephen Glen Marlowe and Laura Marlowe, who, being duly sworn, acknowledged themselves to be the President and Secretary, respectively of RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, and that they, as such officers of such corporation, being authorized so to do, duly executed the foregoing Agreement as an act and deed of said corporation and for the purposes therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year in this certificate first above written.
[signature: "Bev Mustard"] _______________________________________ Notary Public in and for Said County and State.
[Seal]OFFICIAL SEAL BEV MUSTARD NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Commission expires [illegible] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 1 PRECLEAR/PRE-OT PROCESSING LEVELS GRADE/LEVEL MATERIALS/STATE ATTAINED Grade V & VA Release The Power and Power Plus Processes (Power Release) Grade VI Release R6 End Words (Whole Track Release) Clear Clearing Course OT I Section One Operating Thetan OT II Section Two Operating Thetan OT III Section Three Operating Thetan OT IV Section Four Operating Thetan OT V Section Five Operating Thetan OT VI Section Six Operating Thetan OT VII Section Seven Operating Thetan OT VIII and above Section Eight Operating Thetan and above NOTS OT Drug Rundown New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans Drug Rundown Completion NED for OTS New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans Completion Solo NOTS Solo New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans Completion L - 10 List 10 L - 11 New Life Rundown L - 12 Flag OT Executive Rundown OT Review Auditing ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Exhibit 2 Page 1 of 1 AUDITOR TRAINING CLASS/DESCRIPTION CERTIFICATE/FORMAL NAME Class VII Auditor Hubbard Graduate Auditor Class VII Case Supervisor Hubbard Graduate Case Supervisor Class VIII Auditor (Confid. Section) Hubbard Standard Technical Specialist Solo Case Supervisor Hubbard Solo Case Supervisor Class X Auditor Class X Auditor Class X Case Supervisor Class X Case Supervisor Class XI Auditor Class XI Auditor Class XII Auditor Class XII Auditor Class XII Case Supervisor Class XII Case Supervisor NED for OT's Auditor Hubbard Advanced Courses Specialist NED for OT's Case Supervisor Hubbard Advanced Courses Specialist Case Supervisor Confidential Section of the Solo Auditor Course (R6EW Materials) Senior NOT's Course New Vitality Rundown Auditor's Course New Vitality Rundown Case Supervisor Course ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ADDENDUM THIS ADDENDUM is effective January 19, 1982, and modifies the Assignment Agreement--Advanced Technology--U.S. dated for reference January 1, 1982, by replacing Exhibit 1 with the following list of Preclear/Pre-OT Processing Levels. With this change only, the agreement remains in effect.
PRECLEAR/PRE-OT PROCESSING LEVELS GRADE/LEVEL MATERIALS/STATE ATTAINED Grade V & VA Release The Power and Power Plus Processes (Power Release) Grade VI Release R6 End Words (Whole Track Release) Clear Clearing Course OT I Section One Operating Thetan OT II Section Two Operating Thetan OT III Section Three Operating Thetan New OT IV Operating Thetan Drug Rundown Completion New OT V Audited New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans New OT VI Hubbard Solo New Era Dianetics For Operating Thetans Auditing Course New OT VII Solo New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans Completion New OT VIII Truth Revealed New OT IX Character New OT X Operating New OT XI Future L - 10 List 10 L - 11 New Life Rundown L - 12 Flag OT Executive Rundown OT Review Auditing [signature] ____________________________________ L. RON HUBBARD RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER By [signature "Stephen Glen Marlowe"] _____________________________________ Its President By [signature: "Laura Marlowe"] _____________________________________ Its Secretary Date: 13 Apr 2000 08:24:23 -0000 From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Legal Archives) Subject: CST Legal Papers 03 Bylaws Message-ID: <37BE2E46217@127.0.0.1> NOTES:
1. These are the Bylaws of the CORPORATION known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST). These had never been seen publically before 1999, when they were posted anonymously to the internet.
2. As clearly delineated in these Bylaws, CST is NOT a church, it is a CORPORATION. This eliminates and and all separation of church and state issues as specified by the Constitution. Since CST is NOT a church, the separation clause does not apply. The fact that CST is a CORPORATION and NOT a church was affirmed in U.S. Claims Court No. 581-88T, Judge Bruggink:
"CST is not a church...CST represents that it is a religious corporation organized to accomplish the activities of a church. Despite its name, CST is not itself a church... ."
3. CST does business under the fictitious business name "L. Ron Hubbard Library." It is not a library. It owns all copyrights to all of L. Ron Hubbard's works, which it does not lend, but licenses and sells to its material benefit. It also owns the FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION known as "Author's Services, Inc." which is able to manage and promote those copyrighted works for profit. (See "CST Legal Papers 08 IRS Closing Agreement Excerpt") 4. These facts alone indicate that CST's very name AND its d.b.a. name were both chosen as "an intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right." The names under which CST operate also constitute "a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct...or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed." These are definitions for "fraud." The names, on their face, are intended to deceive.
5. These Bylaws claim that CST "shall accomplish its purposes through and by means of the operations and activities of a church known as the 'Church of Spiritual Technology,'" but that, also, is a fraud. No such "church" exists. There is no physical location for any such "church."
The deceitful device of claiming the existence of such a non-existent "church," while giving it the exact identical name as the CORPORATION, is another transparent and intentional false representation and fraud.
6. The "Special Directors" referred to in the Bylaws are all non-Scientologists. They are given veto power over any and all acts of the directors and officers of CST. (See ARTICLE VII, "Section 4.
Appointment. Tenure, Resignation and Succession of Special Directors."
NOTE: Whether intentional or accidental, here is a second "Section 4" in ARTICLE VII; the Section on the Special Directors should have been named "Section 3.") Here are the Bylaws:
====================================================================== BYLAWS OF CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY (A Nonprofit Religious Corporation formed and operated pursuant to the laws of the State of California) PREAMBLE The CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY (hereinafter referred to as "the corporation"), an association of persons having incorporated exclusively for religious purposes under the laws of the State of California as the same relate to Nonprofit Religious Corporations, does by these Bylaws prescribe the manner in which and the officers and agents by whom such purposes shall be accomplished.
ARTICLE I The Church The corporation shall accomplish its purposes through and by means of the operations and activities of a church known as the "Church of Spiritual Technology" and hereinafter referred to as "the Church".
The Church is organized exclusively for the purposes of the religion of Scientology, as hereinafter set forth. In pursuing its purposes the Church shall adhere to the goals, tenets, doctrines, codes, Creed, policies and practices set forth in the Scriptures (as hereinafter defined).
[NOTE: The next paragraph, while cleverly inserted into ARTICLE I, entitled "The Church," actually goes back to talking about the CORPORATION known as "Church of Spiritual Technology," and specifies that the non-existent "church" and the "Scriptures" will be "subject...AT ALL TIMES AND IN EVERY RESPECT to...the provisions of the Articles and these Bylaws." (emphasis added)] The Trustees, Directors, Officers and agents of the corporation shall be bound by and shall observe the foregoing to the end that the operations and activities of this corporation shall support and maintain the Church as a church of Scientology in compliance with the Scriptures (as hereinafter defined); subject, however, at all times and in every respect to the paramount requirement of observance of and compliance with all applicable laws, and the provisions of the Articles and of these Bylaws.
ARTICLE II Definition of Terms As they are used in these Bylaws:
a. "Articles" shall mean the Articles of Incorporation of this corporation filed on _______________, 19____, as may be amended from time to time.
b. "Bylaws" shall mean the code of rules prescribed herein, which are subordinate in authority to the corporation's Articles and which are to be used, adopted and recognized for the regulation and management of the affairs of the corporation;
c. "Religion of Scientology" and "Scientology" shall mean the religious doctrines, beliefs, tenets, practices, applied religious Philosophy and technology for application as developed by L. Ron Hubbard and as the same may hereafter be developed by L. Ron Hubbard.
d. "Scriptures" shall mean the writings and recorded spoken words of L. Ron Hubbard with respect to Scientology and organizations formed for the purposes thereof.
e. "Church of Scientology" shall mean both those organizations and that group of organizations throughout the world which have as their primary and exclusive purpose the propagation, espousal and practice of the doctrines, beliefs, tenets, practices, applied religious philosophy and technology of the religion of Scientology, as the same has been developed and may be developed by L. Ron Hubbard, and to the accomplishment of its goals.
f. "Religion of Scientology" and "Church of Scientology" shall not necessarily be co-terminal. That is to say, the terms "religion of Scientology" and "Church of Scientology" shall be co-terminal only so long as churches of Scientology continue, in the opinion of L. Ron Hubbard during his lifetime, and in the opinion of all of the Directors and Trustees following the death of L. Ron Hubbard, to espouse, propagate and practice the religion of Scientology.
g. "Operating Rules" or "Operating Policy" shall mean that code of rules, which shall always be subordinate in authority to these Bylaws, to the Corporation's Articles, and to the laws of the State of California governing nonprofit corporations, which may hereafter be prescribed and recognized by the Trustees for the further regulation and management of the affairs of the Corporation.
h. "Notice" shall mean written notice actually received by the prescribed recipient not less than three (3) days prior to the event of which notice is given, written notice actually delivered to the prescribed recipient not less than three (3) days prior to the event of which notice is given, or written notice mailed to the prescribed recipient of the notice, by first class mail, not less than five (5) days prior to the event of which notice is given.
i. "Mailed" shall mean deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed according to the records of the corporation.
j. Unless the context in which they are used clearly requires otherwise, terms denoting number shall include both the singular and the plural, and terms denoting gender shall include all of the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter.
ARTICLE III Purposes The corporation shall espouse, present, propagate, practice, ensure and maintain the purity and integrity of, the religion of Scientology, as the same has been developed and may be further developed by L.
Ron-Hubbard to the end that any person desiring participation, or participating, in Scientology may derive the greatest possible good of increased awareness as an immortal spirit.
It is the belief of the Church that Scientology is the organization of the fundamentals of existence into axioms and workable technologies in the tradition of the exact sciences for resolving problems of life and thought and for the freedom of the human spirit. That he who asks a question is closest to the answer, that every question contains its own answer, and further that every problem contains its own solution, and that the technologies of Scientology are of such a nature that a person with a question or a problem may be spiritually assisted or guided to the end that the person is able to answer his own questions and resolve his own problems. "Scientology Technology" is a body of truths and methods of application, developed by L. Ron Hubbard from his observations and research, which when correctly applied can reveal the soul of man, extend his knowledge of the infinite Being to him, and make known what is knowable about God.
The Church shall have the authority to manage, use and make available for use by other Churches of Scientology, the vast body of Scientology Technology that forms the foundation of the religion of Scientology.
In so managing and using this body of truths and methods of application, the Church shall have as its purpose the responsibility of keeping Scientology working (i.e., getting the correct technology applied correctly.)
Believing that man's best evidence of God is the God he finds within himself, and trusting with enduring faith that the Author of the Universe intended life to thrive within it, the corporation is founded with the following general goals:
a. Establishment of a religious body and entity to promote, protect, administer and encourage the religion of Scientology and its goals;
b. Foundation, construction and use of a church, establishments, tutorial schools, retreats, parsonages, centers of training and other centers, for the teaching, dissemination and administration of the religion of Scientology, which aspires to the religious and ethical guidance and improvement of the individual character, and also to better and clarify the human spirit;
c. Assistance in the foundation of Churches of Scientology and other organizations devoted to the religion of Scientology.
d. Publication and distribution of religious literature and other sectarian aids in order to propagate and disseminate Scientology; and e. Establishment of religious cultural centers.
f. Minister to the spiritual needs of the parishoners and congregants of the Church through the conduct of services, both group and individual.
g. Establishment of a scholarship fund to provide assistance to those seeking advancement on the Scientology Bridge.
h. Establishment and maintenance of a museum devoted to the religion of Scientology.
i. Construction and maintenance of an imperishable structure, capable of withstanding the ravages of nuclear warfare to house the essence of Scientology for the benefit of future generations.
j. Establishment and maintenance of a library devoted to the religion of Scientology.
ARTICLE IV Creed The Church subscribes, and its object is and purposes are that all of Mankind may subscribe to and practice the following Creed:
WE OF THE CHURCH BELIEVE:
That all Men Of whatever race, Color or creed were created with equal rights.
That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance.
That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives.
That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity.
That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense.
That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist and support their own organizations, churches and governments.
That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.
That all men have inalienable rights to the creation of their own kind.
That the souls of men have the rights of men.
That the study of the mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in nonreligious fields.
And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set aside these rights, overtly or covertly.
AND WE OF THE CHURCH BELIEVE:
That man is basically good.
That he is seeking to survive.
That his survival depends upon himself and upon his fellows, and his attainment of brotherhood with the Universe.
AND WE OF THE CHURCH BELIEVE THAT THE LAWS OF GOD FORBID MAN:
To destroy his own kind To destroy the sanity of another To destroy or enslave another's soul To destroy or reduce the survival of one's companions or one's group.
AND WE OF THE CHURCH BELIEVE:
That the spirit can be saved and That the spirit alone may save or heal the body.
ARTICLE V Membership Section 1. Classification. The corporation shall have no members. It shall instead have parishioners who shall not be entitled to vote.
Section 2. Purpose of Affiliation. The Church believes that a person participating in the spiritual exercises of the Church may profit to such an extent that the person may become aware of his spiritual nature, capable of self determination, self discipline and a realization of his creative abilities; thus ordinary problems of life should be easily resolved or be of little or no concern. Therefore, such a person would be better able to contribute to the welfare of his fellow man, Society and the Nation.
Such a state of Beingness of Mankind is the goal of the Church.
The Church further believes that man's attainment of advanced levels of spiritual awareness frees the spirit from the mind and body giving the spirit immortality. This in turn will increase life and livingness while diminishing the influence of death or deathlike factors which act as stops and distractions to life.
During the term of affiliation with the Church, the parishioners shall agree to abide by the Creed, the Auditor's Code and the Scientology Code of Honor.
ARTICLE VI Trustees Section 1. Purpose. The primary purpose of the Board of Trustees shall be to elect General Directors of the corporation. In furtherance of this purpose the Trustees may remove a General Director who fails to meet the qualification of such a Director or who conducts himself in a manner which is contrary to the provisions of Articles I through IV of these Bylaws and the survival of Scientology. In addition, the Trustees shall have the power to change the number of Trustees, as provided in Section 2 below.
Section 2. Number of Trustees. The authorized number of Trustees shall be three (3) until changed by a bylaw amending this Section 2 duly adopted by the unanimous vote of the Trustees; provided however that the Trustees shall not have the power to reduce the number of Trustees below three (3) or increase the number above seven (7). One Trustee shall be elected as Chairman and shall preside over all meetings of the Trustees.
Section 3. Qualifications. In order to serve as Trustees of the corporation whether as initial Trustees or successor Trustees, and in order to continue to serve as a Trustee of the corporation, Trustees shall be persons who possess and continue to possess, the following qualities and attributes. That is to say, a person may serve and continue to serve, as Trustee of the corporation only so long as he is and remains:
Qualifications Prior to Appointment:
a. A person who has a good uninterrupted track record of at least eight (8) years as an ethical and loyal Scientologist;
b. A person who has experienced excellent case gain and has attained the case level of OT III or above;
c. A person who is well versed in the technology of Dianetics and Scientology and has applied this technology to help others, with excellent results;
d. A person who is well versed in the administrative policy or organizations affiliated with the religion of Scientology and has a track record of demonstrated success in the utilization and application of such policy;
e. A person who is an ordained Scientology minister, in good standing pursuant to those principles set forth in the Scriptures;
f. A person who is a good student; that is to say, a person who is able accurately and speedily to duplicate and apply that which has been studied with a minimum of correction necessary; and g. A person who is well versed in the Scientology Ethics and Justice system.
Qualities to Be Attained Within Ten (10) Years Followinq Appointment as a Trustee:
In addition to the foregoing qualifications, each person who is appointed to serve as a Trustee of the Church must attain the following qualities within ten (10) years after appointment as a Trustee:
a. The person must have attained NOTS case completion or be on Solo NOTS;
b. The person must have become a Permanent Class 8 Auditor;
c. The person must have successfully completed the Organization Executive Course and the Flag Executive Briefing Course; and d. The person must have attained the status of a Data Series Evaluator.
Moreover, during the ten-year period following each person's appointment as a Trustee of the Church, that person's continued qualification to serve as a Trustee of the Church shall at all times be dependent upon such person's demonstrating steady and satisfactory progress toward attainment of the foregoing four qualifications within the ten-year period. More specifically, each such person must spend an average of at least 12-1/2 hours of study/auditing per week toward the attainment of those qualifications.
Continued Study as a Qualification for Continued Service as a Trustee:
In addition to each of the foregoing requirements, and notwithstanding each Trustee's having attained all of the qualifications enumerated above, each Trustee's continued service as a Trustee shall be dependent upon such Trustee's continued study and/or auditing or the receipt of auditing for an average of not less than 12-1/2 hours per week. For example, if a Trustee should be away from his post for two weeks, he would be required to make up the 25 hours of time lost by increasing the number of study/auditing hours during the balance of the six-month period. The initial six-month period will be calculated from date of appointment. Thereafter such periods shall be based upon the semianniversary or anniversary of appointment. Failure to satisfy the minimum study/auditing requirements during a six-month period, without a reason which is acceptable to the remainder of the Trustees, will subject any Trustee to review by the entire Board of Trustees and possible removal in the discretion of the remainder of the Trustees.
Section 4. Election. The initial Trustees of the corporation shall be elected at the meeting next following the meeting of the Boards of Directors (as hereinafter defined) adopting these Bylaws. The Trustees shall have lifetime tenure, subject, however, to termination as provided in Section 7.
Section. 5. Vacancies. A vacancy on the Board of Trustees shall be deemed to exist in case of the death, resignation or termination of any Trustee as provided in Section 7.
a. Vacancies on the Board of Trustees may be filled by a majority of the remaining Trustees, though less than a quorum, or by a sole remaining Trustee.
b. In the event the Board of Trustees is unable to fill vacancies because of the death or disqualification of the entire Board of Trustees or sole remaining Trustee, then that person holding the senior ecclesiastical post in this Church shall (and only in this unlikely event and only s a singular circumstance) appoint individuals to fill all vacancies on the Board of Trustees, who must themselves meet the qualifications of a Trustee as provided in Section 3.
Section 6. Voting and Other Rights. Each Trustee shall be entitled to one vote. Each Trustee shall have access at all times to the books and records of the corporation.
Section 7. Termination As Trustee.
a. A person's Post as Trustee shall terminate at his death or upon receipt by at least one other Trustee of a written notice of his resignation.
b. Pursuant to the Scientology ethics and Justice system, a person's post as Trustee may be terminated for actions deemed contrary to the provisions of Articles I through IV of these Bylaws, by the unanimous vote of the other Trustees.
c. A person's post as Trustee shall automatically terminate if he or she at any time fails to meet the qualifications for Trustee which are stated in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Section 3 of this Article.
Section 8. Meetings of Trustees.
a. Annual Meeting. A meeting of the Trustees shall be held on the first day of June of each year at 8:00 p.m. at the principal office of the corporation. No notice of the annual meeting need be given if it is held at such time and at such place. The time and place of the annual meeting may be changed by vote or written consent of a majority of the Trustees, and notice of any such change shall be given to each Trustee. If proper notice is given of any such change in the time or place of the annual meeting, notice need not be given of subsequent annual meetings held at the same time and place.
b. Agenda at Annual Meeting. At the annual meeting of Trustees, consideration shall be given only to the following matters:
i. Election or removal of General Directors.
ii. Election or removal Of Trustees.
c. Call of Special Meetings. A special meeting of the Trustees may be called by any Trustee.
d. Notice of Meetings. When required, notice of a special meeting of the Trustees shall be given to each Trustee in writing. A notice of meeting need not specify the purpose of the meeting.
e. Waiver of Notice. The transactions at any meeting of the Trustees, however called, however noticed, and wherever held, are as valid as though taken at a meeting duly held after regular call and notice if a quorum is present, and if, either before or after the meeting, each of the Trustees who was absent signs a written waiver of notice and consent to the holding of such meeting. A Trustee shall be deemed to have waived notice and consented to the holding of a meeting, if he votes to approve the minutes of that meeting. All written waivers and consents shall be filed with the minutes of meetings of the Trustees.
