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 III

This is the third and last in a three-part series (with a follow-up 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 III
Date: 1998/11/18
Message-ID: <199811181329.OAA26694@replay.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology


Hi there, Lieberman scholars.

I just *love* you for hanging in here with me, and going all the way!

Okey-dokey. Here we are for the home stretch. Or, as one painter
friend of mine use to say, "Now we're down to the short strokes." I
just *love* artists, don't you?

An-n-n-n-nyways, this is the third-and-final part of my summaries from
the Eric Lieberman dossier. Don't you just *love* HARD FACTS? Doesn't
it just make you all, like, *flush* and *hot*?

Ooooo! For*get* the foreplay; Let's get going!!!

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

May 26, 1993, Wednesday

APPELLATE COURT UPHOLDS CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
PROHIBITING FRIVOLOUS PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIMS AGAINST CHURCHES

"...[T]he California Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the
constitutionality of California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Section
425.14, which protects religious organizations from frivolous and
vindictive punitive damages claims.
   "In this first challenge of the 1988 statute, the attorney for
plaintiffs Dee and Glover Rowe petitioned the 2nd District Appeals
Court after two unsuccessful attempts to add punitive damages to the
Rowes' suit against two Churches of Scientology in California.
   "...'This is a key decision that recognizes that churches can be
protected against frivolous claims of punitive damages in a fashion
that is entirely consistent with the Constitution,' said Eric
Lieberman, attorney for the churches."

SOURCE: Church press release in PR Newswire, May 26, 1993, Wednesday.
SECTION: State and Regional News

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

June 14, 1993

CHURCH'S LITANY OF LAWSUITS

Scientology's leaders say the best defense is a good offense.

"DID THE CHURCH of Scientology kill a judge's dog during a trial? Did
the judge, who is now dead, think church members did? Did that lead
him to be prejudiced, and bias the jury against the church?
   "These and other issues are part of an intense battle by the
church's litigation machine to overturn what remains of a $ 30 million
verdict won in 1986 by former church member Larry Wollersheim.
   "...In a Wollersheim offshoot, the church sued Mr. Wollersheim's
trial attorneys--Charles O'Reilly of Marina Del Rey, Calif's O'Reilly
and Hobart, and Leta Schlosser of Encino, Calif.--and others on Mr.
Wollersheim's side, including expert witness Prof. Margaret Singer of
the University of California-Berkeley, for allegedly violating the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The church accused
the lawyers of obtaining copies of stolen religious scriptures from
former church members and giving them to Mr. Wollersheim's expert
witnesses. The RICO case was thrown out. Religious Technology Center
v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364 (9th Cir.).
   "Separately, Professor Singer alleges in court papers that an
expert retained by the church to combat her Wollersheim testimony was
part of a wider attempt to discredit her, although the church was not
named as a defendant. Scientology attorney Eric M. Lieberman of New
York's Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman says the
church has nothing to do with the case. Singer v. American
Psychological Association, 92 Civ. 6082 (S.D.N.Y.)." (More)

The New York Law Publishing Company, The National Law Journal, June
14, 1993. SECTION: Pg. 1

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

June 14, 1993

WHO REPRESENTS THE CHURCH?

"The Church of Scientology uses a stable of lawyers and pays $80,000 a
week in fees for litigation, contract negotiations, trademark work and
other legal needs, according to church leaders. Some of its lawyers
are:

"...* ERIC M. LIEBERMAN and EDWARD COPELAND of New York's Rabinowitz,
Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman. They also represent the church
in the Lilly case."

SOURCE: The New York Law Publishing Company, The National Law Journal,
June 14, 1993. SECTION: Pg. 36

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

October 17, 1993

WILL CLEARWATER RAISE WHITE FLAG ON SCIENTOLOGY?

