Gerry Armstrong--L. Ron Hubbard Estate--Riverside

§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ^® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §

Law Offices of Barrett S. Litt
617 South Olive Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, California 90014

(213) 623-7511

Attorneys for Respondent
MARY SUE HUBBARD

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

In re the Estate of

L. RON HUBBARD.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 47150

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM,
DECLARATION OF L. RON
HUBBARD AND AUTHENTICATING
EXHIBITS IN FURTHER
SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
MARY SUE HUBBARD'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The attached declaration of L. Ron Hubbard (Exhibit

I-I) was received in the offices of Mr. Hubbard's attorney,

Sherman Lenske, at approximately 3:00 P.M. on May 18, 1983.

If there was ever any question in the court's mind as to the

viability of respondent's summary judgment motion,

Mr. Hubbard's declaration should resolve all doubts. As the

court is aware, we have already submitted extensive evidence

that Mr. Hubbard is alive and well, living in seclusion, in

excellent physical and mental health, supervising his

business, financial and literary affairs, communicating with

others as he sees fit, and that his estate is well managed,

and not in need of attention, supervision and care. We have

also previously submitted a handwritten letter from

Mr. Hubbard to the court asking that this proceeding be

dismissed, which letter has been fully authenticated and to

which no questions as to its legitimacy has been raised by

petitioner. However, up to now we have not been able to

submit to the court a statement, sworn under penalty of per-

jury, by Mr. Hubbard himself. Only now has such a document

become available to respondent. The declaration includes,

on each page, L. Ron Hubbard's fingerprints. It is signed

with specially prepared timedated ink. The last page

contains a handwritten portion of the declaration so that

there will be ample handwriting with which to conduct a

handwriting analysis. Attached to this Supplemental

Memorandum are the authenticating affidavits of the

handwriting and fingerprint on the declaration; the time-

dated ink authentication affidavit will not be available

until the hearing. The validity of Mr. Hubbard's declara-

tion, and the admissibility of this document are, therefore,

beyond dispute.

We recognize that the hearing on respondent's summary

judgment motion is scheduled for May 20, 1983. Because of

the extraordinary nature of this declaration, and its

decisiveness on the summary judgment motion, we have taken

every possible step to assure that petitioner has an oppor-

tunity to independently test the authenticity of the

declaration. We are submitting, therefore, to the court, a

copy of the declaration. The original is being retained to

permit petitioner's counsel, if desired, to inspect the

document and/or have his own experts examine it. The

original will be brought to the hearing itself. In

addition, we have arranged to have the authentication

experts available for examination by petitioner's counsel,

should he determine that such a step is desirable. Finally,

we are prepared to have these same authentication experts

available at the hearing itself, should the court deem it

appropriate to examine, or permit petitioner's counsel to

examine, these experts. In short, we are prepared to make

every reasonable accommodation to petitioner in order that

this declaration may be considered by the court at the May

20 hearing and to anticipate and avoid any possible

technical objections to the admissibility of this document.

The declaration of L. Ron Hubbard serves two related

but independent purposes in relation to the instant motion

for summary judgment. First, standing alone, the document

effectively and conclusively rebuts the two essential ele-

ments petitioner is required to establish in order to permit

appointment of a trustee under §260 of the probate code.

That is, Mr. Hubbard, in his own words, states that he is

not missing, and that his estate is not in need of atten-

tion, supervision and care. Secondly, the declaration is

consistent with and supplements the substantial evidence

already produced by respondent regarding each of the

particular claims made by the petitioner.

Because the declaration clearly speaks for itself,

because the experts who have authenticated the declaration

unquestionably establish that Mr. Hubbard signed the

declaration recently and affixed his fingerprint, because

the declaration itself speaks to and rebuts every relevant

allegation of the petitioner, and because this court has

already been inundated with paper, we are not going to

explain the various ways in which the declaration settles

the issues in this case. We ask only that the court read

the declaration and accompanying exhibits and determine this

for itself.

We do wish, however, to briefly address the reasons

that the court should fully consider the declaration even

though it is submitted later than we would have wished and

even though petitioner has not had, and will not have, the

opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Hubbard, who makes it very

clear in his declaration that he does not intend to either

appear in this matter or to subject himself to deposition.

The declaration is submitted under penalty of perjury,

and is dated and prepared in the form expressly provided for

in CCP §437c and §2015.5. The information contained in the

declaration is made by Mr. Hubbard on his personal know-

ledge, sets forth admissible evidence and shows affirma-

tively that the declarant is competent to testify to the

matters stated therein. CCP §437c(d).

