Jump to content
The Education Forum

The DiCaprios and slander/libel


Recommended Posts

Just spitballing here. If their movie ids Marcello as complicit in the assassination, would his relatives have a basis to sue? I realize this subject is pretty slippery.

I haven't read Waldron's tomes, but if he did this, and they didn't sue...well I don't know....

My latest wet dream is that they somehow drag Garrison as an ally of Marcello or something like that into it and give his kids a case for slander or libel to bring into court. Wouldn't that be something? :clapping

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Richard, this is not a legal opinion or legal advice, but since you asked and since I posted on this issue recently..:

................................................

Exception to the Rule that Survivors Cannot Sue for Defamation

There is an exception to the general rule that survivors cannot successfully bring lawsuits for defamation when a deceased person is defamed. If the defamatory statement about a deceased person defames a living person by implication, then the living person has his or her own defamation claim against the publisher of the statement. For instance, the outcome of the Thompson case might have been different had the magazine implicated Thompson's sisters in his alleged drug habit.

This is an important exception to the rule; however, it still does not mean that redress can be sought for harm to the decedent's reputation. The defamation lawsuit in this situation would be for damage to the living plaintiff whose good name was injured by reference in the statement about the deceased. Anyone who thinks he or she might have such a defamation claim should seek the advice of a personal injury attorney.

Sources: Kelly v. Johnson Publishing Co., 160 Cal. App. 2d 718 (1958); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 558-623 (1965).

.........There is a difference between presenting difficult to impeach facts vs. accusing others of committing specific crimes or indiscretions.

Another option, if you are suspicious, aggressive, lacking evidence, but intent on sensationalism. You can author a book, accuse a stranger of perjury, fraud, and murder, and if those accusations do not work out all that well for you because they run counter to evidence gleaned from leads you have provided in your book about the background of the party you have accused; continue to promote your book and announce to your audience you are going to sue the party you have defamed, presumably on the grounds that this party refused to open their door to you when you tracked them down based on leads provided by a third party who located and described the "missing CIA assassin" by matching the description and background details you published in you book, with an actual person who could be found and exhibited no inclination to do "light bulb job(s)".

http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=245472&postcount=643

.........................................

Questions, questions...

At 45.50 Peter Janney even dares to play the tape again of his "meeting" with Mitchell at his frontdoor in California; like he did during the Janney/Fetzer podcast interview.

At 51.40 Janney answers an interesting question from the audience about Mitchell's name (William or Bill) in California: maybe Mitchell is in a Witness Protection Program?

Janney's answer is no, for "Mitchell is still using the same name!" Too bizarre for words:

It was Janney himself who claims that these "CIA assassins" use aliases and can never be traced down again. Yet, CIA assassin Mitchell, the one who brutally killed Mary on a public road at noon, could be found easily by Janney and his assistants...

Janney claims during this (final) part of his presentation that he's planning to start a lawsuit against Mitchell later in 2013.
Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. Stone's JFK didn't name anyone specific as a conspirator or assassin. Evidently the DiCaprios will.

Can a case of libel or slander be brought on behalf of a dead person by his/her relatives?

Slippery.........

In answer to this and the first post, no. The dead have no legal rights, none whatsoever. No one can bring a case on behalf of the dead. That's why JFK gets slimed in the press again and again and no one does anything about it. That's why they do it, because they can get away with it. That's why you're hearing JFK liked fascism and Hitler, and the news sources for that are right-wing sources. The Daily Mail is a Murdoch paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Murdoch, it is one of the more ironic aspects of American culture in 2013, that the denizens in the Republican Party and the Tea-Party view the FOX News Network as the infallible counterpoint to MSNBC, the latter being, to many if not most Democrats in solidarity with the latter.

Apparently having a Murdoch owned network admittedly, programmed from "on-high" replete with a slew of inaccuracies and scandals and conspiracy theories that make me blush [see shakeup regarding Murdoch media bugging the Royal's] presents no problems to a party that prides itself on patriotism, wrapping yourself in the American flag, and hurling anathemas at your ideological enemies.

I suppose I understand the paranoia about Obama, from the right and the left. The thing I notice is how little the demographics in America are mentioned re pre-9-11 and post 9-11 America. When Obama became President the WASP demographic continued to slip away from its dominant position in America numerically and historically. There would be no tolerance for the garbage that spews from FOX and the strident RW national talk-radio wackos, if there wasn't a fearful, aged WASP populace willing to lap up every morsel of alleged conspiracy. Truth, as the adage goes........Why Let the Truth Stand in the Way of a Good Story.