Notice of a meeting shall also be deemed given to any Trustee who attends a meeting without protesting, before or at its commencement, the lack of proper notice to him.
f. Quorum. A quorum for any meeting of the Trustees shall be a majority of the total number of the Trustees.
g. Minutes. The Trustees shall cause minutes of their meetings to be kept and to be maintained with other records of the Trustees in a secure place.
h. Adjournment. A majority of the Trustees present, whether or not a quorum is present, may adjourn any meeting of the Trustees to another time and place. Notice of the time and place of holding an adjourned meeting need not be given to absent Trustees if the time and place is fixed at the meeting adjourned.
i. Use of Conference Telephones. The Trustees may meet through the use of conference telephone facilities or similar communications equipment, so long as all Trustees participating in the meeting can hear and address one another.
j. Action without Meeting. Any action required or permitted to be taken by the Trustees may be taken without a meeting if all Trustees consent in writing to that action. Such action by written consent shall have the same force and effect as a unanimous vote of the Trustees. Such written consent or consents shall be filed with the minutes of proceedings of the Trustees.
ARTICLE VII Boards of Directors Section 1. Function and Authority of the Boards.
a. Composition: The combined Boards of Directors ("Boards") shall be composed of three (3) General Directors ("Board of General Directors") and three (3) Special Directors ("Board of Special Directors"). The authorized number of General Directors may be changed by a bylaw amending this Section 1(a) duly adopted by the unanimous vote of the General Directors; provided, however, that the General Directors shall not have the power to reduce the number of General Directors below three (3) or increase the number above five (5).
b. Generally. The activities and affairs of the corporation, as distinguished from the ecclesiastical affairs of the Church, shall be managed and conducted, and all corporate powers shall be exercised, by or under the direction of a Board of General Directors, subject to the approval or veto of certain actions by a majority of the authorized Special Directors as set forth in paragraph (d) below. The General Directors, in general, shall have all applicable powers conferred, permitted, or authorized by law as directors of a nonprofit religious corporation, including the power to purchase, lease, encumber by mortgage or deed of trust, sell, pledge and convey property of the corporation, and to borrow funds for the use and benefit of the corporation. Each Director, General and Special, shall have access at all times to the books and records of the corporation.
c. Particular Functions of the General Directors. More particularly, and without limiting its power and authority in general (except as stated otherwise), the General Directors may, in their sole discretion:
i. Borrow money and incur indebtedness on behalf of the corporation, and cause to be executed and delivered therefor, in the corporate name, promissory notes, bonds, debentures, deeds of trusts, mortgages.
pledges, hypothecations, or other evidences of debt and securities therefor;
ii. Make and perform such contracts as are necessary or convenient to attain or further the purposes and objects of the corporation, as set forth in the Articles and in these Bylaws;
iii. Delegate to the corporation's officers, or to other agents, regular and special duties Of the Board of General Directors, the delegation of which is permitted by law and consistant with the Articles;
iv. Publish and disseminate books, periodicals, pamphlets, tracts, sermons, films, tapes and pictures in furtherance of the purposes of the corporation; and v. Change the principal office of the corporation from one location to another, and establish and locate subsidiary offices of the corporation.
d. Particular Functions of the Special Directors. The Special Directors, acting by a majority of their authorized number are empowered to ensure the following:
i. That the corporation attains tax exempt status, as soon as practical, and that such status is maintained throughout the existence of the corporation.
ii. That no part of the corporation inure to the benefit of any private individual, firm or corporation.
iii. That the assets of the corporation are not subject to waste and/or extravagance but are instead increased in value.
iv. That proper Scientology management is correctly applied to the end that the purposes of the corporation are accomplished.
The Special Directors shall carry out their duties by approving or vetoing every resolution, vote, or act of the General Directors which in any way directly or indirectly affects the duties of the Special Directors set forth above. In addition, Special Directors may by unanimous vote direct the General Directors to consider any matter which comes within the scope of their duties, as outlined above.
Any act of the Special Directors may be overridden by the unanimous vote of the General Directors and Trustees at a meeting specially called by any General Director in accordance Section 4 [sic] of this Article VII.
e. Special Duty of the Boards. It shall be a special duty of the Boards to assure:
i. That no part of the net earnings of the corporation inure to the benefit of any person;
ii. That no substantial part of the activities of the corporation are directed to influencing legislation by propaganda or otherwise;
iii. That the corporation and its agents refrain from participation or intervention in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office;
iv. That the property, assets and net income of the corporation remain irrevocably dedicated to charitable and religious purposes; and v. That, upon the dissolution or winding up of the corporation, its assets remaining after payment of or provisions for payment of all debts and liabilities of the corporation are distributed to a nonprofit fund, foundation, or corporation which is organized and operated primarily and exclusively for charitable and religious purposes, and which is exempt from general income taxation as an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.
Section 2. Election and Tenure of General Directors.
a. Election. General Directors shall be elected by majority vote of the Trustees of the corporation. Trustees may not cumulate votes in electing General Directors. Regular elections of General Directors shall be held at the annual meeting of the Trustees. Special elections may be held as necessary to fill vacancies on the Board of General Directors. General Directors may not be elected from among the Trustees. General Directors shall hold office for one year or until the next annual meeting of the Trustees, whichever period is shorter.
General Directors may be reelected.
b. Compensation. General Directors shall receive no compensation for their service as Directors, but shall be entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred on behalf of the corporation, whether or not such expenses are incurred in their capacities as Directors.
c. Qualifications. In order to serve as a General Director and in order to continue to serve an such, each General Director shall be a person who possesses and continues to possess the following qualities and attributes. That is to say, a person may serve and continue to serve as a General Director only so long as he is and remains:
i. Well-versed in the Scriptures;
ii. Well-versed in the Scientology Ethics and Justice system;
iii. A proven Scientology executive, evidenced by statistics;
iv. A duly ordained minister of Scientology in good standing with the Mother Church; and v. Has attained the age of majority.
d. Removal. Upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the Trustees, a General Director may be removed, on the following grounds:
i. Failure to continue to meet the qualifications set forth in subparagraphs (i) through (iv) of subsection (c) above;
ii. Failure to exercise the duties of a Director in pursuance of the goals, aims and purposes of the corporation, the Church and Scientology, an set forth in Articles I through IV of these Bylaws.
Section 4. Appointment. Tenure, Resignation and Succession of Special Directors.
a. Initial Special Directors. The names of the persons who shall serve as the corporation's initial Special Directors are:
i. Stephen A. Lenske ii. Sherman D. Lenske iii. Lawrence E. Heller.
b. Tenure. Persons appointed as Special Directors shall Possess a lifetime tenure, so long as they remain in good standing with the State Bar Association of California. Should any Special Director fail to remain in good standing, his position shall terminate and the vacancy created thereby shall be filled in accordance with Paragraph (d) of this Section 4..
c. Resignation. Any Special Director may resign upon giving written notice to all Directors. The notices may specify a later time for the effectiveness of such resignation.
d. Vacancies. Any vacancy on the Board of Special Directors, whether caused by death or resignation, may be filled by a majority of the remaining authorized Special Director or by a sole remaining Special Director.
To the extent possible, vacancies shall be filled from members in good standing of the California State Bar Association who are then employed by the law firm of Lenske, Lenske, Heller & Magasin, A Law Corporation, or its successor ("LLH&M") and are familiar with the purposes of this corporation. In the event the Special Directors are, or the remaining special Director is, unable to fill the vacancy from employees of LLH&M, then the vacancy may be filled from outside LLH&M, provided such appointee is a member in good standing of the California State Bar Associa tion and is familiar with the purposes of this corporation. All such appointments to fill vacancies shall be made with the approval of a majority of the authorized General Directors and Trustees.
In the event the Board of Special Directors is unable to fill vacancies because of the death or resignation of all of the Special Directors, then the vacancies shall be filled by a majority of the authorized General Directors and Trustees.
e. Compensation. Special Directors shall be entitled to a fee based upon the hourly rate then charged for their professional services.
Section 4. Meetings of Directors.
a. Call of Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Boards may be called by any two General Directors, by the President, or by any Special Director. Special meetings of either Board may be called by any two (2) members, or in the case of the Board of General Directors, by any two (2) members, or the President.
b. Notice. Notice of all special meetings of the Boards, or each of them, or of an annual meeting to be held at a time or place other than a time or place fixed by resolution of the Boards, or either of them, shall be given to all Directors, or to the Directors of each respective Board, as the case may be.
c . Waiver of Notice. Transactions of any meeting of the Boards, or either of them, however called, however noticed, and wherever held, are as valid as though adopted at a meeting duly held after regular call and notice if a quorum of each Board is present and if, either before or after the meeting, each of the Directors not present signs a written waiver of notice and consent to the holding of such meeting. A Director shall be deemed to have waived notice and consented to the holding of a meeting if he votes to approve the minutes thereof. All such waivers or consents shall be filed with the minutes of meetings of the Boards, or either of them. Notice of a meeting shall also be deemed given to any Director who attends a meeting without protesting, before or at its commencement, the lack of proper notice to him.
d. Quorum. A majority of the Directors authorized shall constitute a quorum of for [sic] each of the Boards for transaction of business or for taking of action which may be taken with less than unanimous consent of all Directors.
e. Minutes. The General Directors shall designate one of their number or an officer of the corporation to keep minutes of their meetings.
The Special Directors shall designate one of their number to keep minutes of their meetings.
f. Adjourment. A majority of the Directors present, whether or not a quorum is present, may adjourn any Directors' meeting to another time and place. Notice of the time and place of holding an adjourned meeting need not be given to absent Directors if the time and place be fixed at the meeting adjourned.
g. Regular, Annual and Special Meetings. Meetings of the Boards shall be held not less often than annually. The Special Directors shall not meet as a Board more often than six (6) times per year. Meetings designated as annual meetings shall be held in the month of June of each year. Meetings other than annual meetings shall be called regular meetings or special meetings. The time and place of annual meetings may be fixed by unanimous resolution of the Boards, or either of them, and, once so fixed, shall not be subject to the notice requirements of subsection (b).
h. Use of Conference Telephones. Directors may meet through the use of conference telephone facilities or similar communications equipment, so long as all Directors participating in the meeting can hear and address one another.
i. Action without a Meeting. Any action required or permitted to be taken by the Boards, or either of them, may be taken without a meeting if all Directors of the respective Boards consent in writing to that action. Such action by written consent shall have the same force and effect as a unanimous vote of the full Board. Such written consent or consents shall be filed with the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors.
ARTICLE VIII Officers of the Corporation Section 1. Required Officers. Officers of the corporation, as distinguished from ecclesiastical posts, shall be elected by majority vote of the Board of General Directors, and shall include a President, a Secretary, and a Treasurer, each of whom shall serve at the pleasure of such Board. Each of said offices may be held by a person who is also a General Director. The Board of General Directors may elect the same person to the offices of Secretary and Treasurer.
Section 2. Optional Officers. The Board of General Directors may elect one or more Vice-Presidents, and one or more Assistant Secretaries and Assistant Treasurers and such other subordinate officers as the Board of General Directors shall from time to time deem appropriate.
Section 3. Duties of Officers.
a. The President shall have general supervisory responsibility for the business affairs of the corporation. In addition, he shall perform all other acts and duties which the Board of General Directors shall direct. The President shall be the Chief Executive officer of the corporation, to whom other officers and their agents shall report and be responsible for the proper performance of their duties.
b. The Vice-President, if any, shall carry out such duties on behalf of the corporation as may be assigned to him by the Board of General Directors or by the President. In the absence or disability of the President, the duties of the President shall be discharged by the Vice-President c. The Treasurer shall be the Chief Financial Officer of the corporation and shall have custody of its corporate funds, books and financial records. The Treasurer shall have authority to receive and accept money, collect debts, open bank accounts, and make disbursements in the name of the corporation. The Treasurer shall keep or cause to be kept proper books of account reflecting all business done by the corporation and of all monies received and disbursed, and shall prepare or cause to be prepared financial statements at the request of the Board of General Directors. The Treasurer shall deposit all money and other valuables in the name and to the credit of the corporation, with such depositories as may be designated by the Board of General Directors. The Treasurer shall disburse funds of the corporation at the direction of the Board of General Directors. The Treasurer shall, whenever requested to do so by the President or Board of General Directors, account for all transactions engaged in or authorized by him as Treasurer.
d. The Assistant Treasurer, if any, shall carry out such duties on behalf of the corporation as may be assigned or delegated to him by the Board of General Directors, by the President, or by the Treasurer.
In the absence or disability of the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer shall discharge the duties of the Treasurer.
e. The Secretary shall keep or cause to be kept a book of minutes of all meetings of the Trustees and of the Board of General Directors, and of the meetings of any committee for which the Board requires that minutes be kept. The Secretary shall keep or cause to be kept, at the principal office of the corporation, a copy of these Bylaws. The Secretary shall keep the seal of the corporation and shall attest all certificates or other legal documents requiring certification on behalf of the corporation.
f. The Assistant Secretary, if any, shall carry out such duties on behalf of the corporation as may be assigned or delegated to him by the Board of General Directors, by the President, or by the Secretary.
In the absence or disability of the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary shall discharge the duties of the Secretary.
Section 4. Execution of Contracts. Contracts, instruments of conveyance or encumbrance, or other obligations of the corporation may be executed and delivered on behalf of the corporation by any two (2) officers of the corporation unless the Board of General Directors provides otherwise by general or special resolution.
ARTICLE IX Liability of Directors and Officers Directors, Officers, Trustees and other agents of the corporation, and the property of such persons, shall not be subject to or chargeable with payment of corporation debts or obligations.
ARTICLE X Ordination of Ministers and Religious Orders Section 1. Ordination. The Church shall have full power and authority to ordain ministers, who shall be empowered to perform marriage ceremonies, administer the confessional, bury the dead, baptize, practice spiritual healing, give spiritual healing, give spiritual advice, and minister to the spiritual needs of congregations and parishioners; to revoke such status of ordained minister; and to grant and revoke such other degrees and certificates of attainment or qualification as may be appropriate.
Section 2. Code of Conduct. This Church shall ask and require from its ordained ministers conformity with the following minister's code (known as the Scientology Auditor's Code), relating to the spiritual ministration to, and guidance of, all parishioners and/or confessants:
I HEREBY PROMISE AS AN AUDITOR TO FOLLOW THE AUDITOR'S CODE.
1. I promise not to evaluate for the preclear or tell him what he should think about his ease in session.
2. I promise not to invalidate the preclear's case or gains in or out of session.
3. I promise to administer only Standard Tech to a preclear in the standard way.
4. I promise to keep all auditing appointments once made.
5. I promise not to process a preclear who has not had sufficient rest and who is physically tired.
6. I promise not to process a preclear who is improperly fed or hungry.
7. I promise not to permit a frequent change of auditors.
8. I promise not to sympathize with a preclear but to be effective.
9. I promise not to let the preclear end session on his own determinism but to finish off those cycles I have begun.
10. I promise never to walk off from a preclear in session.
11. I promise never to get angry with preclear in session.
12. I promise to run every major case action to a floating needle.
13, I promise never to run any one action beyond its floating needle.
14. I promise to grant beingness to the preclear in session.
15. I promise not to mix the processes of Scientology with other practices except when the preclear is physically ill and only medical means will serve.
16. I promise to maintain Communication with the preclear and not to cut his comm or permit him to overrun in session.
17. I promise not to enter comments, expressions or enturbulence into a session that distract a preclear from his case.
18. I promise to continue to give the preclear the process or auditing command when needed in the session.
19. I promise not to let a preclear run a wrongly understood command.
20. I promise not to explain, justify or make excuses in session for any auditor mistakes whether real or imagined.
21. I promise to estimate the current case state of a preclear only by Standard Case Supervision data and not to diverge because of some imagined difference in the case.
22. I promise never to use the secrets of a preclear divulged in session for punishment or personal gain.
23. I promise to never falsify worksheets of sessions.
24. I promise to see that any donation received for processing is refunded following the policies of the Claims Verification Board, if the preclear is dissatisfied and demands it within three months after the processing, the only condition being that he may not again be processed or trained.
25. I promise not to advocate Dianetics or Scientology only to cure illness or only to treat the insane, knowing well they were intended for spiritual gain.
26. I promise to cooperate fully with the authorized organizations of Dianetics and Scientology in safeguarding the ethical use and practice of those subjects.
27. I promise to refuse to permit any being to be physically injured, violently damaged, operated on or killed in the name of "mental treatment".
28. I promise not to permit sexual liberties or violations of patients.
29. I promise to refuse to admit to the ranks of practitioners any being who is insane.
Section 3. Religious Orders. The Church may establish and maintain religious orders, the purposes of which shall be the carrying out of the religious and administrative activities of this Church and corporation. The specific functions and duties of such religious orders, and of the members of such orders, shall be as determined and assigned by the Board of General Directors in accordance with the Scriptures, and consistent with the purposes for religious orders herein stated.
Acceptance of persons into the religious orders of the Church shall be governed by the applicable Scriptures. Persons seeking acceptance into a religious order of this Church shall enter into a covenant expressing the individual's desire and intent to devote himself to accomplish the goals and purposes of this Church and the Religion of Scientology. All members of the religious order shall agree to abide by the policies of this Corporation, the Scriptures, the Articles, and these Bylaws.
Section 4. Terminations. Membership, affiliation, charters, ordinations, certifications, or other special dispensations, or recognitions, shall terminate; by direction of the Board of General Directors, for the following causes:
a. Death, b. Resignation, c. Actions deemed contrary to the principles, purposes, aims, code, ecclesiastical letters, policies, covenants, agreements, the Bylaws of this corporation and Scientology.
Section 5. Return of Property. Upon any termination, pursuant to Section 4 of this Article X, then the person who's [sic] status has been terminated shall be required immediately to return to the corporation or Church any and all real and personal property issued to such person by this corporation or Church.
Section 6. Discretion of Directors. Pursuant to the Scriptures, particularly the ethics and justice system of Scientology, membership in a Religious Order, ordination, or affiliation may be denied or revoked for cause deemed to be sufficient by the General Directors in their sole discretion.
ARTICLE XI Principal Office The corporation's principal office shall be located at such place, within or without the State of California, as a majority of the Board of General Directors may, in its discretion, determine from time to time.
ARTICLE XII Seal The corporation shall have a seal, the form of which shall be determined and adopted by the Board of General Directors.
ARTICLE XIII Amendments Unless otherwise provided in these Bylaws, these Bylaws may be amended or repealed and new Bylaws adopted by unanimous vote of the Boards;
provided that amended Bylaws or new Bylaws do not jeopardize the tax-exempt status of this corporation, do not alter the purposes of this corporation or the qualifications required of its Trustees and Directors, and do not contravene the Scriptures.
CERTIFICATION We, the undersigned, do hereby certify:
1. That we are the Directors of the Church of Spiritual Technology, a nonprofit religious corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of California; and 2. That the foregoing Bylaws constitute the Bylaws of said corporation, as duly adopted at a meeting of the Directors of said corporation, held on the 7th day of June, 1982.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto subscribed our names this 7th day of June# 1982.
[signature: "Lyman Spurlock"] _________________________________________ LYMAN SPURLOCK, General Director [signature: "Rebecca (Pook) Hay"] _________________________________________ REBECCA POOK, General Director [signature: "Maria H(?) Starkey"] _________________________________________ MARIA STARKEY, General Director [signature: "Stephen A Lenske] _________________________________________ STEPHEN A. LENSKE, Special Director [signature: "Sherman D Lenske"] _________________________________________ SHERMAN D. LENSKE, Special Director [signature: "LE Heller"] _________________________________________ LAWRENCE E. HELLER, Special Director Date: 13 Apr 2000 08:31:10 -0000 From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Legal Archives) Subject: CST Legal Papers 05 Starkey Declaration Message-ID: <382077A5853@127.0.0.1> NOTES:
1. This is included in the "CST Legal Papers" series for several reasons. One is because of Norman Starkey's later major role in transferring ALL of L. Ron Hubbard's copyrights to CST (See "CST Legal Papers 10 Copyright Transfer"). Another is the fact that CST now fully owns the FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION known as "Author Services, Inc."
(ASI), which is uniquely described in this document. (See "CST Legal Papers 08 IRS Closing Agreement Excerpts") 2. This is a Declaration by Norman Starkey, stating why the court should appoint him "special administrator" to LRH's estate. The document date is 5 February 1986, shortly after LRH's reported death.
