From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #88 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Tuesday, March 17 1998 Volume 02 : Number 088 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:03:08 -0800 From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal 1911a1@gte.net wrote: > > * * PLEASE READ, DISTRIBUTE, DISSEMINATE WIDELY * * > > > > The Charlton Heston File - By NEAL KNOX > > WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 2) -- The Lyndon B. Johnson > Presidential Library in Austin today confirmed that NRA First Vice > President Charlton Heston actively worked with the Johnson > Administration in passing the 1968 Gun Control Act. > > Heston, who is in line to be elected NRA President in June if elected > to the Board in the election now underway, has served as a public > spokesman for NRA for several years. > > Heston's role in expanding the 1968 Safe Streets Act to prohibit the > interstate sale or transfer of rifles and shotguns came to light about > two weeks ago when the text of two LBJ Library documents began > circulating on the Internet. The documents were so historically > accurate that they refreshed memories of the fury of our battle > against the Gun Control Act, but I didn't recall the huge Hollywood > effort having included Heston. > Wisdom from Neal? No, I'd call it "political demagoguery from Neal." 1968 would be 30 years ago, right? 30 years ago I was a liberal do-gooder who wanted to save the world's downtrodden, all by myself if necessary - to hell with the cost in $ or infringements on the constitutional rights of anyone who didn't see "the truth" as I did. I'd heard of something called the Bill of Rights - back in high school civics class I think it was - but I'd never actually read it, and it never occurred to me that such "stuff" written so long ago could actually be relevant to modern life. Now I'm 30 years older and 30+ years smarter. I've studied the Bill of Rights and realized that it is the MOST important "stuff" ever written for those who value the American way of life (as the Founders intended it to be). I doubt that I'm the only one who's 30+ years smarter since 1968. I'll bet there are others right here on this ROC list - and Heston too. No offense, but anyone who hasn't changed their viewpoint in 30 years is either brain dead or is a mindlessly loyal Dem or Repub - the same thing as brain dead IMO. Instead of getting all excited about what Heston did in 1968, it might be a hell of a lot smarter and more objective to review where we stood in the political spectrum 30 years ago. I suspect we'll find that we've committed the same "sin" of changing our viewpoint since 1968. It's called "learning" and "maturing." And if I'm off base here, then "let he who is without 'sin' cast the first stone." Regards, Skip. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:03:08 -0800 From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal 1911a1@gte.net wrote: > > * * PLEASE READ, DISTRIBUTE, DISSEMINATE WIDELY * * > > > > The Charlton Heston File - By NEAL KNOX > > WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 2) -- The Lyndon B. Johnson > Presidential Library in Austin today confirmed that NRA First Vice > President Charlton Heston actively worked with the Johnson > Administration in passing the 1968 Gun Control Act. > > Heston, who is in line to be elected NRA President in June if elected > to the Board in the election now underway, has served as a public > spokesman for NRA for several years. > > Heston's role in expanding the 1968 Safe Streets Act to prohibit the > interstate sale or transfer of rifles and shotguns came to light about > two weeks ago when the text of two LBJ Library documents began > circulating on the Internet. The documents were so historically > accurate that they refreshed memories of the fury of our battle > against the Gun Control Act, but I didn't recall the huge Hollywood > effort having included Heston. > Wisdom from Neal? No, I'd call it "political demagoguery from Neal." 1968 would be 30 years ago, right? 30 years ago I was a liberal do-gooder who wanted to save the world's downtrodden, all by myself if necessary - to hell with the cost in $ or infringements on the constitutional rights of anyone who didn't see "the truth" as I did. I'd heard of something called the Bill of Rights - back in high school civics class I think it was - but I'd never actually read it, and it never occurred to me that such "stuff" written so long ago could actually be relevant to modern life. Now I'm 30 years older and 30+ years smarter. I've studied the Bill of Rights and realized that it is the MOST important "stuff" ever written for those who value the American way of life (as the Founders intended it to be). I doubt that I'm the only one who's 30+ years smarter since 1968. I'll bet there are others right here on this ROC list - and Heston too. No offense, but anyone who hasn't changed their viewpoint in 30 years is either brain dead or is a mindlessly loyal Dem or Repub - the same thing as brain dead IMO. Instead of getting all excited about what Heston did in 1968, it might be a hell of a lot smarter and more objective to review where we stood in the political spectrum 30 years ago. I suspect we'll find that we've committed the same "sin" of changing our viewpoint since 1968. It's called "learning" and "maturing." And if I'm off base here, then "let he who is without 'sin' cast the first stone." Regards, Skip. