Skip to main content

Criminal Charges for Hubbard signature fraud and the Factnet Lawsuit. Part 1

Criminal Charges for Hubbard signature fraud and the Factnet Lawsuit. Part 1

It is believed that Scientology through its lawyers has submitted false Hubbard signatures on the Hubbard 1986 last will and the 1982 transfer of copyrights to RTC and BPI. It has falsely filed lawsuits claiming ownership of copyrighted materials (from the estate of L Ron Hubbard) it does not own but acquired through estate and other extensive and felonious fraud.

The following series of propositions are from the Factnet Filings for the readers to consider regarding the situation surrounding Scientology criminal conspiracy to commit Hubbard signature fraud in the Colorado Federal District court. It is interesting to note that Miscavige and Starkey ADAMANTLY refuse to produce originals of the Hubbard will and copyright asset transfers, the very documents experts need to examine to prove that the signatures are not Hubbard's. You will also see the many mysterious circumstances surrounding the death of L Ron Hubbard in these statements.

In his declaration, Mr. Young testified that David Miscavige was in charge of the project to register certain of the claimed copyrights in 1983. When advised that many of the documents which Scientology wished to copyright were already in the public domain, David Miscavige allegedly responded that the copyright applications were to be filed and that Scientology would "fight that battle later." Furthermore, David Miscavige was the only mode of communication with LRH during the five years preceding LRH's death when LRH was in hiding, seclusion and a fugitive from justice. During this time, LRH signed many blank sheets of paper which the Scientology organization used for various purposes. David Miscavige notarized many of the assignments at issue herein. There is an issue of fact as to whether or not David Miscavige notarized those documents in the presence of L. Ron Hubbard, whether or not L. Ron Hubbard signed the assignments or merely blank pieces of papers, and whether David Miscavige otherwise performed his notary duties in accordance with law. Furthermore, after being crippled by a stroke, and whilst under the influence of the psychiatric and hallucinatory drug Vistiril, LRH purportedly changed his Will one day before death. David Miscavige's role in the alleged withdrawal of medical care from LRH, the changing of LRH's Will, his cremation within 24 hours of death and without autopsy, and the subsequent disappearance of certain witnesses such as Pat and Annie Broeker, is directly relevant to the issues presented by the pending summary judgment motion. Furthermore, David Miscavige's role in negotiating seven-figure settlements with members of the Hubbard family after LRH's death, and arranging for those family members to subsequently assign their various rights to the documents at issue herein, is directly relevant to the issues presented by the pending summary judgment motion. Indeed, testimony has been filed in other litigation that shortly before LRH's death, David Miscavige allegedly said words to the effect of "IRS indictments are about to come down. The only thing that will save us now is if the old man dies." (b) Norman F. Starkey: Norman Starkey's deposition is relevant for a number of reasons. First, he was the executor of the Hubbard estate which is alleged to have succeeded to Hubbard's claimed copyrights prior to their ultimate transfer to the Church of Spiritual Technology. Thus, he is expected to have relevant and admissible evidence in connection with that very relevant and disputed factual area. Second, various copyright registration certificates indicate that he was one of the people (along with David Miscavige, Mary Sue Hubbard and Patricia Brice), who were personally involved in various of the copyright registrations that are directly in issue in connection with the pending motion for summary judgment.

Pat Broeker: Pat Broeker, along with his wife Annie Broeker, were LRH's constant companions during the final years of his life when LRH was in hiding, seclusion, and a fugitive from the courts of justice. In those circumstances, Pat Broeker is likely to be able to provide admissible evidence in connection with the circumstances surrounding the purported assignments, notarizations, last minute changes to LRH's Will and LRH's death itself. Thus, Pat Broeker will likely provide admissible evidence in connection with critical issues directly relevant to the pending motion for summary judgment.

1. Moreover, former Scientology executive Laurel Sullivan has testified that "the signature [of L. Ron Hubbard] has been written by individuals since 1968."