"The Church of Scientology, it appears, is winning the war.
   "After years of bitter fighting with various government entities,
Scientology has been granted the same status as mainstream churches by
the Internal Revenue Service, and an appeals court has said the city
has no right to police the organization's records.
   "The touchy question facing city leaders: Hunker down for another
potentially expensive battle, or fly the white flag?
   "The city's decade-long fight with the Church of Scientology has
dealt primarily with an ordinance that would force the organization to
turn over records of how it uses its money. The ordinance never has
been enforced,and the battle has cost the city more than $ 230,000 in
fees, mostly to private attorneys, according to a Times calculation of
invoices.
   "The city also will have to pay some legal fees for Scientology,
the appeals court said. The church is asking for more than $ 100,000.
In addition, the organization is expected to ask for nearly $ 300,000
in fees for other aspects of the case it already has won, said Eric
Lieberman, a New York constitutional lawyer representing Scientology.
   "The fight over the so-called charitable solicitation ordinance is
not directly affected by the recent IRS decision to give Scientology
tax-exempt status.
   "But that decision clearly has added to the momentum that
Scientology has built in recent weeks. An appeals court late last
month ruled that the city's ordinance is unconstitutional because it
would involve "'excessive (government) entanglement with religion.'
   "'There is a message in both decisions that ought to be listened
to,' Lieberman said. 'But I don't want to gloat or beat my own chest
or the chest of my client, because the message is to put this
conflict behind us.'
   "...Lieberman called the city's case 'hopeless.'
   "'What I would hope they would do is just repeal the ordinance,' he
said. 'Let this relic of a bygone era go by.'"

SOURCE: St. Petersburg Times, October 17, 1993, Sunday, City Edition.
SECTION: LARGO-SEMINOLE TIMES; Pg. 1

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

September 11, 1995

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 95-B-2143

RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER vs. F.A.C.T.NET, INC., et al.,

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Proceedings before the HONORABLE JOHN L. KANE, JR., Judge, United
States District Court for the District of Colorado, commencing at 9:30
p.m., on the 11th day of September, 1995, in Courtroom C-401, United
States Courthouse, Denver, Colorado.

APPEARANCES

For the Plaintiff:

EARLE C. COOLEY, ESQ.
Cooley, Manion, Moore & Jones
21 Custom House Street
Boston, MA 02110

TODD P. BLAKELY, ESQ.
Sheridan Ross & McIntosh
1700 Lincoln Street, 3500
Denver, CO 80203

ERIC M. LIEBERMAN, ESQ.
Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard
Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C.
Broadway at Astor Place
New York, New York 10003

(etc.)

SOURCE: Court Reporter's transcript

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

February 1, 1996

California Courts of Appeal
Cite as 96 C.D.O.S. 773

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
LAWRENCE WOLLERSHEIM, Defendant and Respondent.

Nos. B084686; B086063

Second Appellate District
Division Three
Super. Ct. No. BC074815
Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Hon. Edward Kakita, Judge. Judgments affirmed and remanded with
direction.

COUNSEL
Eric M. Lieberman, Michael Ludwig, Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard,
Krinsky & Lieberman, Kendrick L. Moxon, Laurie J. Bartilson, and Moxon
& Bartilson, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Hagenbaugh & Murphy, Daniel A. Leipold and Mark Goldowitz for
Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff and appellant Church of Scientology (the Church) appeals
from the order of the trial court granting the motion of defendant and
respondent Lawrence Wollersheim (Wollersheim) pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure section 425.16 (hereinafter, ß 425.16) to dismiss the
Church's complaint against him. The dismissed complaint attacked the
judgment Wollersheim had obtained against the Church in a prior action
(the prior action). n1 Section 425.16 was adopted in 1992 to deter and
prevent so-called SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation) suits.

n1 Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 872.

The Church contends the trial court erred in granting the motion
because its action against Wollersheim is not a SLAPP suit as defined
by section 425.16. The Church also contends the Church demonstrated
the probability of the success of its complaint and therefore the
motion should have been denied in any event. Furthermore, the Church
contends, the amount awarded for attorney fees was excessive.