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 14:01:09 -0600 From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Skip Leuschner wrote in part: >> The Charlton Heston File - By NEAL KNOX >> >> [ ... Screed deleted ... ] >> > >Wisdom from Neal? No, I'd call it "political demagoguery from Neal." > >1968 would be 30 years ago, right? > >30 years ago I was a liberal do-gooder who wanted to save the >world's downtrodden, all by myself if necessary - to hell with >the cost in $ or infringements on the constitutional rights of >anyone who didn't see "the truth" as I did. [ ... Snip ... ] >Instead of getting all excited about what Heston did in 1968, it >might be a hell of a lot smarter and more objective to review where >we stood in the political spectrum 30 years ago. I suspect we'll >find that we've committed the same "sin" of changing our viewpoint >since 1968. It's called "learning" and "maturing." > >And if I'm off base here, then "let he who is without 'sin' cast >the first stone." WWhhiiiiizzzzz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . thunk . . OW! No, that's not me, Skip. That's all those you're about to hear from who were born with the wisdom of the ages wired into their brains, and who therefore never were obliged to alter their opinions by so much as a scintilla. I said about the same thing you did on NOBAN not long ago, which is how I happen to know. For what it's worth, you're absolutely correct about Charleton Heston. You're right about Mr. Knox as well. What possible good purpose could be served by dredging up that 30-year-old bit of "news?" None whatever. The purists will be the death of us. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:50:24 -0800 (PST) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Skip Leuschner wrote: > I doubt that I'm the only one who's 30+ years smarter since 1968. > I'll bet there are others right here on this ROC list - and Heston > too. No offense, but anyone who hasn't changed their viewpoint > in 30 years is either brain dead or is a mindlessly loyal Dem or > Repub - the same thing as brain dead IMO. I will repeat the quote from Emerson that I sent out when this holier-than-thou stuff first came up: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored alike by little statesmen, philosophers, and divines." --Ralph Waldo Emerson Paraphrasing Eisenhower, "Just because I made a mistake once doesn't mean I have to keep repeating the mistake for my whole life." Admitting for the sake of argument that Heston made a mistake once, is he condemned to perpetuate the mistake? Does anything he has said recently indicate that he intends to make that mistake at this time? What the hell. Let's go hang Heston from a sour apple tree and get on with losing the war. - ----- Harry Barnett - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:54:56 -0800 From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal At 02:01 PM 3/17/98 -0600, you wrote: >Skip Leuschner wrote in part: > >>> The Charlton Heston File - By NEAL KNOX >>> >>> [ ... Screed deleted ... ] >>> >> >>Wisdom from Neal? No, I'd call it "political demagoguery from Neal." >> >>1968 would be 30 years ago, right? >> >>30 years ago I was a liberal do-gooder who wanted to save the >>world's downtrodden, all by myself if necessary - to hell with >>the cost in $ or infringements on the constitutional rights of >>anyone who didn't see "the truth" as I did. > >No, that's not me, Skip. That's all those you're about to hear from >who were born with the wisdom of the ages wired into their brains, and >who therefore never were obliged to alter their opinions by so much >as a scintilla. I said about the same thing you did on NOBAN not long >ago, which is how I happen to know. > >For what it's worth, you're absolutely correct about Charleton Heston. >You're right about Mr. Knox as well. What possible good purpose could >be served by dredging up that 30-year-old bit of "news?" None whatever. Let's not forget that it was less than one year ago that Heston (for whom I have great respect) said on the radio that it was "inappropriate" for civilians to own AK-47's or similar firearms. Aside from the fact that I think that we all ought to own American weapons instead of ChiCom junk, I strongly disagree. Heston's views hardly qualify him for the presidency, or even the board, of the NRA. What's needed, I think, is for us handloaders to make some inert cartridges (bullet & casing, w/o primer or powder) in the following calibers: .50 BMG 30-06 (M-1 Garand) .308 (M-1A and countless hunting rifles) 7.62x39 (AK and SKS) .223 (M-16/AR-15) 9MM (Uzi and numerous ugly pistols) Maybe some really high-power rifle calibers as well. Mount them all on a board, and ask people which ones are fired from an "assault weapon". I'm sure that ignorant hangers-on to the gun ban movements will be astonished to learn that the smallest bullets are from "assault weapons", while the big ones like 30-06 and .306 are from "sporting rifles". - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) - --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ "In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all - security, comfort