Law suits against Public Forums

[Greg Burnham]

Tom Scully opined:

Topic by Martin Hay titled, "The Lifton file at the Weisberg archive is empty can you guess why?" was made temporarily invisible by me because it is supported solely by Martin's so far unsupported quote of someone named by Martin and described as an archivist of the Harold Weisberg papers at http://jfk.hood.edu .

I've taken this action because the forum moderation team should review this quote of the archivist Martin has posted, to determine what, if anything, we (those responsible for what is displayed on this forum) are getting ourselves into, it the quote is permitted to stay up for public view and search engine results.)

Is it appropriate to ask for an affidavit from the person Martin has quoted, verfiying what was said to Martin, and that it was true and accurate to the best of that person's firsthand knowledge?

Is it necessary for the person quoted by Martin to own up to the details and sign a release for the public display of his comments, here in the posted topic? Would this archivist need permission from his superiors at hood.edu ?

Has Martin already anticipated any of the questions I am raising, and has something he can provide to relieve some of the concerns I am raising?

Can the solution be as simple as Martin inviting the person he is quoting to become a member of this forum, and if he will and can cooperate, post the statement Martin has quoted, under this archivist's own name, photo, and bio?

Has this forum also been threatened by David Lifton? Do those responsible for this forum fear that David Lifton will sue you for, for, for...for what exactly?

Or are you suggesting that Martin Hay is such a dishonorable man that he invented this exchange and indeed perhaps even invented a fictitious archivist?

This is not my forum. It is not my job to engage in specious paranoia. I pity those whose job it is.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Candor.... I made the decision, unilaterally to TEMPORARILY disapprove the thread. I saw the decision as consistant with what Evan did in the last episode. I submitted the situation to any other of the moderators who wants to read about it and weigh in on it.

I posted an explanation about why I took the temporary action.

There was no link in either Martin's or in Jim's post. I assumed Jim took his quote from a page on Ken Rahn's site.

Martin, post a screen shot of an email with the text of the quote or words to the same effect, with the source's name on it, in a post in this new thread, blot out his email address if you think it is wise, and I'll make the thread in question visible again, NOW.

I'll assume if the guy from the archive put what he said in writing and sent it to you, and you are willing to make it public, that the guy from the archive knew his words under his name might become public.

I could be overruled when more moderators review my decision. I have no problem with that, or with the taunting from the membership. I simply put myself in the shoes of any member who reads so far unsubstantiated negative references in a thread with his name in the title, and I acted accordingly. I feel most comfortable when I have as little affinity to anyone who I might be accused of sticking up for, as I do in this situation.

Last go round, you, Martin, cited a reliable source, and I certainly emphasized that point in the debate about the next moderation move. If we aired out in public, all if the details of our moderation discussions, no one would continue as a moderator. This is a moderated forum. Is the moderation too aggressive, too weak, too inconsistent, too slanted?

Jim Di recently posted that gory, graphic photos seem inappropriate. I've argued that Zapruder frames and JFK autopsy photos, and the subject of assassination and murder seem more offensive and disturbing for young students to take in than most curse words are. I moderate the curse words in posts only because the rules prohibit them. I still agree with Jim that the DeMohrenschildt death scene shots were too much. It helped when someone posted that they could only be viewed by logged in members.

If you think the moderation is poorly exercised recently, and not so recently, I think you'd object to the quality of it much more if the moderators agreed with each other often.

[Pamela Brown]

It seems appropriate that the mods proceed with caution due to the fact that not only individuals but Hood College is involved, and that a lawsuit has apparently been threatened. It makes sense to give them the benefit of the doubt in this respect.

At the same time, it is curious that such meticulous care be taken regarding protecting David Lifton's rights, while at the same time someone such as Judyth Baker appeared to be regularly thrown to the wolves on this forum and her rights given no consideration at all.

Wouldn't it be nice if the same rights applied to everyone?

[Greg Burnham]

Pamela:

Did Baker threaten a lawsuit?

Better yet, my original question in this thread: Did Lifton threaten Simkin with one? I assume the answer must be no, as that would seem too petty even for David. But, then again, maybe he did given the knee jerk reaction from at least one or two moderators.