We find the motion to dismiss was properly granted and substantial
evidence supports the award of attorney fees. We therefore affirm the
judgments. (More)

SOURCE: American Lawyer Media, L.P., The Recorder, February 5, 1996,
Monday. SECTION: Supplement; CALIFORNIA DAILY OPINION SERVICE; Full
Text Opinions; Pg. 773

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

March, 1996

[SCIENTOLOGY] MAKING LAW, MAKING ENEMIES

"Scientology's lawyers are pushing the IP envelope to keep the
church's secret, sacred scriptures off the Internet. But will their
heavy-handed tactics undermine key courtroom victories? ...
   "Lawyers for the defendants in the Internet cases say seizures are
extremely rare when there is no allegation that the infringer is using
copyrighted material for economic gain. (Indeed, even church counsel
Eric Lieberman of New York's Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky &
Lieberman says he cannot think of a precisely analogous case.) Says
Carla Oakley of San Francisco's Morrison & Foerster, who is
representing Erlich pro bono: 'In circumstances like this it's quite
extraordinary.'
   "Nevertheless, U.S. district court judge Ronald Whyte granted the
ex parte writ of seizure, allowing Scientology to take possession of
anything written by L. Ron Hubbard that Erlich had in his possession,
from files on his computer hard drive to published Scientology texts.
...
"OT HIDE-AND-SEEK
"Lieberman and Hart, outside intellectual property lawyers for the
church, maintain that Scientology has behaved like any other plaintiff
trying to protect copyrights, and that there is strong precedent in
copyright law for both the seizure and the attempt to hold access
providers liable.
   ...
   "Even in suing the Internet access providers, argues outside church
counsel Lieberman of Rabinowitz, Boudin, the church showed restraint.
Lieberman insists that the church only intended for providers to be
liable once they are notified of infringement, not for the passive
copying that is a necessary part of Internet operations. 'The church
took the middle position,' he says. 'This litigation is not directed
at criticism [of the church], libelous and defamatory though it may
be, but at the intellectual property violations. The church is getting
a bum rap on this.' ... "Kobrin points out that both Whyte and Kane
made only preliminary rulings, and that the church still plans to make
trade secret claims in those cases. Church counsel Lieberman adds that
the church plans to appeal Lerma's summary judgment ruling on trade
secrets. But it is hard to imagine how, given the reasoning of these
three judges--and the proliferation of OT postings to the Internet
after the church began the litigation--Scientology will ever again be
able to make a strong case that the OT writings that cropped up on
computers worldwide are trade secrets." (More)

SOURCE: American Lawyer Newspapers Group, Inc., The American Lawyer,
March, 1996. SECTION: Pg. 68

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

June 21, 1996

JUDGE NIXES DEAL BETWEEN CITY, CHURCH

"A federal judge has tossed out an agreement between the city of
Clearwater and the Church of Scientology that would have sealed public
records to settle a court battle.
   "Newspapers had argued the agreement would violate the state's
Sunshine Law.
   "'The parties are asking this court to carve out an exemption to
the Florida Public Records Act for the documents by way of a
stipulation,' U.S. District Judge Susan Bucklew wrote in her decision.
   "...At issue are dozens of files containing the results of police
investigations of the church and its members dating to 1979. The files
contain allegations of criminal conduct in addition to church
teachings reserved for high ranking members, records state.
   "...The church, which subsequently counter-sued and had the case
moved to federal court, contends the files should be destroyed or
returned because they contain information protected by the
constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of religion.
   "Church attorney Eric Lieberman argued that federal courts in
Mississippi already have ruled that constitutional rights are more
important than a state open records law. Thursday, church spokesman
Brian Anderson said he believed a solution could be worked out with
the city.
   "'We're determined to have this come to a peaceful resolution so
litigation does not become necessary,' he said. 'Our past contact with
the city would indicate they would want an alternate solution, too.'"
(More)

SOURCE: The Tampa Tribune, June 21, 1996, Friday, METRO EDITION.
SECTION: PINELLAS, Pg. 1

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

July 29, 1996

ANTI-CULT GROUP: FOE RUINED US

Suit says Scientologists misused legal process.

"ALTHOUGH THEIR DAYS of fighting in courthouses and the media appear
to be winding down, the Cult Awareness Network, or CAN, and the Church
of Scientology remain locked in a battle over allegations that CAN
fell victim to a Scientology-sponsored litigation campaign designed to
destroy the Scientologists' foe.
   "CAN was ordered to liquidate under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy
Code June 20 when U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Ronald Barliant, of the
Northern District of Illinois, converted CAN's Chapter 11 to Chapter 7
after the network could not devise a satisfactory reorganization plan.
The group filed for Chapter 11 last October after losing a $ 1.1
million verdict in a case in which it was charged with a role in the
kidnapping of a Seattle member of a Pentecostal church.
   "...Church attorney Eric M. Lieberman, of New York's Rabinowitz,
Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman P.C., said it would be
inappropriate to grant leave to appeal because there is no basis for
revisiting the issue. He said CAN's claims of conspiracy are meritless
and noted that in some of the cases it complained of, CAN had sought
sanctions but had lost.
   "Mr. Lieberman said that the Scientologist suits were coordinated
but that this was done to address a similar group of violations of law
by CAN--discriminating against Scientologists by not allowing them to
be CAN members. He denied that there was a plan to destroy CAN through
litigation."