The fact that Mr. Hubbard is not personally available

does not in any way prevent the submission of this declara-

tion. "If a party is otherwise entitled to a summary

judgment pursuant to the provisions of this section, summary

judgment shall not be denied on grounds of credibility or

for want of cross-examination of witnesses furnishing

affidavits or declarations in support of the summary

judgment ...." 437c(e).

Petitioner himself has, at least by implication, argued

that a declaration from L. Ron Hubbard is admissible.

Included in his list of objections to the admissibility of

Mr. Hubbard's February 3 letter is the assertion: "[I]t

[the letter] is not in the form of a declaration, affidavit

or deposition as permitted by Code of Civil Procedure

§437c." (Petitioner's Memorandum, p. 18). The present

declaration certainly satisfies petitioner's objection in

this regard. Further, the declaration is also admissible

for relevant nonhearsay purposes, as well as for the truth

of the matters asserted under various exceptions to the

hearsay rule. (See Respondent's Argument III B and C, in

our original Memorandum of Law in Support of Summary

Judgment Motion. These arguments made regarding the

February 3 letter of Mr. Hubbard are equally applicable to

the instant declaration and will not be repeated here).

Finally, any communication to the court from L. Ron Hubbard,

given that this proceeding under Probate Code §260 is for

the protection and benefit of Mr. Hubbard, must be

considered by the court.

This court has previously indicated that such a

declaration, sworn under penalty of perjury, by L. Ron

Hubbard would, indeed, be considered on a motion for summary

judgment. At the hearing held February 17, 1983, the

following exchange between court and counsel took place:

"THE COURT: ... If Mr. Hubbard is ready and

willing to sign a statement, I don't see any

reason why he does not sign it under penalty

of perjury.

"MR. LITT: Would that dispose of the matter?

"THE COURT: I am not saying it would, but it

would make his statements admissible in

evidence." (R.Tr., pp. 9-10).

Under these circumstances, although this declaration is

being submitted to the court, and made available to counsel

one day before hearing, there can be no valid objection to

the court's consideration of the document. The only

conceivable contention petitioner could make is that he has

not had the opportunity to test the authenticity of this

declaration. But we note that the previously submitted

handwritten letter by L. Ron Hubbard was similarly made

available to counsel for petitioner, and he neither had the

letter examined by his own experts, nor took the deposition

of the authentication experts which the respondent made

available to him; this is true despite the fact that he

objected to the court's consideration of the letter at the

February 17 hearing precisely because he had not had the

opportunity to examine the document or the experts. The

current experts are identical to those already made

available to petitioner and not examined by him. Their

opinions are based on the identical analysis and underlying

documentation previously relied upon by them, and never

challenged by petitioner. In the event of petitioner's

objection that there was inadequate opportunity to prepare a

response to this declaration, the court should require, at a

minimum, a prima facie showing of some valid objection which

could not already have been developed.

One final point. It is our position that summary

judgment is required in this case even without our having

submitted a declaration from Mr. Hubbard. Therefore,

assuming we are correct, as we believe we are, petitioner

has in no way been prejudiced by this late submission, and

the court can proceed to rule accordingly. Only if the

court considers that the declaration necessitates the

granting of our motion, whereas without the declaration the

court would not so rule, can there even be a question of

possible prejudice. Even then, for the reasons we have

explained, the declaration is fully admissible and should be

considered, particularly in light of petitioner's prior

failure to challenge the authenticity of previous documents

authenticated by the same experts. If the court does

believe that petitioner must be given the opportunity to

authenticate, then -- and only then -- should the hearing be

continued until Monday and the petitioner ordered to engage

in discovery and/or retain his own experts to examine the

document before then.

None of the facts contained in the L. Ron Hubbard

declaration are new. The declaration does not open the door

to any factual matters that have not already been fully

subjected to discovery, briefed and argued. As we have

pointed out from the time this proceeding was initiated,

petitioner's claims are completely groundless. This

declaration from Mr. Hubbard merely cements that obvious

conclusion. Summary judgment must be granted to respondent.

DATED: May 19, 1983

Law Offices of
Barrett S. Litt

By: ___________________
BARRETT S. LITT
Attorneys for Respondent
Mary Sue Hubbard

3I:DWLF:IX:SP:MM

§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ^® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §