THE ARSCC
LIBRARIAN
WE LOVE THE ARSCC LIBRARIAN!
HOME

THE LIBRARIAN ARCHIVES:

13 September 2001:
YOO-HOO! PTSC! About those copyrights PART 1
YOO-HOO! PTSC! About those copyrights PART 2
YOO-HOO! PTSC! About those copyrights PART 3
YOO-HOO! PTSC! About those copyrights PART 4

22 August 2001:
Re: Attention Librarian


5 March 2001:
Re: Question for CL or Librarian


10 April 2000:
Part 1, 1972-1973 FIX AND REPOST
Part 1, 1972-1973 FIX AND REPOST (Continued)
Part 2, 1974-1975 FIX AND REPOST
Part 2, 1974-1975 FIX AND REPOST (Continued)
Part 3, 1976-A FIX AND REPOST
Part 4, 1976-B FIX AND REPOST
Part 5, 1977 FIX AND REPOST
Part 6, 1978 FIX AND REPOST
Part 7, 1979-1980 FIX AND REPOST
Part 8, 1981-1982 FIX AND REPOST
Re: Owen, We Have a Problem

3 March 2000:
Re Part 3, 1976-A

25 February 2000:
PGPed Where the heck have *I* been? From 1972 to 1982 and back!

17 January 1999:
THE LIBRARIAN AND THE LIVING DEAD

8 December 1998:
Re: Urgent to Veritas: Marie

18 November 1998:
LIEBERMAN AND THE LIBRARIAN, PART I
LIEBERMAN AND THE LIBRARIAN, PART II
LIEBERMAN AND THE LIBRARIAN, PART III
LIEBERMAN AND THE LIBRARIAN, PART I—CORRECTED

8 October 1998:
A Message and Picture From The ARSCC Librarian

9 April 1998:
ZED'S "DEAR LIBRARIAN" LETTER

4 March 1998:
ZED, HONEY, I'VE GOT WHAT YOU NEED!
Re: The Missing Ten Months


13 January 1998:
THE LIBRARIAN LOSES IT WITH SHERIFF RON

5 January 1998:
Re: ENTHETA.NET archive: The Librarian
Re: Librarian: riddle me this.....

4 January 1998:
Re: Challenge to Critics and Scientologists Alike
LIBRARIAN CALLING JETA!

30 December 1997:
THE LIBRARIAN'S PRESENT TO LITIGANTS

29 December 1997:
THE LIBRARIAN HAS PRESENTS!
PRESENT TO BOOKBUYERS
PRESENT FOR WILLIAM BARWELL
PRESENT FOR RON'S AMIGO
PRESENT FOR JUSTIN

22 December 1997:
LOOK WHAT YOUR LITTLE OL' LIBRARIAN FOUND!

21 December 1997:
THE LIBRARIAN SAYS *NOT* RECOMMENDED READING!

19 December 1997:
jf05353-A THANK-YOU CARD FROM THE LIBRARIAN
ZED STRUGGLES WITH THE LIBRARIAN
SHERIFF RON INTERROGATES THE LIBRARIAN
THE SHERIFF COMES BACK FOR MORE
RE: ZED STRUGGLES WITH THE LIBRARIAN--NOT!
ZED AND THE SHERIFF GANG UP ON THE LIBRARIAN

17 December 1997:
ZED VS. THE LIBRARIAN-1
ZED VS. THE LIBRARIAN-2
ZED VS. THE LIBRARIAN-3
ZED VS. THE LIBRARIAN-4
ZED VS. THE LIBRARIAN-5
ZED VS. THE LIBRARIAN-6
ZED VS. THE LIBRARIAN-7

15 December 1997:
Challenge to Critics and Scientologists Alike

11 December 1997:
Re: Scientology/IRS Connection


RELATED FILES:

Public Research Foundation Press Release: "HIDDEN TIES BETWEEN IRS AND SCIENTOLOGY REVEALED"

The CST LEGAL PAPERS series


PUBLIC NOTICE:
The files on this site were found in publically available usenet archives and are in the public domain.