And I can tolerate DeCaprio a hell of a lot more than I can Tom Hanks, although the latter is contingent on his going through w/his Warren Commission cable TV swill.

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Speaking of Murdoch, it is one of the more ironic aspects of American culture in 2013, that the denizens in the Republican Party and the Tea-Party view the FOX News Network as the infallible counterpoint to MSNBC, the latter being, to many if not most Democrats in solidarity with the latter.

Apparently having a Murdoch owned network admittedly, programmed from "on-high" replete with a slew of inaccuracies and scandals and conspiracy theories that make me blush [see shakeup regarding Murdoch media bugging the Royal's] presents no problems to a party that prides itself on patriotism, wrapping yourself in the American flag, and hurling anathemas at your ideological enemies.

I suppose I understand the paranoia about Obama, from the right and the left. The thing I notice is how little the demographics in America are mentioned re pre-9-11 and post 9-11 America. When Obama became President the WASP demographic continued to slip away from its dominant position in America numerically and historically. There would be no tolerance for the garbage that spews from FOX and the strident RW national talk-radio wackos, if there wasn't a fearful, aged WASP populace willing to lap up every morsel of alleged conspiracy. Truth, as the adage goes........Why Let the Truth Stand in the Way of a Good Story.

And I can tolerate DeCaprio a hell of a lot more than I can Tom Hanks, although the latter is contingent on his going through w/his Warren Commission cable TV swill.

After all you described, and I do agree with most of your observations, as far as they apply to the influence Murdoch media and MSNBC have on the political beliefs of their respective consumers, isn't it impressive and a wonder that there is almost a universal consensus in policy matters amongst the three branches of the federal government and the more difficult to pin down as "American" business leaders?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/27/obama-war-on-terror-speech

.......

What Obama has specialized in from the beginning of his presidency is putting pretty packaging on ugly and discredited policies. The cosmopolitan, intellectualized flavor of his advocacy makes coastal elites and blue state progressives instinctively confident in the Goodness of whatever he's selling, much as George W. Bush's swaggering, evangelical cowboy routine did for red state conservatives. The CIA presciently recognized this as a valuable asset back in 2008 when they correctly predicted that Obama's election would stem the tide of growing antiwar sentiment in western Europe by becoming the new, more attractive face of war, thereby converting hordes of his admirers from war opponents into war supporters. This dynamic has repeated itself over and over in other contexts, and has indeed been of great value to the guardians of the status quo in placating growing public discontent about their economic insecurity and increasingly unequal distribution of power and wealth. However bad things might be, we at least have a benevolent, kind-hearted and very thoughtful leader doing everything he can to fix it.

The clear purpose of Obama's speech was to comfort progressives who are growing progressively more uncomfortable with his extreme secrecy, wars on press freedom, seemingly endless militarism and the like. For the most part, their discomfort is far more about the image being created of the politician they believed was unique and even transcendent than it is any substantive opposition to his policies. No progressive wants to believe that they placed such great trust and adoration in a political figure who is now being depicted as some sort of warped progeny of Richard Nixon and Dick Cheney. That creates internal discomfort and even shame. This speech was designed to allow progressives once again to see Barack Obama as they have always wanted to see him, his policies notwithstanding: as a deeply thoughtful, moral, complex leader who is doing his level best, despite often insurmountable obstacles, to bring about all those Good Things that progressives thought they would be getting when they empowered him.

The terrorism speech, when dissected, provided very little in the way of actual concrete substance. Its most heralded passage, as the ACLU quickly pointed out, did nothing more than call for the "ultimate" repeal of the AUMF; "the time to take our country off the global warpath and fully restore the rule of law is now," said the ACLU's executive director Anthony Romero, "not at some indeterminate future point." Moreover, he noted, "the president still claims broad authority to carry out targeted killings far from any battlefield, and there is still insufficient transparency.".....

and....

Obama's new FBI chief approved Bush's NSA warrantless wiretapping scheme

I recently read a quote describing Obama as America's first one term president who serves eight years. He is not running for office anymore. Prison and sentencing reform to reduce incarcerations rates, drug war reform, an end to (or even resistance to...) domination of American policy related to the priorities of Israel as dictated by AIPAC, a tax policy that states it is designed to counter extreme wealth concentration..... I do not see any of it, from this president, or from members of his party in congress or in the senate. If there was real change, any real difference, why does it smell so much like eight more years of Bush/Cheney. There is even talk of replacing Bernanke at the end of his Fed term with Larry Summers. If you do not read Matt Taibbi in RollingStone.com, please start. He covers the financial criminals, and there is no resistance from democrats evident in that arena, either.