and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society, but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free." Gibbons: "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Proud member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" since 1992! - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:13:35 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Clinton's secret police strike again - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 09:37:44 -0700 From: howardb3@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: CAS: MORRIS: BILL'S SECRET POLICE STRIKE AGAIN What a bizzare observation at the end of this article that the use of "secret police" to intimidate, search out dirt, leak confidential information,and reward those who lie for the White house, are not the style of Bill Clinton. Good endings are always hard to come by in fiction. Real life is easier, since it is the truth that always works. Perhaps he believes that demons are behind the so-called "Nixon tactics" being used by Clinton. Or perhaps the tainted spirit of Nixon roams the halls of the White House. Anyway, I thought the article was "right on" until the last fairyland paragraph. Regards, Howard Ray Heizer wrote: > > BILL'S SECRET POLICE STRIKE AGAIN > > New York Post > March 17, 1998 Dick Morris > > No journalist questioned how Tripp's confidential file ended up in The > New Yorker. Instead, all the papers dutifully reported on her arrest and > her lack of candor in disclosing it. THE White House secret police have > struck again. Desperate to discredit Linda Tripp, President Clinton's > most damning accuser, the president's men are most likely the ones who > delved into confidential Pentagon files to dig up and dish out dirt on > Tripp. > > It was probably White House secret police operatives who visited > courthouses to unearth records of Tripp's arrest (later expunged) on > burglary charges when she was 19 and then ransacked Pentagon personnel > files to show that Tripp had denied ever having been arrested. > > Just because Tripp is everyone's worst nightmare, she is not and should > not be exempt from the Privacy Act and the protections given to all > other federal employees. She should not have to read her confidential > personnel file in the newspapers. > > Who but the White House could have done it? Round up the usual suspects. > Kenneth Starr? Why discredit his own witness? Monica Lewinsky? How could > her legal team get access to secret files? Some reporter? None could get > those files unless someone obligingly unlocked the door. > > That leaves the White House. > > But no journalist questioned how Tripp's confidential file ended up in > The New Yorker. Instead, all the papers dutifully reported on her arrest > and her lack of candor in disclosing it. But let's put the sins in > comparative perspective. What is more reprehensible, more dangerous to > our liberties? A junior Pentagon employee who omits mention of an arrest > decades ago which resulted in no conviction and which was expunged, or > the release of secret Pentagon files by unnamed operatives in an effort > to discredit one of the president's adversaries? > > Defense Secretary William Cohen was not alarmed at the leak of his > secret files, but sanctimoniously denounced the "seriousness" of Tripp's > omission on her job-application form. > > Today's Linda Tripp was yesterday's Daniel Ellsberg and could be > tomorrow's you and me. Constitutional and statutory protections of > privacy are for all of us. If we define freedom of speech as freedom to > say things we hate the most, then privacy protections should shelter the > people we dislike the most. Linda Tripp qualifies admirably. > > The release of the Tripp file lends a new credibility to the Republican > allegations that the White House's possession of confidential FBI files > on GOP leaders and potential adversaries was no "mistake," as the > president's men piously claimed. Is Linda Tripp the latest victim of a > file dump? > > The fire sale on confidential Pentagon records continued with > yesterday's story in Newsweek that Lewinsky attorney William Ginsburg > lied when he said he had been a captain in the Army (he had only been a > lieutenant). Could the White House have leaked this file too? Who has an > interest in intimidating Ginsburg to control Lewinsky's testimony? > > This mounting evidence of a secret police at the White House's beck and > call, with access to secret government files, must be disturbing to > friends and foes of the president. The Clinton operation's use of > private investigators began in 1992 when over $100,000 of federally > subsidized campaign funds wore used to pay sleuth Jack Palladino to > investigate women rumored to have had affairs with Clinton. His mission? > To intimidate them into silence. > > Was Palladino the one who visited the courthouses to discredit Tripp? He > refused to either confirm or deny to The Washington Post whether he is > still digging up dirt for Clinton's operatives. Was it Sydney Blumenthal > who gave the Tripp files to The New Yorker? Blumenthal worked for that > magazine before he joined the White House staff last year. > > Terry Lenzner, another Clinton detective, was reportedly hired in 1992 > to spy on former Gov. Mario Cuomo. The campaign or the party also hired > Lenzner in 1996 for as yet unrevealed investigative work. He