LIBRARIAN
WE LOVE THE ARSCC LIBRARIAN!
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. |