3. This Declaration is extremely important, because it reveals that the FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION known as "Author's Services, Inc." (ASI) has corporate and contractual rights to involvement in "all aspects of asset management." Starkey candidly reveals that ASI's duties also include "maintenance and promotion of Mr. Hubbard's numerous copyrights." (See Paragraph #5 of Declaration.) Although Starkey puts a lot of emphasis on the fiction works, nothing in his Declaration EXCLUDES "asset management" of ANY of the copyrighted works--including Dianetics and Scientology works. In fact, in Paragraph #7(b), Starkey admits that part of ASI's "ongoing business activities" include "Continued Supervision of the publication and sale of the many other written and spoken works authored by Mr. Hubbard."
4. These revelations of Starkey regarding the latitude that ASI has in its "ongoing business activities" becomes more important in light of the fact that ASI is now wholly owned by the CORPORATION known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST), as ordered by IRS in the formerly secret "Closing Agreement" (See "CST Legal Papers 08 IRS Closing Agreement Excerpts") 5. CST--which currently owns ASI--is NOT a church; it is a CORPORATION. Ref. U.S. Claims Court No. 581-88T, Judge Bruggink:
"CST is not a church...CST represents that it is a religious corporation organized to accomplish the activities of a church. Despite its name, CST is not itself a church... ."
Here is the Starkey Declaration:
====================================================================== ---------------------------------- LAW OFFICES OGLE, GALLO & MERZON A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS MAIL TO: P O BOX 720 770 MORRO BAY BLVD.
MORRO BAY, CA 93443 PHONES: AREA CODE 805 772-7353 (SECOND NUMBER ILLEGIBLE) ----------------------------------- DECLARATION OF NORMAN STARKEY I, NORMAN F. STARKEY, do hereby declare as follows:
1. I am a Founding Scientologist having first become a parishioner of the Church of Scientology in 1960.
2. I have been an ordained minister of the Church of Scientology for approximately 20 years and have performed marriage, funeral and other church ceremonial activities.
3. I have been a responsible staff member and executive of various Churches of Scientology from 1965 to 1980.
4. I am presently the president of Author Services, Inc., a California for-profit corporation. I have held this position since approximately January 1983.
5. Author Services, Inc. was engaged by decedent in 1982, to manage the business and literary interests of L. Ron Hubbard, decedent herein. The corporation duties included all aspects of asset management, including but not limited to preservation, investment and promotion of assets belonging to the decedent. The duties also included maintenance and promotion of Mr. Hubbard's numerous copyrights. Throughout Mr. Hubbard's lifetime, he was a prolific author. In the 1930's and 1940's Mr. Hubbard wrote and published several hundred science fiction, adventure, western and fantasy short stories and novels. He has been recognized as one of the greatest writers of the Golden Age of Science Fiction and has sold millions of copies of fiction works in many different languages. In the last several years, Mr. Hubbard has written two major works of science Fiction.
[PAGE NUMBER] 1. ATTACHMENT 3 (f)(3)* *[NOTE: There is no indication of what the "ATTACHMENT 3 (f)(3)" reference is referring to.] ------------------------PAGE BREAK----------------------------- 6. Since 1968, I have worked closely with Mr. Hubbard while serving in various capacities as a Scientology minister and Church staff member and for the past several years have been entrusted with his literary and business affairs as president of Author Services, Inc. as covered above.
7. Author Services, Inc., has many ongoing business activities with which I am intimately familiar and which must continue to be preserved. These include:
(a) Current and future publication of Mr. Hubbard's science fiction works which are scheduled to be published approximately every 2 months for the next 18 months.
(b) Continued Supervision of the publication and sale of the many other written and spoken works authored by Mr. Hubbard.
(c) Supervision and control of many important business investments in Mr. Hubbard's name.
(d) Immediate banking activities require my appointment as Special Administrator. There exists now, having been accumulated since Mr. Hubbard's death, approximately $150,000 in uncashed checks. As acting trustee, I can negotiate and deal with checks pertaining to trust assets. But my immediate appointment as Special Administrator is required to deal with checks pertaining to probate assets. The majority of such checks pertain to probate assets.
(e) All of the matters described in subparaqraphs (a) through (d) above require immediate attention.
8. It is not safe to allow the assets of the estate to remain unattended or only informally maintained until the [PAGE NUMBER] 2.
------------------------PAGE BREAK----------------------------- appointment of an executor pursuant to the terms of the decedent's Will. Checks representing income from copyright royalties, oil and gas investments and other investments are going uncashed due to the fact that a personal representative has not been appointed. A number of the investments require additional funding in order to achieve maximum potential. There exists with respect to some of the oil wells, the right to drill offsets, which could be lucrative for the estate and its beneficiaries. Finally, Mr. Hubbard is a defendant in several lawsuits which need immediate attention. Thus it is necessary that declarant be appointed special administrator of decedent's estate.
9. It has come to my attention in newspaper articles reporting the death of Mr. Hubbard that his estranged son, whom he had not seen since 1958, Ronald DeWolf, also known as L. Ron Hubbard, Jr., also known as "Nibs" Hubbard, along with his Boston attorney, Michael Flynn, is threatening a Will contest in this matter. DeWolf is making this claim to the media despite the fact that he has been disinherited in each Will executed by the decedent since at least 1979, including decedent's Last Will and Testament executed on January 23, 1986. These threats are reminiscent of Mr. Dewolf's abortive attempt in 1982 to gain control over this estate by petitioning the Riverside Superior Court to have his father declared a missing person. Mr. DeWolf's lawyer in that bid, Michael Flynn, was disqualified and held in contempt. These recent threats by DeWolf represent additional support for the declarant's appointment as special [PAGE NUMBER] 3.
------------------------PAGE BREAK----------------------------- administrator of decedent's estate.
10. I am qualified to be appointed special administrator of decedent's estate for the following reasons:
(a) I am nominated and appointed executor by decedent in his Last Will and Testament, dated January 23, 1986, which is presented herewith for probate.
(b) I am the Trustee of the Author's Family Trust-B dated January 23, 1986 which is the sole beneficiary of the estate of the decedent pursuant to the provision of his Will dated January 23, 1986.
(c) I have worked closely with decedent over the last eighteen years, except that during the last five years Mr. Hubbard elected to seclude himself to conclude some spiritual research as well as author some film scripts and books. During this period, communications have been very limited, especially in the last two years. During this five-year period, myself and others have carried out, as pre-instructed by him, the conduct of his business affairs.
But at all times, Mr. Hubbard was well aware of the manner in which his business affairs were conducted.
(d) Because of my position with Author Services, Inc., I am intimately familiar with all of the assets and liabilities of decedent's estate.
11. That the foregoing is within my personal knowledge, and if called as a witness, I could testify to the same.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
[PAGE NUMBER] 4.
------------------------PAGE BREAK----------------------------- Executed this 5th day of February, 1986, at Morro Bay, California.
___________[signature]_____________ NORMAN F. STARKEY Declarant [PAGE NUMBER] 5.
Date: 13 Apr 2000 08:31:11 -0000 From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Legal Archives) Subject: CST Legal Papers 02 Articles of Incorporation Message-ID: <38207CE6004@127.0.0.1> NOTES:
1. These are the Articles of Incorporation for the CORPORATION known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST).
2. The date of execution is 27 May 1982. The date of filing is 28 May 1982. Note that this is AFTER the earlier Assignment Agreement (See "CST Legal Papers 01 Assignment Agreement") where a fictional, non-existent "CST" was granted powerful options by Sherman Lenske.
3. The person signing as "Incorporator" is Sherman Lenske, an attorney who is not a Scientologist, and who also made himself a "Special Director" of CST. (See "CST Legal Papers 03 Bylaws") 4. CST is NOT a church; it is a CORPORATION. Ref. U.S. Claims Court No. 581-88T, Judge Bruggink (See "CST Legal Papers 07 Claims Court Excerpts"):
"CST is not a church...CST represents that it is a religious corporation organized to accomplish the activities of a church. Despite its name, CST is not itself a church... ."
5. Note that "ARTICLE VI, Members of the Corporation" says that there shall be no members. This, under California law, prevents anyone but the directors and officers and "Special Directors" from having access to the records of the corporation.
6. The name "Church of Spiritual Technology" is a fraud, since it is a CORPORATION and NOT a church. (See also "CST Legal Papers 03 Bylaws") Here are the Articles of Incorporation:
======================================================================== [STAMP]:
-------------------------------- ENDORSED FILED in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of California MAY 28 1982 MARCH FONG EU, Secretary of State ----------------------------------- [END STAMP] ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY ARTICLE ONE Name of the Corporation The name of the corporation shall be Church of Spiritual Technology.
ARTICLE TWO Duration of the Corporation The duration of the corporation shall be perpetual.
ARTICLE THREE Purpose of the Corporation The corporation is a religious Corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law exclusively for religious purposes.
Specifically its purpose is to espouse, present, propagate, practice, ensure, and maintain the purity and integrity of the religion of Scientology, as the same has been developed and may be further developed by L. Ron Hubbard to the and that any person wishing to, and participating in Scientology may derive the greatest possible good of the spiritual awareness his Beingness, Doingness and Knowingness. More particularly, the corporation is formed for the purpose of providing a corporate organization through which and by means of which the operations and activities of a church, may be accomplished. Its purpose is to protect and preserve the religion of Scientology through establishment of religious scholarship funds, museums, librarys [sic] and such other institutions which will ensure the benefits of Scientology to future generations. More particularly, the corporation is formed for the accomplishment, without limitation, of the following more specific Purposes:
a. To serve as a means of promulgating, preserving and administering the religious faith of Scientology throughout the World; and b. To regulate and conduct religious services, including services, [sic] for its parishioners; and c. To conduct religious and educational activities of various kinds;
and d. To foster and enhance the spiritual welfare of its followers, which shall be deemed to be Scientologists throughout the world.
ARTICLE FOUR Power of the Corporation and Limitations Thereon In the conduct of its activities and the accomplishment of its purposes, the corporation shall have, shall enjoy, and may exercise, to their fullest extent, all powers which nonprofit corporations are permitted by law to have and to enjoy; PROVIDED HOWEVER, that:
a. The property of the corporation is irrevocably dedicated to religious purposes, and no part of the income or assets of the corporation shall ever inure to the benefit of any private party or individual; and b. No substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall be devoted to attempts to influence legislation by propaganda or otherwise, and the corporation shall not participate or intervene, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office; and c. The corporation shall not carry on any activities not permitted to be carried on by an organization exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, or successor statutes of similar import; and d. The corporation shall not carry on any activities not permitted to be carried on by a corporation described in Section 170(c)(2), contributions to which are deductible under Section 170(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, or successor statutes of similar import.
ARTICLE FIVE Initial Agent for Service of Process The name and address in this state of the corporation's initial agent for service of process is SHERMAN D. LENSKE, 6400 Canoga Avenue, Suite 315, Woodland Hills, California 91367.
ARTICLE SIX Members of the Corporation This corporation shall have no members.
ARTICLE SEVEN Disposition of the Corporation's Assets Upon Dissolution In keeping with the religious purposes to which the corporation's property is irrevocably dedicated, upon the winding up and dissolution of the corporation, and after payment or adequate provision is made for its debts and obligations, the corporation's remaining assets shall be distributed to one or more nonprofit funds, foundations, trusts or corporations which are organized and operated exclusively for religious purposes, and which have established or are entitled to receive tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, or successor statutes of similar import.
ARTICLE EIGHT Amendment of the Corporation's Articles Of Incorporation Notwithstanding any provision of the law permitting their amendment upon the affirmative act of less than all of the corporation's incumbent directors, the articles of incorporation of this corporation may be amended only upon the unanimous vote of all the Directors of the corporation then incumbent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we and each of us, have subscribed these Articles of Incorporation, in duplicate, on this, the 27th day of May, 1982.
____________[signature]_____________ SHERMAN D. LENSKE, Incorporator The undersigned declares that he is the person who executed the above Articles of Incorporation, and such instrument is his act and deed.
____________[signature]_____________ SHERMAN D. LENSKE Date: 13 Apr 2000 08:36:35 -0000 From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Legal Archives) Subject: CST Legal Papers 06 Covenant, Advanced Technology Message-ID: <386EE780692@127.0.0.1> NOTES:
1. This is a "Covenant" (agreement; broadest usage: contract) between Norman F. Starkey and the corporation known as "Religious Technology Center" (RTC) granting RTC the exclusive license to USE and SUBLICENSE the Advanced Technology outside of the United States and its territories and possessions. "License," in Black's Law Dictionary, is defined as "the permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort [civil violation]."
2. This Covenant only grants a LICENSE for the use of the Advanced Technology in certain specific ways. It DOES NOT convey or transfer ANY of the copyrights to the Advanced Technology, and specifically states that in the Covenant. See section 7(a) of this Covenant.
3. The date of this Covenant is 30 November 1988.
4. On 29 November 1993, this Covenant was transferred completely by Starkey to the CORPORATION known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST) in a document entitled "ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION (RTC)" (see "CST Legal Papers 09 Assignment and Assumption"), and which made CST the successor to Starkey/the Estate. Therefore, wherever this Covenant refers to "the Estate," and any "successor of the Estate," the designation "[CST]" has been added to this document to indicate CST's current ownership of this licensing Covenant and CST's role.
5. CST is NOT a church; it is a CORPORATION. Ref. U.S. Claims Court No. 581-88T, Judge Bruggink:
"CST is not a church...CST represents that it is a religious corporation organized to accomplish the activities of a church. Despite its name, CST is not itself a church... ."
Here is the document, plus three attachments--Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, and Exhibit 3:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY COVENANT - ESTATE[CST]/RTC THIS COVENANT, effective this 30 day of November 1988, is hereby executed by and between NORMAN F. STARKEY, as Executor of the Will of L. Ron Hubbard, doing business as L. Ron Hubbard Library (hereinafter referred to as "the Estate" [CST]), and RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California non-profit religious corporation (hereinafter referred to as "RTC").
RECITALS A. L. Ron Hubbard was the founder of the religion of Scientology, which is based on a body of thruths, and the technology for applying them, that was discovered, described, and refined by L. Ron Hubbard through forty years of research and study, and is contained in the writings and recorded spoken words of L. Ron Hubbard relating to the religion of Scientology and the organizations formed to disseminate the religion of Scientology. Such writings and recorded spoken words of L. Ron Hubbard are hereinafter referred to as the "Scientology Scriptures." The Scientology Scriptures are the sole source of all the doctrines, tenets, sacrements, rituals and policies of the religion of Scientology.
B. L. Ron Hubbard published much of the Scientology Scriptures for the use and benefit of mankind through the religion and organizations of Scientology. The portion of the Scientology Scriptures that constitutes the upper levels of spiritual awareness of the religion is called the religion's "Advanced Technology." The Advanced Technology is a substantial body of copyrighted unpublished written information that has been protected and maintained as highly confidential property, and that is to be made available only to Scientology organizations that qualify to deliver the Advanced Technology (referred to herein as the "Advanced Scientology Organizations").
C. The Advanced Technology is the most sacred part of the Scientology Scriptures and is maintained and used in strict accordance with Scientology Scriptural requirements. These Scriptural requirements ensure the sanctity of the Advanced Technology and the orthodox and ethical practice of the Scientology faith for all time.
D. A fundamental doctrine of the religion of Scientology is that the Advanced Technology can be grasped and utilized only by Scientologists who, through processing, have attained an appropriate preclear or pre-OT grade on the Scientology Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart, as described in the particular level of Advanced Technology. Under this doctrine, revelation of Advanced Technology to one who has not attained the appropriate preclear or pre-OT grade risks spiritual harm.
E. Orthodox and ethical Scientology religious practice therefore requires that Advanced Technology be used without alteration and consistent with the Scriptures, that the confidentiality of Advanced Technology be absolutely maintained, and that Advanced Technology be revealed only to Scientologists who have advanced to the appropriate level of spiritual awareness.
F. RTC was formed by Scientologists, with the approval of L. Ron Hubbard, for the exclusive purpose of protecting the religion of Scientology by ensuring that Scientology religious services are orthodox and comport with all Scriptual requirements. RTC accomplishes its religious purpose by authorizing and supervising the use of Scientology religious trademarks by the Church of Scientology International, the Mother Church of the Scientology faith, and by authorizing and supervising the use of Advanced Technology bu Advanced Scientology Organizations.
G. L. Ron Hubbard died on January 24, 1986 and Norman F. Starkey was, on February 16, 1986, duly appointed the Executor of the Will of L. Ron Hubbard by the Superior Court in and for the County of San Luis Obispo, California, Case No. 20885. Case No. 20885 remains pending as of the date of execution of this Covenant, and therefore the Estate [CST] currently owns all rights in the Advanced Technology that were owned by L. Ron Hubbard at the time of his death and has the right to control the use of such Advanced Technology. The Estate [CST] is now prepared to grant authority to RTC to protect and control the utilization of the Advanced Technology throughout the world in accordance with Scientology Scriptural requirements.
H. It is the purpose of this Covenant to authorize the orthodox and ethical use of the Advanced Technology identified in Exhibits 1 and 2 attached hereto throughout the world, excluding the United States and its territories and possessions (hereinafter referred to as the "Territory"), and to enable RTC to permit Advanced Scientology Organizations to utilize the Advanced Technology in the Territory in accordance with the terms and conditions contained herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual convenants and conditions contained herein, the Estate [CST] and RTC covenant as follows:
1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth in paragraphs A through H above are made a part of this Covenant.
2. Grant of Authority. The Estate [CST] hereby grants to RTC the exclusive authority to:
(a) permit Advanced Scientology Organizations in the Territory as RTC may select:
(i) to use the Advanced Technology identified in Exhibit 1 attached hereto for the purpose of processing preclears and pre-OTs in the Advanced Technology; and (ii) use the Advanced Technology identified in Exhibit 2 attached hereto in the Territory to train persons for the purpose of processing preclears and pre-OTs in the Advanced Technology;
(b) make such copies of the Advanced Technology as are required to comply with covenants between RTC and Advanced Scientology Organizations, and to distribute such copies to Advanced Scientology Organizations in accordance with the limitations set forth in Paragraph 3 of this Covenant, but RTC may not permit any third parties to copy or distribute the Advanced Technology; and (c) protect and enforce all rights in the Advanced Technology in the Territory, including copyright rights and trade secret rights, and to collect damages for any past, present, or future infringement or misappropriation of such rights by third parties.
3. Limitations. RTC shall use the Advanced Technology, and shall ensure that it is used by Advanced Scientology Organizations, without alteration and strictly in accordance with the Scientology Scriptures, particularly with that portion of the Scientology Scriptures known as the Scientology systems of ethics and justice and its related administrative policies.
4. Distribution of Contributions.
(a) RTC shall not be required to make any monetary payments to the Estate [CST] for the grant of authority set forth in paragraph 2 of this Covenant.
(b) It is understood and agreed that RTC will establish appropriate rates of contribution for the use of the Advanced Technology by Advanced Scientology Organization as a way to provide financial support for RTC's religious activities and for the dissemination and growth of the religion of Scientology.
(c) RTC shall apply to religious and charitable purposes, other than the support of RTC and its operations, at least ninety percent (90%) of the total contributions that RTC receives from authorizing the Advanced Scientology Organizations to use the Advanced Technology.
Such religious and charitable purposes shall be determined by the Directors of RTC, and must be either consistent with the purposes of the religion of Scientology according to the Scientology Scriptures, or for the general purpose of advancing the moral and ethical level of mankind. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, acceptable purposes for the uses of such contributions shall be:
(1) establishing and maintaining an indestructible record of the Scientology Scriptures;
(2) establishing and maintaining a museum of the religion of Scientology;
(3) establishing religious schools, scholarships and retreats;
(4) supporting other qualified organizations of the religion of Scientology; and (5) publishing, disseminating and promoting literature that is not part of the Scientology Scriptures but which, in the judgment of the Directors of RTC, is in concert with the broad goals of Scientology and is worthy of support for the general benefit of mankind.
(d) RTC may retain for the purposes of paying RTC's operating and overhead expenses up to ten percent (10%) of the total contributions received by RTC from authorizing the Advanced Scientology Organizations to use the Advanced Technology.
5. Term and Termination.
(a) The term of this Covenant shall be perpetual, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 5(b) through 5(d) below.