2. Even assuming, arguendo, that the works at issue were properly published, authored and copyrighted by L. Ron Hubbard, there is still evidence to suggest that the circumstances surrounding the assignment and transfers of rights and claims by any and all persons, in connection with any of the various works in issue were erroneous at best and criminal at worst. With respect to L. Ron Hubbard's initial assignments, this is because at the time Mr. Hubbard's signature on the assignment document was notarized by David Miscavige, Mr. Hubbard was a wanted fugitive, under a Federal indictment. Mr. Miscavige, by virtue of his position and affiliation with Mr. Hubbard, likely knew or had reason to know that Mr. Hubbard was a wanted fugitive.

37. In the State of California, as in all other states, if a notary public has prior, present or percipient knowledge that the person whose signature they are notarizing is a wanted fugitive under Federal law, the notary is duty bound to report such fugitive to authorities and not to notarize the signature of such fugitive. Thus, if borne out by further discovery, such information would presumably establish that Mr. Hubbard's assignment of copyrights to RTC is illegal, as it was improperly notarized. Consequently, any subsequent assignment by RTC to BPI of such copyrights would also be invalid, thereby precluding BPI's Motion against Defendants.

38. Moreover, on August 9, 1988, the former President of Religious Technology Center, Vicki Aznaran, executed a declaration stating that a purported affidavit of L. Ron Hubbard had been actually signed, dated and purportedly notarized by David Miscavige who did so contrary to applicable law. Berry Decl. Exhibit 89, 17. In addition, Vicki Aznaran has testified that David Miscavige could not have properly notarized any of the pertinent purported signatures of L. Ron Hubbard. Berry Decl., Ex. 94, p. 229:6-230:16.

39. Most importantly, the circumstances surrounding Mr. Hubbard's death are of critical importance to the validity of the relevant purported assignments and testamentary dispositions herein. The accompanying declaration of Questioned Document Examiner Ms. Patricia Fisher raises the terrible specter that various of the signatures of L. Ron Hubbard are actually forgeries. Filed under seal herewith is a copy of the Ex Parte Petition for Stay in Proceedings [in the L. Ron Hubbard Estate], etc., Supporting Declaration of Graham E. Berry and Exhibits. The Court is respectfully referred to pages 12 to 22 therein and Exhibit C thereto. Exhibit 71 to the Berry Declaration dated August 14, 1997 completes the analysis regarding these highly suspect events, circumstances and documents. Defendants must be permitted to investigate the authenticity, etc. of L. Ron Hubbard's purported January 23, 1986 will, when he had suffered a crippling stroke, was under the influence of the psychiatric drug Vistaril and had a "clinical history which supported a possible neurological problem." / Thus, L. Ron Hubbard's cognitive capacity, and therefore the validity of the testamentary dispositions, is seriously in issue here. See also, concurrently filed declaration of Ms. Patricia Fisher. The circumstances of L. Ron Hubbard's death are even more suspicious when one considers L. Ron Hubbard's purported written statement, on January 20, 1986, after his crippling stroke, that an autopsy would "violate [his] religious convictions." Berry Ex Parte Decl., Exhibit 1, p. 0013. Allegedly, this was a bogus assertion. Wollersheim Decl., 2. AS if all this as not enough to create suspicion, Mr. Hubbard's attorney expedited the "cremation of Mr. Hubbard's remains." Berry Ex Parte Decl., Exhibit 1, p. 0011. Plaintiffs did not want their leader lying "in state" and subject to official examinations.