now serves > the needs of the Clinton legal defense team. In between, Lenzner won a > no-bid contract, worth several hundred thousand dollars, to train police > in Haiti. > > The White House secret police also tried to intimidate Dolly Kyle > Browning, whose relationship with Clinton started in their teen-age > years. According to her affidavit. Clinton confidante Bruce Lindsay sent > Browning a message to warn her about her deposition. Browning describes > how Lindsay offered her a "deal" where he would not release damaging > information about her if she obliged by remaining silent about her > relationship with the president. Browning says she also received a > motion to quash the Jones subpoena and an affidavit denying any sexual > relationship with Clinton, both awaiting only her signature, helpfully > prepared by Clinton's attorneys. Sound familiar? > > The Clinton Legal Aid Society also provided Monica Lewinsky with a > motion to quash and an affidavit denying sex. Linda Tripp got talking > points, through Monica Lewinsky, on how to prepare an affidavit to call > Kathleen Willey a liar. > > The bad cops intimidate witnesses and Vernon Jordan, the good cop, finds > them jobs. The most recent beneficiary of the Jordan Job Corps may have > been David Watkins, former director of administration for the White > House. Watkins, whose memorandum on the Travel Office firings > embarrassed the White House and suggested extensive involvement by the > First Lady, got a job with the Callaway Golf Co., where Vernon Jordan > serves on the board. The Jordan Job Corps has now found employment for > Monica Lewinsky, Webb Hubbell, and possibly, Watkins. The job corps is a > new addition to the White House employee retirement plan. > > These seedy, seamy tactics turn one's stomach. They are not Bill > Clinton's style and remind one of Nixon at his worst. The president > needs to call off his dogs and stop the release of confidential security > information to intimidate witnesses. > > ========================================================================== > This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If > you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to > majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - -- howardb3@ix.netcom.com ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 13:18:01 -0700 From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Neil, and Skip, [...] For what it's worth, you're absolutely correct about Charleton Heston. You're right about Mr. Knox as well. What possible good purpose could be served by dredging up that 30-year-old bit of "news?" None whatever. The purists will be the death of us. [...] <><><>Rhetorical Reply mode on <><><> Well, now I just want to say that before you two go any further, you aught consider that the 'Heston side of things' brought this whole sheebang down on themselves. Mr. Heston decided to use the "extremist" card to get his butt elected. All's fair in love and war? Perhaps. Okay, so what he did thirty some odd years ago ain't important to you now. Pardon me for saying it, but I find that position just a wee bit hypocritical, when neither of you two would so much as trust a former communist at the nuclear push bottons of America. What's next? Jane Fonda on the NRA board also? How about her ex Mr Hayden? Okay, I'm pushing the envelope. Those last two won't consider the job. Don't like my analog? What's the darned diff between a nuke war and the loss of our Right? As far as I'm concerned, if what you did thirty years ago won't fly in a government position in the U.S. of A, what the hey is the difference at the NRA??? Did we all of a sudden get a liberal line on things here? However, and as much as I respect the current office holders, the resort to calling the rest of us a bunch of extremists is unacceptable. I respect Neal Knox, and I do believe that his worth to the NRA as the 'bad cop' player has won us some places where we wouldn't have gotten otherwise. This whole bit of infighting is going to stink for a long time. And, yes, AND I've said it before, the only way Mr. H is going to impress the the living day lights out of me, is to shoulder an AK-47 or other 'heinous' and 'evil looking gun' and proclaim loud and long that the Right to keep and bear arms is all inclusive of those nasty FULL AUTO rock'n rollers. Anything short of that, and you can count on my continuous howl from now and untill he departs, either the NRA or this world. I want to see the veins stickout in your foreheads when he testifies before a Senate, and then House committe that anything more than a shotgun or BP arm aught to be outlawed. You guys are remind me of a pack of liberal woman, all you do is swoon over a handsome face and cum in your jeans. That Billy Clinton should be jealous. <><><> Rhetorical Reply mode off<><><> ET - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:40:41 -0500 (EST) From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal O.K., I can't resist throwing in my two cents. My discontent with the NRA is cumulative. First an unending stream of letters begging for $25. Then a somewhat sporadic flow of information on pending legislation, most of which I'd already heard about. Then Mr. Heston's "extremist" remarks. Then the bruhaha about elections and possibly violating a court order in the AR