[Pamela Brown]

Pamela:

Did Baker threaten a lawsuit?

Perhaps that is the key. As far as I know, she has not.

[Pamela Brown]

Pamela:

Did Baker threaten a lawsuit?

Better yet, my original question in this thread: Did Lifton threaten Simkin with one? I assume the answer must be no, as that would seem too petty even for David. But, then again, maybe he did given the knee jerk reaction from at least one or two moderators.

Oh dear. I certainly hope you are mistaken. Ironically, David Lifton seems to be one comfortable with saying just about anything he wants against Judyth. Ironic.

[Dean Hagerman]

This whole thing is crazy

I agree with Greg, what could Lifton (or anybody) sue for? Who could they sue?

If I was the judge I would throw this case out so fast it would make everybodys head spin

Edited December 31, 2011 by Dean Hagerman

[Pat Speer]

Pamela:

Did Baker threaten a lawsuit?

Better yet, my original question in this thread: Did Lifton threaten Simkin with one? I assume the answer must be no, as that would seem too petty even for David. But, then again, maybe he did given the knee jerk reaction from at least one or two moderators.

Oh dear. I certainly hope you are mistaken. Ironically, David Lifton seems to be one comfortable with saying just about anything he wants against Judyth. Ironic.

There is a significant difference between the complaints against Baker and Lifton. Baker claims to have actually known Oswald and to have known what he was up to in 1963. Her personal credibility is therefore central to any discussion of her story. Those opposing Baker claim she is a fantasist, or a pretender--neither of which is against the law. Those arguing that her story is not true and who scrutinize her every statement are therefore on solid footing.

Lifton is another matter. There have been many complaints about Lifton, most of which have been widely discussed on this forum. He has no special protection. There are, however, complaints against Lifton which suggest criminal wrong-doing on his part, which have no real support. The moderators are wary of these complaints and feel they do not belong on this forum, but will of course defer to the judgement of the Forum's owners should they offer us clear guidelines on this matter.

P.S. It is distressing to me, and I dare say others, that none of those supposedly so opposed to Lifton and his theories are willing to start a thread discussing his theories, and have instead wasted so much of our time discussing one-sided accounts of his behavior, many of them written over 40 years ago. It has not escaped our attention that Lifton has at times been critical of the judgment of these individuals. The net result is a black eye to the forum: an individual known for his unique theory criticizes a relative new-comer, and the new-comer decides his best recourse is to dig up ancient gossip on this individual, apparently in an effort to drive this individual from the forum.

Those new-comers feeling that Lifton or the moderators have interfered with their right to free speech, and have tried to stifle dissent, IMO, need to take a hard long look in the mirror. By their aggressive and hostile responses to Lifton's criticisms of their work they are creating an atmosphere where others disagreeing with their work will be unlikely to say anything. And this, in turn, will lead to a forum where little information is exchanged. We'll have some threads where one guy spouts his theory, and no one disagrees. And other threads where people disagree and it quickly turns into a shouting match. And little intelligent discourse.

So...let's behave like gentleman, for the good of the forum.

[Pamela Brown]

This whole thing is crazy

I agree with Greg, what could Lifton (or anybody) sue for? Who could they sue?

If I was the judge I would throw this case out so fast it would make everybodys head spin

With all due respect, this is the assassination circus. Anything goes, it seems.

[Pamela Brown]

Pat Speer says:

There is a significant difference between the complaints against Baker and Lifton. Baker claims to have actually known Oswald and to have known what he was up to in 1963. Her personal credibility is therefore central to any discussion of her story. Those opposing Baker claim she is a fantasist, or a pretender--neither of which is against the law. Those arguing that her story is not true and who scrutinize her every statement are therefore on solid footing.

Agreed. However, it is one thing to question someone's credentials -- and Judyth's should be held up to the highest scrutiny because of the claims she is making -- and it is another thing to claim she is 'lying about everything' and can do no right. Deliberate misrepresentations have been repeated in the threads on Judyth so as to block out the fact that while she certainly exaggerates and puffs up her statements, and misuses evidence, she does not 'lie about everything'. However, even making a statement like that tends to cause a furor on this board.

It is my hope that even the most controversial of individuals can be treated with the same level of decency that should also be available to the least controversial of researchers.