(b) This Covenant is subject to termination at any time by any successor of the Estate [CST] to the rights in the Advanced Technology. Any continuation of this Covenant after such a succession will be at the will of the Estate's successor. [NOTE: Successor of the estate is the corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST), who now has the right to continue this Covenant or not.] (c) The Estate [CST] retains the right to terminate this Covenant at any time if it determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that RTC has failed to preserve and maintain the confidentiality, purity, and ethical use of the Advanced Technology in accordance with the Scientology Scriptures and the Scientology system of ethics and justice, or that RTC in any way has placed the Advanced Technology in danger of appropriation by any entity that is outside of or hostile to the religion of Scientology, or that RTC has permitted and is permitting use of the Advanced Technology in any way that is contrary to the Scientology Scriptures or the Scientology system of ethics and justice or seriously damages the religion of Scientology.
(d) On termination of this Covenant for any reason, RTC shall immediately cease all use of the Advanced Technology, shall promptly account to the Estate [CST] for each physical copy of the Advanced Technology, and shall transfer all such copies within RTC's possession, custody, or control to the Estate [CST] or to the Estate's successor [NOTE: CST became the Estate's successor], or to the designee of the Estate [CST] or the Estate's successor [CST became the Estate's successor].
6. Indemnification.
(a) RTC acknowledges the full responsibility of RTC and the Advanced Scientology Organizations for the ethical and proper use and delivery of the Advanced Technology according to the Scientology Scriptures, and agrees that it will make no claim that the Estate [CST] is responsible for the content or delivery of the Advanced Technology. RTC hereby indemnifies and waives any claim against the Estate [CST] or its agents, employees, representatives or successors [CST became the Estate's successor], and agrees to hold them harmless from all costs, liabilities, and claims of any kind that arise from or relate to the use or misuse of the Advanced Technology by RTC or the Advanced Scientology Organizations. All such claims shall be defended at the expense of RTC.
(b) The writings of L. Ron Hubbard are a record of research and observation by him into the nature of the human mind and spirit. These writings contain a spiritual and religious guide intended to assist persons to become more aware of themselves as spiritual beings, restoring respect for self and others, and not for treating or diagnosing human ailments of body or mind, nor for engaging in teaching or practicing medical arts or sciences. The Estate [CST] makes no claim that the nature or purpose of the Advanced Technology exceeds this description of Scientology or that the application of the Advanced Technology will have any particular effect on any particular parishioner.
(c) RTC shall include the disclaimer set forth in paragraph 7(b) above in all agreements with Advanced Scientology Organizations relating to the Advanced Technology and shall require the Advanced Scientology Organizations to obtain from all persons to whom the Advanced Technology is to be delivered a waiver identical to the waiver set forth in Exhibit 3 attached hereto.
7. Title and Copyrights.
(a) RTC acknowledges that all copyright rights covering the Advanced Technology are retained and owned exclusively by the Estate [CST].
8. Protection and Enforcement of Rights.
(a) RTC shall initiate suits against any third party who infringes RTC's rights granted under this Covenant if the opinion of RTC's counsel is that such infringement should be enforced. The conduct of such lawsuits initiated by RTC shall be within the sole control of RTC, who shall vigorously prosecute such suits. However, the Estate [CST] may at its option and its own expense (1) participate in such suits in an advisory capacity, (2) be joined in such suit as a party, or (3) initiate suit on its own behalf.
(b) RTC shall pay all legal expenses incurred in connection with the conduct of litigation hereunder that it institutes and shall be entitled to retain any award or damages received pursuant to such litigation. To the extent that the Estate [CST] participates in such suits, any award in damages received shall be divided between the Estate [CST] and RTC in proportion to their share of expenses incurred in connection with such litigation.
9. Assignability. This Covenant shall be considered personal to RTC, and RTC may not assign any of its rights or duties under this Covenant.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and intending to be legally bound, duly authorized representatives of RTC have executed this Covenant below.
Date: November 30, 1988 By [signature] _________________________________ NORMAN F. STARKEY As Executor of the Will of L. Ron Hubbard RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER Date: Dec 15, 1988 By [signature] _________________________________ Name: Warren McShane Title: Secretary ------------------------------------------------------------------ Exhibit 1 PRECLEAR/PRE-OT PROCESSING LEVELS GRADE/LEVEL MATERIALS/STATE ATTAINED Grade V & VA Release The Power and Power Plus Processes (Power Release) Grade VI Release R6 End Words (Whole Track Release) Clear Clearing Course OT I Section One Operating Thetan OT II Section Two Operating Thetan OT III Section Three Operating Thetan New OT IV Operating Thetan Drug Rundown Completion New OT V Audited New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans New OT V1 Hubbard Solo New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans Auditing Course New OT VII Solo New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans Completion New OT VIII Truth Revealed New OT IX Character New OT X Operating New OT XI Future L - 10 List 10 L - 11 New Life Rundown L - 12 Flag OT Executive Rundown OT Review Auditing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Exhibit 2 AUDITOR TRAINING CLASS/DESCRIPTION CERTIFICATE/FORMAL NAME Class VII Auditor Hubbard Graduate Auditor Class VII Case Supervisor Hubbard Graduate Case Supervisor Class VIII Auditor Hubbard Standard (Confid. Section) Technical Specialist Solo Case Supervisor Hubbard Solo Case Supervisor Class X Auditor Class X Auditor Class X Case Supervisor Class X Case Supervisor Class XI Auditor Class XI Auditor Class XII Auditor Class XII Auditor Class XII Case Supervisor Class XII Case Supervisor NED for OT's Auditor Hubbard Advanced Courses Specialist NED for OT's Case Supervisor Hubbard Advanced Courses Specialist Case Supervisor Confidential Section of the Solo Auditor Course (R6EW Materials) Senior NCT's Course New Vitality Rundown Auditor's Course New Vitality Rundown Case Supervisor Course ------------------------------------------------------------------ Exhibit 3 Waiver 1. The undersigned hereby acknowledges that:
a. The writings of L. Ron Hubbard ("LRH") are a record of observation and research by him into the nature of the human mind and spirit.
These writings contain a spiritual and religious guide intended to assist persons to become more aware of themselves as spiritual beings, restoring respect for self and others, and not for treating or diagnosing human ailments of body or mind, nor for engaging in teaching or practising medical arts or sciences. L. Ron Hubbard and his Estate [CST], RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER ("RTC"), and (Advanced Scientology Organization) make no claim that the nature or purpose of the Advanced Technology exceeds this description of Scientology or that the application of the Advanced Technology will have any particular effect on any particular parishioner.
b. The undersigned relies on (Advanced Scientology Organization) alone, without the participation of any other person or entity, for the ethical and proper delivery of the Advanced Technology according to the Scriptures.
c. The undersigned hereby waives any claims against L. Ron Hubbard and his Estate [CST], RTC, (Advanced Scientology Organization) and the agents, employees, representatives, predecessors, successorts, assigns, and affiliates of any of them, which is inconsistent with the preceding paragraph, and will hold them harmless from any related or resulting cost or liability, including attorneys' fees.
Dated: ________________________ ____________________________ Date: 13 Apr 2000 08:42:09 -0000 From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Legal Archives) Subject: CST Legal Papers 04 Przybylski Declaration Message-ID: <38C25A653F8@127.0.0.1> NOTES:
1. This is a Declaration of a Daniel J. Przybylski, purporting to be Vice President of the CORPORATION known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST).
2. The Declaration is dated 4 February 1986.
3. Przybylski misrepresents CST as a "the 'Church'". CST is NOT a church; it is a CORPORATION. Ref. U.S. Claims Court No. 581-88T, Judge Bruggink:
"CST is not a church...CST represents that it is a religious corporation organized to accomplish the activities of a church. Despite its name, CST is not itself a church... ."
4. The following note was in the original posting regarding paragraph #3 of the Declaration: "The copy this was OCR'ed from appears blank where the letter 'B' should be, as in 'Author's Family Trust-B'. But the hyphen is visible, as though it should be followed by the 'B,' and the exact number of spaces exist where the 'B' could, and seemingly should, be. This adds some confusion, because an EARLIER Will established an 'Author's Family Trust'--no 'B'. Was the 'B' whited out? If so, was it before, or AFTER the document was signed? Is the confusion intentional?"
5. Something else odd is that the actual day date in January 1986 is also in question, appearing to be at least partially unreadable. This raises the question of whether there was another will executed in January of 1986 on a different day.
6. Whichever Trust is being referred to, this Declaration states that CST is the "principal beneficiary" of that Trust.
Here is the Declaration:
------------------------------------------------------------------------- DECLARATION OF CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY I, Daniel J. Przybylski, declare the following to be true and correct:
1. I am the vice President and a Director of Church of Spiritual Technology (the "Church").
2. The Church is a California non-profit religious corporation.
3. The Church is the principal beneficiary under the provisions of that certain trust created by instrument [?dated 23?] January, 1986 and named the "Author's Family Trust - [B?]"* (the "Trust").
4. The Trust is the principal beneficiary under the Will of L.
Ron Hubbard, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Luis Obispo County.
5. The sole trustee of the Trust is Norman F. Starkey, who is also named in said will as the executor of the probate estate of L.
Ron Hubbard.
6. As the principal beneficiary of the Trust, which is in turn the principal beneficiary under said will, the Church urges said Court and any other court having jurisdiction:
(a) to appoint said Norman F. Starkey as Special Administrator of said probate estate, if there shall be any delay in the probate of said will or the appointment of the executor of said probate estate, and (b) that, because said will waives bond, and pursuant to the provisions of Probate Code [Section mark] 462, no bond be required of Norman F. Starkey as such Special Administrator, 7. The execution and delivery of this Declaration are authorized and directed by unanimous action of the Board of Directors of the Church duly taken in accordance with its Articles of Incorporation and bylaws.
I declare under penalty of perjury the above is true and correct.
Executed this 4th day of February, 1986, at Los Angeles, California.
_________[signature]____________ DANIEL J. PRZYBYLSKI Date: 13 Apr 2000 08:48:03 -0000 From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Legal Archives) Subject: CST Legal Papers 09 Assignment and Assumption Message-ID: <39188BA30E9@127.0.0.1> NOTES:
1. This "Assignment and Assupmtion" is the document wherein Norman Starkey transfers to the CORPORATION known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST) ALL of the licensing agreements Starkey had earlier made with the corporation known as "Religious Technology Center" (RTC) for use of the Advanced Technology.
2. CST is NOT a church; it is a CORPORATION. Ref. U.S. Claims Court No. 581-88T, Judge Bruggink:
"CST is not a church...CST represents that it is a religious corporation organized to accomplish the activities of a church. Despite its name, CST is not itself a church... ."
3. IMPORTANT: In the licensing agreements referred to in this document, NO COPYRIGHTS ARE ASSIGNED OR TRANSFERRED TO RTC. Only the rights to USE and SUBLICENSE the Advanced Technology to other organizations is granted.
4. Date this document was executed: 29 November 1993 Here is the document:
===================================================================== ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION (RTC) This Assignment and Assumption (RTC) is made and effective this 29th day of November, 1993, by and between NORMAN F. STARKEY, Trustee of Author's Family Trust-B ("Assignor"), and CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, a California nonprofit religious corporation ("Assignee").
Reference is made to the following described agreements between NORMAN F. STARKEY, as Executor of the Will of L. Ron Hubbard or as Trustee of Author's Family Trust, and RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California nonprofit religious corporation ("Agreements"):
Title Date (a) License Agreement September 17, 1987 (b) Advanced Technology Covenant-Estate/RTC November 30, 1988 (c) Addendum to Advanced Technology Covenant- Estate/RTC May 13, 1991 L. Ron Hubbard died on January 24, 1986, and NORMAN F. STARKEY was appointed Executor of his Will by the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court on February 18, 1986. On January 3, 1989, said Superior Court ordered distribution of the estate of L. Ron Hubbard, including ownership of various interests in the Advanced Technology, the subject matter of the Agreements, to Assignor [Starkey]. The agreement by and between Assignor [Starkey] and L. Ron Hubbard, dated January 23, 1986, establishing Author's Family Trust-B, requires distribution to Assignee [CST] of all assets held in trust by Assignor [Starkey].
In consideration of Assignee's [CST'S] agreement to perform all of the obligations of Assignor [Starkey], if any, under the Agreements, Assignor [Starkey] hereby assigns, transfers and sets over to Assignee [CST] all of his right, title and interest in the Agreements.
Assignee [CST], in consideration of the foregoing assignment and transfer by Assignor [Starkey], hereby assumes and agrees, on behalf of Assignor [Starkey], to perform the obligations, if any, imposed upon Assignor [Starkey] under each of the Agreements.
Notice of this Assignment shall be given by Assignee [CST].
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment and Assumption as of the date first above written.
__________[signature]__________ NORMAN F. STARKEY, Trustee of Author's Family Trust-B The foregoing Assignment and Assumption is hereby accepted and agreed to in accordance with its terms.
CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY By______[signature]____________ RUSSELL BELLIN, Its President By______[signature]____________ JANE McNAIRN, Its Secretary Date: 13 Apr 2000 08:48:04 -0000 From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Legal Archives) Subject: CST Legal Papers 07 US Claims Court Excerpts Message-ID: <39189422474@127.0.0.1> NOTES:
1. This document contains excerpts from the famous (infamous?) Judge Bruggink ruling in United States Claims Court No. 581-88T, dated 29 June 1992. This document establishes much that was not priorly known about the CORPORATION known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST).
2. CST is NOT a church; it is a CORPORATION. Ref. U.S. Claims Court No. 581-88T, Judge Bruggink (this document):
"CST is not a church...CST represents that it is a religious corporation organized to accomplish the activities of a church. Despite its name, CST is not itself a church... ."
3. The Bylaws of CST also establish plainly that CST is a CORPORATION and NOT a church. (See "CST Legal Papers 03 Bylaws") 4. This is the document that verifies Meade Emory as a FOUNDER of CST.
Although it is not contained in this document, it has been elsewhere proven that Meade Emory was Assistant to the Commissioner of IRS between 1975 and 1977, the same years that IRS documents were being passed to members of the Guardian's Office.
5. This document also establishes that ALL of the "Special Directors" of CST are non-Scientologists, yet have veto power over all other directors and officers of CST. (See "CST Legal Papers 03 Bylaws") 6. This document also establishes that CST has the power to take over all the trademarks currently assigned to RTC.
Here are the relevant excerpts from the document:
==================================================================== EXCERPTS FROM:
CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY Plaintiff, v.
THE UNITED STATES Defendant.
No. 581-88T, UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT June 29, 1992, Reissued June 29, 1992, Filed The opinion of May 26, 1992, was vacated and corrections were made pursuant to the Order on Reconsideration of June 29, 1992.
COUNSEL: Monique E. Yingling, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Thomas C. Spring, of counsel.
W.C. Rapp, with whom were Assistant Attorney General Shirley D.
Peterson and David Gustafson, for defendant.
OPINION BY: ERIC G. BRUGGINK BRUGGINK, Judge.
This is an appeal from a decision rendered by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). The Church of Spiritual Technology ("CST"), plaintiff, applied for tax-exempt status under I.R.C. @ 501(c)(3) (1982) as a religious organization. On July 8, 1988, the IRS issued its final adverse ruling denying CST's bid for tax exemption.
CST appealed that administrative decision to the court pursuant to I.R.C. @ 7428(a), resulting in the instant case.
...
C. Testamentary Structure of LRH and the Genesis of CST LRH died in January 1986. As part of his estate planning, he had made three gifts to the Scientology. The first two were inter vivos, and a third was testamentary. All three transfers were made, or in the case of the will, designated, in May 1982.
First, LRH gave use of the Advanced Technology and religious marks to RTC. These Scientology religious marks include the terms "Dianetics," "Scientology" and Mr. Hubbard's name, initials and signature. RTC is charged with the duty to oversee lower-ranking churches to ensure they practice Scientology in an orthodox manner. RTC gave CSI a license to use the marks with any Scientology services sold by CSI on condition that CSI recognize RTC as the final word on matters of theological orthodoxy. As required by Mr. Hubbard's gifts, RTC delegates rights to use the Advanced Technology and religious marks to qualified churches in the ecclesiastical hierarchy and then supervises their activities to ensure compliance with Scriptural requirements. In exchange for use of the marks, churches that minister the Advanced Technology pay RTC six percent of the contributions they receive.
LRH's gift to RTC was conditioned on RTC obtaining exemption under I.R.C. @501(c)(3). Thus far, RTC has been found non-exempt by the Commissioner.
CST was created in 1982 in order to receive the second gift. LRH gave CST two options over the marks and technology which he had given to RTC. The first option is to take control of the trademarks on published LRH works and the insignia of various organizations. The second option is over the Advanced Technology. CST has the option, exercisable at its sole discretion, to take over use and authority of the marks from RTC if RTC allows their use in an unorthodox manner.
The third gift was designated in LRH's will of 1982. In it, CST was made the conditional beneficiary of the remainder interest of LRH's personal estate, after certain bequests to family members. The CST bequest included the copyrights to LRH's Scientology works, and certain limited rights over the marks and technology that he had retained at the time of his gift to RTC. It also included all of LRH's non-Scientology works of fiction which continue to produce royalties.
The publishing rights and copyrights alone carry with them the rights to receive the substantial royalties which flow from sales of Scientology books and tapes to the public. These rights will provide CST with a sizable annual income, but only if it achieves tax-exempt status. These assets have not yet been distributed to CST, and they are accumulating income as part of the residual estate, which is being held by a pour-over trust. [Starkey, Author's Family Trust-B] ...
D. Creation of the Church of Spiritual Technology As part of LRH's estate planning, CST was founded in 1982 by Lyman Spurlock, Meade Emory, Esq., Leon Misterek, Esq., and Sherman Lenske, Esq. CST was incorporated as a non-profit corporation under California law, and subsequently sought tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code.
CST's Articles of Incorporation describe the purpose of the organization as follows: "The corporation shall espouse, present, propagate, practice, ensure and maintain the purity and integrity of the religion of Scientology..." Article III, By-laws of Church of Spiritual Technology.
One of CST's specific duties, unique among Scientology churches, is to create and maintain an archive of scriptures for future generations. It is important to Scientology that its scriptures be preserved for at least the next billion years, in order that future generations have available to them the words of LRH.
The other stated purpose behind CST was to provide LRH, then still living, with a depository for the bulk of his testamentary estate, as explained above. CST's founders wanted to accomplish "the creation of an organization to which Mr. Hubbard would be willing to (and did) bequeath the bulk of his estate, and most importantly his copyrights and patents (which include copyrights to scriptures of the religion and patents on the E-Meter)."
CST's operating funds thus far have come exclusively from other Scientology management churches. In 1983, CST received what was described as a "one-time start-up grant" of $17,959,745 from the Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization. In addition, CST has received annual unrestricted grants from RTC ranging from $623,000 to $2.8 million.
None of the founders of CST, with the exception of Mr.Spurlock, has any stated religious connection to Scientology. Messrs. Emory, Misterek and Lenske have served as counsel to other Scientology groups, but nothing in the record indicates that any of them has ever been a member of any Scientology organization. Mr.
Lenske and two other non-Scientologists have the status of Special Directors of CST. The Articles of Incorporation require that CST have three such Special Directors, and further requires that they be lawyers in order to ensure that CST takes no action to jeopardize its tax-exempt status.
...
Many of the staff have held positions of authority in other Scientology organizations. Three of the four trustees of CST worked previously for CSC, which was dismantled in 1981. Terri Gamboa is a trustee of CST. She was also at the same time a Director, the President, and a shareholder of Author Services, Inc. ("ASI"), a Scientology organization. She had formerly been an employee of CSC and of LRH personally. Gregory Wilhere, a trustee of CST, was also formerly an employee of the Founding Church of Scientology, CSC, the Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization and an Australian Scientology organization.
Marion Meisler is a trustee of CST. She was at the same time an employee of ASI, and had previously been employed by CSC, a United Kingdom Scientology organization, and a Australian Scientology organization. Lyman Spurlock is the President of CST, one of its directors, and one of its Trustees. He is also a trustee of RTC. As trustee, Spurlock has authority to elect and remove the directors who run RTC. Thus, Spurlock has the ability to influence RTC's activities. Spurlock was given a general power of attorney by LRH on March 12, 1984, as his personal employee. Dan Przybylski is Vice President of CST and one of its Directors. He has been a employee of CSC, CSI, and RTC. Leo Johnson is Secretary of CST. Previously he had been an employee of CSC. Nancy O'Meara is the Treasurer of CST. She had been successively employed by various Scientology organizations.
E. Activities of the Church of Spiritual Technology CST is in the process of creating an archive of Scientology scriptures. These consist of the written and spoken word of LRH, as well as films concerning religious training and the administration of Scientology services. In pursuing this goal, CST has outlined its ambitious program of research into archival methods and technology.