advertisement. The overall impression is that the NRA is like any large organization with a diffuse membership and a lot of money and a lot of hangers-on. They are no different than the GOP in terms of mailings and overall measure of silliness. My bottom line: The NRA is big and slow and somewhat self-serving. Mr. Knox doesn't appear to be the cure. GOA *seems* to be a lot leaner and somewhat meaner, which suits me fine. ciao, jcurtis - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:45:37 -0600 From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal "E.J. Totty" wrote: I wrote: > [...] > For what it's worth, you're absolutely >correct about Charleton Heston. You're right about >Mr. Knox as well. What possible good purpose could >be served by dredging up that 30-year-old bit of >"news?" > None whatever. > The purists will be the death of us. > [...] E.J. wrote: > <><><>Rhetorical Reply mode on <><><> > > Well, now I just want to say that before >you two go any further, you aught consider that the >'Heston side of things' brought this whole sheebang >down on themselves. We're all our own worst enemies. > Mr. Heston decided to use the "extremist" >card to get his butt elected. As is Mr. Knox, but I digress. > All's fair in love and war? Perhaps. > Okay, so what he did thirty some odd years >ago ain't important to you now. Pardon me for saying it, >but I find that position just a wee bit hypocritical, when >neither of you two would so much as trust a former >communist at the nuclear push bottons of America. I don't much care what Clinton did 30 years ago either. I care about what he is and wants to do *now*. Those are both sufficiently execrable that I opposed him absolutely before he was elected, oppose him absolutely now, and will do so for the forseeable future. It isn't necessary for me to examine his past, or crawl up his backside with tweezers, to discover that I don't care for his politics or find him to be a lying, amoral, wretch. The rest is all icing, if that's quite the word, on the cake. There's no hypocrisy there at all, and no justification for raising the issue. > What's next? Jane Fonda on the NRA board >also? How about her ex Mr Hayden? > Okay, I'm pushing the envelope. Those last >two won't consider the job. You're right, that's pushing the envelope. It's also a non sequitur. > Don't like my analog? It isn't appropriate, as I have shown. > What's the darned diff between a nuke war >and the loss of our Right? Again, a non sequitur. The fact that I'm willing to allow Mr. Heston a youthful indescretion, politically speaking, does not for an instant indicate that I advocate the abandonment of the Second Amendment -- not for a moment -- or that he does. I never have abandoned it, myself, though I admit to having been a good deal more liberal in my opinions on other subjects formerly than now. That doesn't mean that Mr. Heston takes his positions *now* with any less sincerity than I do. Insofar as Mr. Clinton may be as I have described, I point out that among all the accusations levelled at him *no-one* has ever suggested that he would start a nuclear war for trivial reasons. He wanted to bomb Iraq, true enough, but with conventional weapons, you recall. > As far as I'm concerned, if what you did thirty >years ago won't fly in a government position in the >U.S. of A, what the hey is the difference at the NRA??? > Did we all of a sudden get a liberal line on >things here? I don't understand your meaning in these two sentences. What Clinton did 30 years ago in Moscow obviously didn't keep him out of a government job, whatever one thinks of that. Just as obviously, what *I* think of that isn't particularly relevant. The fact is: There he is. Some of my acquaintences think I'm politically just to the right of Attila The Hun. The use of reason does not equate to liberalism, quite the contrary. > However, and as much as I respect the >current office holders, the resort to calling the rest >of us a bunch of extremists is unacceptable. Over on NOBAN some of the responses I got gloried in that modifier, and their authors eagerly applied it to themselves. I didn't use the word "extremist," by the way, it was "purist." I still think that applies. Further, I didn't apply the adjective specifically to you; you seem to have applied it to yourself. > I respect Neal Knox, and I do believe that >his worth to the NRA as the 'bad cop' player has won >us some places where we wouldn't have gotten otherwise. I'm not convinced of it, but you're welcome to your opinion of Mr. Knox. > This whole bit of infighting is going to stink >for a long time. On this we agree. > And, yes, AND I've said it before, the only >way Mr. H is going to impress the the living day lights >out of me, is to shoulder an AK-47 or other 'heinous' >and 'evil looking gun' and proclaim loud and long that >the Right to keep and bear arms is all inclusive of >those nasty FULL AUTO rock'n rollers. > Anything short of that, and you can count >on my continuous howl from now and untill he departs, >either the NRA or this world. Again, you're welcome to your opinion, but advocating unregulated private ownership of machineguns is probably one of the quickest routes to political oblivion that I can think of offhand. It's right next to repealing the vote for women, but I'm not sure whether it's the near or the far side. > I