SOURCE: The New York Law Publishing Company, The National Law Journal,
July 29, 1996. SECTION: Pg. A6

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

June 1997

DID SCIENTOLOGY STRIKE BACK?

"When the end finally came for the old Cult Awareness Network, it
happened fast. Cynthia Kisser, CAN's executive director, struggled to
stay calm as she sat in federal bankruptcy court in Chicago late last
October waiting for the auction to begin. Kisser, who had spent the
past nine years leading CAN's efforts to inform the public about
dangerous cults, had hoped that she wouldn't have to pay much for her
group's assets that day. Nor did she want much, she claims--just the
chance to put the hopelessly bankrupt CAN out of its misery by buying
up its trade name, post office box, help line number, and service
mark, so that all could be retired. There was another suitor in the
courtroom, however--Steven Hayes, a member of the Church of
Scientology. And Hayes, a lawyer who had come all the way from Los
Angeles to attend the auction, had other plans. The bidding started at
$10,000. Kisser offered $11,000, Hayes raised her by $1,000. The two
quickly inched up to $15,000. Kisser kept going, to $17,000, then
$19,000. But when Hayes upped the bidding by another $1,000, Kisser
finally balked. 'No more,' she told Philip Martino, the bankruptcy
trustee overseeing the sale. From there, it was all paperwork. 'I will
accept the offer of Mr. Hayes for $20,000,' Martino announced dryly.
'We will document this with a court order tomorrow.' It was a
CLINCHING EVENT, if not the high-noon moment, in the strange story of
the Cult Awareness Network's destruction. Today, a newly reconstituted
CAN is up and running.
   "...[T]he vast majority of the plaintiffs were represented or
assisted by the same firm: L.A.'s Bowles & Moxon. Even attorney Eric
Lieberman, who is currently defending both Bowles & Moxon and
Scientology in a 1991 malicious prosecution suit brought by CAN,
admits that the church helped fund and coordinate the suits against
CAN. But Lieberman, a name partner at New York's Rabinowitz, Boudin,
Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, denies that there was ever any grand
strategy for targeting CAN. Moxon, a longtime Scientologist, claims
that he became involved because individual plaintiffs sought him out
for his expertise in religious discrimination litigation. The reason
the suits were so similar, he explains, is simple: Almost all the
plaintiffs had suffered the same harm. 'These were filed by individual
Scientologists who were victimized by CAN,' adds Moxon." (More)

SOURCE: American Lawyer Newspapers Group, Inc., The American Lawyer,
June 1997. SECTION: Pg. 62

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

September 18, 1997

HIGH COURT EASES MALICIOUS-PROSECUTION BURDEN

"The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday reversed long-standing state
law concerning the favorable-termination requirement in
malicious-prosecution cases.
   "The high court reversed a 1st District Appellate Court decision
affirming dismissal of the Cult Awareness Network's lawsuit alleging
malicious prosecution by the Church of Scientology's international and
state organizations and the Los Angeles law firm of Bowles & Moxon,
which was involved in some of the underlying litigation against the
anti-cult group also known as CAN. ...
   "...Eric Lieberman, a New York City lawyer representing the
defendants, could not be reached for comment early Thursday afternoon.
   "Justice Mary Ann G. McMorrow took no part in the consideration or
decision of the case. The court remanded the matter to the Circuit
Court for further proceedings. Cult Awareness Network v. Church of
Scientology International, et al., No. 80868."