The purpose of the archive is to ensure that Scientology scriptures are available for billions of years. CST has thus been motivated to research long-term storage and preservation methods and to try to develop new technologies.
In order to complete its archiving mission, CST has purchased several large parcels of land. The organization's administrative offices and main preservation facility are in San Bernardino, California. The existing buildings at the San Bernardino facility were in serious disrepair when purchased. CST was required to pay large sums of money to repair enough of the buildings to house the resident staff. A number of the buildings remain in need of extensive renovations. The 6,000 square foot preservation building was fitted with multiple layers of sheet rock in the ceiling and floor and also with two-hour fire doors to provide a storage space safe from fire. Another storage facility will be built in San Bernardino to house original Scientology scriptures.
CST has purchased other sites for storage facilities. On these it has built or intends to build vaults with specially constructed doors.
Currently, CST owns archive sites in Northern California and New Mexico and has plans to acquire additional sites. The site in New Mexico was purchased for $250,976. The Northern California site cost $1.5 million. Vault construction in New Mexico was begun in 1986 after the construction of staff living quarters, access roads, and water supply. CST also reinforced the face of the site, installed a hoist, and built a work pad, all of which cost $260,000. Other construction costs have included $90,000 to overcome rock fissure impediments encountered in the drilling of the underground tunnels in New Mexico, and $120,000 for maintenance-free doors to he placed at the mouths of the tunnels. Vault construction at San Bernardino and Northern California is predicted to cost over $5 million.
To accomplish its archiving mission, CST employs a staff of from 15 to 63 "highly dedicated" Scientologists who are under the control of CST management. All CST staff members must be trained in Scientology.
They live at the preservation site, are paid a subsistence wage, and are required to improve continually their knowledge of Scientology and its teachings. They must spend a specified minimum amount of time each day in Scientology training and teaching pursuits.
CST intends to preserve Scientology scriptures in all of the forms in which they currently exist.
...
[A]ny payment made to BPI [Bridge Publications, Inc.] eventually devolves to the Financial benefit of "Mr. Hubbard and his successors," which includes RTC and CST. ...Although it is apparently the pour-over trust that currently receives royalties from the publication rights, it is CST that, under the will, stands to move into the position of ownership of those rights.
Thus, CST not only is positioned to support BPI's for-profit activities by furnishing authentic copies of archived materials, it stands to receive royalties from the for-profit publishing companies, and, if it exercises its options over RTC, will receive royalties from use of the advanced technology. As to the supplying of Scientology services, in view of CSI's receipt from RTC of the license to use the trademarks, it would appear to have stepped into Mr.
Hubbard's shoes to the extent of receiving payments for use of the marks. Presumably if CST exercises its option over RTC, it would be able to control those marks as well, thereby completing its ownership of the publishing rights, the advanced technology, and the marks.
...
The court finds below that CST is inextricably linked to Scientology as a whole. It would have been naive for the Commissioner, and it would be equally naive for the court, to ignore the implications of the genesis of CST and its links to other Scientology organizations.
...
CST, CSI, and RTC all applied for tax-exempt status at the same time. The IRS requested information about the circumstances surrounding the founding of these three organizations. The IRS specifically asked who initiated and oversaw the reorganization of the Scientology hierarchy.
...
CST continually refused to answer these questions, demanding that the IRS treat CST's application independently of RTC and CSI. At one point, CST informed the IRS that "it did not agree" that the IRS could not rule on CST's application without information about other Scientology organizations. In that same letter, rather than provide information to explain why the IRS's reservations about CST's tax-exempt status were groundless, CST simply stated that it rejected assertions made by the IRS, and that the reservations were insignificant anyway.
When pressed for additional information on its relationship to other Scientology organizations, CST merely repeated its initial inadequate answer that it did not voluntarily recognize the hierarchical church. The IRS found that answer inadequate, and asked the question again. CST gave a similar answer: "This assertion implies that [CST] is a part of the Scientology hierarchy. It is not.
See our letter to you dated 10 September 1984."
Rather than offer an explanation of the option agreements it held under LRH's gift, CST stated instead, "We do not consider [the options] to be as you characterize them. However, the agreements speak for themselves."
...
On April 22, the IRS again wrote to CST for additional information.
CST's response contained nothing new. For example, the IRS inquired about Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske and Lawrence Heller and their role as CST's "special directors." Instead of providing a meaningful answer to the question, CST replied, "We commented upon your position in our earlier correspondence ...we request that you inform us of the relevance of their other associations to the exempt status of this organization."
...
CST is not a church, therefore it must try to qualify as a religious organization. ...[T]he only religious aspect of CST is its connection to Scientology. CST has no exempt purpose absent the religious patina it draws from Scientology. ...CST represents that it is a religious corporation organized to accomplish the activities of a church.
Despite its name, CST is not itself a church as defined in the tax laws. ...The distinction matters because churches receive more favorable treatment under the Internal Revenue Code than do religious organizations. For example, churches may be investigated by the IRS only in accordance with strict and specific procedures specified in I.R.C. @ 7611.
...
CST is also linked to Scientology through its authority to control the religion's income-producing property. CST has the power to dismantle RTC by taking over the religious trademarks and use of the Advanced Technology, thereby gaining direct control over all Scientology organizations that purchase trademarked material. ...This really means all organizations, because only trademarked materials are considered orthodox in the religion.
...[O]ne of its [CST's] obligations is to prevent misuse of the marks and technology. ...Monitoring for a misuse by RTC is a form of ongoing oversight. The decision to exercise the option is an ecclesiastical one which would not be readily susceptible to judicial review. Upon exercise of the option, CST would inherit RTC's role as the final voice on Scientology orthodoxy. This would give CST ecclesiastical authority over even CSI, since "CSI itself is ecclesiastically subordinate to RTC." The conclusion which the court must necessarily draw from LRH's property distribution scheme is that CST has the absolute authority to take control of the bulk of the income-producing property of Scientology.
Indeed, the need for CST to take even the intermediate step of exercising its options may have been obviated. The Commissioner found RTC to be non-exempt. The gift to RTC was conditioned on its obtaining tax-exempt status. If the gift fails, as it appears to have, there is nothing over which to exercise an option.
Assuming CST secures tax-exempt status, it would appear destined, as beneficiary of LRH's residual estate, to collect the balance of the income-producing property.
...
The religious trademarks and rights to the Advanced Technology constitute most of the income-producing property owned by any of the Scientology organizations. The remainder of LRH's income-producing property is already designated for CST. Upon its qualification for tax-exempt status, CST could, therefore, obtain, by operation of LRH's will, all of the rights LRH reserved when he made his gift to RTC, as well as the copyrights to Scientology scriptures, which presumably constitute the very heart of Scientology. The copyrights to LRH's science fiction works will also devolve to CST under the will. This intellectual property alone was valued at $25,000,000 by the trustee appointed by the court to administer LRH's estate.
In these circumstances, it is at best disingenuous for CST to maintain that it is "independent" of Scientology's ecclesiastical hierarchy. LRH certainly succeeded in creating an entity that is not nominally subject to the ecclesiastical control of other Scientology organizations. Rather, the potential control runs in the opposite direction. CST stands poised to assume a position at the apex of a pyramid of both ecclesiastical authority and financial control over Scientology.
...
In sum, there is a strong link, in fact an identity of purpose, between CST and other Scientology organizations. ...Although CST has repeatedly declared that it does not "voluntarily" recognize the authority of the Scientology hierarchy and thus is ecclesiastically independent of it, the statement is virtually meaningless in the context of this litigation.
...
[T]he court finds that the impetus behind CST was not archiving, charity, or even religious education, but rather was tax planning.
Nothing about CST is consistent with its adopted posture as a simple document repository. A number of inevitable inferences from the record, unanswered by CST, lead to this conclusion.
...
CST was created in 1982, during the CSC litigation. It was founded by four non-Scientologist lawyers and Lyman Spurlock, President of CST and former personal employee of LRH, in the wake of CSC's dissolution.
Sartre wrote that "Man is not the sum of what he has but the totality of what he does not yet have, of what he might be." In like fashion, the court is struck by the centripetal force that will be generated should CST obtain tax-exempt status, and should it choose to exercise its option to take over assets from RTC. Armed with the trademarks and publishing rights, and with tax-exempt status, CST will be poised in the center of all of Scientology's financial resources, in position to exert a strong gravitational force on Scientology's income-producing assets. If CST were exempt as a church, it would be virtually insulated from public view, since it would not be required to file an annual return. I.R.C. @ 6033(a)(2)(A)(i). If CST were to qualify as a religious organization, it would be responsible for filing only an informational return. I.R.C. @ 6033(a).
...
CST states that it would never seek to control these assets, or use them in any way inconsistent with the stated religious purposes of Scientology. CST has provided only conclusory statements of its own officers as evidence of CST's intentions. The court in People of God Community v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 127, 132 (1980), found similar conclusory assertions unpersuasive and insufficient to carry petitioner's burden of proof. Moreover, CST has stated on at least one occasion that "it will exercise its options and acquire the marks and materials."
If CST succeeds in its quest for exempt status, it will control the trademark and publishing rights to all of LRH's works. Those rights constitute most of Scientology's income-producing property. The trademarks and publishing rights are the source of the Advanced Technology from which all income production ultimately flows. ...CST would not be obligated to donate the money to other non-profit groups, or even to contribute it to Scientology's own central reserves. In fact, once CST has built its archiving facilities, its expenses should decline dramatically, but it will still control millions of dollars worth of income-producing assets.
...
Next there is the dissonance between the stated, limited purposes of CST on the one hand, with the far reaching implications of the potential financial control over Scientology built into LRH's tax planning. ...If the true motivation behind CST were to build an archive, it would have been a simple matter to incorporate an organization and arrange for financing through the central reserves, or to have all Scientology churches contribute to funding the archive, or to have some other straightforward financing scheme.
What other possible purpose could there have been for funneling LRH's estate to an organization with such a nominally limited and innocuous function unless it was the hope that Scientology had achieved the holy grail--an organization with unassailable tax-exempt credentials, yet in control of the income from the myriad sources within Scientology?
This concern is exacerbated by the fact that CST will receive nothing from LRH's estate if it is not deemed tax-exempt. Thus, it appears that despite the stated importance of its archives to the Scientology religion, they were apparently not worth supporting unless they generated a tax exemption. Protecting the use of Scientology trademarks and copyrights is also apparently not worth doing if it will not be done by a tax-exempt organization.
...
CST is linked by a cat's cradle of connections to RTC, CSI, and through them, to the rest of Scientology, thereby belying its claim of disinterest in the activities of other organizations. This fact, coupled with the commercial character of much of Scientology, the difficulty that its management churches have had with tax exemption, Scientology's virtually incomprehensible financial procedures, its scripturally-based hostility to taxation, the timing of CST's genesis and finally plaintiff's enormous potential for both accumulating wealth and bestowing shelter from taxation, inevitably lead to the conclusion that archiving is not plaintiff's "exclusive" or even chief purpose.
...
CONCLUSION The court does not question the sincerity of the beliefs of those who practice Scientology. Nor does the court hold that Scientology is not a religion. Plainly it is. The limited issue before the court, however, is whether CST has met its obligation of demonstrating that the Commissioner's decision was erroneous. It has not. There was sufficient evidence in the administrative record to support the Commissioner's finding that CST has not shown itself to be an exempt organization under @ 501(c)(3). The Clerk is directed to dismiss the complaint.
ERIC G. BRUGGINK Judge Date: 13 Apr 2000 08:48:05 -0000 From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Legal Archives) Subject: CST Legal Papers 08 IRS Closing Agreement Excerpts Message-ID: <39189B45CB7@127.0.0.1> NOTES:
1. This is an excerpt from the formerly secret "Closing Agreement" with IRS (also called the "Peace Treaty" at Scientology events).
2. This proves conclusively that Author Services, Inc. (ASI) is owned entirely by the CORPORATION known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST).
3. CST is NOT a church; it is a CORPORATION. Ref. U.S. Claims Court No. 581-88T, Judge Bruggink:
"CST is not a church...CST represents that it is a religious corporation organized to accomplish the activities of a church. Despite its name, CST is not itself a church... ."
4. "Without consideration" means that CST did not have to give Starkey any money or thing of value for the entirety of ASI, including all of its income.
5. CST, then, owns ASI, and ASI is a for-profit corporation.
Here is the excerpt:
===================================================================== EXCERPT FROM DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY--INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CLOSING AGREEMENT ON FINAL DETERMINATION COVERING SPECIFIC MATTERS IV. Obligations and Undertakings During the Transition Period.
.
E. Operational modifications. The Church signatories and the CTCC [Church Tax Compliance Committee] will assure the following:
6. Norman F. Starkey, as Trustee of Author's Family Trust B, shall, no later than December 31, 1993, effectuate the transfer of substantially all of the corpus and income in Author's Family Trust B, including all the shares of Author Services, Inc. ("ASI") as permitted under the will of L. Ron Hubbard to the Churc h of Spiritual Technology ("CST") without consideration. Mr. Starkey, as trustee, may retain sufficient cash and securities to cover any remaining actual or contingent liabilities of the Trust until those liabilities have been resolved or satisfied. The members of the CTCC shall use their best efforts to assure that such transfer is accomplished.
Dated: October 1, 1993 [Signature] NORMAN F. STARKEY, Individual Member of CTCC .
Dated: October 1, 1993 CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY By: [Signature: Monique Yingling] Title: POA [Power of Attorney] .
Dated: October 1, 1993 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE By: [Signature] John E. Burke, Assistant Commissioner, Employee Plans and Exempt Organizations Dated: October 1, 1993 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE By: [Signature] James J. McGovern, Associate Chief Counsel, Employee Benefits and Exempt Organizations Date: 13 Apr 2000 08:53:07 -0000 From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Legal Archives) Subject: CST Legal Papers 11 Assignment [to CST] Message-ID: <39618B70BD9@127.0.0.1> NOTES:
1. This document is the Assignment of ALL copyright ownership from Norman F. Starkey to the CORPORATION known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST), followed immediatly by its two attachments, Attachment A and Attachment B.
2. CST is NOT a church; it is a CORPORATION. Ref. U.S. Claims Court No. 581-88T, Judge Bruggink:
"CST is not a church...CST represents that it is a religious corporation organized to accomplish the activities of a church. Despite its name, CST is not itself a church... ."
3. The date that this Assignment is notarized is 30 November 1993.
4. The notarization date on this Assignment conflicts with the Library of Congress Copyright Office record (CST Legal Papers 0 in this series), which has the date of this as 29 November 1993 for this transaction, as shown here:
V2927 P669 THRU 679 (COHD) RECORDED: 13Dec93 EXECUTED: 29Nov93 PARTY 1: Norman F. Starkey, trustee, Author's Family Trust-B.
PARTY 2: Church of Spiritual Technology (Los Angeles) NOTE: Model of OT ship organization and operation based on 7 division system & 7,730 other titles. Transfer of copyright.
FULL DOCUMENT RANGE: (In V2927 P238-724) 5. Note also that the Copyright Office record immediately above says this transaction was a "Transfer of copyright," whereas this document is titled "ASSIGNMENT," which could lead to some confusion. But Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition says an assignment is: "A transfer...of the whole of any property... . It includes transfers of all kinds of property."
6. Attachment B was several hundred pages long. It was a list of ALL the titles transferred in this transaction. Only four sample pages are included in this text file. However, there is a database available on the internet that contains ALL the titles transferred in this transaction. The database--Library of Congress data on CofS Copyright transfers and registrations--is available in several formats, at http://fzint.org/downloads/index.htm . (Scroll down page to find it.)
Here is the Assignment document and its attachments:
===================================================================== ASSIGNMENT WHEREAS, L. Ron Hubbard was the author of and owned all right title and interest in a body of works, both published and unpublished (hereinafter the "Works").
WHEREAS, all right, title and interest in the Works, as assets of the estate of L. Ron Hubbard, were transferred pursuant to the Judgment Of Final Distribution On Waiver Of Accounting And For Allowance Of Attorney's Fees For Ordinary Services And Judgment Of Final Distribution, dated January 3, 1989, issued by the Superior Court of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, to Norman F. Starkey, Trustee of the Author's Family Trust-B, an Inter-Vivos Trust established January 23, 1986, 6515 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90028 (hereinafter the "Trustee").
WHEREAS, the copyrights in certain of the Works, listed in Attachment B hereto, both published and unpublished, were registered in the Copyright Office (hereinafter the "Registered Works").
WHEREAS, all right, title and interest in the Works, including the copyright registrations for the Registered Works, and any pending applications for copyright registration of the Works, both in the United States and abroad, are now owned by the Trustee.
WHEREAS, the documents attached hereto as Attachment A, evidencing the transfer of all right, title and interest in the Works from the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard to the Trustee, were recorded in the Assignments and Documentation Division of the United States Copyright Office on February 14, 1989.
WHEREAS, Church of Spiritual Technology (hereinafter "CST"), is a non-profit religious corporation, organized under the laws of the State of California, having an address at 419 N. Larchmont, No. 162, Los Angeles, California.
WHEREAS, the Trustee wishes to assign all rights of the Trustee of any kind in the Works, both in the United States and abroad, to CST, including the rights of the Trustee in the copyright registrations for the Registered Works and in any pending applications for copyright registration of the Works and CST wishes to have a recordable document evidencing the ownership of all rights of any kind in the Works by CST, both in the United States and abroad, including ownership of the rights in the copyright registrations for the Registered Works and in any pending applications for registration of the Works.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and sufficient consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby ackowledged, the Trustee hereby transfers to CST all right, title and interest of the Trustee in the Works, both in the United States and abroad, including the copyright registrations for the Registered Works and any pending applications for copyright registration of the Works, along with any rights that the Trustee may have to recover for past infringement of any rights regarding the Works, including all rights of the Trustee under the copyright registrations and any pending applications for copyright registration identified in Attachment B hereto.
By: [signature] ____________________________________ Norman F. Starkey, Trustee Author's Family Trust-B, an Inter-Vivos Trust established January 23, 1986 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF Los Angeles ) On this 30th day of November, in the year 1993, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Norman F. Starkey, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, excecuted the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
[signature of Ryland G. Hawkins] _______________________________________ My Commission Expires: 29 NOV '96 [STAMP: "Ryland G. Hawkins, Los Angeles County "] ----------------------------------------------------------------- ATTACHMENT A AFFIDAVIT OF EXECUTOR I, NORMAN F. STARKEY, being duly sworn, depose and say:
1. On January 24, 1986, L. RON HUBBARD, also known as LAFAYETTE RONALD HUBBARD, died testate, a resident of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California.
2. His last Will and Testament was duly admitted to probate on February 18, 1986 in the Superior Court of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, Probate Case No. 20885. The aforesaid Will appointed me as Executor and named NORMAN F. STARKEY, TRUSTEE OF THE AUTHOR'S FAMILY TRUST-B, AN INTER-VIVOS TRUST ESTABLISHED JANUARY 23, 1986 as sole legatee thereunder. I have heretofore duly qualified as Executor, and am now acting as such.
3. The estate of L. RON HUBBARD has been fully administered. All taxes, debts and expenses in connection therewith have heretofore been duly paid or duly waived, and pursuant to a Decree of Distribution dated January 3, 1989, issued by the Superior Court of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, a certified copy of which is hereto annexed, the remaining assets of the estate, including all right, title and interest in and to all of the copyrightable works of L. Ron Hubbard, also known as Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, have been transferred to NORMAN F. STARKEY, TRUSTEE OF THE AUTHOR'S FAMILY TRUST-B, AN INTER-VIVOS TRUST ESTABLISHED JANUARY 23, 1986 as sole legatee. NORMAN F. STARKEY, TRUSTEE OF THE AUTHOR'S FAMILY TRUST-B, AN INTER-VIVOS TRUST ESTABLISHED JANUARY 23, 1986, has succeeded to all right, title and interest of L. Ron Hubbard, also known as Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, and his estate.
[signature] __________________________________ Norman F. Starkey Executor of the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard, also known as Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, Deceased STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of January, 1989 [signature of Ryland G. Hawkins] ______________________________________ Notary Public [SEAL: "Ryland G. Hawkins, Los Angeles County "] ----------------------------------------------------------------- ATTACHMENT B--LIST OF REGISTERED WORKS (NOTE: Only four sample pages from Attachment B [which is nearly 400 pages long] are reproduced here. SEE DATABASE OF COPYRIGHT TRANSFERS FOR COMPLETE LIST OF WORKS TRANSFERRED IN THIS TRANSACTION. THIS DATABASE IS AVAILABLE ) 1. BASE ORDER 29R 13 JUNE 1967 REVISED 5 DECEMBER 1988 MODEL OF O.T.