It can be argued that the most important benefit of winning a presidential election in the U.S. system of government, especially for the long term and with the assumed goal of imprinting social and political ideology is the POTUS's power to appoint federal and SCOTUS judges.

One of Obama's two appointees to the SCOTUS voted to weaken the Miranda warnings protections of accused or suspected individuals, after making no secret of her bent, but this was ignored in appointing her to that court more than a year later.:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-weisselberg/elena-kagan-and-the-death_b_596447.html

06/01/10

"On June 1, the U.S. Supreme Court finally dealt Miranda a death blow. Elena Kagan, Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, was complicit in Miranda's demise. Her participation may give some insight into her views on the rights of criminal defendants, and her understanding of how the law affects ordinary people......

.....Justice Sotomayor wrote a strong dissent in Thompkins. Joined by retiring Justice John Paul Stevens and Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, she explained how the majority opinion rewrites Miranda.

So what was Kagan's role? As Solicitor General, she filed a brief in Berghuis v. Thompkins for the United States as amicus curiae (friend of the Court). The U.S. was not a party in the case since Thompkins had been convicted in state court and it was the State of Michigan that challenged the lower court's ruling. Kagan did not have to enter the fray and take a position, but she decided to do so.

Kagan's brief was even more aggressive than Michigan's....."

That was just a dress rehearsal. Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder are indistinguishable from Bush/Cheney on this important issue.:

http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/02/21/elena-kagan-votes-with-alito-and-thomas-to-undermine-miranda/

Elena Kagan Votes With Alito and Thomas To Undermine Miranda

February 21, 2012

When Elena Kagan was nominated, there were very few of us voicing strenuous objection, one of the primary reasons I did was her complete lack of experience in the adversarial system, especially with her total lack of knowledge and interest in criminal process issues, which would be critical in the face of the Obama DOJ’s determination to further gut Miranda.

"The feared Kagan chickens have come home to roost. The Supreme Court just announced its decision in Howes v. Fields, and the decision is a significant further erosion of the critical Constitutional protections embodied in Miranda. The ruling specifically holds that police are not automatically required to tell prisoners of their legal right to remain silent and have an attorney present when being questioned in prison about another crime.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer dissented. Noting that Fields was only incarcerated for disorderly conduct in the first place, Ginsburg stated:

Notice who did NOT side with her fellow “liberal bloc” Justices to honor and protect Miranda? Elena Kagan. No, Kagan instead sided completely with Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and the rest of the conservative bloc......"

For the reasons stated, I would hold that the “incommunicado interrogation [of Fields] in a police-dominated atmosphere,” id., at 445, without informing him of his rights, dishonored the Fifth Amendment privilege Miranda was designed to safeguard.

http://judicialnominations.org/

Click on the map to see information on a particular circuit or district.

Total Federal Judges: 874

Current Vacancies: 79 (15 circuit, 64 district)

Future Vacancies: 20

Judicial Emergencies: 32

Pending Nominees: 26 (5 circuit, 21 district)

Waiting for Floor Vote: 7 (2 circuit, 5 district)

Unanimous Committee Vote: 0

Obama and democrats cannot blame republicans for the problem of the 53 judicial openings Obama has not even appointed candidates for.

One problem is that Obama and democratic senators do not commit to confirmation by the senate of the candidates who have been appointed. That is their history since Obama was first elected in Nov., 2008.

Srinivasan Hearing Dominated by Debate Over Judicial Vacancies ...

www.mainjustice.com/.../srinivasan-hearing-dominated-by-debate-over-j...‎

Apr 10, 2013 – Sri Srinivasan, tapped to sit on the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals for the ... Instead, the partisan debate over judicial vacancies on the federal courts took .

Instead of whining, as democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse does in the above article, that republicans have broken an agreement not to block Obama's judicial appointment, Sheldon and the democatic majority in the senate only had to use their power of the majority to rescind the rule change that favored the republican minority, until republicans honored their earlier agreement not to block votes on judicial appointments...

If you watch how the theater of "the appearance of opposition" actually operates, it becomes obvious that the one thing democrats do not do is

ask themselves, "how did republicans react in these situations when they held the presidency and a senate majority?"

It is insightful to note what republicans did not do. They did not hold over the opposition party's secretary of defense for several years (Robert Gates) and then appoint another opposition party member to replace him (Chuck Hagel). They did not make SCOTUS appointments of candidates with political orientation and ideology opposed to the ideology of the majority in their own party.

They did not fail to support the judicial and other key appointments awaiting senate confirmation, and they did not lag in even appointing tens of judicial candidates for vacant federal court positions. They played hardball with the opposition party and resist any appearance of giving an inch.