SOURCE: Law Bulletin Publishing Company, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin,
September 18, 1997, Thursday. SECTION: Pg. 1

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

September 18, 1997

ANTI-CULT GROUP CAN RESUME ITS SCIENTOLOGY FIGHT

"The Barrington-based Cult Awareness Network--which for years crusaded
against cults only to be taken over by its chief nemesis, the
International Church of Scientology--won a round Thursday in what has
become a seemingly endless legal bout with the Scientologists.
   "That victory came in the form of an Illinois Supreme Court opinion
reinstating a $4 million malicious prosecution lawsuit the network
filed against the Church of Scientology in 1991. That lawsuit, which
claimed the church repeatedly sued the network to silence and
financially ruin it, had been dismissed three times in lower court
rulings.
   "The network's lawyer, Robert M. Dow Jr., said the court's decision
means the network finally gets to prove its case against the church.
But Eric M. Lieberman, a lawyer for the Church of Scientology, said he
wasn't sure the network existed anymore because of pending bankruptcy
proceedings.
   "'I don't know what happens next,' he said.
   "Kendrick Moxon, another Church of Scientology attorney, said the
network's lawsuit was 'a bogus case' that lower courts were right to
dismiss.
   "'The case is just as worthless as it was yesterday,' Moxon said.
(More)

SOURCE: Chicago Tribune Company, Chicago Tribune, September 19, 1997
Friday, MCHENRY COUNTY EDITION. SECTION: MCHENRY COUNTY; Pg. 1; ZONE:
MC

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

January 21, 1998

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION REQUIREMENTS: FAVORABLE TERMINATION

"A complaint was sufficient to allege the favorable termination
element of a conspiracy to maliciously prosecute where it stated that
the lawsuits complained of were terminated in plaintiff's favor by
summary judgment or by voluntary or involuntary dismissal. Appellate
Court reversed.

"Cult Awareness Network v. Church of Scientology International,
Illinois Supreme Court. 177 Ill.2d 267, 685 N.E.2d 1347, 226 Ill.Dec.
604 (1997). ...
   "The Illinois Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice
Charles Freeman, without dissent, ruled as follows: ...
   "'Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the Appellate and
Circuit Courts, and remand the matter to the Circuit Court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.'
   "James C. Schroeder, Robert M. Dow Jr. and Craig A. Woods, of
Mayer, Brown & Platt and John M. Beal, all of Chicago, for appellant
[CAN].
   "R. Peter Carey and Uve R. Jerzy of Mandel, Lipton & Stevenson Ltd.
of Chicago and Eric M. Lieberman and Laurie Edelstein of Rabinowitz,
Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman P.C. of New York for appellees
[CSI]."

SOURCE: Law Bulletin Publishing Company. Chicago Daily Law Bulletin,
January 21, 1998, Wednesday. SECTION: Pg. 1

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

Well, there you have it, boys and girls. That's where the dossier
ends. Gawd! I feel like I ought to light up a cigarette now, or
something!

Of course, I'm pretty sure that Eric Lieberman has also been involved
in Keith Henson and Grady Ward's cases, but they would have to provide
the information about that, because <YAWN AND STRE-E-E-E-E-E-E-TCH>--
(yikes! the bottom this little top rides, like, *way* up when I do
that!)--your poor little ARSCC Librarian feels like she's been rode
hard and put away wet! I am *beat*!

I hope this helps out a little bit. <YAW-W-W-W-N!> But, now, it's time
for me to turn out the lights, shut down the ARSCC Chimerical
Computer, put away the Lieberman Dossier, and lock up.

<Sigh> Guess I'll go home and slip out of these *tight* cut-offs (I
think I have, like, a *permanent* wedgie!), soak in a hot tub with
just TONS of bubble bath, put on that little black satin teddy with
"OUT-2-D" embroidered on it in red, and...read a book? <Sigh> The
lonely life of the Librarian.

I am just going to *HAVE* to get another game of "Stump the Librarian"
going if I am going to have ANY kind of life outside of these books
and files!

Well, g'night li'l ARSCC Venus Fly-trap. G'night li'l "Xenu is Grumpy"
cup. G'night Eric. G'night A.R.S. Kisses!


                           --<The ARSCC Librarian>

-----------------------------------------------------------------
*The ARSCC, like its lonely, perfumed, satiny, tossing-and-turning
Librarian, does not exist.



EARLIER MESSAGE  |  BACK  |  HOME  |  TOP  |  NEXT MESSAGE

1