18 November 1998:
LIEBERMAN AND THE LIBRARIAN, PART II

This is the second in a three-part series (with a correction notice for Part I) by The Librarian that is a treasure of information on a "celebrity" attorney that has worked for Scientology corporations—Eric Lieberman. Lieberman gained fame for his involvement with the Pentagon Papers. The Librarian publishes every reference she is able to find about Lieberman's involvement in Scientology litigation.


From: librarian@arscc.chimerical.library (The Librarian)
Subject: LIEBERMAN AND THE LIBRARIAN, PART II
Date: 1998/11/18
Message-ID: <199811181330.OAA26790@replay.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology


So, okay--I'm back.

Let's get *right* down to business, shall we? Because there is, like,
a *LOT* of ground to cover here.

(GAWD! I wonder how much cash-a-roonie this Eric Lieberman has taken
out of Scientology coffers? He has been one *busy* little lawyer.
Wonder if he'd like to take a certain snuggly Librarian to Disney
World?)

Well, be that as it may, here are some more accounts of the exploits
of the superhuman Eric Lieberman:

----------------------------------------------------------------

October 16, 1989

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY ON IRS LIST OF "ILLEGAL TAX PROTESTERS"

U.S. District Court, Church of Scientology of New York v. Nicholas
Brady, Secretary of the Treasury, and Frederick Goldberg, Commissioner
of Internal Revenue:

"The Church of Scientology of New York claims Internal Revenue Service
offices are defying the agency's own rules by classifying the church
and its contributors as illegal tax protestors.
   "The church has retained name partner Eric Lieberman of Rabinowitz,
Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman for its suit, filed Oct. 16.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Claude Millman was assigned the case for the
IRS. ...The suit has been assigned to Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.
   "The complaint states that several church members in Manhattan and
Queens were told by IRS examiners that their contributions were not
deductible because the church was on a list of 'illegal tax
protestors,' defined by the agency as persons or organizations that
deliberately refrain from making tax payments without permission from
the IRS.
   "A May 1986 memo released by the assistant regional commissioner of
the IRS stated that the local branches should remove the church from
their lists of tax protestors. The memorandum, which is attached to
the complaint, also stated that individuals who sought deductions for
contributions to the church were entitled to them.
   "The plaintiff claims the continuation of the tax protestor label
is part of the agency's 25-year effort to intimidate the church. The
church's creed is based on the writing of the late L. Ron Hubbard,
author of Dianetics.
   "The church seeks to have its name expunged from IRS regional
offices' lists of tax protestors."

(LIBRARIAN'S NOTE: Could this be why Justin and wgert kept making such
a fuss about "tax protestors"? Snicker.)

SOURCE: American Lawyer Newspapers Group, Inc., Manhattan Lawyer,
October 24, 1989 -- October 30, 1989. SECTION: WHO'S SUING WHOM; Pg.
15

----------------------------------------------------------------

February 4, 1990

SCIENTOLOGISTS, IRS IN DISPUTE OVER MILLIONS

"The IRS, which earlier took on the Scientologists in Washington and
Los Angeles, now has brought its court battle to federal court in
Tampa. Its target is Scientology's worldwide spiritual headquarters in
Clearwater. ...The case has prompted the Clearwater Scientologists to
disclose for the first time that their organization:
   "*Pays annual operating expenses of $26-million.
   "*Sends about $ 200,000 per week--more than $10-million per
year--to the mother organization based in Los Angeles.
   "*Sends millions of dollars each year to Scientology organizations
elsewhere, including $14.5-million for literature and supplies,
$4.5-million for "dissemination and expansion," $2.4-million for
"advanced technology," and $1.3-million for films, all in 1987, the
last year for which the Scientologists provided figures.
   "*Sent $ 18-million in 1983 to a California Scientology
organization (CST).
   "*Pools reserve accounts with more than 100 other Scientology
organizations. The pool in 1987 had assets of $206-million,
liabilities of $165.6-million and a net worth of $40.4-million.
   "...In 1987, the Clearwater organization paid commissions of
$14.6-million.
   "...The Scientologists believe it is essential to expand the
membership as quickly as possible, to enable mankind to reach
salvation, Eric Lieberman, a New York attorney, explained in a federal
hearing in thetax case last month. That is similar to the evangelical
approach of many other churches, Lieberman argued..." (More)