It is the role of democrats to be subservient in our theater of appearance of opposition where there is none.

The Washington, DC district court is the appellate court regarded as the most important of the appellate courts of the various district throughout the U.S. and as an arbiter that often has the influence in its rulings to preempt the interest of the SCOTUS to elevate a case.

What have Obama and legislative democrats done with their elected power to balance this district court, politically?

They've done little or nothing to nominate candidates to fill all four vacancies on the DC appellate court, giving a majority to Bush appointees

on key appeals court rulings during the entire Obama presidency.

541034_332811703444657_112713662121130_8

Robert, you're "voting republican" no matter which of the two major party candidates you vote for. Murdoch media and MSNBC do the same thing

Obama and co. do.....give the appearance of opposition.

Imagine if Murdoch/Fox reported the truth to their audience; that Obama is representing them by supporting the most important goals of the one party who have fooled partisan into believing they are fighting for their goals and beliefs, which are the ones Murdoch/Fox, RW radio persuade them to focus on. They even have their own winks, nods, and insular language. Murdoch, NBC executives, Obama, the Bushes, and every defense industry investor and DC lobbyist are laughing all the way to the bank.

If Obama really was who the partisan idiots make him out to be, would their reactions be any different to what they are now? Would it even be possible for there to be more firearms and ammunition purchases than we have been experiencing since 2008?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/05/05/obama-still-best-gun-salesman-ever/2136201/

Obama's gun control efforts boost firearm sales

The White House unintentionally is proving to be the best thing to happen to gun sales in decades.

".....According to a gun industry analysis by The Associated Press, in Obama's first four years in office, the federal government conducted roughly the same number of background checks for gun owners and prospective buyers as it did under George W. Bush's first six years in office.

And for the first time since 1993, the number of federally licensed retail gun dealers in the U.S. increased in 2010 and 2011, adding 1,167 more licensed dealers...."

We should thank our lucky stars that there is only an appearance of opposition where there is actually none.

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

Thank you just the same. I tend not to miss fast balls down the middle of the plate.

But hundreds of hours in FBI tapes with his cell mate is going to turn a lot of heads if it is admitted into evidence. Senility is going to be hard to prove now after the fact.

"A droplet of civility goes much further than a bucket of vinegar" - TD

The only thing going against Marcello's family here is that there are hundreds of hours of tape recordings in the cell where Marcello confessed to his complicity in the conspiracy.



Anthony:

Maybe you missed this, but the "tapes" Waldron trumpets as a "confession" in his crappy book Legacy of BS, oh excuse me, Legacy of Secrecy,were not declassified in 2007 or whatever. They were declassified much earlier during the ARRB. Waldron just found them a decade later.

Peter Vea, unlike Waldron, was a great archives researcher,and he sent them to me at that time. I did some research on them. Why? Because what Waldron does not tell you is that in those documents, the prison guards recorded some very bizarre behavior by Marcello while he was incarcerated. I mean, the guy was doing things like ramming his head against a wall and talking to himself at length.

When I got these documents from Peter, he headed them, "The Great Confession by the Senile, Nutty old Carlos".

Well, I did some research on the issue. I talked to John Volz, who had prosecuted Marcello. I then got some clippings from the local papers from when Marcello died. And his relatives talked about Marcello's mental condition when he got out.

Once you piece it altogether, its pretty obvious that Marcello was at the very least senile, at the most, in a stage of Alzheimer's at the time he talked to this FBI snitch. I don't agree with VInce Bugliosi very often on this case, but I do here. Marcello was mentally out of it. For Waldron to present this and to leave this angle out is both cheap and sensationalistic.

And if you then analyze the content of this so called "Confession" it shows a guy who is pretty much fantasizing. In fact, its ridiculous. He actually says Oswald killed JFK, and that he then called Ruby to his house to arrange to kill Oswald.

LOL! ROTF!

Yeah sure, and the commission would Ok such a crazy plan.

Waldron was shameless to present this along with his other phony confessions, including the one by Trafficante's lying lawyer which Tony Summers shredded to pieces in Vanity Fair. Waldron and Hartmann presented that one like it had not been shown to be BS. This is how desperate they were to pin the JFK hit on the Mafia.

GIorgio DiCaprio cannot claim he does not know this stuff. He does. Paul Schrade and I presented him with a thick three ring binder full of withering criticisms of all the lies and distortions in the Waldron/Hartmann books. He knew it all and he is still proceeding as if he does not.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But I will be writing about this at length. They can run but they cannot hide.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...