LIBRARIAN
WE LOVE THE ARSCC LIBRARIAN!
18 November 1998:
LIEBERMAN AND THE LIBRARIAN, PART I
This begins 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. One thing that stands out in her data is how many cases Lieberman managed to be on the losing side in on "behalf" of Scientology organizations. Another is the tax-related cases he litigates. It's a very odd assortment that we believe no one has entirely plumbed the depth of. As is often the case with the posts of The Librarian, they can be revisited again and again, and new interelationships of data are always presenting themselves. We believe that the "LIEBERMAN AND THE LIBRARIAN" series is a rich treasure of information that still needs to be fully mined. Note that she mistakenly says in this message that it is a four-part post, something she corrected in a message that followed the series.
One other note: The Librarian's research into Lieberman is set off by an anonymous post that refers to Liebrman by name in connection with late 1970's "Snow White" case. She is frustrated in her search for anything involving Lieberman and Scientology that early. With all due deference to our favorite Librarian, we believe she may have been misled by ambiguous wording in the reference (see in message below), which also mentions the firm Lieberman is associated with—Rabinowitz, Boudin. We may have solved her mystery, because Leonard B. Boudin, of Rabinowitz, Boudin & Standard, represented Mary Sue Hubbard in 1979 in the "Snow White" proceedings, according to the "Stipulation of Evidence." So we've found a HARD FACT for The Librarian if she's watching, and we hope she will reward us accordingly. And we still are in awe of the amazing research she came up with on Lieberman's further involvement with Scientology litigation. Our way of thanking her is putting it all here for easy reference, complete with her priceless presentation and eternal breathless ebullience.
From: librarian@arscc.chimerical.library (The Librarian) Subject: LIEBERMAN AND THE LIBRARIAN, PART I Date: 1998/11/18 Message-ID: <199811181327.OAA26567@replay.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology This Indian summer thing had sent me rifling through the cedar chest and digging my short-shorts and halter tops back out of the darned old mothballs. It was a weekend, and I figured nobody would be dropping in at the Library to see me anyway (heck, hardly anybody even seemed to know I was back!), so I wiggled into a daring little pair of Guess jeans I had whacked off--well, you know; I mean with scissors--so short that I can't wear undies with them 'cause they peek out if I do. I pulled an *adorable* little teal spaghetti-strapped, midriff-length linen top (with a tiny satin bow, thank you very much) over my head, brushed out my hair, dabbed on a *whisper* of lipstick, slipped on a pair of pigskin penny-loafers (just to spite wgert), and set off for a bouncy little walk down to the ARSCC Chimerical Library. Gee whillikers! It was a *gorgeous* day, and I felt so happy to be back, and so, like, "keyed-out" (if you know what I mean) that I almost slipped up and "got in comm" with a couple of the big oak trees overhanging the sidewalk, and some squirrels who were chattering at me! ("Gosh!" I thought. "I have *got* to stop reading all this weird scieno stuff that keeps getting posted in a.r.s.!") Well, anywa-a-a-ays. When I let myself in to the Library, I was just so "up" that I had completely forgotten what a MESS I still had waiting for me. I mean, I have *never* seen such a backlog as the stack I had found when I first got back a few weeks ago. Oh, don't get me wrong--it's not like I've just been sitting around doing my nails; I've already sorted a *lot* of it (and a lot of it into the round file!). But I had *so* many backlogged messages in a.r.s. to catch up on, and things people had sent me, and dossiers on lawyers, and-- Well, just a *bunch* of stuff. Shoot! I couldn't spend such a beautiful day just, like, shuffling those papers around! So I opened some windows, fixed myself a tall iced coffee, and booted up the ARSCC Chimerical Library computer to see what kind of shenanigans were going on in a.r.s. Well, gag me with a roto-rooter! I thought I had fallen into alt.stacy.suckup (a.s.s.) or dorian.idiot.panglobal.stupidity (d.i.p.s.) by mistake, or something! God! I mean, I had to Lysol my *screen* after all that! <Sigh!