want to see the veins stickout in your >foreheads when he testifies before a Senate, and then >House committe that anything more than a shotgun or BP >arm aught to be outlawed. I don't anticipate anything like that happening, though if it does I have sufficient flexibility to change my mind. The NRA, according to its own publications, is working, or was working, to get Lungren's SKS-confiscation scheme derailed. If they have stopped, it's because the courts have struck down Roberti-Roos and removed the problem. It doesn't sound to me like they have adopted quite the position you suggest, and it therefore follows that I don't expect Mr. Heston to read the script you wrote for him. > You guys are remind me of a pack of liberal >woman, all you do is swoon over a handsome face and cum >in your jeans. > That Billy Clinton should be jealous. This is patently repulsive, even as a rhetorical response, and not worth further comment. > <><><> Rhetorical Reply mode off<><><> The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 98 14:29:24 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: SLAPP (fwd) On 17 Mar, 1998, Tim Kuehn wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I got this from another mailing list and thought it would be of interest here. Tim Kuehn - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:57:47 -0500 From: Morse Mehrban To: healthfraud@ssr.com Subject: [healthfraud] Getting Sued for Consumer Protection Activities Status: OR GETTING SUED FOR EXERCISING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS: SLAPPs 1998 by Morse Mehrban, J. D. Upon attending the latest board meeting of the National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc., I was struck by two things: the selflessness of those who have dedicated their lives to something bigger than themselves, and the pervading fear among even the most dedicated activists of getting sued by those whom they criticize as part of their consumer advocacy activities. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. SLAPPs exemplify the dark side of consumer advocacy and public interest work. Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined. (Gordon v. Marrone (1992) 155 Misc. 2d 726, 736, 590 N.Y.S. 2d 649, 656). SLAPPs are designed to accomplish one or more of the following business interests: retaliation, silencing a vocal opponent, inflicting financial loss, detracting attention from the issues, warning others to keep quiet, or diverting resources away from a pending litigation. I hope this paper will fortify consumer advocates in the National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. by showing them that these suits are nothing of which they should be afraid. In fact, if the SLAPP victim plays his cards right, such a suit can serve as a vehicle for vindicating the social causes he was advocating in the first place. Hereinafter, I will be discussing the United States Constitution primarily. However, as the author practices law in California and the California legislature and the courts are old hands at SLAPPs, I will be making reference to cases and code sections in California. The U. S. Constitution is superior to and takes precedence over all other laws. Therefore, where there is a conflict as to local laws and the Constitution, the latter must prevail. The United States of America was founded upon several fundamental principles. Probably the most fundamental of those principles was and is freedom of speech. This is nothing new to the reader, but most of you will be surprised to hear how far the right of free speech extends to shield you and your activities. Free speech conjures thoughts of authorship, public speaking, criticizing, vocalizing objections, and other acts of oratory. These are all at the heart of the First Amendment, but the Constitution also protects what is called petitioning activities. These petitioning activities can give rise to SLAPPs, especially if the SLAPP plaintiff gets hold of an unethical attorney or an incompetent attorney not up on Constitutional law. The right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is within the First Amendment s protection. The phrase you just read has been the subject of much litigation and dispute throughout the century. Its meaning is not crystal clear, but some things are now beyond dispute. 1. Right. The right to petition is a fundamental right of Constitutional magnitude. This means that all other rules, laws and procedures must give way to this right. No one can take this right away without violating the United States Constitution. 2. People. This word refers to each and every one of us, regardless of creed, color, race, sex, alienage, and citizenship. If we reside in the United States legally, we are protected. 3. Petition. What does petition mean? The dictionary meaning will not suffice here. It has been defined to include complaining to and filing complaints with officials (e.g., filing a complaint against a white collar criminal with the Attorney General s office), speaking out at public meetings (e.g., town meetings), filing public interest lawsuits (e.g., suing as a private attorney general to enjoin false advertising), testifying before government bodies, lobbying the legislature, speaking before administrative bodies, and circulating petitions. 