||||| From: ptsc Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Berry to Rosen, Meet and Confer letter Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:44:32 -0500 Organization: ARS: Perhaps the Most Malignant Newsgroup on Usenet Message-ID: <5k3v1ug9lpitaha113tmjo186jv5n8e4tj@4ax.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 386 Path: corp.newsgroups.com!propagator-maxim!feed.newsfeeds.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!telocity-west!TELOCITY!sn-xit-03!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: newsfeeds alt.religion.scientology:1273497 From: hkhenson@netcom.com (Keith Henson) Subject: Re: More on Probate Date: 1997/04/23 Message-ID: Sender: hkhenson@netcom3.netcom.com References: Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology It will be interesting for the MoFo lawyers to ask questions from this document. Heck, if they don't get to the end, *I* might even ask one or two. For those of you net.lawyers who have been arguing how hard it is to reopen probate, you might be amused to look at point 24, where it seems that probade was *never closed.* Keith Henson ******************* April 21, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL Samuel D. Rosen, Esq. PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER 399 Park Avenue, 31st Floor New York, New York 10022-4697 Re:RTC v. F.A.C.T.NET, INC., et al. Meet and Confer Letter Re Motions to Amend Scheduling Order(s) and to Compel the Deposition of David Miscavige Dear Mr. Rosen: Reference is made to our April 18, 1997 letter and enclosures in support of our position as to why Mr. Miscavige's deposition would be "relevant on the pleadings as they now stand." More recent analysis of the L. Ron Hubbard Probate Court files, and the Coroner's files regarding Mr. Hubbard's death, confirms that there is an increasing mountain of evidence providing an overwhelming basis for Mr. Miscavige's deposition and trial testimony, at the very least. The more recent analysis of newly obtained probate and coroner files (from the public records) raise the following observations, questions, issues and facts that will need to be incorporated into the draft Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant's [Proposed] Motions to Amend the Scheduling Order [in the FACTNet case] and to Compel the Deposition of David Miscavige, that was enclosed with our April 18, 1997 correspondence as part of the Meet & Confer (D.C. Colo.L.R.7.1.A) process. We now set forth some of these matters for your immediate consideration in connection with our request that "you stipulate to an amendment to the Scheduling Order to permit us to take the deposition of David Miscavige at a mutually convenient date at our offices." In that regard, we note that in the related cases pending before Hon. Ronald M. Whyte in San Jose, CA, David Miscavige has been ordered into immediate deposition notwithstanding the RTC's voluntary dismissal of its trade secret claim on the eve of that scheduled deposition. 1. Attachment 8 to the Notice of Death of L. Ron Hubbard filed February 5, 1986 shows that all notices to interested persons were sent to Scientology corporate addresses, except for "Nibs" Hubbard and Anne Broeker. Contrary to Norman Starkey's statements under penalty of perjury in the Petition For Probate, all of L. Ron Hubbard's heirs were not listed on this attachment 8. These heirs, whether or not disinherited in the last will, all had statutory rights in the alleged trade secrets and copyrights at issue herein. 2. Three Proofs of Subscribing Witnesses were executed and filed within 14 days of Mr. Hubbard's death. However, although only two such proofs are required, on February 11, 1986, Raymond Mithoff suddenly steps forward as the fourth subscribing witness to the January 23, 1986 will. 3. Accordingly, Raymond Mithoff is not only a percipient and material witness on this issue, but his presence at Mr. Hubbard's death, and his Scientology position (post), then and now, calls into serious and relevant question the Scientology processing Mr. Hubbard may have been receiving at the time of his death, and his resulting mental capacity. For example, see the 1965 Victoria (Australia) Report of the Board of Inquiry into Scientology, Chapter 23 (Dangers to Mental Health -- and Processing Scientologists into Insanity). 4. Norman Starkey's February 5, 1986 declaration evidences the role and "duties" of Author Services, Inc., at the time when David Miscavige was its senior corporate officer, in the "maintenance and promotion of Mr. Hubbard's numerous copyrights." Moreover, Norman Starkey is clearly an extremely relevant witness, particularly because of his testimony in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 10 of his February 5, 1986 declaration, and his various other contradictory statements, many of them made under oath and penalty of perjury. 5. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Sherman D. Lenske, Esq.'s February 4, 1986 declaration are in material contradiction of his more recent declaration(s) filed in connection with the subsequent trade secret and copyright litigation filed by the Plaintiffs herein in the Lerma and other cases which, of course, are related cases to the FACTNet case despite plaintiff's failure to file a Notice of Related Cases as specifically required by D.C. Colo. L.R. 7.1.K. 6. The December 15, 1979 will was also purportedly witnessed by Pat and Anne Broeker, and Dianna Sue Reisdorf Voegeding. Thus, their testimonial relevance herein is further strengthened. Curiously, there are no purported intellectual property dispositions contained in this will. Moreover, this will did make express provision for Mary Sue Hubbard. In addition, and contrary to the terms of the will executed the day before Mr. Hubbard's death, Alexis Hollister is recognized as an expressly disinherited "heir." This will incorporated the terms of the L. Ron Hubbard Inter Vivos Trust Agreement, purportedly executed the same day. This Trust Agreement was not made part of the 1986 probate filing even though paragraph 5 of the will provides that it was not Mr. Hubbard's intent "to create a separate trust by [that] Will." 7. Interestingly, and of extreme relevance, is the fact that Patrick and Anne Broeker also witnessed the execution of the May 10, 1982 L. Ron Hubbard will. Accordingly, David Miscavige, Pat Broeker, Anne Broeker, Norman Starkey, Ray Mithoff, Lyman D. Spurlock, David Mayo and the various Hubbard family members become the most relevant and percipient witnesses on the ownership, if any, of the trade secret and copyright claims being asserted in the FACTNet case, and the related cases. In the May 10, 1982 will, Mr. Hubbard does a flip-flop and asserts that "Alexis Hollister...never has been my heir." This 1982 will also appoints Patrick Broeker as the executor of the will, followed by Lyman D. Spurlock and Norman Starkey in that order. This will also creates the "Author's Family Trust." Again, in paragraph 5 of that will, Mr. Hubbard provides that it is not his intent "to create a separate trust by [that] WILL." Again, the actual trust agreement is not included with the probate filing. Moreover, this will also contains no express testamentary disposition of any purported intellectual property rights. 8. On November 14, 1993 L. Ron Hubbard executed a First Codicil to Last Will And Testament Of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard. For the first time, Mr. Hubbard directs that he be cremated "as soon as possible following [his] death" and "[u]nder no circumstances shall [his] body lie in state or be subject to an autopsy." Again, Patrick D. Broeker and Anne M. Broeker witnessed this codicil. 9. Mary Sue Hubbard's February 4, 1986 declaration makes absolutely no reference to any notice of, or waiver of, independent counsel, or any legal counsel, in respect of her valuable community property rights in the purported intellectual property rights arising from their "nearly 34 years of marriage from March 6, 1952...until January 24, 1986." On the basis of Norman Starkey's April 10, 1987, filing, Mary Sue Hubbard may have had a community property share in $652,853.00 of the estate, and Mary Sue Hubbard and the children of L. Ron Hubbard had a collective statutory interest in the entirety of the copyrights which Norman Starkey valued at $25 million. Accordingly, Mary Sue Hubbard, and L. Ron Hubbard's children, are critically relevant material and percipient witnesses herein. 10. Similarly, the February 4, 1986 declarations of Arthur Ronald Conway Hubbard, Dianne Meredith DeWolf-Ryan and Mary Suzette Rochelle Hubbard raise related issues concerning their receipt of any legal counsel, let alone independent legal counsel, and the proper and lawful ownership of the alleged intellectual property rights purportedly being claimed in the FACTNet and related cases. In these declarations, Mary Sue Hubbard and three of Mr. Hubbard's children, acknowledge express provision for them under the terms of the trust. However, ignoring the purported trust provisions, Norman Starkey then disposed of substantially, if not all, of the assets of the estate directly to RTC. He subsequently claimed that C.S.T had consented to that assignment. No evidence has been filed showing that Mary Sue Hubbard, Arthur Ronald Conway Hubbard, Dianne Meredith DeWolf Hubbard Ryan and Mary Suzzette Rochelle Hubbard had similarly consented. Curiously, in their declarations, all dated February 4, 1986, these individual beneficiaries of the trust refer to that trust as the January 23, 1986 Amended Hubbard Family Trust and not the Author's Family Trust B as that trust was referred to in the January 23, 1986 will. This raises the very pertinent and relevant question of what documents these individuals were actually shown. 