Skip to first unread message

The Librarian

Nov 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/18/98
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


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

"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
"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


"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..."

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


May 25, 1990


(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 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.

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
Frederick Bennett, County Counsel, Los Angeles, California, for the

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.

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

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

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


"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


"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


"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.'"

SOURCE: A/S/M Communications, Inc., ADWEEK, May 11, 1992, Eastern Edition,


October 6, 1992


"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.
"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,


November 16, 1992


"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
" 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.


--<The ARSCC Librarian>

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

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages