An informative report by Andreas Gross
For some time now, I have been confronted with massive restrictions on my publishing activities. Several of my reprints of early works by L. Ron Hubbard have been removed from the Amazon KDP and Ingram Spark platforms at the instigation of organisations such as Bridge Publications, New Era Publications International (NEPI) and on the basis of alleged copyrights supposedly held by the Church of Spiritual Technology (CST).
In this report, I would like to explain why these claims are legally untenable and why I am strengthened in my position to continue publishing these books and making them available to an interested audience.
1. The starting point: takedown requests without legal basis
Bridge Publications and NEPI have repeatedly filed takedown complaints with Ingram Spark and Amazon KDP, claiming that my publications infringe on existing copyrights. However, these are earlier works by L. Ron Hubbard that are either in the public domain or based on non-renewed copyrights.
I then sent a formal warning letter to CST, in which I:
- outlined the legal basis for my publications,
- demanded disclosure of a clean chain of title,
- and demanded that CST instruct its sub-organisations to refrain from further interference.
2. Response from the law firm Glaser Weil LLP
CST responded through attorney Jeff Joyner. Interestingly, his letter remains unclear as to which of his clients (CST, Bridge, NEPI) he specifically represents. In addition, the letter merely repeats general claims to copyrights, refers to registrations with the US Copyright Office, without providing a clear chain of title or the specific will on which these claims are based.
3. The alleged will of L. Ron Hubbard: A questionable document
The central basis for CST’s copyright claim is said to be a will written shortly before Hubbard’s death in 1986. Instead of a signature, this document is said to have been verified with a fingerprint.
This raises serious doubts:
- In California, a fingerprint only replaces a signature in very exceptional cases.
- The identity of the fingerprint is said to have been confirmed by FBI files – a clear conflict of interest if one assumes that government agencies were behind the takeover of the Church: the Deep State.
- A fingerprint can be forged relatively easily – using latent prints, stamping techniques or digital reproduction.
4. Doubts about the independence of witnesses and notaries
Particularly serious is the fact that David Miscavige himself acted as notary, as did several lawyers who claimed as early as 1977 that they had been mandated by L. Ron Hubbard to represent his interests vis-à-vis the Church. However, there is no independently verifiable original signature, no certified power of attorney from LRH and no independent witnesses.
Mary Sue Hubbard, who was responsible for all legal matters in Scientology as Guardian, was excluded from these proceedings and stripped of her powers by David Miscavige. She and the children were disinherited in Hubbard’s alleged will.
Instead, all evidence is based on a closed system of actors who benefit directly from the new power structure.
5. Legal assessment: No claim without proven chain of title
Under applicable law, the burden of proof for the lawful acquisition of copyright lies with the person asserting the copyright. CST, RTC and Bridge have so far not produced any original documents that would make this chain of title transparent.
In a possible proceeding, the following could and should be requested:
- Submission of the original of L. Ron Hubbard’s alleged will
- A forensic examination of the fingerprint and the document itself
- Disclosure of the chain of title from the author to the organisation asserting the rights.
6. Conclusion: The basis for CST’s claims is untenable
In view of the circumstances and evidence mentioned above, CST’s copyright claims are not established rights, but rather a construct whose legality must be questioned on several levels.
I therefore continue to believe that I am within my rights to publish historical original works by L. Ron Hubbard in the form of reprints – especially if they are in the public domain or no effective rights reservations can be proven.
This report is not only intended to clarify my own position, but also to encourage other authors, researchers and independent publishers not to be intimidated by unjustified claims to power.
Andreas Gross Morgarten, May 2025
Read my book on LRH copyrights, which shows why RTC no longer wants to sue you for ‘pirated copies’:
Enclosures:
Current correspondence with CST; RTC refused to accept my letter.