> It seemed like you poor, dear, sweet souls had been so severely deprived of FACTS recently, that you had been forced to resort to a dining on a steady diet of spoon-fed b*llsh*t! It just broke my achey-breaky little librarian heart! I felt responsible! So I was just sitting there, scrolling through the other messages (when I could find one!), tapping a nail against my front teeth, wondering *what* I could do about it, when suddenly I ran across this, from message <199810161733.TAA18488@replay.com>: >"[C]hurch leaders still send much of their work to longtime >counsel like Eric Lieberman of Rabinowitz, Boudin, whose >affiliations go back to the defense of church leaders for >infiltrating government offices in the late 1970s." And yet >there's no record of his involvement in any defense of any of >the "Snow White" defendants. Ain't that jest [BLEEP]in' >~~spooooky~~, Martin, ol' man? Lieberman? Eric Lieberman? Well, shucks! I had just seen something on Eric Lieberman in all that backlog I had handled! But what had I *done* with it? I turned my gaze to my "Pending" basket across the room. Holy Moley! Did *I* do that? It was two feet high! And the "To Be Filed"? Yikes! It was worse! Wait a minute! Those dossiers somebody had dropped through the mail slot! Wasn't there one on Lieberman in *there*? I slipped off the stool (don't you just *hate* that little squeaky feeling when the back of your thighs have been sitting on faux leather too long?) and went over to my "Secret Attorney Dossiers" file drawer, bent over (Whoops! Glad nobody was *behind* me! Maybe I cut these things off a little *too* short!) and finger-walked through the tabby-things. Hm. Drescher, Ellenberg, Emory, Feffer, Fugate, Gavigan-- Where *is* it?! Hart, Hayes, Karno, Kobrin, Lenske-Sherman, Lenske-Stephen--TA-DA! Lieberman! I pulled the textured folder from the drawer and ran my fingers over the foil-stamped cover. Gosh, *somebody* had gone to a *lot* of trouble putting together these attorney dossiers! I wonder how many copies of them there are out there? I mean, they look, like, *really* expensive. Who would go to all this trouble, and why? Oh, well. I touched my finger to my tongue, and started leafing through the contents, looking for some connection to the Snow White mess. But there was nothing. Nothing! God, that really *was* spooky. I got little goose-bumps all over my chest and arms, and felt a little tightening, shriveling sensation in a couple of places. Shivers! But there was still, like, a *lot* of stuff in there. *Good* stuff. FACTS!! And so--just for you, you dear, lovable, darling, fact-starved sweethearts--instead of going out on this *gorgeous* Indian summer day and having a picnic, I nestled my taut little fanny down into a swivel chair and spent the *whole* day assembling some good, HARD FACTS about the estimable Eric Lieberman into a chronological outline for your reading, filing, and cross-referencing pleasure. WARNING: I did little summaries, excerpts, or abstracts of the articles--depending on how much there was about Lieberman in each one--but the whole thing is *still* longer than a stood-up stallion. (I put in references to the actual articles, so you can look them up on Nexus or in your local library.) But, anyways, because this is so-o-o-o-o-o long, I am having to break it into FOUR parts. My remailer wouldn't send the whole thing at once even if I wanted to. That's why you'll need to get all four parts. IF, that is, you want to know what our golden boy Eric has been up to over all these years with Scientology. And, if you did, well, shoot, honey--all you had to do was *ask*! And, believe me, he has been busy, busy, BUSY! But, the first thing in this dossier (besides the Pentagon Papers case, which there is, like, just *tons* of stuff you can look up for yourself) is *not* anything to do with Eric Lieberman being involved in "defense of church leaders for infiltrating government offices in the late 1970s," as he claims happened. (There is not even a *peep* about THAT in here!) No, the first thing we hear of Eric Lieberman and Scientology, the very *first* thing is back in... ---------------------------------------------------------------- April 21, 1983 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY WINS STAY IN BOSTON COOPER CASE The Church of Scientology wins a motion to stay proceedings in the Boston Paulette Cooper case, pending resolution of a similar case filed by Cooper against the church in California. Church attorney Eric Lieberman calls the ruling a recognition that Cooper has been "manipulating the judicial process" by "filing duplicative lawsuits." Lieberman says he is "very gratified" by Judge McNaught's decision. Cooper had also filed a case in New York similar to the ones in Boston and California, Lieberman says, but notes that the New York case had been dismissed the previous year. SOURCE: Church-issued press release in PR Newswire; contact: Kathy Heard ---------------------------------------------------------------- August 6, 1985 NO QUICK DECISION EXPECTED IN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CASE "An official of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday it may be months