SOURCE: St. Petersburg Times, February 4, 1990, Sunday, City Edition

----------------------------------------------------------------

May 25, 1990

QUOTES UPHELD UNDER 'FAIR USE'; CIRCUIT COURT ALLOWS PUBLICATION OF
BIOGRAPHY OF L. RON HUBBARD

(LIBRARIAN'S NOTE: Ohmigod! Eric lost yet *another* case against a
MAJOR source of entheta about L. Ron Hubbard--"A Piece of Blue Sky."
Golly-wolly. How did this guy get any kind of decent reputation? It
almost seems like he lost ALL the really important cases. It almost
seems like he was TRYING to lose them. At least, it seems that way to
*me*. But, shucks, I'm just a silly, airheaded Librarian. Heck, I may
even go *blonde* next summer.)

"An unauthorized biography of the late L. Ron Hubbard does not violate
federal copyright laws because it used only a small portion of his
previously published works as part of a critical portrayal, a
Manhattan federal appeals court ruled yesterday.
   "The circuit court unanimously overturned an injunction blocking
publication of the biography of the founder of the Church of
Scientology, 'A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology, Dianetics and L. Ron
Hubbard Exposed,' by Jonathan Caven-Atack.
   "The decision--New Era Publications International, ApS, v. Carol
Publishing Group, 90-7181--said that the author's use of Mr. Hubbard's
writings was covered by the 'fair use doctrine' of the Act of 1976,
which permits republication of copyrighted materials under certain
circumstances without consent of the owner.
   "Judge Wilfred Feinberg, who wrote the decision, said: 'The book is
a critical biography, designed to educate the public about Hubbard, a
public figure who sought public attention, albeit on his own terms.'
   "...Melvin L. Wulf of Beldock Levine & Hoffman was counsel to Carol
Publishing. New Era was represented by Michael Lee Hertzberg, Eric M.
Lieberman, David M. Golove and Jonathan W. Lubell of Rabinowitz,
Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman."

SOURCE: New York Law Publishing Company, New York Law Journal, May 25,
1990, Friday. SECTION: Pg. 1

----------------------------------------------------------------

June 20, 1990

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

United States of America, Petitioner/Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v.
Frank S. Zolin, Respondent/Appellee, and Church of Scientology of
California, and Mary Sue Hubbard,
Intervenors/Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

(LIBRARIAN'S NOTE: Hmmm. Well, here, he is representing Mary Sue, and
it *is* an appeal. Could it be that he was representing her in this
case as early as the late 70's? Could that be what he was referring to
in the "American Lawyer" article? Don't know, 'cause I can't find any
actual record of such. Oh, well. An-n-n-nyways. This case has to do
with the Zolin tapes, which became an issue in the Agreement Formerly
Known As The Secret Agreement with the IRS, which granted all the
exemptions. And here is our boy Eric, right slap dab in the big middle
of things.)

Nos. 85-6065; 85-6105 D.C. 85-440-HLH OPINION

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court Filed June 20, 1990
Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, Chief Judge, James R. Browning and Jerome
Farris, Circuit Judges.

COUNSEL Gary R. Allen, Tax Division, Department of Justice, Washington
D.C., for the petitioner/cross-appellant. Eric M. Lieberman,
Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Kninsky & Lieberman, New York, New York,
for the intervenors/appellants/cross-appellees. Frederick Bennett,
County Counsel, Los Angeles, California, for the respondent/appellee.

OPINION Farris, Circuit Judge:

"The facts of this case are set forth in our previous opinion, United
States v. Zolin, 809 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1987), aff'd in part and
vacated in part, 109 S.Ct. 2619 (1989). We now resolve whether tapes
of two meetings of the Mission Corporate Category Sortout project are
admissible under the crime fraud exception to the attorney-client
privilege in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v.
Zolin 109 S.Ct. 2619 (1989). We hold that the tapes are admissible.
   "'To invoke the [crime-fraud] exception successfully the party
seeking disclosure... must make out a prima facie case that the
attorney was retained in order to promote intended or continuing
criminal or fraudulant activity.' United States v. Hodge & Zweig, 548
F.2d 1347, 1353, 1354 (9th Cir. 1977). The Government has presented
the following evidence of intended illegality: (1) Agent Petersell's
Supplemental Declaration of March 8, 1985, (2) Petersell's
Supplemental Declaration of March 15, 1985, and (3) partial
transcripts of the tapes themselves.
   "In our first Zolin opinion we examined only the independent
evidence presented - items one and two above - and held that 'while
not altogether insubstantial, [this evidence] is not sufficient to
make out the requisite prima facie showing of intended illegality.'
809 F.2d at 1419. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that
evidence that is not 'independent' of the contents of allegedly
privileged communications--like the partial transcripts in this
case--may be used not only in the pursuit of in camera review, but
also may provide the evidentiary basis for the ultimate showing that
the crime-fraud exception applies.
   "Zolin, 109 S.Ct. at 2632 n. 12.
   "We must therefore examine the transcripts and determine whether
they, along with the independent evidence already reviewed,
demonstrate sufficient evidence of intended illegality to establish
that the tapes are within the crime-fraud exception. We hold that
they do.
   "The partial transcripts demonstrate that the purpose of the MCCS
project was to cover up past criminal wrong-doing. The MCCS Project
involded that discussion and planning for future frauds against the
IRS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. @371. See, e.g. United States v.
Carruth, 464 U.S. 1038 (1984). The figures involved in MCCS admit on
the tapes that they are attempting to confuse and defraud the U.S.
Government. The purpose of the crime-fraud exception is to exclude
such transactions from the protection of the attorney-client
privilege.
   "We therefore reject the district court's holding that the
Government did not make out a case of intended illegality. In light of
the Supreme Court's holding that the tapes themselves can be examined
for proof that would establish the crime-fraud exception, the
transcripts can be examined, and they appear to make out the
Government's case on intended illegality. On remand the district court
should admit the MCCS tapes into evidence, subject to any objections
the parties might make at that time.
   "REVERSED AND REMANDED."

SOURCE: Daily Appellate Report, Thursday June 21, 1990

----------------------------------------------------------------

July 20, 1990

Lieberman is one of two attorney's representing David Miscavige at
Miscavige's deposition in the Corydon case. (The other is Michael Lee
Hertzberg.)

SOURCE: David Miscavige Deposition transcript

----------------------------------------------------------------

June 21, 1991

"In June, 1991 GA [Gerry Armstrong] received a call from Malcolm
Nothing, asking him to testify in his case against Scn in South
Africa. Nothling said he had not been able to find anyone else in the
world willing to testify about Scn's policies and practices. After
listening to Nothling's story, and because Nothling had asked, GA
[Gerry Armstrong] agreed to help him. GA [Gerry Armstrong] said he
first wanted to see if the situation could be resolved peacefully, and
he wrote a letter to attorney Lieberman, who represented Scn [sic] in
the Armstrong I appeal. (CT 7482-98)"

SOURCE: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division
Four; Church Of Scientology International v. Gerald Armstrong; Appeal
No. A075027; Marin County Superior Court No. 157680. APPELLANT'S
OPENING BRIEF

----------------------------------------------------------------

March, 1992

Wollersheim verdict for $2.6 million is affirmed on appeal. "Civil
liberties lawyer Eric Lieberman, a partner at New York's 12-lawyer
Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman...worked on the
appeal of Wollersheim."

SOURCE: American Lawyer Newspapers Group, Inc., The American Lawyer,
July, 1992 / August, 1992. SECTION: Pg. 74. HEADLINE: The TWO Faces of
SCIENTOLOGY

----------------------------------------------------------------

March 16, 1992

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY V. U.S. 91-946

"Does an appeal from an order enforcing an administrative summons
become moot when the materials sought by the summons have been
produced? The 9th Circuit said yes.
   "The justices are to consider arguments that 'disclosure of the
documents...does not moot an appeal when, as here, relief in the form
of return of documents and no further use of the documents remains
available.'
   "Eric M. Lieberman of Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky &
Lieberman P.C. in New York for petitioner. Solicitor general's office
for respondent."