SHIP ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION BASED ON 7 DIVISION SYSTEM REG. NO. TX 2-713-889 2. BASE ORDER 42 15 JUNE 1970 (REISSUED 22 JUNE 1988...) BASIC SO DUTIES REG. NO. TX 2-511-936 3. ABOUT ART REG. NO. TX 3-538-302 4. ACADEMY OF SCIENTOLOGY INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION FOR STUDENTS IN HCA VALIDATION OR SPECIAL COMMUNCIATION COURSES REGISTRATION NO. A 327903 RENEWAL NO. RE 274-415 5. ACC CLEAR PROCEDURE REG. NO. A 359396 RENEWAL NO. RE 274-418 6. ACC PREPARATORY MANUAL FOR ADVANCED STUDENTS IN SCIENTOLOGY REG. NO. A 30349 RENEWAL NO. RE 319-187 7. ADVANCED PROCEDURE AND AXIOMS REG. NO. aa 204347 RENEWAL NO. RE 29-964 8. ADVANCED PROCEDURE AND AXIOMS REG. NO. TX 2-701-403 9. ALL ABOUT RADIATION REG. NO. TX 1-712-791 10. ALL ABOUT RADIATION REG. NO. TX 2-767-226 11. ART REG. NO. TX 3-423-034 12. ASSISTS REG. NO. TX 2-167-792 13. ASSISTS PROCESSING HANDBOOK REG. NO. TX 3-501-435 14. AUDITING RUNDOWNS SUBJECT VOLUME 3 REG. NO. TX 3-100-326 15. BACKGROUND & CEREMONIES OF THE FOUNDING CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY REG. NO. TX 1-917-583 16. BASIC DIANETICS PICTURE BOOK, THE REG. NO. A 334489 CA NO. 2-478-865 17. BASIC DIANETICS PICTURE BOOK, THE REG. NO. TX 3-235-107 ----------------------------------------------------------------- -32- 521. CENTRAL BUREAUX ORDER 559RC 31 JANUARY 1979 REVISED 8 APRIL 1989 BRANCH PROCEDURES AND ACTION REG. NO. TX 2-675-938 522. CENTRAL BUREAUX ORDER 601R 27 SEPTEMBER 1979 REVISED 9 APRIL 1989 AVC MOTTO REG. NO. TX 2-711-613 523. CENTRAL BUREAUX ORDER 787 29 SEPTEMBER 1988 THE HOTLINE NEWSLETTER REG. NO. TX 2-684-077 524. CENTRAL BUREAUX ORDER 806 15 DECEMBER 1988 COORDINATION OF NETWORK TRAFFIC REG. NO. TX 2-663-944 525. CENTRAL BUREAUX ORDER 852 25 JANUARY 1990 GENERAL SECRETARY FOR ASIA HAT REG. NO. TX 2-913-620 526. CENTRAL BUREAUX ORDER 855 8 MARCH 1990 TRAVEL REG. NO. TX 2-913-621 527. HCO BULLETIN OF DECEMBER 3, 1964 SCIENTOLOGY VI SOLO AUDITING AND R6 EW SOLO AUDITING REG. NO. TX 1-378-903 RENEWAL NO. RE 599-995 528. HCO BULLETIN OF 16 NOVEMBER 1981 THE SUNSHINE RUNDOWN, INSTRUCTION REG. NO. TXU 303-384 529. CENTRAL OFFICE OF LRH ED 558 7 AUGUST 1978 URGENT MARKETING PROGRAM REG. NO. TXU 115-300 530. HUBBARD PROFESSIONAL MARK SUPER VII E-METER COMPUTER PROGRAM SOURCE CODE REG. NO. TX 2-622-397 531. CLEARING COURSE SERIES REG. NO. TXU 303-383 532. EXCERPTS FROM LRH ARCHIVE DOCUMENTS REG. NO. TXU 295-918 533. NED FOR OTS SERIES REG. NO. TXU 257-326 CA NO. TXU 257-527 534. NEW OT I SERIES REG. NO. TXU 303-385 535. NEW OT IV SERIES REG. NO. TXU 303-387 536. OT I AND ATTACHMENT 21 JULY 1968 REG. NO. TXU 303-382 ----------------------------------------------------------------- -33- 537. OT II SERIES REG. NO. TXU 303-388 538. OT III SERIES REG. NO. TXU 290-496 539. POWER SERIES REG. NO. TXU 303-386 540. R6EW SERIES REG. NO. TXU 303-381 541. ACADEMY OF SCIENTOLOGY EXPANDED GRADES LEVEL II MATERIALS REG. NO. TX 3-389-501 542. ACADEMY OF SCIENTOLOGY PERSONNEL EFFICIENCY COURSE, THE REG. NO. A 307909 RENEWAL NO. RE 259-445 543. ACADEMY OF SCIENTOLOGY THE EXTENSION DIVISION OF THE HUBBARD CLEARING SCIENTOLOGIST COURSE - G TABLET REG. NO. A 507355 RENEWAL NO. RE 431-657 544. ACADEMY OF SCIENTOLOGY THE EXTENSION DIVISION OF THE HUBBARD CERTIFIED AUDITOR COURSE LESSONS 1A TO 20A REG. NO. A 391603 RENEWAL NO. RE 274-422 545. ACADEMY OF SCIENTOLOGY THE EXTENSION DIVISION OF THE HUBBARD CERTIFIED AUDITOR COURSE, LESSONS 1C-20C REG. NO. A 391604 RENEWAL NO. RE 362-786 546. ACADEMY OF SCIENTOLOGY THE EXTENSION DIVISION OF THE HUBBARD CLEARING SCIENTOLOGIST COURSE, LESSONS 1H TO 20H REG. NO. A 391599 RENEWAL NO. RE 274-420 547. ADVANCED PROCEDURE AND AXIOMS EXTENSION COURSE REG. NO. TX 2-851-657 548. ALL ABOUT RADIATION EXTENSION COURSE REG. NO. TX 3-160-172 549. ALLERGY OR ASTHMA RUNDOWN AUDITOR COURSE REG. NO. TX 2-808-859 550. ANATOMY OF THE HUMAN MIND COURSE, THE REG. NO. A 490776 RENEWAL NO. RE 431-685 551. ART EXTENSION COURSE REG. NO. TX 3-423-620 552. BASIC STUDY MANUAL REG. NO. A 386190 553. BASIC STUDY MANUAL REG. NO. TX 3-006-763 ----------------------------------------------------------------- -372- 5919. HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 15 JULY 1957 8-C ON STUDENTS REG. NO. TX 1-112-181 RENEWAL NO. RE 267-827 VOL 2927 PAGE 621 5920. HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF 17 JULY 1957 CHANGES IN TRAINING DRILLS REG. NO. TX 1-278-900 RENEWAL NO. RE 267-861 5921. HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1957 HCA-MPA COURSE PROCESSES REG. NO. TX 1-129-936 RENEWAL NO. RE 267-841 5922. HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1957 STABLE DATA FOR INSTRUCTORS REG. NO. TX 1-114-753 RENEWAL NO. RE 267-840 5923. CORRECTION SHEET ON TR'S AMD PROCESSES FOR HCO TRAINING BULLETIN OF JUNE 11TH, 1957 REG. NO. A 317962 RENEWAL NO. RE 340-321 5924. LRH ED 270-1 INT 5 JANUARY 1976 FLAG FSM COMMISSIONS FOR TRAINING REG. NO. TX 2-533-714 5925. ABILITY 1 MAJOR REG. NO. B 525938 RENEWAL NO. RE 160-929 5926. ABILITY 15 REG. NO. B 590495 RENEWAL NO. RE 159-771 5927. ABILITY 16 REG. NO. B 590496 RENEWAL NO. RE 159-770 5928. ABILITY 17 REG. NO. B 590497 RENEWAL NO. RE 159-765 5929. ABILITY 18 REG. NO. B 592888 RENEWAL NO. RE 159-767 5930. ABILITY 20 REG. NO. B 590498 RENEWAL NO. RE 159-766 5931. ABILITY 21 REG. NO. B 590499 RENEWAL NO. RE 208-713 5932. ABILITY 22 REG. NO. B 590500 RENEWAL NO. RE 208-714 5933. ABILITY 23 REG. NO. B 590501 RENEWAL NO. RE 208-715 5934. ABILITY 24 REG. NO. B 590502 RENEWAL NO. RE 208-716 5935. ABILITY 25 REG. NO. B 590503 RENEWAL NO. RE 208-717 Date: 13 Apr 2000 08:58:42 -0000 From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Legal Archives) Subject: CST Legal Papers 10 Copyright Transfer Record Message-ID: <39B28B23459@127.0.0.1> NOTES:
1. This is the Copyright Office record from the Library of Congress that records the transaction wherein Norman F. Starkey transferred copyright ownership for ALL the works of L. Ron Hubbard to the CORPORATION known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST).
2. CST is NOT a church; it is a CORPORATION. Ref. U.S. Claims Court No. 581-88T, Judge Bruggink:
"CST is not a church...CST represents that it is a religious corporation organized to accomplish the activities of a church. Despite its name, CST is not itself a church... ."
3. Note that the date "EXECUTED" is recorded as 29 November 1993. But the actual Assignment document that effected the transfer of the copyrights (See "CST Legal Papers 11 Assignment [to CST]") is notarized on 30 November 1993--a day LATER than this Copyright Office record indicates. Here is evidence of yet another fraud.
4. This Copyright Office record merely gives one actual title that was transferred in the transaction, but refers to the other 7,730 titles that were transferred. For a complete list of all 7,730 titles, it is recommended that you get the database available on the internet that contains ALL the titles transferred in this transaction. The database--Library of Congress data on CofS Copyright transfers and registrations--is available in several formats, at http://fzint.org/downloads/index.htm . (Scroll down page to find it.)
5. Late note--April 2000. The copyright records contained in the database referred to above were reportedly obtained through a TelNet connection to the Library of Congress. TelNetting in, as of last year, was available through the Library of Congress's web pages. There is now a notice on their web page that users can no longer TelNet into the Library of Congress because of "security reasons." The only way to search for records now is through a web-based search engine--which can contain all manner of invisible "filters" to deny access.
Here is the U.S. Copyright Office record of that transaction:
=================================================================== FROM LIBRARY OF CONGRESS RECORDS, ASSIGNMENT/TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHTS:
V2927 P669 THRU 679 (COHD) RECORDED: 13Dec93 EXECUTED: 29Nov93 PARTY 1: Norman F. Starkey, trustee, Author's Family Trust-B.
PARTY 2: Church of Spiritual Technology (Los Angeles) NOTE: Model of OT ship organization and operation based on 7 division system & 7,730 other titles. Transfer of copyright.
FULL DOCUMENT RANGE: (In V2927 P238-724) Date: 13 Apr 2000 08:58:43 -0000 From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Legal Archives) Subject: CST Legal Papers 13 Mitchell vs. CST Appeal Message-ID: <39B54490AB8@127.0.0.1> NOTES:
1. This is an Appeal filed on 3 March 2000 in the Court of Appeals for the Second District of California. It is appealing the dismissal of a libel suit that had been earlier filed by Stephen Mitchell and Kathleen Carey against the CORPORATION known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST), doing business as (dba) "L. Ron Hubbard Library."
This appeal was posted to the internet anonymously.
2. The Appeal refers repeatedly to a "Clerk's Transcript" (CT), and references numerous documents apparently included as part of, or appended to, the CT (e.g., "see CT page 000158"). It is believed that these references are all to documents that were part of the original libel suit record, but these documents are not currently available.
3. A web site known as "Veritas" was, at one time, posting documents from the original suit, so some of the referenced documents may be on that site. Veritas can be found at:
http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/index.htm Veritas seemed to stop keeping up with the case at some point.
Hopefully, they or somebody will pick up the story with the Appeal being filed, and will web the referenced documents. (Veritas also has many other documents and records and facts regarding CST for anyone who is interested in learning more.)
Here is the Appeal:
===================================================================== STAMP:
================================ CLERK'S OFFICE COURT OF APPEAL--SECOND DISTRICT RECEIVED MAR -3 2000 JOSEPH A. LANE Clerk ================================ Stephen Mitchell c/o 12400 Ventura Blvd. #137 Studio City, California 818-789-6403 Kathleen Carey c/o 5152 Sepulveda, Suite 205 Sherman Oaks, California 818-789-0954 Stephen Mitchell, Kathleen Carey In propria persona [NOT PRO SE] California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Stephen Mitchell; Kathleen Carey ) Appellants/Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, ) a corporation, dba L. Ron Hubbard Library; ) Respondents/Defendants. ) _____________________________________________) 2 Civil 131378 Appeal from superior court, Los Angeles county Case No. BC175367 Frances Rothschild, judge Real Party In Interest:
Church of Spiritual Technology Opening Brief Oral Argument Requested Appeal after Dismissal This appeal is brought to seek relief and remedy from an abuse of judicial discretion and judicial bias against Us, both individually and as a class as nationals. The trial court refused to recuse itself after personally hearing the plaintiffs' Motion to Disqualify, in violation of CCP 170.3(c)(5). All of the trial court's subsequent rulings demonstrated a personal agenda on it's part to deny the recognition of Our status, our venue, Our rights under the Statutes of California as well as due process in this civil litigation.
Furthermore, the trial court practiced law from the bench by advising the Defendant CST on how to seek relief from default and, at times, would find for the Defendant CST in absence of any argument or evidence to controvert the evidence and law submitted to the trial court by Us, thereby advocating for a defendant who would not or could not advocate for themselves. Ultimately, the trial court issued a judgment of dismissal as a sanction for a discovery controversy that it, itself, helped to create.
Preliminary Statement This civil action stems from the fact that We discovered that the Church of Scientology had been infiltrated and subjected to a silent "coup d'etat" by men wishing to do away with Scientology yet maintain the perception of its continued existence.
New corporations, and particularly one founded by Meade Emory who was formerly the Assistant to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service during the years 1975-1977, were formed to facilitate the "gutting" of Scientology texts (Hubbard Communication Office Bulletins) and policies (Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letters) and the implementation of an overlay of new policies (known as Scientology Policy Directives).
Furthermore, these new corporations removed books written by L. Ron Hubbard from the marketplace and replaced them with books that masquerade as L. Ron Hubbard writings. Per the genuine policies within Scientology (HCOPLs), these actions constitute "HIGH CRIMES", the penalties for which would be permanent exclusion from the Church. But since these acts were carried out at the highest level of management and in a covert manner designed to avoid public perception, they went largely unnoticed.
We did, however, take notice and began writing reports to the Ethics Division of the Church in an attempt to correct the ongoing policy violations that We were witnessing.
In response to these numerous written reports, the Church of Scientology--now under the control of the Church of Spiritual Technology, dba L. Ron Hubbard Library (founded by Meade Emory of the Internal Revenue Service)--issued written statements through the mail labeling Us as criminals and using copyrighted photographs displaying Our likenesses without permission. We believe that this was an act of desperation to discredit Us and to avoid public awareness of the fraud that was being committed each time Scientology texts bearing the copyright "L. Ron Hubbard Library" were sold to the public.
For example, the book "Scientology: A New Slant on Life" by L. Ron Hubbard, previously bearing the copyright "L. Ron Hubbard", has been rewritten by Church staff members and reissued with a new ISBN number and the copyright "L. Ron Hubbard Library". The new title is "Scientology: A New Slant on Life by L. Ron Hubbard" giving the appearance of being the original book. However, notice that the words "by L. Ron Hubbard" have now been incorporated into the title and do not constitute an attribution. The new and different nature of the reissues is confirmed by copyright and Library of Congress documents.
We believe that this subterfuge is intentionally fraudulent as We are informed and believe that the rank and file Scientologist would not spend money on "Scientology" books were it to be disclosed that they were not, in fact, written by L. Ron Hubbard, but rather by employees of Meade Emory's corporation or licensees thereof. Therefore, the value of these new products relies on the public perception that they were, in fact, written by L. Ron Hubbard and not employees of a former-IRS official. We Believe that the libel alleged in Our lawsuit was undertaken to protect the parties responsible for creating a fraud involving millions of dollars. We therefore have alleged that the libel was undertaken with actual malice towards Us and in complete disregard for the facts.
The Trial Court Violated the Law With Regard to the motion to Disqualify We filed a Motion to Disqualify (see Clerk's Transcript [hereinafter CT] page 000156) on November 12, 1997. The motion was supported by a verified statement of challenge (see CT page 000158). The motion to Disqualify specifically alleged that by its actions taken on November 4, 1997 in Department 28 of L. A. superior court, the trial court demonstrated that it was prejudiced against Us (see CT page 000157, lines 2-4). The verified challenge specifically alleged prejudice against Us.
CCP [Section]170.1(a)(6)(C) expressly states, "Bias or prejudice towards a lawyer in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification." This would, of course, also apply to Us as plaintiffs in propria persona.
CCP [Section]170.3(c)(1) states in pertinent part, "The statement shall be presented at the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the ground for disqualification."
The "earliest practicable opportunity" came eight (8) days after our first appearance before the trial court for a status conference on November 4, 1997. Yet, the court denied the Motion to Disqualify as being "untimely" (see CT page 000167, 14).
It can clearly be seen in the content and context of the Motion to Disqualify (see CT page 000156-000157) that it was a disqualification for cause. The fact that We mis-titled it as a "peremptory challenge" rather than a "disqualification for cause" does not change the context of the motion, nor that prejudice and bias as cause was alleged.
When the transcript for that hearing is reviewed (see RT pages 0010-0018), even the oral argument makes it clear that Our intention was a disqualification for cause. Yet the trial court took advantage of Our inadvertent error and characterized it as 170.6 instead of "for cause" so it could be denied as untimely rather than being dealt with according to CCP [Section]170.3(c)(5), which states:
"No judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall pass upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party. In every such case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the judge's answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the Judicial Counsel... ."
Notwithstanding the express procedural provisions of CCP [Section]170.3, the trial court violated the law by ruling on the motion itself rather than allowing another judge to decide on the disqualification.
We are aware that per CCP 170.3(d) a writ of mandamus is the exclusive remedy for a disqualification controversy. If Our Motion to Disqualify had been properly heard by another judge and still subsequently denied, We would agree that the remedy would have been by writ of mandamus only. But in this case, where the content and context of the Motion to Disqualify makes it clear that it is meant to be a "disqualification for cause", the trial court was bound by CCP 170.3(d) to refer the matter for hearing to another judge so that the allegation of prejudice and bias could be objectively addressed. Case law such as Guadalia v. Superior Court, 211 Cal.App. 3d 1156, and People v. Jenkins, 196 Cal.App. 3d 394, certainly do not expressly deal with this exact scenario, so it leaves it to this Court to decide as to whether this circumstance warrants a different look in light of the trial court's actual violation of law rather than merely questionable judicial discretion that should have been dealt with by writ of mandamus within the 10 day limit.
Based upon the trial court's noncompliance with the express and unambiguous provisions of CCP 170.3(d), We now argue that each and every order and ruling issued by the trial court on or subsequent to November 12, 1997 must be disregarded as null and void.
The balance of this opening Brief will disclose the evidence contained in the Record on Appeal that demonstrates that We were correct in interpreting that the trial court was specifically prejudiced against Us and consistently made rulings from November 12, 1997 up to and through March 8, 1999, that embodied that clear prejudice against Us.
The following issues are presented as evidence of the trial court's motivation to ignore the allegation of prejudice contained in the Motion to Disqualify in order to deny it as untimely, so as to be able to remain in charge of the case and manipulate a conclusion adverse to Us.
If this Court does not reverse the dismissal based upon the disqualification issue itself, we ask that the following issues be considered by this court as reversible errors in and of themselves, individually or collectively.
The Trial Court Failed to Acknowledge and Clarify the Venue of the Courtroom The district court was changed to the superior court, effective February 4, 1880, by Stats 1880, ch. 4, Section 2, which states in pertinent part:
"Sec. 2. The Superior Court of each county in this State shall, <
On the face of the original verified complaint (see CT page 000001),
We expressly stated by means of footnote #1 that it was Our intention
that the complaint be heard in a venue that was "concurrent and
equivalent to the district court as created in the Constitution of the
State of California of 1849... ". Additionally, We stated, as
plaintiffs, that We were "living on the land in Los Angeles county, in
California, one of the United States of America;" (see CT page 000002,
lines 2-4).
We are informed and believe that in the course of common events within
the court system, when plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) are mere
fictional "persons", whether they be natural, corporate or otherwise,
that the superior court deals with them within its own fictional
venue. We therefore, as a matter course, deemed it appropriate to seek
assurance from the court that it was properly joining Us in the venue
We specified.
On November 4, 1997, We requested, for the record, a clarification of
the venue of the courtroom. What we received, for the record (see
Reporter's Transcript [hereinafter "RT"] page 0004, line 15 through
0005, line 4), from the trial court was silence on the issue, and its
express refusal to clarify the venue. The transcript for November 4,
1997 makes it very clear that the trial court was expressly avoiding
the lawful venue within which We intended to have Our case heard. The
United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is treason to the
constitution to refuse a rightful jurisdiction:
"We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which
is given us, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the
other would be treason to the constitution." Cohens v. Virginia, 6
Wheat 264, 5 L.Ed. 257, 291.
Therefore, a question that this Court must address is whether a judge
elected to the bench of the superior court for Los Angeles county, on
the land within the boundaries of California, one of the united states
of America, has any lawful authority to refuse or decline that lawful
venue and usurp Our case into some fictional venue.
We are informed and believe that no judge has such authority. As
"nationals" of California, and each of Us being one of the people of
California, We do have standing to declare and demand the common law
venue that is "on the land" within the boundaries of California. The
trial court's refusal to acknowledge our venue is not only a
verification of its prejudice against Us as we have alleged herein,
but is an issue in and of itself worthy of reversal on appeal.
The Trial Court Ignored Perjury Within the
Substance of the Motion to Quash Service
Re: Defendant David Miscavige
A Motion to Quash Service of Summons was filed September 23, 1997 on
behalf of the Defendant David Miscavige. That motion was heard on
November 25, 1997 [1].
====================================================================
[1] The extraordinary amount of time between the filing of the motion
and the hearing date is due to the recusal of the originally assigned
judge (see CT, page 000120), for reasons unknown to us, and the
subsequent reassignment to the court to which this appeal applies.
====================================================================
The transcript for November 25, 1997 (see RT, pages 20-26) again
embodies the complete and express refusal by the trial court to
acknowledge the lawful venue on the land in Los Angeles county.
Our Opposition to Motion to Quash Service of Process, filed November
21, 1997 (see Augment to Clerk's Transcript pgs 1722-1726, submitted
March 1, 2000), contained information alleging perjury within the
substance of the Motion to Quash. The subsequent release of the
so-called "IRS Peace Treaty" or "Closing Agreement" pertaining to
Scientology (see CT pages 001224-001304) confirmed Our allegations of
perjury, not only on the part of David Miscavige, but personally on
the part of counsel Monique Yingling who appeared at the Motion to
Quash hearing on behalf of David Miscavige. Ms. Yingling is a
signatory to the "Peace Treaty", which confirms that the location of
service of process on David Miscavige was valid since it was served at
the same location designated in the IRS document as the location for
service of process for IRS notices to David Miscavige. The Motion to
Quash, prepared in part by Ms. Yingling, falsely asserted otherwise.
The trial court had a lawful duty to take notice of the allegations of
perjury. The Reporter's Transcript pages 0020-0026 demonstrates that
the trial court did not place any consideration upon Our opposition
papers whatsoever. We are not aware of any requirement for papers
opposing a motion to be accompanied by oral argument in order to be
considered.
The trial court's abuse of judicial discretion in refusing to place
due consideration on the allegations of perjury with regard to the
Motion to Quash Service of Summons is a verification of the court's
prejudice against Us as we have alleged herein, and is also an issue
in and of itself worthy of being given serious consideration by this
Court.
The Trial Court Gave Counsel for the Defendant
Instruction Re: How to Got the Default Vacated
The Defendant/respondent CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY filed a motion
to Quash Service of Summons on January 21, 1998 (see CT pages
000171-000179). We filed an opposition to said motion on February 9,
1998 (see CT pages 000201-000207). The Defendant/respondent filed a
reply to our opposition on February 19, 1998 (see CT pages
000247-000250).
Default was entered as to Defendant/respondent CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL
TECHNOLOGY on February 2, 1998 (see CT pages 000185-000191).
On February 9, 1996, Defendant/respondent CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL
TECHNOLOGY filed an ex parte application to vacate default (see CT
pages 000208-000226).
Additionally We had filed a Request for Entry of Court Judgment (see
CT pages 000192-000200). The Defendant/respondent CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL
TECHNOLOGY filed an opposition to the default judgment on February 17,
1998 (see CT pages 000227-000246).
On February 23, 1998, the trial court denied the
Defendant/Respondent's motion to vacate default (see CT page 000251).
The ruling stated, "The application of defendant Church of Spiritual
Technology (CST) to set aside default is denied...", but the ruling
did not stop there as it should have. The trial court went on to
"practice law" from the bench, counseling the defendant/respondent to
file a motion pursuant to CCP [Section]473. This is not only further
evidence of the trial court's prejudice against Us, but a willingness
to openly become an advocate for the defendant/respondent.
Then the trial court performs a very perplexing action. On the one
hand, it states that a demurrer having been sustained as to another
defendant did not relieve Defendant/respondent CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL
TECHNOLOGY of its obligation to answer the complaint. Yet on the other
hand, in the same minute order, denies the Entry of Default Judgment
based upon the complaint having had a demurrer sustained as to another
defendant (see CT page 000251).
The trial court's abuse of judicial discretion in openly becoming an
advocate for the defendant/respondent is not only a verification of
the court's prejudice against Us as We have alleged herein, but is an
issue in and of itself worthy of a reversal by this Court.
The Trial Court Intentionally Misstated and/or
Mislead Us with Prejudicial Rulings
When the trial court sustained the demurrer as to Defendant MIKE
RINDER, it stated in its ruling, in pertinent part, that the
"...Plaintiffs must allege that they have not, in fact, violated the
tax laws of any State or of the United States of America." (see CT
page 000167). We did not amend the complaint as to Defendant MIKE
RINDER.
When the trial court sustained the demurrer as to Defendant/respondent
CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY on August 13, 1998 (see CT pages
000372-000374), it did not restate or reference the ruling from the
prior demurrer (see CT page 000167).
But when We did amend the complaint as to Defendant/respondent CHURCH
OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY (see CT pages 000379-000507), We did recall
the ruling on the first demurrer and took that ruling into
consideration. We did, in fact, state in the First Amended Verified
Complaint for Libel that:
"The Plaintiffs declare that they have not, in fact, violated the tax
laws of any of the several states or of the united States of America."
(see CT page 000398, lines 5-7).
When the trial court again sustained the demurrer of
Defendant/respondent CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY on December 4,
1998, the ruling stated:
"The response of the Plaintiffs, when asked by the Court whether the
phrase "several states" and "united States" using a lower case "u"
have some meaning different from the "State of California" and the
"United States", made clear that Plaintiffs' reference to the tax laws
of the several states or the united States" [sic] is meant to describe
something other than the California Revenue and Taxation Code or the
Internal Revenue Code of the United States." (se [sic] CT page
001503).
Let us take an analytical look at the trial court's ruling of November
24, 1997 (CT p. 000167) as compared to the statement from the amended
complaint (see CT page 000398, lines 5-7). The trial court said
"...tax laws of any State or of the United States of America". Where
the trial court says "any State", what could that possibly mean if the
court is not referring to the same "several states" as used in Our
statement?
In the federal constitution, the words "several states" clearly refer
to the individual states joined as a union. On September 9, 1850,
pursuant to 9 Stat 452, Congress stated that "...the State of
California shall be, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United
States of America..."
When We used the words "several states", We were referring to the
State of California that is "one of the united states of America", and
any of the other 49 states that are all joined together in the union
known as the united states of America.
So when the trial court alleges that our use of the words "several
states" necessarily means something other than the State of
California, it raises a very important question: if, when the trial
court refers to the State of California, it is not referring to one of
the "several states", then what does the trial court mean by the words
"State of California"?
When We use the words "_u_nited States of America", We are referring
only to the union of the "several states". The use of the lower case
"u" is the manner in which those words were spelled in the Declaration
of Independence. Those words were spelled "_u_nited _s_tates of
America" in the original federal constitution. When they are spelled
with all initial caps, "_U_nited _S_tates of America", it can only be
construed as a spelling style change or a typographical error.
It must be noted that in the 11-24-97 minute order (CT 000167) the
trial [court] stated that "...Plaintiffs must allege that they have
not, in fact, violated the tax law of any State or of the United
States <<_of_America_>>". In the 12-04-98 minute order (CT 001502),
the trial court states "Plaintiffs have failed to allege that they
have not violated the tax laws of the states or of the United States".
"Of America" has disappeared. With regard to all the above, it is
significant when the "of America" is missing, since, for example, in
28 U.S.C. [Section]3002(15) (15) "United States" means--
* (A) a Federal corporation;
* (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other
entity of the United States; or
* (C) an instrumentality of the United States.
The "corporate policy" of the federal government has no lawful
authority within the boundaries of one of the "several states".
The trial court's abuse of judicial discretion in openly playing with
the semantics of words and blatantly changing the court's position
based on those semantics, is not only a verification of the court's
prejudice against Us as We have alleged herein, but is an issue in and
of itself worthy of a reversal by this Court.
The Trial Court Manipulated a
Discovery Controversy
The Defendant/respondent CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY filed a Motion
to Compel Production of Documents on August 11, 1998 (see CT pages
000511-000549). The demands were clearly overbroad and went beyond the
scope of the cause of action raised in the complaint.
Prior to the foregoing motion, one of the original plaintiffs, Lisa
Jan Precious, abandoned the case on or about July 31, 1998 (see CT
pages 000533-000536).
We, the remaining plaintiffs at that time, and the appellants now
seeking remedy, filed an Opposition to Defendant CST's Motion to
Compel Production of Documents on August 20, 1998 (see CT pages
000550-000574).
The Defendant/respondent CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY filed a reply
to our opposition on August 25, 1998 (see CT pages 000575-000582).
The Motion to Compel was heard by the trial court on August 27, 1998
(see CT page 000583). The trial court granted the Motion to Compel
without acknowledging or taking any apparent consideration of Our
opposition whatsoever. We raised valid issues of law, that to this
very day, remain uncontroverted by either the Respondent or the trial
court (see CT pages 000553-000557). The fact that Our opposition was
not taken into consideration in any manner makes the imposition of
monetary sanctions particularly egregious.
On September 8, 1998, We filed an ex parte application for a Written
Statement of Decision Disclosing Lawful Foundation with regard to the
Minute order dated August 27, 1998 (see CT pages 000586-000602). The
ex parte application was denied without explanation (see CT page
000603). To this day, there is no record of any disclosure of lawful
foundation for the trial court's ruling on August 27, 1998. The trial
court appears to believe that it can do as is pleases and is not
required to disclose any lawful foundation for its actions.
On September 11, 1998, the Defendant/Respondent CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL
TECHNOLOGY filed a demurrer.
Between September 25, 1998, and October 5, 1998, the
Defendant/Respondent CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY filed a massive
volume of papers, the majority of it merely duplicating the existing
record (see CT pages 000678-000810). Within these pages are included
Our responses and oppositions to the Defendant/Respondent CHURCH OF
SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY's flurry of papers,
We do not wish to complicate this brief beyond what is necessary and
therefore We leave it to the discretion of this court to determine
what, if any, of the foregoing is relevant to the issues raised in
this appeal.
The key issue is to look at and analyze is [sic] the trial court's
Minute Order dated October 15, 1998 (see CT pages 000821-000823). We
hereby request that this Court take notice of the literally impossible
position that this prejudicial ruling placed on us as plaintiffs as
follows:
Minute order: 2)a) Demands 1 and 2: Plaintiffs' responses are
inadequate under CCP Section 2031(f)(2) (see CT page 000821 and CT
pages 000518-000519).
Our position: Any of these documents that may have existed were not in
Our possession, and the remainder simply do not exist. We cannot
produce documents that do not exist. For the trial court to dismiss as
a sanction for failure to follow this court order is extremely
prejudicial and biased.
Minute Order: 2(b) Demand 4: Plaintiffs' responses are inadequate (see
CT page 000821 and CT page 000519.
Our position: From the original Verified Complaint through and
including the last papers we filed in this matter, we have clearly
identified ourselves as being "nationals" pursuant to the Nationality
Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137 [Section]101(a) and 8 U.S.C.
[Section]1101(a)(21). Neither the trial court nor the
Defendant/Respondent CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY have ever
questioned or attempted to controvert this fact. It is a matter of law
that:
"...there is a <
[3] The "national", 54 Stat 137 [Section]101(b).
=============================================================
Therefore, it is a matter of law that there are two distinct
classifications of citizenship in this country, with each having a
uniquely different set of "privileges and immunities". There is no
foundation of evidence of any kind within the Record on Appeal that
would establish that We are required by any law to have and maintain
such documentation. For the trial court to have ordered that we
produce documents which do not exist, creates a legal impossibility.
For the trial court to dismiss as a sanction for failure to follow a
court order which cannot be followed since no such documents exist, is
extremely prejudicial and biased.
Minute Order: 2) c) Demands 5, 6, 7, and 8: The Court previously
ordered Plaintiffs to respond without objection. Accordingly, they may
not now object on the grounds of relevance, Further, the fact that the
entities referred to are not parties to this action is of no import
(see CT pages 000821-000822 and CT page 000519).
Our position; Are We to believe that any and all "irrelevant" material
can be demanded on discovery and must be turned over without regard to
relevancy? The trial court cited no decisional law in support of the
order. Here again, it is a fact that there is no foundation in the
Record on Appeal demonstrating any evidence that the
Defendant/Respondent CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY has any lawful
right to demand unlimited information with regard to entities that
have not been shown to have any relevant connection to the cause of
action.
For the trial court to dismiss as a sanction for failure to follow an
unlawful order is further evidence of the trial court's prejudice
against Us, and is therefore worthy of consideration by this Court for
reversal.
Minute order: 2)d) Demands 9 and 10: Plaintiffs' responses are
inadequate under CCP 2031(f)(2) (see CT page 000822 and CT page
000519).
Our position: We have no such documentation. The Record on Appeal is
devoid of any foundation to demonstrate any evidence that such
documents exist. For the trial court to dismiss as a sanction for
failing to produce documents that do not exist is further evidence of
the trial court's prejudice against us, and is therefore worthy of
consideration by this Court for reversal.
Minute Order: 2)e) Demands 11 through 15: Plaintiffs' responses are
inadequate under CCP 2031(f)(2) (see CT page 000822 and CT page
000519-000520).
Our position: What is the "Veritas movement" or "Public Research
Foundation"? We are not affiliated with nor do We have any knowledge
of any such "movement" or other organization. There has existed a
website entitled "Veritas" which was at one time brought to Our
attention. Apparently someone believes that this case deserved some
public attention and placed copies of court documents from this case
on that website. We did not post any documentation on the Internet. We
have not knowingly ever communicated with whomever might be
responsible for this website. The documents on that website are
publicly available to anyone who cares to obtain copies. Postings made
by others on the World Wide Web are outside of our responsibility and
control.
For the trial court to dismiss as a sanction, again for Our failure to
produce documents that do not exist, is clear evidence of the trial
court's prejudice against Us and is worthy of consideration by this
Court for reversal.
Minute Order: 2)f) Demands 16 and 17: The Court has previously Ordered
Plaintiffs to respond without objection. Further, no privilege exists
for the subject communication. (see CT page 000822 and CT page
000520).
Our position: No such written documentation exists. Any documentation
which might in some way fit these demands is already a part of the
record in this matter. We therefore have no such documentation subject
to a discovery demand.
For the trial court to dismiss as a sanction, again for our failure to
produce documents that do not exist, is clear evidence of the trial
court's prejudice against Us and is worthy of consideration by this
Court for reversal.
Minute Order: 2)g) Demands 18 and 19: Plaintiffs' responses are
inadequate under CCP 2031(f)(2) (see CT page 000822 and CT page
000519).
Our position: No such documentation exists. For the trial court to
dismiss as a sanction, again for Our failure to produce documents that
do not exist, is clear evidence of the trial court's prejudice against
Us and is worthy of consideration by this Court for reversal.
Minute Order: 2)h) Demand 20: Plaintiffs' responses are inadequate
under CCP 2031(f)(2) (see CT page 000822 and CT page 000519).
Our position: Again, as far as We are aware, no such documentation
exists. We have not gone about "documenting" each and every
communication We ever had concerning the issues raised in this matter.
For the trial court to dismiss as a sanction, again for our failure to
produce documents that do not exist, is clear evidence of the trial
court's prejudice against Us and is worthy of consideration by this
Court for reversal.
In summary, the Minute Order of October 15, 1998 attempted to place
impossible demands upon Us. We believe that this was an intentional
manipulation to create a circumstance where the trial court could make
it appear that We were refusing to cooperate with discovery to justify
a dismissal as sanction. We believe that this "discovery controversy"
was orchestrated by the trial court so as to justify a dispositive
sanction. In so doing, a finding based on the merits of the case (the
rights and immunities of the national vis-a-vis those of the national
of the United States) is neatly avoided.
Because of the impossible demands, We filed a Motion to Stay
Defendant's Discovery on October 29, 1998 (see CT 001169-001181). That
motion can be summed up by the statement made at a hearing on November
6, 1998 (see RT page 0083, lines 3-7) where it was stated:
"...therefore to allow discovery to take place prior to [the
Defendant/respondent] filing an answer would muddy the waters and make
it very difficult to adjudicate at the time of trial what facts were
in possession of the Defendant at the time this publication was
published and disseminated."
Having made the foregoing argument, the following then took place at
that same hearing just a few moments later (see RT page 0084, lines
4-8):
The Court. "...Now you have a motion to stay discovery that--had you
set that for some date?
Ms. Carey: December first.
The Court: Maybe we should take that off calendar because we really
have an agreement here."
It is now apparent that, due to Our inexperience in dealing with a
shrewd and manipulative judge, we quite naturally believed that "we
had an agreement" [meant] that the defendant/respondent's discovery
was put off until January 1999 as requested by Us in Our Motion to
Stay Discovery (see RT pages 0078-0086).
When the trial court issued its ruling on December 4, 1998 (see CT
pages 001502-001504), the dismissal as a sanction for noncompliance
with court orders of 8-27-98 and 10-15-98 came to Us as a shock,
having believed that We had "an agreement" that discovery was stayed
until after the court issued a ruling on the demurrer.
The Demurrer
For the trial court to sustain the demurrer of defendant/respondent
CST in this case is to construe out of existence the national. At no
time did the defendant/respondent CST controvert our evidence and
claims to that status and the trial court has been notably silent on
any issue pertaining to the rights and immunities of, or even the
venue and jurisdiction pertaining to, the national. For the trial
court to ignore the status of the national, along with the rights and
immunities pertaining to same, renders that status legally moot and
theoretical, thereby making the status of national of the United
States (per the 14th Amendment) the only legal possibility and not a
voluntary status in fact. For the trial court to take this view is a
violation of the 13th Amendment, seemingly with the intent of steering
every American into the indentured status of a national of the United
States in favor of that corporation's creditor(s). We hold that for
the status of the national of the United States to exist without
conflict with the 13th Amendment, the status of the national must be a
real, practicable and recognized status. The trial court's failure to
recognize, and deal with Us, as nationals in the absence of any
allegation, fact or evidence to the contrary is, in and of itself,
reversible error.
The Demurrer is Actually An Answer
"A demurrer tests only the legal sufficiency of the allegations. It
does not test their truth, the plaintiff's ability to prove them or
the possible difficulty in making such proof." Saunders v. Superior
Court, 27 Cal.App.4th 832, at 840. Yet the demurrer of
defendant/respondent CST advocates vociferously on behalf of the
defendant/respondent, arguing against the allegations in Our Complaint
and addressing the causes of action point by point. The demurrer filed
by defendant/respondent CST does not, in fact, constitute a demurrer
but rather an answer which lacks evidence and facts and provides only
rhetoric and seemingly addresses a phantom complaint. Therefore, since
the demurrer was a demurrer in name only, it should not have been
sustained and this, in and of itself, should be considered reversible
error.
Conclusion
We believe that the Record on Appeal demonstrates that the trial court
assisted in manipulating the events to bring about the appearance of
the non-compliance with court orders in order to allege dismissal as a
sanction. We hold that this was done because the sustaining of the
demurrer alone was too weak to ensure that the case would ultimately
be suppressed.