11. The February 4, 1986 declaration of Daniel J. Przybyrski, Vice President and Director of the Church of Spiritual Technology, also raises material issues to this litigation. Suddenly, on the eve of his death, seven days after suffering a crippling stroke without receiving immediate medical attention (because Dr. Denk was gambling in Reno with several other people including his wife and David Miscavige as witnesses), Mr. Hubbard has given his purported life's work to the Church of Spiritual Technology. 12. Interestingly, and again of extreme material relevance, on May 9, 1986, Norman Starkey executed a Petition for Extension of Time to File an Inventory of the purported copyrights within the estate. Mr. Starkey requested additional time "to analyze the legal basis of the copyrights," to "correctly list the copyrights chronologically (because federal copyright laws have changed from time to time over the years)." 13. The probate court files then include the filing of dozens of creditors claims, totalling, in the aggregate, many hundreds of millions of dollars. These claimants include: Michael J. Flynn, Esq., Gabriel and Margaret Cazeres, Martin Samuels, Julie Christofferson Tichbourne, Nancy and John McClean, Carol and Paul Garety, Thomas Jefferson, Dana Lockwood, Jane and Richard Peterson and Ron Glazier. 14. Subsequently, on various dates in December 1986, these creditor claims are all withdrawn -- following the 1986 group settlements. The probate court file provides no information about the 1986 group settlements in Boston, Florida and California. However, it now appears possible that the egregious provisions of the various 1986 "cookie cutter" settlement agreements were part and parcel of a massive and continuing conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud upon the L. Ron Hubbard probate court, the United States Copyright Office, the federal and various state governments, and each of the courts involved in the 1986 group settlements. 15. On December 17, 1986, Norman Starkey executed a further Ex Parte Petition for an order authorizing an Extension of Time to File an Inventory, inter alia, of Mr. Hubbard's claimed intellectual property and copyright claims despite Mr. Starkey and "his staff" expending "over 500 hours work" on this "817 page document listing approximately 20,000 separate copyrights...." This inventory was apparently filed subsequently. Curiously, it is no longer on the probate court file. Nonetheless this "inventory of copyrights" is of extreme relevance to the FACTNet and related litigation. In addition, this Ex Parte Petition was occasioned by a need to obtain information, for the Probate Court, on the unsuccessful oil well investments that David Miscavige had made in L. Ron Hubbard's name. This resulted in "Special Properties," created to raise the funds to replace these monies. These included autographed and specially bound editions of L. Ron Hubbard's fiction. It was in relation to these "Special Properties" that the relevant blank signature pages of L. Ron Hubbard were obtained, allegedly for the purpose of insertion into bound volumes. However, more pages were signed by Mr. Hubbard than were needed for the volumes, allegedly in case some were damaged during binding. These additional signed blank pages were never accounted for. 16. On April 10, 1987, Norman Starkey finally filed a "Inventory and Appraisement" specifying a total L. Ron Hubbard estate value of $26,305,706. Of this amount, the copyrights, and other intellectual property claims, were valued at $25 million dollars. 17. On June 9, 1987 the L. Ron Hubbard probate court calendared David Mayo's claim against the L. Ron Hubbard estate, arising from his claim to the authorship of "a series of materials known as NED for OTS (NOTS) and SOLO NOTS" which are part of the published and unpublished works at issue herein. 18. Significantly, the Mayo claim raises the issue of L. Ron Hubbard's failure to enforce his purported copyright claims "during his lifetime." Indeed, footnote on page 10 of the June 8, 1987 memorandum is particularly interesting and deserving of discovery. Moreover, the subsequent Mayo/Scott/Lawly/ Wollersheim filings raise incredible issues regarding the bona fides and clean hands of plaintiffs herein. Indeed, Lawrence Wollersheim's name is all over the L. Ron Hubbard probate court file. In addition, on March 20, 1987, Lawrence Wollersheim asserted various counterclaims against Religious Technology Center, a plaintiff herein. Interestingly, when seeking the ex parte seizure orders herein, RTC did not advise the court of the prior existence and nature of these claims such as: fake designation of origin/false descriptions; liable and liable per se; Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, unfair competition, et al. Neither did they apprise the Denver Court of the Ninth Circuit decision that went against them on the trade secret claims. 