SOURCE: The New York Law Publishing Company, The National Law Journal,
March 16, 1992. SECTION: COURT DECISIONS; U.S. Supreme Court; Civil
Procedure; Pg. 36

----------------------------------------------------------------

May 6, 1992

SCIENTOLOGY TAX CASE BEFORE 9TH CIRCUIT; IRS IS DEMANDING TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS; CHURCH CALLS IT HARASSMENT

"A paper war between the Internal Revenue Service and the Church of
Scientology moves into the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals today,
where a three-judge panel will consider what, if any, documents the
religious organization has to turn over to the government.
   "Two appeals will be argued before Ninth Circuit Judges Mary
Schroeder, Robert Beezer and Thomas Tang in Pasadena. Both appeals
focus on a single issue--the permissible scope of an IRS investigation
into church affairs.
   "The church condemns IRS' probe into its activities as an effort to
bring the organization to a grinding halt, while the government
contends that its extensive document requests are necessary to
evaluate whether the church is engaging in taxable commercial
activities.
   "'The IRS' efforts to obtain the documents in this case, which
include millions of documents encompassing virtually every piece of
paper in [the church's] possession for the years in question, is but
part of a larger effort by the IRS to deny exemption to Scientology
churches while harassing them with burdensome and intrusive inquiries
which are totally unnecessary to any legitimate IRS purpose,' reads
the brief filed by New York's Eric Lieberman, one of the lawyers
representing the church. Lieberman is a partner at Rabinowitz, Boudin,
Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman.
   "...The dispute traces back to November 1988, when the IRS issued a
notice of Church Tax Inquiry to the group, indicating that the
government questioned the organization's tax-exempt status. By
December 1989, the IRS had issued a summons against the church,
demanding access to 47 different categories of documents, according to
one of the briefs filed by the church.
   "...John Dudeck Jr., of the U.S. Justice Department's tax division,
is expected to argue the IRS' case, while Lieberman will represent the
Church of Scientology Western United States. New York solo
practitioner Michael Lee Hertzberg will argue on behalf of the mother
church, the Church of Scientology International."

SOURCE: American Lawyer Media, L.P., The Recorder, May 6, 1992,
Wednesday

----------------------------------------------------------------

May 11, 1992

WHEN THE AGENCY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP RUNS OUT OF (DAMAGE) CONTROL

"It's not as if WPP Group needs any more trouble these days, what with
bankers demanding a reorganization and shareholders dismayed by the
stock's proximity to record lows. These constituencies promise to be
mere pussycats, however, compared to the pit bull that has just
dragged WPP in to court.
   "The suit, filed in Los Angeles by the Church of Scientology, also
names pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly & Co., WPP subsidiary Hill &
Knowlton and WPP chief Martin Sorrell. Scientology is seeking $ 14.7
million in damages for being abandoned by Hill & Knowlton--WPP's
public-relations unit--in its hour of need.
   "The need was created last May by a Time magazine cover story on
Scientology, entitled 'The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power.'
   "...In this case, the PR firm had not only anticipated such
coverage but, according to the suit against it, charged a 'premium'
for its very contingency. The premium varied over the two and a half
years that H&K counseled Scientology, though the $4.7 million the
client paid for such counsel made it one of the PR firm's largest.
"...Scientology's suit against WPP does bear watching, nonetheless,
for what it reveals about the evolving nature of agency-client
relationships. Technically, all H&K did was exercise its right to give
notice. Legally, however, Eric Lieberman, Scientology's chief attorney
at Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinksy & Lieberman, says a contract
is breached if notice is given under the very circumstances the
contract is designed to counteract. 'Precisely what the Church was
paying for,' Lieberman says of H&K's abrupt exit, 'is what it didn't
get.'" (More)

SOURCE: A/S/M Communications, Inc., ADWEEK, May 11, 1992, Eastern
Edition, Midwest Edition. SECTION: MORGAN AT LARGE