The Certificate of Death, Coroner Case Information Sheet (Supplementary Report), Coroner's Investigation Report, Sheriff's Office Supplementary Report, Coroner Case Information Sheet, Certificate of Religious Belief, and Post-Mortem Examination documents. These documents reveal the following information: According to Decedent's personal physician, Dr. Gene Denk, who had lived with Decedent for the past two years, Decedent had displayed signs of Dysphrasia for eight days before he died and had suffered a stroke about seven days before he died. Decedent's Will and the Family Trust were dated January 23, 1986, the day before he died. Although Decedent was found dead at approximately 8:00 p.m. on January 24, 1986, the death was not reported until a funeral chapel was contacted at 7:30 a.m. the next morning. The excuse offered for the delay by Dr. Denk and Earle Cooley, an attorney, who seem to be the only persons present at Decedent's home when the funeral chapel was contacted, / was that "they wanted to get the will together and expedite the procedures for cremation of Mr. Hubbard's remains." / Upon hearing the date of the Will and Dr. Denk's report of the Decedent's clinical history, Jon Hines, the Chief Deputy Coroner, immediately questioned whether Decedent had been in sound mind at the time he signed the Will since Decedent's clinical history indicated possible neurological problems. Mr. Hines later compared the 1986 Will with a copy of Decedent's 1982 will and the 1983 codicil thereto, and remarked in his report that "The contents of the 1982 Will were basically the same as the most recent Will." / The post-mortem examination revealed 10 recent needle marks in the Decedent's gluteal area. Indeed, Mr. Hubbard's doctor had prescribed and administered a number of drugs to Mr. Hubbard, including the psychiatric drug Hydroxyzine (Vistaril) which is usually administered in combination with other hypnotic, psychotic and sedating narcotics and restricted drugs. One wonders if Mr. Hubbard would have consented to receiving these mind-altering drugs. Mr. Hubbard had been vehemently and publicly opposed to any use of psychiatric drugs whatsoever. 47. Precluded from performing an autopsy on the basis of Decedent's religious beliefs set forth in a witnessed document entitled "Certificate of Religious Belief," dated January 20, 1986, 3 days before death, a toxicology examination was conducted instead. However, the claim that the autopsy violated religious belief was blatantly a bogus one. Wollersheim Decl, 2.

----------------------- Decedent's will dated January 23, 1986 (the "Will"), purportedly signed the day before his death, was admitted to probate by Minute Order on February 18, 1986. / On that date, the Probate Court also approved the appointment of Starkey as Executor of the Will and issued the Order Appointing Executor and Authorizing Independent Administration of Estate with full authority and the Letters Testamentary. (e) The terms of the Will included the following: (i) Decedent expressly disinherited his son, Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, Jr., and his predeceased son, Quentin Hubbard, and their issue. In Article Seventh, Decedent stated: "Further, I have intentionally omitted to provide herein for ALEXIS HOLLISTER, who may pretend to be my heir, but in fact is not and never has been my heir." / Decedent's daughter, Katherine May Hubbard Gillespie, was not disinherited in the Will, although she had been disinherited in at least two prior wills. /

In light of the reasonable questions raised by the foregoing as to the validity of the Will, Defendants believe that it is necessary and proper to take the depositions David Miscavige (as head of RTC and CST at the time of Decedent's death), of Norman F. Starkey, Mary Sue Hubbard, Patrick D. Broeker (as a witness to both the 1982 Will and the 1986 Will), to inquire into the circumstances of Decedent's death, execution of the Will, Decedent's testamentary intent, and mental and physical health and all of the other relevant surrounding circumstances.

Mary Sue Hubbard's Possible Equitable Ownership in Assets Now Held by Plaintiff.

54. As noted above, Article Third of the Will recites Decedent's intention "to dispose of all property, whether real, personal or mixed, of whatsoever kind and character . . ." Noticeably absent is a statement regarding the community property, quasi-community property and/or separate property character of the Estate, or the existence of a marital or premarital property agreement. Such a statement typically appears in a married testator's will, especially when, as here, the marriage was of long duration and the value of the Estate, appraised as of January 24, 1986, exceeded $26,300,000. This appraisal is suspiciously low given the fact that it was made by the estate beneficiaries themselves. Even a layman can clearly see this. Berry Decl., Exhibit 87.

55. Although the language of Article Third of the Will does not preclude the existence of community property, Starkey, as Executor, alleged to the Probate Court in Paragraph 11 of the Executor's Report and Petition for Final Distribution that "The whole of the estate is decedent's separate property." The Probate Court found accordingly in its Judgment of Final Distribution.