[Greg Burnham]

Martin has apparently provided proof that his statements reflecting the email he received from a Hood archivist were indeed well founded.

He was REQUIRED to do so in order to make his thread visible again.

However, David Lifton was NOT required to produce the telephonically recorded conversation that he claims to have had with Judyth from which he posted the alleged contents thereof.

That is a double standard.

Of course, Jim made a good point: Judyth did not threaten a lawsuit.

Yet.

.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[Greg Parker]

Pamela:

Did Baker threaten a lawsuit?

Better yet, my original question in this thread: Did Lifton threaten Simkin with one? I assume the answer must be no, as that would seem too petty even for David. But, then again, maybe he did given the knee jerk reaction from at least one or two moderators.

Oh dear. I certainly hope you are mistaken. Ironically, David Lifton seems to be one comfortable with saying just about anything he wants against Judyth. Ironic.

There is a significant difference between the complaints against Baker and Lifton. Baker claims to have actually known Oswald and to have known what he was up to in 1963. Her personal credibility is therefore central to any discussion of her story. Those opposing Baker claim she is a fantasist, or a pretender--neither of which is against the law. Those arguing that her story is not true and who scrutinize her every statement are therefore on solid footing.

Lifton is another matter.

Is he really? I say he is a fantasist. He fantasizes constantly about the credentials of others; he imagines all manner of conversations involving those same people. He "imagined" that he found newspaper stories exposing McBride as having a faulty memory; he "imagines" that it doesn't matter if the Paines or Marina were proven liars; he "imagined" that 3rd or 4th generation hearsay from un-named sources is the "best evidence" that proves Witt was TUM and that TUM was an entirely innocuous figure. He "imagines" all manner of things. Constantly.

There have been many complaints about Lifton, most of which have been widely discussed on this forum. He has no special protection. There are, however, complaints against Lifton which suggest criminal wrong-doing on his part, which have no real support. The moderators are wary of these complaints and feel they do not belong on this forum, but will of course defer to the judgement of the Forum's owners should they offer us clear guidelines on this matter.

As an identified fantasist; it should be "open season" on him - as is apparently the case for other identified fantasists.

P.S. It is distressing to me, and I dare say others, that none of those supposedly so opposed to Lifton and his theories are willing to start a thread discussing his theories

I feel relatively safe in speaking here for the others you seem to be addressing, in saying what the hell is the point of wasting time discussing a theory that has already been thoroughly discredited?

, and have instead wasted so much of our time discussing one-sided accounts of his behavior, many of them written over 40 years ago. It has not escaped our attention that Lifton has at times been critical of the judgment of these individuals. The net result is a black eye to the forum: an individual known for his unique theory criticizes a relative new-comer, and the new-comer decides his best recourse is to dig up ancient gossip on this individual, apparently in an effort to drive this individual from the forum.

YOU AND OTHERS HAVE FORCED THAT WASTE OF TIME by making such a big song and dance over incidental comments from a quoted text on an entirely different subject. The only other times his history gets dragged out is to show him what his opinion on others is worth.

Those new-comers feeling that Lifton or the moderators have interfered with their right to free speech, and have tried to stifle dissent, IMO, need to take a hard long look in the mirror. By their aggressive and hostile responses to Lifton's criticisms of their work they are creating an atmosphere where others disagreeing with their work will be unlikely to say anything. And this, in turn, will lead to a forum where little information is exchanged. We'll have some threads where one guy spouts his theory, and no one disagrees. And other threads where people disagree and it quickly turns into a shouting match. And little intelligent discourse.

Utter crap. Gobsmackingly, mind-numblingly stupid and INACCURATE comments from the man who applauded Lifton's love letter to himself AKA the David Lifton Wiki page.

Here it is again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lifton . Not only has wiki marked the page as having "multiple issues" including more than a hint of self-promotion and a consequent lack of objectivity, they did so two years ago and have done nothing about it due to the subject matter being "rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale." The fact that his page carries in effect, a warning label, and has done for two years, would make most people do something about fixing it up -- but Mr Lifton is so smitten with himself, he cannot bear to have any facts inserted.

