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 planing, 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 p[art 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 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, 186 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

 

 

 

H:\LERMA\SHERMAN.DEC