56. One wonders how the entire Estate was determined to be Decedent's separate property, whether Mary Sue Hubbard was consulted in that determination, and whether Mary Sue Hubbard was advised by independent counsel as to the possible existence of community property or quasi-community property. If the Estate actually consisted in whole or in part of community property or quasi-community property, then Decedent did not have the power to convey Mary Sue Hubbard's one-half interest therein, and such property was improperly included as Estate property. Consequently, Mary Sue Hubbard may be the equitable owner of a portion of the property now claimed by Plaintiff.

57. One also wonders whether Mary Sue Hubbard was advised by independent counsel of her right to "recapture" one-half of any quasi-community property transferred by Decedent without her consent during his lifetime. Prob. C. § 102. If, for example, any of the assets conveyed pursuant to the May 16, 1982 Assignment and the Addendum thereto was quasi-community property, then Mary Sue Hubbard may be the equitable owner of a portion of such property notwithstanding the purported October, 1986 assignment that David Miscavige had her execute.

58. Finally, it is clear from Article Fifth of the Will and from Decedent's Declaration dated May 15, 1983, that Decedent intended to provide for Mary Sue Hubbard. But, according to Starkey, the terms of the Family Trust directed that the entire trust estate was to be distributed to CST instead. Although Mary Sue Hubbard was married to Decedent at the time that he executed the Will, she may have been able to prevail in claiming the share of a pretermitted spouse under Probate Code § 6560. That section awards an intestate share to a surviving spouse who was not married to a decedent at the time Decedent executed a will and who was not provided for in the will through oversight, accident, inadvertence or mistake. Whether or not Mary Sue Hubbard was aware of her rights and what representations may have been made to her on this subject remain unknown, but it is possible that she may be the equitable owner of up to one-half of Decedent's separate property notwithstanding the purported October, 1986 assignment that David Miscavige had her execute.

51. As demonstrated below, testimony and objective evidence of inconsistencies, discrepancies and unorthodox actions by Starkey, as Executor and Trustee, by CST, as a charitable organization and the only beneficiary of the Family Trust, and by RTC suggest possible extrinsic or collateral fraud, breach of duty arising from a fiduciary or confidential relationship, conversion, concealment, conspiracy, material misrepresentation and/or other misconduct, any and all of which affect the propriety of RTC's alleged title. See generally, Hubbard's Successors Have A Long History of Criminal Conduct, Tortious Conduct And Of Abuse Of The Court System Generally.

40. F.A.C.T.Net's First Request for Production of Documents propounded upon BPI included a request for original copies of all documents related to the transfer of any copyrights of the published works. The request specifically indicated the need for original documents so that they could be examined by an expert in the authenticity of documents and signatures. BPI failed to produce the documentation, stating that (a) "copies" of the documents had already been produced and (b) the demand was irrelevant. See, BPI's Response to F.A.C.T.Net's First Request for Production of Documents, Exhibit E; Berry Decl., 90.

41. Furthermore, the Court remanded the matter "to the Magistrate to conduct discovery." Berry Decl. Exhibit 22, p. 4:25-5:1. Moreover, the Court stated that "there are accusations that have been made here, and . . . if at the close of discovery, there is evidence that some of these accusations have even a reasonable ground to support them, I am going to submit this matter to the United States Attorney for presentation to the Grand Jury." / Berry Decl. Exhibit 22, p.5:24-6:4.

L. Ron Hubbard ("Decedent") died on January 24, 1986, a resident of the State of California, County of San Luis Obispo. / Decedent was survived by Mary Sue Hubbard, his wife of over thirty years, and five of his six children, namely, Diana Meredith DeWolf Hubbard Ryan, Mary Suzette Rochelle Hubbard, Arthur Ronald Conway Hubbard, Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, Jr. (also known as L. Ron Hubbard, Jr., Nibs Hubbard, and Ronald DeWolf), and Katherine May Hubbard Gillespie. Decedent was predeceased by his son, Quentin Hubbard. It was common knowledge, then and now, that Decedent had a daughter from a nonmarital relationship, namely, Alexis Hollister, who also survived Decedent.