before judges decide a challenge by religious groups to a municipal law apparently aimed at the Church of Scientology. "Lawyers for the Church of Scientology and several other religious groups Monday asked the court to overturn a lower court decision upholding a Clearwater, Fla., law requiring churches to register and disclose their finances. ... "Representing the religious groups, attorney Eric Lieberman told the court, 'This ordinance intrudes the power of the state into the relationship a church has with its members.'" (More) SOURCE: U.P.I., August 6, 1985, Tuesday, AM cycle. SECTION: Regional News. DISTRIBUTION: Florida, Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------------- August 8, 1985 ATTORNEY LIEBERMAN DEFENDS SECULAR HUMANISM "A group of parents, teachers, students and authors has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to declare unconstitutional an amendment prohibiting certain schools from using federal funds for the teaching of 'secular humanism.' "Eric M. Lieberman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the suit is expected to become a 'major test of First Amendment safeguards of free speech and the separation of church and state.' "The suit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court, named the federal government and the U.S. secretary of education. The plaintiffs, who include science fiction author and biochemist Isaac Asimov, president of the American Humanist Association, contend the Hatch Amendment has produced chaos and confusion in schools nationwide because it fails to define the term 'secular humanism.' "...At a news conference, Lieberman defined secular humanism as a school of thought 'with emphasis on the rational, the primacy of human rights and human relationships, and a non-deistic approach to the problems of the world.' "...Other plaintiffs include authors B.F. Skinner, a leading psychologist... "...A year lapsed after the bill was signed, Lieberman said, because 'this amendment was enacted with virtually no public knowledge. We didn't even know about it until six or eight months ago.'" (LIBRARIAN'S NOTE: I just thought this was *truly* precious, that Eric squeezed a case representing the world's leading behaviorist [B.F.Skinner] and defending secular humanism into his busy calendar between Scientology-advocacy cases. I'm sure L. Ron Hubbard knew all about this, and thoroughly approved. Snicker.) SOURCE: The Associated Press, August 8, 1985, Thursday, PM cycle. SECTION: Domestic News ---------------------------------------------------------------- July 17, 1987 SCIENTOLOGISTS SUFFER NEW LEGAL SETBACK IN BATTLE WITH U.S. OVER TAX DEDUCTIONS The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California rules that church members cannot claim income tax deductions for donations they make to the church in exchange for spiritual training. Eric M. Lieberman, an attorney for the church members, says he is disappointed. "Historically, and properly so, the IRS and the courts have never deemed a religious benefit to be an economic or financial benefit," Lieberman says. He claims that the ruling will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1987, Saturday, Southland Edition ---------------------------------------------------------------- September 21, 1987 TAXING MATTERS "Six weeks ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a 1967 decision by the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the tax-exempt status of the church. But this hardly means the end of the department's longstanding legal tangles with the Scientologists. "...[T]he 9th Circuit case covered only the years from 1970 to 1972, leaving up in the air all other years during which the church was denied tax exemptions, says Eric Lieberman, outside tax counsel for the church and a partner at New York's Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard & Krinsky. "'We're facing litigation over many years, in both senses of the word,' says Lieberman. "For all the church's litigation, James Mann, deputy assistant attorney general for the Tax Division, says the Scientology matters 'represent just a fraction of our caseload.' "...Michael Durney, the acting assistant attorney general for the Tax Division, has recused himself from all Scientology matters because of his prior legal work for the church as a partner at D.C.'s Hamel & Park. "...The church is also embroiled in a complicated Freedom of Information Act dispute with the IRS. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on that case next month, in the first week of its 1987-88 term." (More) SOURCE: American Lawyer Newspapers Group Inc., Legal Times, September 21, 1987. SECTION: INSIDE JUSTICE; Pg. 