The pity of it is, that all this nonsense from Lifton has taken at least 3 collateral victims down with him. You, Pat - as well as Josiah Thompson, and the person I once regarded as the benchmark in performing careful and logical analysis of evidence - Jefferson Morley.

So...let's behave like gentleman, for the good of the forum.

Yes. Naturally the lack of courtesy is the big problem here. And if only everyone plays nice with David (even when David is being the playground bully to his heart's content - safe in the knowledge he will not be called to account) why, the Magic Kingdom will return to its Glory Days of angels whispering platitudes to acolytes and the Truth coming down from on high, because all you need is Faith, Brother... all you need is Faith... and if I say I hoid it on the grapevine, Brother I'm not not just singing a 1970s hit song... you can take it to the bank that the word of the un-named friend of a friend of a second cousin to Witt's neighbor's pool guy is Gospel Truth....

And Amen to that!

[Guest Tom Scully]

Martin has apparently provided proof that his statements reflecting the email he received from a Hood archivist were indeed well founded.

He was REQUIRED to do so in order to make his thread visible again.

However, David Lifton was NOT required to produce the telephonically recorded conversation that he claims to have had with Judyth from which he posted the alleged contents thereof.

That is a double standard.

Of course, Jim made a good point: Judyth did not threaten a lawsuit.

Yet.

.

Martin was asked by me to post a screen capture image of an email he described as authored by his source; containing quotes that became the foundation for his thread in question. I made the request to Martin early on a Sunday morning during a holiday weekend.

I had no idea at that time how long it might take for other moderators to review the temporary invisibility of his thread and reach a decision on what next to do.

I thought asking Martin to post a screen capture would potentially be the fastest and least complicated way to justify restoring visibility of the thread.

No one aside from me, requested anything from Martin. I restored the visibility of the thread after considering ONLY Martin's explanation and the input I've received from other moderators.

[Greg Burnham]

Martin has apparently provided proof that his statements reflecting the email he received from a Hood archivist were indeed well founded.

He was REQUIRED to do so in order to make his thread visible again.

However, David Lifton was NOT required to produce the telephonically recorded conversation that he claims to have had with Judyth from which he posted the alleged contents thereof.

That is a double standard.

Of course, Jim made a good point: Judyth did not threaten a lawsuit.

Yet.

.

Martin was asked by me to post a screen capture image of an email he described as authored by his source; containing quotes that became the foundation for his thread in question. I made the request to Martin early on a Sunday morning during a holiday weekend.

I had no idea at that time how long it might take for other moderators to review the temporary invisibility of his thread and reach a decision on what next to do.

I thought asking Martin to post a screen capture would potentially be the fastest and least complicated way to justify restoring visibility of the thread.

No one aside from me, requested anything from Martin. I restored the visibility of the thread after considering ONLY Martin's explanation and the input I've received from other moderators.

It is still a double standard.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Greg, Having just encountered this thread (and perhaps unaware of its nuances), I tend to agree with Pat and Pamela about all of this, where Monk has made an excellent point in relation to David's attacks on Judyth, where I have challenged him repeatedly to produce a copy of the conversation he claims to have recorded with Judyth, which he has refused to do. So I have some differences with him.

The massive smears that we find in http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/feinman/Between_the_signal/Chapter_fourteen.html, however, are an entirely different matter. And, while I believe he does not have everything right (such as his belief all the shots were fired from in front), I also believe his studies of the medical evidence and the Zapruder film were path-breaking and correct. I know he can be frustrating at times, but some of this is simply bizarre.

You write, "what the hell is the point of wasting time discussing a theory that has already been thoroughly discredited?" So I ask, what theory of Lifton's "has already been thoroughly discredited"? the theft of the body? changes in the appearance of the wounds? the alteration of the Zapruder film? He appears to have been right on these major counts. So what precisely are you talking about?

Jim

Pamela:

Did Baker threaten a lawsuit?

Better yet, my original question in this thread: Did Lifton threaten Simkin with one? I assume the answer must be no, as that would seem too petty even for David. But, then again, maybe he did given the knee jerk reaction from at least one or two moderators.

Oh dear. I certainly hope you are mistaken. Ironically, David Lifton seems to be one comfortable with saying just about anything he wants against Judyth. Ironic.