B. Execution of Decedent's Will.

44. The circumstances surrounding Decedent's purported execution of the Will raise questions as to whether Decedent was the victim of fraud or undue influence or lacked testamentary capacity at the time of such execution, any of which would invalidate the will and affect RTC's purported title.

45. Evidence tending to show undue influence and/or fraud include (1) the existence of a confidential relationship between the testator and the person(s) allegedly exerting undue influence; (2) propensity to be unduly influenced from old age, senility, mental infirmity and the like; (3) execution of testamentary documents unduly benefitting the person(s) allegedly exerting undue influence; (4) unnatural testamentary provisions; (5) testamentary provisions apparently at odds with testator's stated intentions; (6) close relationship with person(s) allegedly exerting undue influence and opportunity for such exercise; (7) participation by primary beneficiaries in procuring execution of testamentary instruments; and (8) vulnerable state of mind because of isolation, loneliness, etc. Estate of Graves (1927) 202 Cal. 258; Estate of Mann (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 169; Estate of Sarabia (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 599; Estate of Yale (1931) 214 Cal. 115. Evidence of a lack of testamentary capacity includes general mental incompetence (e.g., testator's inability to understand the nature of the testamentary act or the nature and situation of his or her property and the inability to recall the natural objects of the testator's bounty) and the existence of a mental disorder (e.g., symptoms include hallucinations or delusions which lead the testator to devise his or her property in a way that he or she otherwise would not). Estate of Mann (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 169; Estate of Smith (1926) 200 Cal. 152. 46. Several of the factors described in the immediately preceding paragraph are present in this case: (a) Decedent had been living in extreme isolation for several years prior to his death. (He had been separated from Mary Sue Hubbard for many years.) / Only "trusted" Scientologists knew his whereabouts and how to communicate with him. Indeed, David Miscavige was allegedly the sole communication conduit between Mr. Hubbard and the Scientology organization he continued to control. Effectively, David Miscavige controlled (and was able to manipulate) the information that would reach Mr. Hubbard. (b) Decedent had contact only with Scientologists, and Scientologists have unduly benefitted from the Estate. (c) The dispositive provisions of the Will and the Family Trust are contradictory. In Article Fifth of the Will, Decedent, referring to the Family Trust, stated: "I have also provided therein for certain benefits for my wife." This statement, made under penalty of perjury and witnessed, is consistent with Decedent's prior stated intentions about Mary Sue Hubbard under penalty of perjury in his Declaration, dated May 15, 1983: "Although we are presently apart, we remain husband and wife. She is fully supported by me, and she, unlike DeWolf, is fully provided for in my Will." However, these two statements made by Decedent are contradicted by the following statement made by Starkey, as Trustee of the Family Trust, as "Assignor," in a document entitled "Assignment and Assumption (RTC)," dated November 29, 1993: "The agreement by and between Assignor and L. Ron Hubbard, dated January 23, 1986, establishing Author's Family Trust-B, requires distribution to [Church of Spiritual Technology] of all assets held in trust by Assignor." (Emphasis added.) The obvious inference is that the Family Trust contained no provisions for Mary Sue Hubbard or his children, / despite Decedent's previously stated intentions. It seems unnatural for Decedent to disinherit Mary Sue Hubbard, whom he fully supported during his lifetime. (d) The estate plan does not conform to Decedent's intent as described by Decedent's estate planning attorney, Sherman Lenske. In Paragraph 3 of Mr. Lenske's Declaration dated November 12, 1995, he states that he "represented Mr. L. Ron Hubbard in all aspects of estate planning from the time he engaged me as his attorney in approximately April 1981 until his death on January 24, 1986, and also represented the Executor of his Estate through the probate of his Will, which was concluded in January 1989. / All of the documents effectuating the estate plan were drafted either by me or under my supervision, at the direction of Mr. Hubbard." Later, in Paragraph 10 of the Declaration, Mr. Lenske states: "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 at that time [referring to the time of the May 16, 1982 Assignment] and the remainder would be transferred to RTC following his death. The first part of this objective was accomplished in May 1982 when Mr. Hubbard signed the Advanced Technology Assignment, and the remainder was accomplished on November 30, 1988 when Norman F. Starkey, as Executor of the Will of L. Ron Hubbard, assigned the remainder of Mr. Hubbard's rights to the Advanced Technology, other than the copyrights, to RTC." Assuming that Mr. Lenske's description of Decedent's testamentary intent is accurate, it appears that Decedent's intent to benefit RTC and BPI was fixed as far back as 1982. One wonders why, then, Mr. Lenske drafted Decedent's estate plan so that all of Decedent's assets would pass through probate (thereby incurring unnecessary court costs, probate referee's fees, attorneys' fees, etc.) to a trust (strangely named the "Author's Family Trust-B" although containing no provisions for Decedent's family /) that required distribution of all trust assets to CST. Moreover, one wonders why Mr. Lenske waited until Decedent was suffering from his last illness, disabled by a devastating stroke and under the influence of hallucinatory and psychiatric drugs (indeed, on the brink of death) before having the documents purportedly executed. (e) There are significant differences between Decedent's initials and handwriting on the Will dated January 23, 1986, and a document purported to be a prior will of Decedent, dated May 10, 1982. Specifically, on both documents, a line has been typed, with the initials "L.R.H." typed underneath the line, in the lower, right corner of every page. / On both documents, initials have been written in the lower, right corner on every page, but these initials differ greatly between the two documents. In the 1982 document, the written initials extend far beneath the line and over the typed initials, while in the 1986 document, the written initials never extend beneath the line on the first 11 pages, except for the initials on pages 3 and 9, which barely extend beneath the line. Further, the initials that appear on pages 12 and 13 of the 1986 document (the signature pages for the testator and the witnesses, respectively) were clearly not written by the same hand that wrote the initials on the previous 11 pages. Finally, the testator's signatures on the two documents do not appear to have been written by the same hand. Unfortunately, Defendants cannot compare the dispositive provisions of the two documents because a blank page has been substituted in Defendants' copy of the 1982 document for page 3, where such provisions appear. However, the concurrently filed declaration of Questioned Document Examiner Patricia Fisher indicates serious questions about the authenticity of these signatures, raising the specter of a terrible forgery and fraud against not only the Hubbard heirs but also the State and Federal Governments and taxing agencies^Å