----------------------------------------------------------------

October 6, 1992

SO FAR, IT'S THE SG'S YEAR AT THE COURT

"It's all hands on deck at the solicitor general's office as the
Supreme Court opens its fall term this week.
   "The United States will be participating in fully 11 of the 17 oral
arguments scheduled for the October calendar, an unusually high
proportion of the docket.
   "That means 11 of the office's 23 lawyers will be arguing in
September, including the boss, Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, who
will address the Court in the judicial impeachment case of Walter
Nixon v. United States, No. 91-740, set for Oct. 7.
   "...Here is a schedule of the first batch of cases to be argued,
with the names of advocates and their affiliations as supplied by the
Supreme Court clerk's office and Legal Times. ... "TUESDAY, OCT. 6 ...
"Church of Scientology of California v. United States and Frank S.
Zolin No. 91-946 Certiorari to the 9th Circuit. For petitioner: Eric
Lieberman of New York's Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky &
Lieberman. For respondent: Lawrence Wallace, deputy solicitor general,
Department of Justice. Washington, D.C. (One hour for argument.)"

SOURCE: American Lawyer Newspapers Group Inc., Legal Times, October 5,
1992. SECTION: DOCKET WATCH; Pg. 13

----------------------------------------------------------------

November 16, 1992

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY WINS SUPREME COURT DECISION; UNANIMOUS COURT
UPHOLDS PRIVACY RIGHT AGAINST IRS INTRUSION

"Monday's unanimous Supreme Court decision in Church of Scientology of
California v. United States et al. establishes constitutional rights
of privacy for all taxpayers. The high court ruled that the government
may not use information improperly obtained, even if the government
returns the original documents to the taxpayer.
   "The case arose out of a failed IRS inquiry regarding the church
which was disposed of in 1986 for lack of any evidence. In Monday's
decision, the high court vacated a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
decision that the church's challenge was moot because the IRS had
returned the records in question.    "The underlying rights of
taxpayers remained at issue until the Supreme Court's decision Monday.
   "'This decision reaffirms the taxpayer's right to privacy against
the government and against the IRS,' said the Rev. Heber C. Jentzsch,
president of the Church of Scientology International.
   "Eric Lieberman, the constitutional lawyer who has fought this case
from its beginning nearly a decade ago, characterized the Supreme
Court's decision as: 'A major victory in the history of jurisprudence.
The IRS can not insulate itself from Apellate Court review.'
   "'The intent of the church all along has been to make the IRS
accountable. The Supreme Court observed that this issue came to light
because of the church's long-fought battle for its constitutional
rights to privacy,' said Jentzsch.
   "Justice Stevens wrote for the full court:
   "'Taxpayers have an obvious possessory interest in their records.
When the government has obtained such materials as a result of an
unlawful summons, that interest is violated, and a court can
effectuate relief by ordering the government to return the records.
   "'A person's interest in maintaining the privacy of his 'papers and
effects' is of sufficient importance to merit constitutional
protection.'
   "The IRS investigation that underlies this Supreme Court case ended
in 1986 with the Department of Justice rejecting the IRS' case because
of lack of evidence. Ron Hubbard's tax returns then underwent a civil
tax audit, but this ended favorably, with some taxes paid on an
agreed-upon basis, but no penalties charged or any finding of any
wrongdoing. CONTACT: The Rev. Heber C. Jentzsch, president, Church of
Scientology International, 213-661-0836; or Eric Lieberman, attorney,
212-254-1111."

SOURCE: Church press release, PR Newswire, November 18, 1992,
Wednesday

----------------------------------------------------------------

Phew! It is time for a *break*! Would anybody out there like to give
me a ten-minute back-rub before I start on Part III? Anybody? I've got
some scented oil back in the cloakroom.

Anybody?


                          --<The ARSCC Librarian>

-----------------------------------------------------------------
*The ARSCC, like its aching, tense, taut Librarian, does not exist.
But could use a back-rub, anyway.



EARLIER MESSAGE  |  BACK  |  HOME  |  TOP  |  NEXT MESSAGE

1