4. Government. The right to petition extends to all branches (judicial, executive, and legislative) and levels (local, state, and federal) of government. 5. Redress of grievances. The petitioning party may seek any type of relief or remedy available under the law, including declaratory relief, injunctive relief, financial compensation, and restitution. The magnitude of the relief sought may be personal or social. You generally cannot be held legally liable for exercising your right of petition, regardless of the damages it may inflict upon a person or entity. The only exception is when (1) you had no probable cause for the petitioning, and (2) you petitioned with actual malice. This exception is almost never applicable to a public interest or consumer advocate. Here is what California s anti-SLAPP law says on the issue: The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly. A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 425.16). You are probably thinking to yourself, Fine and dandy, but I live in the real world. There are no guardians at the court gates preventing those whom I criticize from filing a SLAPP against me. Anyone with a couple of hundred dollars can file a lawsuit against me and that would mean I have to hire a lawyer and pay him lots of money to get the suit dismissed. I, too, live in the real world and have been SLAPPed myself. I do know the practical problems of invoking the Constitution in the trial courts where judges are more used to deciding auto accident cases. What do you do in practical terms when you get SLAPPed? First and foremost, relax. The Constitution is behind you and the odds are greatly in your favor. Second, immediately find yourself an attorney specializing in public interest law in your state. It would be preferable if the attorney also specializes in First Amendment law, but that is a tall order in the real world. Nevertheless, any competent public interest lawyer should grasp the serious Constitutional nature of the suit filed against you, and he can research the First Amendment issues. What if I can t afford a lawyer? No problem. Public interest attorneys know that most consumer advocates are not rich. So does the law. That is why these attorneys will often represent you on a contingency (percentage of recovery) basis. Wait a second. I m not suing anyone; I m the one being sued. How can a lawyer get a cut out of defending me? Good question. This is actually a question that the lawyer might pose to you, so here is what you tell him. There are various ways in which a SLAPP suit can become a money-making proposition for a defendant s attorney, and even for the defendant himself. The following is highly dependant on you state s laws, but the general principles should be applicable to most state laws. Some states have anti-SLAPP legislation allowing one who is sued for petitioning or free speech activity to recover attorney fees from the plaintiff upon the successful defense of the case. For instance, California s anti-SLAPP statute cited above provides that the court must award attorney fees to the successful defendant invoking it. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 425.16(c)). Some states have laws that allow an attorney advocating or defending rights of a Constitutional magnitude to recover attorney fees from the losing party. For instance, in California, the law states that attorney s fees are awarded to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if (a) a significant benefit, either pecuniary or non-pecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1021.5). All states allow a successful defendant to sue a losing plaintiff under a theory of malicious prosecution or abuse of process if certain elements can be shown, such as malice, lack of probable cause, and/or ulterior motive (such suits have been affectionately named SLAPP-backs). In such suits, substantial punitive (punishment) damages may be recoverable. For instance, one California SLAPP defendant successfully sued Shell Oil Company for malicious prosecution. The total verdict was over $5 million. (Leonardini v. Shell Oil Co. (1989) 216 Cal. App. 3d 547). What about all the stress I will have to go through? Wouldn t it be easier just to settle out with the plaintiff? Whatever you do, do not, under any circumstances, even consider settling with a SLAPP plaintiff, unless you get something for having been sued. Remember, as a SLAPP defendant, you are not merely defending yourself, but the United States Constitution. This is a privilege not often conferred on the ordinary citizen and you should savor it. You will gain an insight into the workings of our government as never before. Getting SLAPPed can be a semi-religious experience where you become the advocate for those hallowed principles that are the pillars of our great democracy. Finally, call me personally if you need to speak to me about a threatened or actual SLAPP against you. Even if you just need a shoulder to cry on, call me and tell me your story. The most important aspect of public interest activity is having others who believe in you as much as you believe in your cause. - -- Law Offices of Morse Mehrban 3700 Wilshire Blvd Ste 480 Los Angeles CA 90010 213-382-3183 Fax: 213-382-3430 mehrban@earthlink.net home.earthlink.net/~mehrban [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #88 ************************