Title: $$$$$ Little Davey Makes
a Killing $$$$$
Author: Roland
<roland.rashleigh-berry@_SPAMTRAP_virgin.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 13:44:52 +0100
x-no-archive: yes [Part of the Berry to Yingling letter] May 8, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL Monique Yingling, Esq. Charles Ogle, Esq. Zuckert, Scoutt & Ogle & Merzon Rasenberger 770 Morro Bay Blvd. 888 17th St., NW, Ste 600 Morro Bay, California 93442 Washington, D.C. 20006 Re: The Estate of L. Ron Hubbard Dear Ms. Yingling and Mr. Ogle: --- <BIG SNIP> --- b. The Coroner's own report, Exhibit A, page 5, states that the Coroner terminated his investigation when David Miscavige and Dr. Denk arrived and showed him the 1982 and 1986 wills then convinced the Coroner that there was no material difference between the two wills. What David Miscavige and Dr. Denk concealed from the Coroner was the following: (1) There was no disclosure of the change of executor less than one day before death. (2) There was no disclosure of the change in provisions regarding Mary Sue Hubbard and the last minute abrogation of her community property interests in a $26.5 million estate after 34 years of marriage (see generally, Berry Declaration, Exhibit C, p. 57, para. 36-40). (3) There was no disclosure of the last minute change in the 1986 will regarding the copyrights which comprised 95% of the Estate. (4) There was no disclosure of the fact that a mere two weeks from the date of death, Mr. Hubbard's constant medical attention had been withdrawn, when David Miscavige and others took Dr. Denk on a gambling trip to Reno, Nevada. (5) There was no disclosure of the last will's last minute inclusion of a new provisions allegedly anointing David Miscavige, the architect of the will and circumstances surrounding death, as a trusted "servant and friend." Indeed, had Mr. Hubbard's cognitive powers not been so obviously impaired by his crippling stroke and faintly scrawled signature, he might have said "and you too Brutus." (6) Indeed, we observed that you, Ms. Yingling, practicing in Washington, D.C., appeared at this hearing in San Luis Obispo County Court, California. Clearly David Miscavige was handling Mr. Hubbard's death. Clearly he is handling the current litigation. You frequently appear as Mr. David Miscavige's personal counsel, and as counsel for the Scientology Organization, and are said to be one of Mr. Miscavige's most trusted advisors along with Mr. Feffer of the Washington white collar criminal defense law firm of Williams and Connoley. 8. Your opposition papers also stated that none of the Hubbard heirs had ever complained about anything that had occurred. Because of the circumstances of their life, as set forth in our Ex Parte Petition, this is an inherently suspect statement by Mr. Starkey. No waiver of community property rights has ever been filed on behalf of Mary Sue Hubbard and no indication that she received truly independent legal counsel at the relevant time. This omission is compounded by the pertinent contents of Mr. Small's letter which you attached as Exhibit 1. "As I am confident you will show at the hearing, Mr. Hubbard's statutory successors (widow, children) have assigned their renewal rights to Mr. Starkey and his successors, and these renewal rights have been exercised by Mr. Starkey pursuant to the assignments, so that the renewed copyrights are owned by CST as successor to Mr. Starkey. I understand that Mr. Starkey purchased these rights for valuable consideration paid to the statutory successors, and further, to the best of my knowledge, that none of them has questioned the assignments in any way. In my opinion, the purchase of these rights by Mr. Starkey was in accordance with standard practice in this field and was completely proper and effective to secure both the contingent renewal rights and the renewed copyrights for Mr. Starkey's successors." 9. This startling admission by Mr. Small is alone grounds to grant the relief we will seek by way of regularly noticed petition. In circumstances suggesting coercion, Mr. Small has stated that Mr. Hubbard's heirs assigned their renewal rights to David Miscavige's organization despite Mr. Starkey's multiple and non-waivable conflicts of interest as a subordinate to David Miscavige, being a member of the Scientology Control Group and a beneficiary of the Estate (even ignoring the copyrights that have subsequently been personally assigned by Mr. Starkey to himself). Contrary to your other arguments in your opposition papers, Mr. Small's startling statement is an admission of counsel that the copyrights were the property of L. Ron Hubbard at the time of death, that the Hubbard Family did have renewal rights in those copyrights, that Mary Sue Hubbard did have community property interests in the estate assets, all contrary to Norman Starkey's statements under oath that there were no community property interests, that the entire estate belonged to L. Ron Hubbard, and subsequent statements that the copyrights had passed by way of pretestamentary assignment. If this were not enough, there is also no evidence on the Court file of any of this and no evidence of any of these "heirs" receiving truly independent legal counsel at the relevant time. 10. Exhibit 3, like paragraph 8 of Mr. Starkey's letter, states "toxicology studies were performed and the toxicology results were negative findings for any drug and/or alcohol content." However, the Coroner's report, Berry Declaration Exhibit A, and the attached "Toxicology Report" found traces of the psychiatric drug Vistaril in Mr. Hubbard's blood stream and his own doctor, Gene Denk, stated to the Coroner that he had prescribed and administered a number of drugs to Mr. Hubbard which included Vistaril (a psychiatric drug usually administered in combination with other hypnotic, psychotic and sedating narcotics and restricted drugs) and that Mr. Hubbard also had a "long history of chronic pancreatitis" which is primarily caused by alcoholism. For your convenience, we refer you to page 17 of the attached Coroner's Report. ------------------------------------------------------ Roland --