Declaration of Graham Berry on David Miscavige and Hubbard

Since 1993, Discussion, Resources and Support for Recovery from the Abusive Practices of Religions and Cults · Because only You have the right to control Your Mind.

	IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

	FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 95-K-2143
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER a California non-profit corporation; 

and BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC., a California non-profit 

corporation
		Plaintiffs
v.
F.A.C.T.NET, INC., a Colorado corporation; LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM, 

an individual; and ROBERT PENNY, an individual.
		Defendants.

_________________________________________________________________
	DECLARATION OF GRAHAM E. BERRY

_________________________________________________________________

		I, Graham E. Berry, declare as follows:

		1.	I am an attorney at law licensed to practice 

before all the courts of the State of California and New York.  

In addition, I am admitted to practice before the United States 

District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the 

Central District of California.  I am also admitted to practice 

before the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the 

United States Supreme Court.  I am a partner in the Los Angeles 

law firm of Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP ("Musick, Peeler") which 

has been retained by F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. ("FACTNet") to be its 

attorney of record herein.  In that regard, I have admitted pro 

hac vice herein.  I have personal knowledge of the matters set 

forth herein and, if called upon to do so, I could and would 

competently testify thereto under oath.
		2.	This declaration is submitted in support of both 

(a) Defendants' F.R. Civ.P. Rule 56(f) Motion for "a continuance 

to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or 

discovery to be had" concerning the various documents at issue in 

connection with Bridge Publication, Inc.'s pending motion for 

partial summary judgment, and (b) Defendants' Motion to Amend the 

Scheduling Order and to Compel the Deposition of David Miscavige.

		3.	Three weeks after being admitted pro hac vice 

herein, I wrote to Plaintiff's counsel Helena K. Kobrin, Esq. 

requesting the depositions of certain persons.  These persons 

included David Miscavige and Norman Starkey.  A copy of that 

letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 12.  Attached hereto as 

Exhibit 13 is a copy of Plaintiffs' counsel Jeffrey A. Chase's 

December 23, 1996 response to that letter.  Plaintiffs totally 

blocked this discovery claiming that "not a single one of the 

proposed deponents can provide testimony that is or is likely to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the 

pending summary judgment motion."

		4.	Contrary to Plaintiffs' justification for blocking 

these depositions, the discovery sought is extremely relevant to 

the pending motion for summary judgment.  For example, the 

declaration of Robert Vaughn Young filed concurrently herewith 

states that David Miscavige was in charge of a 1983 Scientology 

project to register many of the works over which BPI now claims 

copyrights.  Allegedly, at the time, David Miscavige was told 

that many of the works which he wished to register with the 

Copyright Office were already in the public domain.  Allegedly, 

his response was to proceed with the copyright registrations of 

public domain documents and that Scientology "would fight that 

battle later."  This is now that battle.  Further reasons why 

David Miscavige's deposition is extremely relevant are set forth 

below.

		5.	Defendants also seek the deposition of the 

following deponents in relation to, among other things, the 

pending summary judgment motion:

			(a)	David Miscavige:  David Miscavige is the 

ecclesiastical head of the group of corporations comprising the 

Scientology organization.  He is the senior-most officer in 

Scientology's Sea Organization; he is L. Ron Hubbard's successor, 

the managing agent of Scientology (as was Hubbard), and he is the 

chairman of the board of directors of Religious Technology 

Center, Inc. which is one of the plaintiffs herein.  He has 

previously testified in litigation which led to the Church of 

Scientology in Canada being the first church in Canada to be 

convicted of criminal conduct.  He also provided deposition 

testimony in litigation brought by former Scientologist Bent 

Corydon against the Scientology organization.  He was also 

ordered, as the Managing Agent of Scientology, to give testimony 

in the case of Church of Scientology International v. Fishman and 

Geertz.  However, Scientology dismissed that litigation rather 

than subject David Miscavige to deposition by FACTNet's attorney 

herein.  Moreover, the declaration of Vaughn Young filed 

concurrently herewith demonstrates that David Miscavige is one of 

the most relevant witnesses in connection with BPI's pending 

motion for summary judgment.  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.

			(c)	Patricia Brice:  Patricia Brice worked for 

Author Services, Inc., under the supervision of David Miscavige 

and apparently was LRH's personal secretary for many years.  

Accordingly, the copyright registration documents themselves 

demonstrate that Patricia Brice was personally involved in the 

copyright registration process and is therefore a relevant 

witness in connection with the issues raised by the pending 

motion for summary judgment.

			(d)	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.

			(e)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 89 is a 

declaration of Vicki Aznaran executed October 27, 1988.  The 

declaration provides further evidence of the relevance of the 

requested depositions of David Miscavige, Norman Starkey and 

Patrick Broeker, and the relevance of their testimony to 

Defendants' claims in this litigation.  Furthermore, on 

page 16:14-22, Vicki Aznaran provides evidence relevant to 

Defendants' defenses and affirmative herein.