We believe that the Record on Appeal also shows that the sustaining of
the demurrer was only possible as a result of the trial court's use of
twisted semantics and meanings of words rather than basing it upon a
valid lawful position (e.g., United States/United States of America).
Therefore both the sustaining of the demurrer, and the dismissal as a
sanction, were abuse of judicial discretion and embody an express
demonstration of prejudice and bias against Us without regard for the
facts in support of the cause of action and despite the fact that the
defendant/respondent never refuted or controverted the existence of
nationals or Our status as such.
The overwhelming consistency to the prejudice and bias against Us, in
and of itself, gives Us pause as to there being some definable motive
behind it all. Is it due to the trial court's need to protect a
self-interest related to involvement in legislation (see CT pages
000595-000597)? Or is it due to a realization by the trial court that
Meade Emory's interest in the reconfiguration of Scientology through
his corporation may not have been personal at all, but in fact was on
behalf of parties within or working in the interest of the United
States government [4] and that the trial court chose to protect those
interests?
===================================================================
[4] 20 C.J.S. [Section]1785 -- "The United States government is a
foreign corporation with respect to a state." In Re Merriam 36 N.E.
505,
141 N.Y. 479, affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1073, 183 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287
===================================================================
So, let us not forget that the trial court manipulated the content and
context of the Motion to Disqualify and violated CCP
[Section]170.3(c)(5) by ruling on the motion rather than passing it to
another judge as is required by CCP [Section]170.3(c)(5).
The dismissal as a sanction must be reversed. The sustaining of the
demurrer must be reversed and remanded back with instruction to order
the Defendant/Respondent CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY to answer the
complaint.
We would also request that this Court use its discretion with regard
to CCP [Section]170.1(c) and order that the matter be remanded to
Department 1 for reassignment to a superior court judge that is
capable of handling the case in an impartial manner as required by law
and judicial ethics.
Respectfully submitted this third day of the third month, in the year
A.D. two thousand.
_[L.S.]_______[signature]_____________seal_
Stephen Mitchell
_[L.S.]_______[signature]_____________seal_
Kathleen Carey
Date: 13 Apr 2000 08:58:46 -0000
From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Legal Archives)
Subject: CST Legal Papers 12 Mitchell Affidavit
Message-ID: <39B554D3DCF@127.0.0.1>
NOTES:
1. This is an Affidavit of Truth executed by Stephen Mitchell on 20
November 1997. The Affidavit was posted on the internet, date unknown.
Stephen Mitchell has recently filed an appeal in a libel suit against
the CORPORATION known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST). CST
is referenced in this Affidavit.
2. The Affidavit was apparently written as a result of a letter or FAX
to Mitchell from attorney William M. Hart (of law firm Paul, Hastings,
Janofsky & Walker LLP), but names other interested parties, including
David Miscavige, Sherman Lenske, Lyman Spurlock, and Guillame LeSevre.
3. The Affidavit addresses differences in various versions of the book
"New Slant on Life," and demands a response to each and every
paragraph of the Affidavit, with the challenge: "Any statement of fact
contained hereinabove that is not contradicted by direct response,
sworn under penalty of perjury, shall stand as true and uncontested,"
going on to say that "...lack of said response, sworn under penalty of
perjury...shall constitute an estoppel in pais for every statement of
fact...hereinabove, and shall debar respondent from gainsaying or
denying the uncontested truth of any statement of fact...hereinabove."
4. Interesting note: Attorney Hart apparently put the actual Client
Numbers for his clients Religious Technology Center (RTC) and Bridge
Publications, Inc. (BPI) in his FAX/letter.
The document speaks for itself:
====================================================================
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
William M. Hart, of the law firm Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
LLP, hereinafter "respondent." And other interested parties, David
Miscavige, Chairman of the Board of Religious Technology Center;
Sherman Lenske, Special Director of Church of Spiritual Technology;
Lyman Spurlock, last known as President of Church of Spiritual
Technology; John Doe #1, Executive Director of Bridge Publications,
Inc.; and Guillaume LeSevre, Executive Director of Church of
Scientology International.
1. WHEREAS, respondent Hart concedes that there are no fewer than two
separate and distinctly different editions of "A New Slant on
Life"--a.k.a. "Scientology A New Slant on Life," a.k.a. "Scientology:
A New Slant on Life," a.k.a. "A New Slant on Life / L. Ron
Hubbard"--and, further,
2. WHEREAS, the 1988 edition bears a separate and distinctly different
identifying ISBN from the 1965 edition, and, further,
3. WHEREAS, the 1988 edition bears no cite to the 1965 edition
copyright, and, further,
4. WHEREAS, the 1997 edition bears cite to the 1988 edition copyright
information, and bears an ISBN identical to the ISBN of the 1988
edition, and, further,
5. WHEREAS, respondent Hart concedes that the "1965 edition of that
work...was written by Mr. Hubbard," and, further,
6. WHEREAS, the cover and dustjacket of the 1965 edition bear the
unequivocal statement, "by L. Ron Hubbard," and, further,
7. WHEREAS, respondent Hart concedes that the 1988 edition is a "new
edition," as defined in the "Editor's Foreword" printed in that
edition, and, further,
8. WHEREAS, the 1988 "new edition" does not, anywhere, bear the
unequivocal statement, "by L. Ron Hubbard," and, further
9. WHEREAS, respondent Hart concedes that the 1988 "new edition"
contains "new matter," and, further,
10. WHEREAS, respondent Hart concedes that the 1988 new edition
"includes...text...by the Church of Scientology International," and,
further,
11. WHEREAS, the 1988 new edition contains text, other than the
editor's foreward, that is authored by persons other than L. Ron
Hubbard, and, further,
12. WHEREAS, certain text, other than the editor's foreword, in the
1988 new edition includes revisions to, and re-writes of, text taken
from L. Ron Hubbard's original 1965 edition, and, further,
13. WHEREAS, the revisions and re-writes established in [Paragraph] 12
hereinabove are in no way segregated from L. Ron Hubbard's original
1965 text, and are in no way identified or identifiable as to
authorship, but, indeed, would appear, to any reasonably prudent
person, to be an integral part of L. Ron Hubbard's original text, and,
further,
14. WHEREAS, those revisions and rewrites, as established in
[Paragraphs] 12 and 13 hereinabove were not written by L. Ron Hubbard,
and, further,
15. WHEREAS, the Library of Congress lists "Church of Scientology,
employer for hire" in the AUTH (author) datafield for the 1988 new
edition, and, further,
16. WHEREAS, the words "Church of Scientology" do not appear anywhere
on cover or dustjacket of the 1988 new edition, or the 1988-1997 new
edition, in any way that could be perceived or understood, by a
reasonbly prudent person, as representative of authorship, and,
further,
17. WHEREAS, the 1988 new edition, and the 1988-1997 new edition,
hereinafter "new editions," are absent eight (8) chapters which were
written by L. Ron Hubbard, and which appeared in the original 1965
edition, and, further,
18. WHEREAS, the new editions contain no mention of the eight (8)
missing chapters, and, further,
19. WHEREAS, neither of the new editions are identified anywhere on
covers or dustjackets as "revised editions," or "abridged editions,"
and, further,
20. WHEREAS, respondent Hart concedes that the 1988 new edition was
prepared "based upon....L. Ron Hubbard writings," which is clearly and
inarguably not the same as being L. Ron Hubbard writings, and,
further,
21. WHEREAS, the Library of Congress does not list "L. Ron Hubbard" in
the AUTH (author) datafield for the 1988 new edition, and, further,
22. WHEREAS, respondent Hart concedes that "the name 'L. Ron Hubbard'
was incorporated into the title" in the actual certificates filed with
the U. S. Copyright Office for the 1988 new edition, and is not simply
a mistake in the abstracts, and, further,
23. WHEREAS, so incorporating the name "L. Ron Hubbard" into the title
enables "misrepresentations as to authorship," and, further,
24. WHEREAS, L. Ron Hubbard, in Hubbard Communications Office Policy
Letters, hereinafter "HCO PLs," specifically forbade any
misrepresentations as to authorship of his works, declaring, "The
field and public must not be led to believe that I have written or
issued things I have not," and, further,
25. WHEREAS, L. Ron Hubbard, the man and the author, did not issue the
new editions, which have text authored by unknown others, and which
have had eight (8) chapters removed, and, further,
26. WHEREAS, the Church of Scientology International, Bridge
Publications, Inc., and the Religious Technology Center are legally
bound to uphold and abide by HCO PLs, and, further,
27. WHEREAS, the words "L. Ron Hubbard" appear prominently on the
covers and dustjackets of the new editions in a position and size that
would be construed by any reasonably prudent person to represent sole
authorship by L. Ron Hubbard, and, further,
28. WHEREAS, the words "L. Ron Hubbard" and "Hubbard" are currently
registered trademarks under the control of Religious Technology
Center, hereinafter "RTC," and, further,
29. WHEREAS, respondent Hart--on a document dated November 14, 1997,
and identified as a FAX cover sheet, with the identifying number "No.
703 P001"--states CLIENT NAME to be RTC (Religious Technology Center),
and states CLIENT # to be 24437.00600, and, further,
30. WHEREAS, the publisher of the new editions of "A New Slant on
Life" is Bridge Publications, Inc., and, further,
31. WHEREAS, respondent Hart--on a document dated November 14, 1997,
and identified as the first page of a letter to Affiant, VIA
FACSIMILE, with the identifying number "No. 703 P002," and with
further identification as "FILE NO. 24437.00600," and headed, "Re: 'A
New Slant on Life'"--states, "This firm is intellectual property
litigation counsel to Bridge Publications, Inc.," and, further,
32. WHEREAS, both RTC and Bridge Publications, Inc. are indispensible
to, and are each and both principals in the advertising, and in the
final marketed presentation of the new editions of "A New Slant on
Life," and, further,
33. WHEREAS, respondent Hart represents himself as counsel to both
parties, and, further,
34. WHEREAS, the advertising and the final marketed presentation of
the new editions of "A New Slant on Life" would lead any reasonably
prudent person to believe that L. Ron Hubbard was the sole author,
and, further,
35. WHEREAS, the new editions are edited, abridged, and revised, and,
further,
36. WHEREAS, the words "edited," "abridged," or "revised" are present
nowhere in the advertising, marketing, or outward presentation of the
new editions, and, further,
37. WHEREAS, the trademark "L. Ron Hubbard" is featured prominently on
the covers and dustjackets of the new editions in a place and manner
most likely to lead any reasonably prudent person to believe that L.
Ron Hubbard was the sole author, and, further,
38. WHEREAS, the Church of Spiritual Technology, is, by assignment,
the current holder of the copyrights to the new editions, and,
further,
39. WHEREAS, the Church of Scientology International, the Religious
Technology Center, the Church of Spiritual Technology, and Bridge
Publications, Inc. have all had, at all relevant times, implied and
actual notice of all the foregoing, and, further,
40. WHEREAS, neither Church of Scientology International, Religious
Technology Center, Church of Spiritual Technology, nor Bridge
Publications, Inc., have taken any action to correct or rectify any of
the foregoing, and, further,
41. WHEREAS, respondent Hart, representing, as counsel, both RTC and
BPI, has characterized the foregoing as "baseless allegations," even
while conceding many of the points contained hereinabove, and,
further,
42. WHEREAS, respondent Hart, representing, as counsel, both RTC and
BPI, has issued threats to the Affiant of "substantial legal
consequences" for the dissemination of the incontrovertible facts
contained hereinabove, and, further,
43. WHEREAS, Affiant avers that all the foregoing is true and accurate
to the best of his knowledge and belief,
THEREFORE,
44. Notice is hereby given that Affiant demands a response within ten
(10) days, from respondent, sworn under penalty of perjury, to each
and every statement of fact in [Paragraphs] 1 through 43 hereinabove.
A response, sworn under penalty of perjury, that contradicts any one
of the statements of fact in any of [Paragraphs] 1 through 43
hereinabove shall have no bearing on any other statement of fact
contained in any other [Paragraph] hereinabove. Any statement of fact
contained hereinabove that is not contradicted by direct response,
sworn under penalty of perjury, shall stand as true and uncontested.
45. Notice is hereby given that lack of said response, sworn under
penalty of perjury, by respondent shall be construed as willful bad
faith on the part of respondent in regard to all matters referenced in
[Paragraphs] 1 through 43 hereinabove.
46. Notice is hereby given that lack of said response, sworn under
penalty of perjury, by respondent shall constitute an estoppel in pais
for every statement of fact in [Paragraphs] 1 through 43 hereinabove,
and shall debar respondent from gainsaying or denying the uncontested
truth of any statement of fact in [Paragraphs] 1 through 43
hereinabove.
47. Affiant specifically reserves to himself his sovereign and
inalienable rights to communicate the incontroverted facts contained
in [Paragraphs] 1 through 43 hereinabove to anyone of his choosing,
including any person whose life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness may
be adversely affected by an unawareness of the facts contained in
[Paragraphs] 1 through 43 hereinabove, and reserves to himself all
rights and remedies that are his under God and under law, whether
express or implied.
Further, Affiant Saith Not.
Subscribed and sworn to this 20th day of November in the year 1997
(Signature of Stephen Mitchell)
[L.S.}__________________________________SEAL
My Hand and Mark as Subscriber
California state )
)ss.
Los Angeles county )
On this 20th day of November 1997, before me, Trisha Welsh, Notary
Public, personally appeared Stephen Mitchell personally known to me or
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the man whose
name is subscribed within the instrument, and Stephen Mitchell
acknowledged to me that he executed the same and that by his mark and
seal on the instrument, Stephen Mitchell executed the instrument.
Purpose of Notary Public is for administering oath and/or
identification and cannot be construed as representing any entrance
into a foreign jurisdiction.
(Signature--Trisha Welsh)
________________________________________
Notary Public
Date: 14 Apr 2000 19:30:15 -0000
From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Legal Archives)
Subject: CST Legal Papers 14 OT Levels Copyrights
Message-ID: <10B31DC5D91@127.0.0.1>
NOTES:
1. The following is a table of copyright information about that
portion of the "Advanced Technology" (See "CST Legal Papers 01
Assignment Agreement," and "CST Legal Papers 06 Covenant, Advanced
Technology") commonly known as the "OT Levels."
2. ALL of the copyrights referred to below are owned by the
CORPORATION known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST), doing
business as (d.b.a.) the "L. Ron Hubbard Library."
3. CST is NOT a church; it is a CORPORATION. Ref. U.S. Claims Court
No. 581-88T, Judge Bruggink:
"CST is not a church...CST represents that it
is a religious corporation organized to
accomplish the activities of a church. Despite
its name, CST is not itself a church... ."
4. CST licenses to the CORPORATION known as "Religious Technology
Center" (RTC) the right to USE and to SUB-LICENSE these "OT Levels"
(See "CST Legal Papers 01 Assignment Agreement," and "CST Legal Papers
06 Covenant, Advanced Technology"), but CST's agreements with RTC are
EXCLUSIVE OF COPYRIGHT, which means that CST retains full ownership
and control over ALL the materials and their use.
5. The CORPORATION known as "Religious Technology Center" (RTC) is NOT
a church, it is a CORPORATION.
6. The copyright information below was posted to the internet, but has
been checked against the TWO databases--Library of Congress data on
CofS Copyright transfers and registrations--which were obtained
through and created from a TelNet search of the LoC records, and which
are available in several formats, at:
http://fzint.org/downloads/index.htm
(Scroll down web page to find them. NOTE that there are TWO databases
there: one database lists TRANSFERS of copyright ownership, the other
database lists copyright REGISTRATIONS AND RENEWALS.)
7. It is noted that in the case of almost every "OT Level" listed
below, CST owns at least TWO separate and distinct versions of each,
with different unique identifying numbers.
8. The versions identified in the table below as "TRANSFERRED TO
CST--NOT REGISTERED" are "OT Levels" that were among the 7,731
copyrights transferred to CST by Norman Starkey. (See "CST Legal
Papers 10 Copyright Transfer Record," and "CST Legal Papers 11
Assignment [to CST]"). However, none of these "OT Levels" are found in
the Library of Congress/Copyright Office records database of
"Registrations and Renewals" (available at the web site listed above).
9. The versions listed in the table as "TRANSFERRED TO CST" and
"REGISTERED" are "OT Levels" that were among the 7,731 copyrights
transferred to CST, but that ALSO are found as being registered in the
Library of Congress/Copyright Office records database of
"Registrations and Renewals" (available at the web site listed above).
It is important to take note of the following database fields for each
of these "OT Levels" that are REGISTERED. All of them have the same
information in them:
Previously Registered Related PREV: NONE
Renewals. Orig. Pubilcation Date ODAT: NONE
Renewals. Orig. Registration Info OREG: NONE
Renewals. Old Class Code OCLS: NONE
10. There is no way to know if the two (or more) versions of each "OT
Level" are the same without a side-by-side comparison.
11. There is no immediate way to know which version(s) are being
LICENSED to RTC, or being delivered by the CST/RTC-sub-licensed
organizations.
12. The originals of ALL versions have reportedly been sealed up in
CST's titanium vaults, and so only (alterable) REPRODUCTIONS have ever
been submitted to any court or legatee for "proof" of copyright
ownership or authorship of the documents.
13. Finally, at the end of this table of individual "OT Levels," there
is a work TRANSFERRED TO CST--NOT REGISTERED that merely has the
catch-all title: "Ot levels." It has a unique identifying number of
A785242. (It should be noted here that the U.S. Government has now
shut down the ability to TelNet into the Library of Congress's own
databases of Copyright Office information, citing "security reasons."
They now provide only a web-based search engine [which can have
filters not visible to the user]. Entering the unique number "A785242"
into the web-based search engine produces no results.)
Here is the table:
=====================================================================
==================================================
Copyright Copyright
Office/LoC Office/LoC
Title Number
==================================================
Ot I A843146
TRANSFERRED TO CST--NOT REGISTERED
Ot I and attachment 21 Jul 68 TXu 303-382
TRANSFERRED TO CST.
REGISTERED on 1 Sept 1987
as "21 July 1968 OT I and
attachment/L. Ron Hubbard"
New Ot I series TXu 303-385
TRANSFERRED TO CST.
REGISTERED on 1 Sept 1987
as "New OT I series/L. Ron
Hubbard"
---------------------------------------------------
Ot II A848699
TRANSFERRED TO CST--NOT REGISTERED
Ot II series TXu 303-388
TRANSFERRED TO CST.
REGISTERED on 17 Sept 1987
as "OT II/L. Ron Hubbard"
---------------------------------------------------
(No "Ot III" listed)
NOT REGISTERED
Ot IIIX A826655
TRANSFERRED TO CST--NOT REGISTERED
Ot III series TXu 290-496
TRANSFERRED TO CST.
REGISTERED on 30 July 1987
as "OT III series."
---------------------------------------------------
Ot IV A851222
TRANSFERRED TO CST--NOT REGISTERED
New Ot IV series TXu 303-387
TRANSFERRED TO CST.
REGISTERED on 17 Sept 1987
as "OT IV/L. Ron Hubbard."
OT IV. TXu-690-962
TRANSFERRED TO CST.
REGISTERED on 24 Aug 1995
as "OT IV." [NOTE PERIOD]
---------------------------------------------------
Ot V A848700
TRANSFERRED TO CST--NOT REGISTERED
(No "OT V series" listed)
NOT REGISTERED
---------------------------------------------------
(No "Ot VI" listed)
NOT REGISTERED
(No "Ot VI series" listed)
NOT REGISTERED
HCO policy letter of 18 September
issue I revised 23 September 1996
new ot VI, part A: ... TXu-777-553
TRANSFERRED TO CST.
REGISTERED on 31 Dec 1996
as "New OT VI, part A : the
Hubbard solo NOTs auditing
course (non-confidential) :
HCO policy letter of 18
September 1980RB, issue I."
---------------------------------------------------
Full ot VII A843147
TRANSFERRED TO CST--NOT REGISTERED
(No "Ot VII series" listed)
NOT REGISTERED
---------------------------------------------------
(No "Ot VIII" listed)
NOT REGISTERED
(No "Ot VIII series" listed)
NOT REGISTERED
===================================================
Here is another record that is not an individual
"OT LEVEL," but apparently a collection:
---------------------------------------------------
Ot levels A785242
TRANSFERRED TO CST--NOT REGISTERED
---------------------------------------------------
Go Back
to Shy David's Scientology Page.