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- November 11, 1987 SCIENTOLOGISTS LOSE BID FOR IRS RECORDS "The Supreme Court, rejecting an appeal filed by the Church of Scientology of California to obtain government tax records, ruled Tuesday that the public has no right to get information kept by the Internal Revenue Service. "The tax agency 'has no duty under the Freedom of Information Act' to disclose internal records, even if names and other confidential information could be easily deleted, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said. "Civil rights attorneys denounced the unanimous decision, saying the ruling will make it virtually impossible for outsiders to monitor IRS activities because it gives the agency a free hand to turn down requests for information. The ruling also marks another court reversal for the church, which has carried on a protracted legal struggle with a host of government agencies. ... "Eric Lieberman, a New York attorney who represented the church, said the ruling gives 'no recourse' to citizens who believe they have been harassed by the IRS. "'Church officials believe they were put on the "enemies list" by the Nixon Administration and they were harassed for political reasons. This decision says the IRS doesn't have to disclose anything about that episode,' Lieberman said." SOURCE: The Times Mirror Company, Los Angeles Times, November 11, 1987, Wednesday, Home Edition. SECTION: Part 1; Page 3; Column 2; Metro Desk ---------------------------------------------------------------- January 5, 1988 State Supreme Court THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF NEW YORK v. THE TAX COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK "On Jan. 5, Justice Elliott Wilk ordered discovery to begin in The Church of Scientology's challenge against the New York City Tax Commission's denial of religious exemption for two of the church's properties. "On May 13, 1986, the Appellate Division remanded the matter to the state Supreme Court to determine whether the church is organized--and its premises used--exclusively for religious purposes, and whether the founder, L. Ron Hubbard, is accepting income through royalty arrangement. [LIBRARIAN'S NOTE: Huh? Thought he was DEAD by May 13, 1986!] "The Church of Scientology, which has turned to Eric Lieberman and Betty St. Clair of Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, argues that because it is a not-for-profit corporation whose activities are exclusively for religious purposes, its properties at 349 W. 48th St. and 227 W. 46th St. should be tax-exempt. "Lieberman says that the Commission first denied the church's application on the grounds that Scientology is not a religion, but when the court rejected that assertion, the Commission alleged that the assets and income of the church were being used for personal profit." (More) SOURCE: American Lawyer Newspapers Group, Inc., Manhattan Lawyer, February 2, 1988 - February 8, 1988. SECTION: WHO'S SUING WHOM; Pg. 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------- April 19, 1988 2ND CIRCUIT GOES AGAINST FOUR OTHERS Panel OKs Deductions for Church of Scientology Members "Mandatory payments to the Church of Scientology by its members for one-on-one spiritual sessions with church staff members are charitable contributions, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled, despite contrary decisions by four other circuit courts. "In Foley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, (No. 86-4026), the 2nd Circuit ruled that the $ 5,881.83 paid for 'auditing and training' sessions, a religious practice designed to raise spiritual awareness, was akin to payments for attendance at High Holy Day services, saying of Masses and church dues, and therefore, a deduction under 26 U.S. C. Sec. 170(a). "The 2nd Circuit followed a recent 8th Circuit decision on the same issue, ruling that 'an amount remitted to a qualified church with no return other than participation in strictly spiritual and doctrinal religious practices is a contribution within the meaning of section 170.' "The 2nd Circuit's April 19 decision, written by Judge Roger Miner and joined by Judge Ralph Winter, conflicts with earlier Church of Scientology cases in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th circuits. On April 18, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on the deductibility issue in another church of Scientology case, Hernandez v. Commissioner, 819 F2d 1212 (1st Cir. 1987). "...Last year the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of tax-exemption status to the church in Church of Scientology v. Commissioner, 823 F2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1987), on the basis that L. Ron Hubbard, the church's founder, received a significant amount of the church's income. The church was a tax-exempt organization during the period in which the Foleys deducted the auditing payment. "...The Foleys' counsel, Eric M. Lieberman, name partner of Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, distinguished the case from decisions concerning the disallowance of deductions for parochial school tuition since, in the school cases, there is an expectation of a definite economic benefit. "'Can any court of the United States say that since a Scientologist is getting more of a benefit for his services than a Catholic or a Jew, it should be disallowed? If that's so, the First Amendment is in serious trouble,' Lieberman said." SOURCE: American Lawyer Newspapers Group, Inc., Manhattan Lawyer, May 3, 1988 - May 9, 1988. SECTION: Pg. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- October 31, 1988 U.S. V. ZOLIN 88-40 "The week of Oct. 17, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the following cases. "May a court restrict the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to disclose to other federal agencies material acquired through a court-enforced administrative summons, and must the IRS provide independent evidence of fraud when it seeks material protected by lawyer-client confidentiality? The 9th Circuit said yes to both questions. "The government is seeking confidential documents in connection with a tax fraud probe of the Church of Scientology. The 9th Circuit upheld a federal judge who restricted IRS access to the material. "The Justice Department said the ruling seriously threatens the ability of the government to investigate tax fraud. "The U.S. solicitor general's office for petitioner. Eric M. Lieberman of Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman in New York for respondent. SOURCE: The New York Law Publishing Company, The National Law Journal, October 31, 1988. SECTION: SUPREME COURT SUMMARY; Administrative Law; Pg. 42 ---------------------------------------------------------------- April 19, 1989 SCIENTOLOGISTS LOSE SECOND CIRCUIT APPEAL IN INFRINGEMENT SUIT AGAINST "BARE-FACED MESSIAH" PUBLISHER, HOLT (LIBRARIAN'S NOTE: Oooops! I'd say Eric and his friends, like, *really* screwed the pooch on this one! Wow! This became the NUMBER ONE instrument of black P.R. against L. Ron Hubbard, and they would have WON the case--but, darn, they were just a day [or a few hundred] late. Ooooooopsie!) FACTS: The action had been brought in district court for copyright infringement to enjoin publication of a biography of L. Ron Hubbard called "Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard." The plaintiff, New Era Publications International, ApS ("New Era") holds BY LICENSE certain copyrights bequeathed by Hubbard. The publisher of the biography, Henry Holt and Company, Inc. ("Holt) was defendant. The district court had concluded that the use of unpublished writings in the biography did not pass the fair use test and therefore to some degree infringed, but, for various reasons, declined to issue an injunction, and instead relegated New Era to the remedy of damages. HOLDING BY SECOND CIRCUIT COURT ON APPEAL: "Affirmed...on the ground that laches is the sole bar to the issuance of an injunction. ...The prejudice suffered by Holt as the result of New Era's unreasonable and inexcusable delay in bringing this action invokes a bar of laches. In initially denying a temporary restraining order, the district court found that New Era had been aware since 1986 that the book would be published in the United States. Despite this knowledge, it failed to take any steps to enjoin publication of the book until it sought a restraining order in May 1988, at a time when 12,000 copies of the book had already been printed. At this point, it appears that a permanent injunction would result in the total destruction of the work since it is not economically feasible to reprint the book after deletion of the infringing material. Such severe prejudice, coupled with the unconscionable delay already described, mandates denial of the injunction for laches and relegation of New Era to its damages remedy." ATTORNEYS: Michael Lee Hertzberg (Eric M. Lieberman, Nicholas E. Poser, David B. Goldstein, Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C., of counsel) for plaintiff. Robert M. Callagy (Mark A. Fowler, Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke, of counsel) for defendant. SOURCE: American Lawyer Newspapers Group, Inc., Manhattan Lawyer, May 2, 1989 - May 8, 1989. SECTION: WEEKLY OPINION SERVICE ---------------------------------------------------------------- Well, that's the end of Part I. I'm going to go powder my nose, and I'll be *right back* to do Part II. (Darn, my fanny is *numb* from sitting so long!) --<The ARSCC Librarian> ----------------------------------------------------------------- *The ARSCC, like its pert little dedicated Librarian, does not exist. |