19. The Mayo cases, and the related Ninth Circuit decision in RTC v. Wollersheim, provide substantial evidence and argument for a summary judgment on the ground of misuse of copyright. Paragraph 52 of Warren McShane's October 26, 1995 declaration is further evidence for this motion. 20. On June 23, 1987, Gary Bright, Esq. filed a declaration in the Matter of the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard in which he noted in paragraph 1, that none of the plaintiffs' claims in Wollersheim II "alleged any claims based on federal copyright protection" even though "both complaints alleged exclusive and proprietary rights in various religious materials existing in plaintiff's organizations herein referred to collectively as the Church of Scientology." Moreover, earlier, RTC had alleged, in an operative complaint, that Lawrence Wollersheim's involvement in the "conspiracy....[to] disseminate steal, counterfeit, used, alter and otherwise disseminate certain confidential and proprietary materials of CSI, RTC and CSC" had occurred "as early as July of 1983, and possibly earlier." 21. On December 5, 1986 Warren McShane executed a declaration for filing in the L. Ron Hubbard probate case. Amazingly, he attached copyright registration certificates dated November 24, 1986, for "NED for OTS series," and a November 20, 1986 license agreement for the very same documents. The licensor was "the L. Ron Hubbard library," a stranger to all of the inter- related judicial proceedings herein. Scientology requested "special handling in connection with these copyright registration applications involving NED for OTS series. 22. Ultimately, the matters in dispute in Wollersheim II (what are also known as the Mayo or RICO cases) were resolved after the commencement of this action and the related litigation, by a secret, sealed and confidential settlement agreement. That confidential settlement agreement is, in pertinent part, an attempt to deprive the defendants herein of the benefit of over twelve years of intensive Mayo litigation involving many of the very same allegations, documents and issues in the FACTNet and the related cases. 23. The [alleged copyright and trade secrets] Inventory and Appraisement filed in [the L. Ron Hubbard probate] proceedings on April 10, 1987, is no longer in the probate court file. Significantly, on April 30, 1996, eight months after the FACTNet and related cases had been filed, the Scientology Organization quietly and successfully organized and obtained a "order to dispose of exhibits and depositions." 24. It would appear from the L. Ron Hubbard Probate Court file that the L. Ron Hubbard probate proceeding has never been closed and that Norman F. Starkey is still acting as both Special Administrator and Executor. The file contains no receipts from the distributee(s) nor any order of discharge. Accordingly, Mr. Starkey is still subject to suit in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of L. Ron Hubbard. In the context of the FACTNet, and the related cases, he should now be joined as an indispensable party. In addition, the defendants in the FACTNet, and the related cases, can commence an action against Mr. Starkey for quiet title under Cal. Probate Code Section 9860. Accordingly, we are now preparing such a Petition as well as a Petition for Removal of Norman F. Starkey as Special Administrator and Executor and for Appointment of Neutral Administrator, C.T.A. Because of the citation powers of the Probate Court (Cal. Probate Code Section 8873) no documents, or other evidence, relating to any of these matters should be destroyed, altered or distributed in any manner. We are advising the relevant court(s) and authorities accordingly. 25. Finally, and with reference to a massive fraud being perpetrated upon the courts, the federal and state governments, the public, and the adherent to Scientology (e.g. Scientologists and Scientology staffers), we urge you to inquire of David Miscavige, the chairman of plaintiff RTC, as to the "ten recent needle marks in [L. Ron Hubbard's] gluteal area" that the post-mortem revealed. If you fail to get the answer from Mr. Miscavige, then others will have to provide it. Accordingly, we again request that you stipulate to an amendment of the Scheduling Order to permit us to take the deposition of David Miscavige at a mutually convenient date at our offices. As we also requested in our April 18, 1997 letter, if you are not prepared to stipulate to the requested amendment to the Scheduling Order, please provide us with sufficient factual and legal reasoning to satisfy your Local Rule Meet & Confer obligations so that we can proceed to file the appropriate motions, revised to reflect the contents of this letter and footnote 2 of our April 18, 1997 letter, without undue delay. Very truly yours, Graham E. Berry for MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP