| .|..|..|. |
DOCUMENT TITLE: Declaration of Sherman Lenske SUBJECT: Advanced Technology rights; copyrights; L. Ron Hubbard's "estate plan;" Treasury Department personnel involved in "proof" that Hubbard was alive and well; more PARTIES: Sherman D. Lenske, Special Director of the corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST); Religious Technology Center (RTC); Arnaldo Pagliarini "Arnie" Lerma; Digital Gateway Systems; The Washington Post; Marc Fisher and Richard Leiby, reporters for the Washington Post; Richard L. Brunelle, forensic chemist for Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF); Meade Emory and Sherman Lenske, architects of the "estate planning" and of the corporate restructuring; Sherman Lenske as counsel to Starkey during probate of the Will; Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller, Special Directors of CST at the time of this Declaration, as "consultants" to Starkey (Trustee of both Author's Family Trust-A and Author's Family Trust-B), and as "Trust Protectors" BACKGROUND AND NOTES This 12 November 1995 Declaration of Sherman Lenske was submitted in a copyright infringement case against Arnie Lerma, the Washington Post, and two of their reporters. For more on this and other related copyright infringement cases, see our special report, CST and IRS: Copyright Terrorists. To the eternal shame of the Washington Post and their reporters, they never discovered that Sherman Lenske was Special Director of the very corporation, CST, that owned the copyrights the Post was being accused of infringing: Sherman Lenske withheld that fact in this Declaration he submitted to the court of jurisdiction, and the Post and their attorneys never bothered to find out. That such an important piece of information was withheld by Lenske is unquestionably an intent to deceive, and a fraud upon and contempt of the court. In fact, Judge Leoni Brinkema never discovered that she'd been had by Lenske, either; she even said in a ruling that RTC owned the copyrights at issue, an absolute falsehood that Sherman Lenske was entirely aware of. That's how badly she got taken. For a full accounting of the 10,000+ copyrights owned by CST, be sure to visit our Copyrights section. There you will find listed every copyrighted work that was at issue in the captioned case, all of which came into the full ownership of CST on 30 November 1993, two years before this Declaration. But this Declaration--even apart from being an utterly humiliating fraud on the court, on Judge Brinkema, and on the Post and their counsel--reveals many important facts about the creation of the corporations, about the various legal instruments that can be found on our site, about the fact that RTC's licenses were all "exclusive of copyright," and many other issues pertinent to the fraud set up by Lenske, as assistant to IRS's Meade Emory. More than a few of the reports and other documents on this site link to sections of Lenske's Declaration. Therefore, we won't belabor here the many interesting facts revealed and patent frauds perpetrated by Lenske, since they are recorded elsewhere, linked to the relevant sections highlighted in bold in the document itself, below. But one lie told by Lenske in his Declaration is so germane to the entire fraud, and so egregious, that it warrants a bright illumination: Lenske claims, really as a sole foundation for all of the fraudulent "estate plan" created by him with Emory and IRS, that L. Ron Hubbard had previously "informally licensed the trademarks, service marks, copyrights, and trade secrets of Dianetics and Scientology." It's just a blatant, bold, and reprehensible lie, but one without which the entire fraudlent "estate plan" could not have happened. The reason they had to lie is because L. Ron Hubbard had stated unequivocally that all the intellectual property, all of it, without exception, belonged by blanket transfer to HCO, a division of HASI, Inc. The Lenskes, purportedly handling Hubbards "business interests" in 1977, allowed HASI, Inc. to be revoked as a corporation. See our reports on HASI, Inc., and on a later, likely fraudulent "Assignment" of copyrights in our documents chronology for an account of what it appears the Lenskes and Emory did in order to intentionally and secretly nullify Hubbard's blanket assignment to HCO. Here is the "Declaration" of Sherman Lenske: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) California non-profit religious ) corporation, ) CIVIL ACTION ) NO.95-1107-A Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ARNALDO PAGLIARINI LERMA, an ) individual; DIGITAL GATEWAY SYSTEMS, a ) Virginia corporation; THE WASHINGTON ) POST CORPORATION, a District of ) Columbia corporation; MARC FISHER, an ) individual; and RICHARD LEIBY, an ) individual, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________________) DECLARATION OF SHERMAN LENSKE I, Sherman Lenske, declare and say: 1. I am over 18 years of age and a resident of the State of California. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. I am an attorney admitted to practice in the State of California, and before the United States District Court, Central District of California, the United States Tax Court, and the United States Supreme Court. I received an LL.B. from the University of California at Los Angeles. I have practiced law for almost thirty years, specializing in the areas of corporate (profit and non-profit), estate planning and general business. For the past fifteen years I have been a principal in the law firm of Lenske, Lenske and Abramson, a Law Corporation (formerly 1 known as Lenske, Lenske, Heller and Magasin). 3. I represented Mr. L. Ron Hubbard in all aspects of his 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. 4. Between May and October of 1981, I conducted research and worked on developing Mr. Hubbard's estate plan. In or about October of 1981, Mr. Hubbard informed me of his overall desires with respect to his estate plan, and particularly with respect to his intellectual properties. 5. In late 1981, and continuing into 1982, with my direct participation and under my supervision proposals and documents were prepared to carry out Mr. Hubbard's estate plan which were submitted to him. After his review and comments, refinements of the estate plan were made upon Mr. Hubbard's instructions to ensure that his intentions were carried out exactly. 6. I have seen documents filed in the above-captioned case which purport to suggest that there may be some controversy or dispute regarding certain documents created and executed as part of Mr. Hubbard's estate plan. Having been the principal architect of Mr. Hubbard's estate plan and of all the documents which are part of that plan, I can state conclusively that any purported controversy or dispute is fabricated and is also 2 legally invalid, impossible and ineffectual. 7. The defendants here have made much of the fact that Religious technology Center (RTC) did not produce the original of the 1982 Advanced Technology Assignment in this case. As seen below, that issue is a red herring. I have had the original of the Assignment in my safe for thirteen years since it was signed. RTC was provided with a photocopy for its records. I have seen a copy of the Assignment which RTC filed in this case, and it is an exact duplicate of the original that I have had in my safe. The non-production of the original copy is truly a non-issue since I am the custodian of the original, and not RTC. However, as I am aware that it has been made into an issue, I am attaching as Exhibit A a true and correct copy that I have made of the original document, which I am certifying pursuant to Cal. Evidence Code § 1531. Inspection of this document will reveal that it matches precisely the one that has been provided in this case by RTC. 8. Because defendants in this action have tried to insinuate that there is something mysterious about RTC not having provided the original document, they thereby imply that the copy RTC provided may not be a copy of the original. To further provide the Court with evidence that the copy the Court has in its possession is genuine (and not a copy of some other or altered document), I had the L Ron. Hubbard's signature on the original document newly analyzed by handwriting expert William Bowman (one of the foremost forensic handwriting experts in the 3 country). He confirmed that it is L Ron Hubbard's signature, thereby verifying that the document I have in my safe is the original, and the copy I have attached is an exact duplicate. (see exhibit B, William Bowman Declaration). It is a copy of the document that Mr. Bowman authenticated which I have attached hereto as Exhibit A and this copy matches exactly with the copy of the document RTC provided to the Court. 9. The creation of RTC, and its receipt of the Advanced Technology Assignment, played an important role in protecting the intellectual properties associated with the Scientology religion. Mr. Hubbard specifically approved the formation of RTC to help effectuate his estate plan. As a result, RTC was incorporated on January 1, 1982 for the purpose of owning the Scientology trademarks and service marks and the Advanced Technology. Over the ensuing months assignment documents were reviewed and refined until they were precisely what Mr. Hubbard wanted. 10. 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 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. 4 11. The Assignment of the United States rights to the advanced Technology to RTC was prepared under my direction and approved by Mr. Hubbard, who executed it on May 10, 1982. The Assignment was executed by RTC on May 16, 1982, by Stephen Glen Marlowe as president, and Laura Marlowe, as secretary. Mr. Marlowe inadvertently filled in May 16 on the first page of the assignment agreement and omitted the year. The Assignment was, however, supposed to be dated January 1, 1982, the date of RTC's incorporation, since the rights and obligations stated in the Assignment were already proceeding before it was executed, and the Assignment was a formalization of those ongoing activities into written, enforceable obligations. The assignment of the U.S. rights to Advanced Technology was done, in part, to provide RTC with a source of income necessary to discharge its responsibilities in protecting the marks and the purity of the Scientology religion, as discussed in paragraph 5. 12. A month or two after execution of the assignment, an addendum was drafted by my firm under my supervision and executed by Mr. Hubbard, adding additional Advanced technology materials to the 1982 Assignment. I am advised that the defendants in this case have attempted to make an issue of the dates of this addendum and the original Assignment. Once again. they are attempting to turn a non-issue into a red flag. 13. The January 1, 1982 date on the addendum is explained by the intention that the document be effective with the January 1, 1982 inception of RTC. The January 19, 1982 date is when the 5 existence of new Advanced Technology levels, known as New OT VIII through New OT XI, were announced. The addendum therefore corrected an oversight in the original Advanced technology Assignment document by including these new OT Levels back to the date of their announcement. 14. The defendants have also attempted to raise a controversy on the subject of the Advanced Technology Assignment by making it seem suspicious that in a speech by Mr. Hubbard for New Years' Eve 1983, he mentioned the assignment of the Scientology trademarks to RTC, but not the Advanced technology. This argument, however, is a smokescreen because it misapprehends that the Assignment and Addenda thereto are only portions of Mr. Hubbard's overall estate plan. 15. There are many other parts of Mr. Hubbard's estate plan which he does not mention in the tape recorded message either. The tape was an address to all Scientology parishioners worldwide, and it is therefore not surprising that Mr. Hubbard did not discuss the more esoteric issues of his partial assignment of trade secret rights in the Advanced Technology or other aspects of his estate planning. The estate plan was an entire package, of which the Advanced Technology Assignment documents were only one part. There were also a Will, a trust, and a separate assignment of the trademarks. The dispute which the defendants are trying to create is not a dispute at all. An estate plan of this complexity required implementation through several different documents, each of which was duly executed. 6 16. The estate plan was created specifically to carry out Mr. Hubbard's exact intentions. From 1950 until mid-1982, Mr. Hubbard had registered, owned and informally licensed the trademarks, service marks, copyrights, and trade secrets of Dianetics and Scientology. This provided him with a legal means of enforcing the orthodox practice of the religion and preventing misuse of those intellectual property rights by persons who were trying to pass off their activities as being Dianetics or Scientology, when they were not. The estate plan was formulated to ensure continued protection of those intellectual properties after Mr. Hubbard's death. 17. While I can take credit for the creation of the plan itself and the documents that effectuated the plan, including the Advanced Technology Assignment documents, Mr. Hubbard not only approved the documents, he is also the one who instructed that they they be prepared in the first place and provided me with the intentions I embodied in the plan and the documents. The integrity of these documents is unassailable. 18. Another important aspect of the estate plan was the assignment of the Scientology trademarks to RTC. Under trademark law, Mr. Hubbard was burdened with the requirement to personally enforce these marks as any trademark owner is. There was no guarantee that this function would be properly fulfilled following his death, because at that time he did not wish to be involved in any way in the management of the Churches, but wanted to carry on with his research, and because he wanted to see the 7 purity of the Scientology religion safeguarded throughout the ages, he wanted to convey the trademarks of Scientology to a new organization that would enforce them. Thus, the trademarks, too, were given to RTC by Mr. Hubbard. 19. This current "controversy" reminds me of another false controversy surrounding Advanced Technology Assignment documents which occurred 12 years ago, prior to Mr. Hubbard's death, in which my firm and I represented Mr. Hubbard. Any doubts on this issue were resolved with absolute finality at that time. In 1983, Mr. Hubbard's estranged son, Ron DeWolf, challenged the entire handling of Mr. Hubbard's estate and assets by bringing a frivolous probate action in Riverside county, California. 20. Mr. Hubbard was in seclusion at that time, involved principally in research and writing. I advised Mr. Hubbard of the allegations that were being made about him and his estate and he disposed of this matter by providing two documents: A. a handwritten letter to the presiding judge in which he affirmed that he was in voluntary seclusion in order to work on his projects, was in full control over his legal and financial affairs, and that his estate was being very competently managed, followed by B. a sworn declaration which repeated and amplified this same information and also responded to allegations I advised him had been made about those who were handling his affairs, including David Miscavige, assuring the Court that 8 any activities by Mr. Miscavige "at any time concerned [Mr. Hubbard's] personal or business affairs have been done with [his] knowledge and authorization and for [his] benefit." [Ex. B, Bowman Dec. and Exhibits 3 and 4 thereto) 21. The authenticity of Mr. Hubbard's declaration and handwritten letter was demonstrated to the full satisfaction of the Court and the general public: A. The handwritten letter and the declaration bore a unique specially-prepared, time-dated ink that was formulated, and later confirmed, by BATF Forensic Chemist Richard L. Brunelle; B. Both the handwritten letter and the Declaration bore Mr. Hubbard's fingerprints on every page and these were positively identified by Los Angeles police Department fingerprint expert as belonging to L. Ron Hubbard; and C. The handwriting and signatures on both the handwritten letter and the declaration were confirmed by William Bowman, the top Forensic Document Examiner for the Los Angeles Police Department, as being, without question, that of L. Ron Hubbard. (ex. B, Bowman Dec.) 22. This showing resulted in the dismissal of Mr. DeWolf's thoroughly frivolous probate action on summary judgement. No other challenge to the estate plan occurred ether before Mr. Hubbard's death or thereafter during the pendency of the probate proceedings. 9 23. The final step in effectuating the estate plan was, of course, the ultimate probate of Mr. Hubbard's Will following his death on January 24, 1986. The 1982 Assignment had given RTC all U.S. rights, exclusive of copyright, in the Advanced Technology, Mr. Hubbard retained the copyrights to the Advanced Technology at that time, as he did the non-U.S. trade secret rights in the Advanced Technology. In accordance with Mr. Hubbard's wishes, the Executor of his estate gave an exclusive license for the copyrighted materials to the Advanced Technology to RTC on September 17, 1987 and assigned to RTC the non-U.S. trade secret rights in the Advanced Technology on November 30, 1988. the exclusive copyright license and assignment of November 30, 1988 were confirmed by the primary beneficiary of Mr. Hubbard's estate, Church of Spiritual Technology (CST), after the estate was distributed. The trademarks and the U.S. rights to the Advanced Technology were not part of Mr. Hubbard's Estate because he had transferred them to RTC in May, 1982 and they were conclusively and properly recognized as the property of RTC by the Executor, the heirs and CST. 24. Because I handled the estate planning, the creation of the documents pursuant to that plan, and supervised the probate of Mr. Hubbard's Will until the closing of his Estate, I am the person most knowledgeable about those events. An important point, of which the Court must be informed, is that when that Estate was closed, all issues related to the disposition of Mr. Hubbard's property were conclusively ended. The probate of the 10 Will and the proceedings in the Probate Court in San Luis Obispo County settled the transfers of all properties that passed under Mr. Hubbard's estate plan, including the 1982 Assignments. The propriety of the transfers of property can no longer be disputed, as a matter of California law. 25. The defendants in this case have apparently tried to create an impression that there is a discrepancy between Mr. Hubbard's signatures on his January 23, [1986] Will and on the 1982 Assignment. There is no issue here --Mr. Hubbard signed both documents. The signature on that Will was fully authenticated in 1986 by the same handwriting expert who has analyzed the signature on the 1982 Assignment and they are both the signature of L. Ron Hubbard. (Ex. C, 1986 Declaration of William Bowman). There is no controversy. If the two signatures look different, it is because the one on the Will was placed there the day before Mr. Hubbard passed away. It creates no cause for controversy, as the Probate Court has already probated the Will and ordered distribution thereunder. 26. It is not credible under the circumstances, that anyone could even attempt to create a colorable issue of fact over the authenticity of the Advanced Technology Assignment document, or any of the other estate documents for that matter. There is simply no question that RTC owns these rights. I know. I was Mr. Hubbard's personal attorney. I was the architect of Mr. Hubbard's estate plan. I crafted the Advanced Technology Assignment and, indeed, every document concerning his estate plan 11 pursuant to Mr. Hubbard's instruction. I have had the original Assignment documents in my office safe continuously since they were signed. The Advanced Technology Assignment and all other estate planning documents were open to challenge in the San Luis Obispo probate action which ended over six years ago without such challenge. The authenticity of this assignment and RTC's ownership of the Advanced Technology is established history. I declare, under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the State of California, that the forgoing is true and correct. Executed this 12th day of November, 1995, at Woodland Hills, California. ____________________ Sherman D. Lenske |
||
| .|..|..|. |