There is a significant difference between the complaints against Baker and Lifton. Baker claims to have actually known Oswald and to have known what he was up to in 1963. Her personal credibility is therefore central to any discussion of her story. Those opposing Baker claim she is a fantasist, or a pretender--neither of which is against the law. Those arguing that her story is not true and who scrutinize her every statement are therefore on solid footing.

Lifton is another matter.

Is he really? I say he is a fantasist. He fantasizes constantly about the credentials of others; he imagines all manner of conversations involving those same people. He "imagined" that he found newspaper stories exposing McBride as having a faulty memory; he "imagines" that it doesn't matter if the Paines or Marina were proven liars; he "imagined" that 3rd or 4th generation hearsay from un-named sources is the "best evidence" that proves Witt was TUM and that TUM was an entirely innocuous figure. He "imagines" all manner of things. Constantly.

There have been many complaints about Lifton, most of which have been widely discussed on this forum. He has no special protection. There are, however, complaints against Lifton which suggest criminal wrong-doing on his part, which have no real support. The moderators are wary of these complaints and feel they do not belong on this forum, but will of course defer to the judgement of the Forum's owners should they offer us clear guidelines on this matter.

As an identified fantasist; it should be "open season" on him - as is apparently the case for other identified fantasists.

P.S. It is distressing to me, and I dare say others, that none of those supposedly so opposed to Lifton and his theories are willing to start a thread discussing his theories

I feel relatively safe in speaking here for the others you seem to be addressing, in saying what the hell is the point of wasting time discussing a theory that has already been thoroughly discredited?

, and have instead wasted so much of our time discussing one-sided accounts of his behavior, many of them written over 40 years ago. It has not escaped our attention that Lifton has at times been critical of the judgment of these individuals. The net result is a black eye to the forum: an individual known for his unique theory criticizes a relative new-comer, and the new-comer decides his best recourse is to dig up ancient gossip on this individual, apparently in an effort to drive this individual from the forum.

YOU AND OTHERS HAVE FORCED THAT WASTE OF TIME by making such a big song and dance over incidental comments from a quoted text on an entirely different subject. The only other times his history gets dragged out is to show him what his opinion on others is worth.

Those new-comers feeling that Lifton or the moderators have interfered with their right to free speech, and have tried to stifle dissent, IMO, need to take a hard long look in the mirror. By their aggressive and hostile responses to Lifton's criticisms of their work they are creating an atmosphere where others disagreeing with their work will be unlikely to say anything. And this, in turn, will lead to a forum where little information is exchanged. We'll have some threads where one guy spouts his theory, and no one disagrees. And other threads where people disagree and it quickly turns into a shouting match. And little intelligent discourse.

Utter crap. Gobsmackingly, mind-numblingly stupid and INACCURATE comments from the man who applauded Lifton's love letter to himself AKA the David Lifton Wiki page.

Here it is again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lifton . Not only has wiki marked the page as having "multiple issues" including more than a hint of self-promotion and a consequent lack of objectivity, they did so two years ago and have done nothing about it due to the subject matter being "rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale." The fact that his page carries in effect, a warning label, and has done for two years, would make most people do something about fixing it up -- but Mr Lifton is so smitten with himself, he cannot bear to have any facts inserted.

The pity of it is, that all this nonsense from Lifton has taken at least 3 collateral victims down with him. You, Pat - as well as Josiah Thompson, and the person I once regarded as the benchmark in performing careful and logical analysis of evidence - Jefferson Morley.

So...let's behave like gentleman, for the good of the forum.

Yes. Naturally the lack of courtesy is the big problem here. And if only everyone plays nice with David (even when David is being the playground bully to his heart's content - safe in the knowledge he will not be called to account) why, the Magic Kingdom will return to its Glory Days of angels whispering platitudes to acolytes and the Truth coming down from on high, because all you need is Faith, Brother... all you need is Faith... and if I say I hoid it on the grapevine, Brother I'm not not just singing a 1970s hit song... you can take it to the bank that the word of the un-named friend of a friend of a second cousin to Witt's neighbor's pool guy is Gospel Truth....

And Amen to that!

Edited January 1, 2012 by James H. Fetzer