66. Each of the WWHELP cases is being prosecuted by Scientology entity RTC, which claims to own the "religion's" marks, trade secrets and copyrighted materials. RTC, operated by David Miscavige, is able to "legally" control the "religion," its operations, personnel, communication lines, finances, lawyers and agents because of this claimed ownership. In my opinion RTC did not obtain this claimed ownership by legal means, and now maintains such illegally ownership to the detriment of the practitioners of the "religion" and society at large. It is my understanding that David Miscavige notorized the signature of L. Ron Hubbard near the time of his alleged death in 1986 on a document which transfered Mr. Hubbard's ownership of certain rights and/or marks from himself to RTC. While on board the "Apollo" during 1972 through 1974 I was required on a number of occasions to have Mr. Hubbard's signature notarized on various documents. There were a couple of notaries in Portugal I got to know who would verify the signature by comparison with a signature in their signature book. There were times when I took documents to these notaries which were not signed by Mr. Hubbard, but by Joyce Popham, who could sign his signature extremely well. Two of the documents signed by Ms. Popham were for the registration of the marks "Dianetics" and "Scientology." The forging of signatures or obtaining false notarizations is not unreasonable in Scientology affairs. There is as well the more serious question of Mr. Hubbard's actually not owing or possessing the rights RTC says it acquired from him.

Premium Drupal Themes by Adaptivethemes