			(f)	Mary Sue Hubbard:  Mary Sue Hubbard was once 

the second highest ranking member of the Scientology 

organization.  She received a substantial prison sentence from 

the federal courts for her part in Scientology's infiltration of 

over 11 United States government departments and the theft of 

millions of pages of government documents as part of 

Scientology's "Operation Snow White."  Operation Snow White, 

which is still being carried out today, was the largest ever 

known infiltration of the United States government.  Mary Sue 

Hubbard's testimony will be directly relevant to the issues of 

authorship, assignment and transfer of the alleged copyrights in 

connection with the various documents at issue herein.  

Furthermore, her testimony will be relevant to certain of the 

defenses and affirmative defenses.

			(g)	Robert F. Lewis, Esq. and Janet Lubert, Esq.: 

 Evidence will demonstrate that the above persons were involved 

in a massive and egregious conspiracy to "deep six" many of the 

documents relevant to the defenses herein, to remove those 

documents from court records and the hands of opposing attorneys, 

to render those documents unavailable to Defendants herein and to 

restrict Defendants' choice of counsel herein.  Among other 

things, this evidence goes to defenses such as unclean hands, 

abuse of process, etc.  As part of this criminal, tortious and 

unethical conspiracy, Plaintiffs entered into a secret settlement 

agreement with Robert F. Lewis. Esq., Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & 

Bisgaard, Landmark Insurance, and AI Management.  Not only did 

this secret settlement agreement, and related oral agreements, 

unethically restrict the scope of Lewis D'Amato's legal 

representation to the detriment of Defendants herein; but it also 

released Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard, its employees and 

agents in connection with any liability relating to most of the 

documents at issue herein, and most of the alleged conduct 

herein; which had been provided by the Lewis D'Amato law firm to 

the Defendants herein in their capacity as expert consultants and 

expert witnesses in litigation against the Scientology 

organization that the Lewis D'Amato law firm was handling for 

Dr. Uwe Geertz with funds provided by Landmark Insurance and AI 

Management.  Thus, this discovery is critical to a number of the 

defenses and affirmative defenses herein.  Indeed, if the release 

provisions extend, as Defendants believe and allege, to 

Defendants as a matter of law, then they have an absolute defense 

to most of the conduct alleged of them herein and a strong case 

in connection with their abuse of process and other 

counterclaims.

		6.	Attached hereto as Exhibit 90 is a true and 

correct copy of BPI's Response to F.A.C.T.Net's First Request for 

Production of Documents.  In that Response, BPI refused 

F.A.C.T.Net's request for production of originals of all 

documents related to the transfer of any copyrights of the 

published works, stating that "copies" had already been produced 

and asserting that the demand was irrelevant.

		7.	

		 (1)	Submitted hereto as Exhibit 1 is an excerpt from 

the magazine of the Sea Organization - Issue 19, entitled 

"Keeping Scientology Working for Now and Forever."

		(2)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a copy of a letter 

from Graham E. Berry, Esq. to Todd Blakely, dated November 22, 

1996.

		(3)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a copy of a letter 

from Todd P. Blakely to Graham Berry, Esq., dated November 27, 

1996.

		(4)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a copy of a letter 

from Todd P. Blakely to Graham Berry, dated December 2, 1996.

		(5)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a copy of a letter 

from Graham E. Berry to Todd Blakely, Esq., dated December 3, 

1996.

		(6)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a copy of a letter 

from Graham E. Berry to Todd Blakely, dated December 4, 1996.

		(7)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a copy of a letter 

from Helena K. Kobrin to Graham Berry, dated December 11, 1996.

		(8)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a copy of a letter 

from Helena K. Kobrin to Graham E. Berry, dated December 13, 

1996.

		(9)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a copy of the 

Second Amended Notice of Deposition of Robert Vaughn Young,  

dated December 13, 1996.

		(10)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a copy of a 

Subpoena in a Civil Case issued to Robert Vaughn Young on 

December 13, 1996.

		(11)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Helena K. Kobrin, dated 

December 16, 1996.

		(12)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Helena K. Kobrin, dated 

December 16, 1996.

		(13)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a copy of a 

letter from Jeffrey A. Chase to Graham E. Berry, Esq., dated 

December 23, 1996.

		(14)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 14 is a copy of a 

letter from Helena K. Kobrin to Graham E. Berry, Esq., dated 

January 6, 1997.

		(15)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 15 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Jeffrey A. Chase, dated January 8, 

1997.

		(16)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 16 is a copy of a 

letter from Helena K. Kobrin to Graham E. Berry, dated 

January 24, 1997.

		(17)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a copy of a 

letter from Helena K. Kobrin to Graham E. Berry, dated 

January 28, 1997.

		(18)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 18 is a copy of a 

Subpoena in a Civil Case issued to Robert Vaughn Young on 

January 27, 1997.

		(19)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 19 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Helena K. Kobrin, dated 

January 28, 1997.

		(20)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 20 is a copy of a 

letter from Helena K. Kobrin to Graham E. Berry, dated 

January 29, 1997.

		(21)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 21 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Helena K. Kobrin, dated 

February 3, 1997.

		(22)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 22 is the Supplemental 

Order of Reference to Magistrate Judge, dated February 13, 1997.

		(23)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 23 is a copy of the 

Transcript of Proceedings on Motions, dated February 21, 1997.

		(24)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 24 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Elliot J. Abelson, dated March 6, 

1997.

		(25)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 25 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Elliot J. Abelson, Esq., dated 

March 10, 1997.

		(26)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 26 is a copy of a 

letter from Helena K. Kobrin to Graham E. Berry, dated March 10, 

1997.

		(27)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 27 is a copy of a 

letter from Helena K. Kobrin to Graham E. Berry, dated March 10, 

1997.

		(28)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 28 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Helena K. Kobrin, dated March 11, 

1997.

		(29)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 29 is a copy of a 

letter from Helena K. Kobrin to Graham E. Berry, Esq., dated 

March 13, 1997.

		(30)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 30 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Helena K. Kobrin, dated March 17, 

1997.

		(31)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 31 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Elliot J. Abelson, Esq., dated 

March 20, 1997.

		(32)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 32 is a copy of a 

letter from Helena K. Kobrin to Graham E. Berry, dated March 21, 

1997.

		(33)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 33 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Helena K. Kobrin, dated March 21, 

1997.

		(34)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 34 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Helena K. Kobrin, dated March 25, 

1997.

		(35)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 35 is a copy of a 

letter from Helena K. Kobrin to Graham E. Berry, dated March 28, 

1997, enclosed with the Joint Request for Pre-Trial Conference 

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16.

		(36)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 36 is a copy of the 

Joint Request for Pre-Trial Conference Pursuant to 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 16, dated March 31, 1997.

		(37)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 37 is the Order 

Granting Defendant Erlich's Expedited Motion to Compel the 

Deposition of David Miscavige and Denying Plaintiff RTC's Motion 

for Protective Order in litigation entitled, Religious Technology 

Center v. Dennis Erlich, dated April 1, 1997.

		(38)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 38 is a copy of the  

Notice of Document Production Subpoena to the Office of Sheriff-

Coroner, County of San Luis Obispo, dated March 31, 1997.

		(39)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 39 is a copy of 

Defendant FACTNet, Inc.'s Second Request for Production of 

Documents, dated March 26, 1997.

		(40)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 40 is a copy of 

Defendant F.A.C.T.Net, Inc.'s Second Set of Request for 

Admissions from Plaintiff Religious Technology Center, Inc., 

dated April 2, 1997.

		(41)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 41 is a copy of 

Defendant FACTNet, Inc.'s Third Set of Request for Admissions 

from Plaintiff Religious Technology Center, Inc.

		(42)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 42 is a copy of 

Defendant FACTNet, Inc.'s Fourth Set of Request for Admissions 

from Plaintiff Religious Technology Center, Inc., dated April 9, 

1997.

		(43)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 43 is a copy of 

Defendant FACTNet, Inc.'s Fifth Set of Request for Admissions 

from Plaintiff Religious Technology Center, Inc., dated April 9, 

1997.

		(44)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 44 is a copy of Summary 

of Recent FACTNet discovery requests, dated April 14, 1997.

		(45)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 45 are excerpt pages of 

a hearing transcript on discovery.

		(46)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 46 is a copy of a 

letter from Samuel D. Rosen of Paul, Hastings to Graham E. Berry, 

dated April 15, 1997.

		(47)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 47 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Samuel D. Rosen of Paul, Hastings, 

dated April 16, 1997.

		(48)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 48 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Samuel D. Rosen of Paul, Hastings, 

dated April 18, 1997.

		(49)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 49 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Samuel D. Rosen of Paul, Hastings, 

dated April 21, 1997.

		(50)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 50 is a copy of a 

letter from Robert Young to Graham E. Berry, dated April 22, 

1997.

		(51)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 51 is a copy of a 

letter from Samuel D. Rosen to Graham E. Berry, dated April 23, 

1997.

		(52)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 52 is a copy of an E-

Mail by Lawrence Wollersheim, dated April 24, 1997.

		(53)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 53 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Samuel D. Rosen, Esq., dated 

April 24, 1997.

		(54)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 54 is a copy of a 

letter from Graham E. Berry to Samuel D. Rosen, dated April 24, 

1997.

		(55)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 55 is a copy of a 

letter from Samuel D. Rosen to Graham E. Berry, dated April 28, 

1997.

		(56)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 56 is a copy of an E-

mail from John Mark Ockerbloom to Sharon Jackson, dated April 29, 

1997.

		(57)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 57 is a copy of a 

letter from Todd P. Blakely to Graham E. Berry, Dan Liepold and 

Michael Berger, dated May 1, 1997.

		(58)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 58 is a copy of a 

letter from Samuel D. Rosen to Graham E. Berry, dated May 1, 

1997.

		(59)	Attached hereto as Exhibit 59 is a copy of an E-