Tim Gratz and the Plot to Kill Wallace

[Tim Gratz]

Shanet wrote (on the Segretti Thread):

I have a number of friends and journalistic associates in Wisconsin.

They have struggled to publish newspapers for many years, under

the auspices of a loose Alternative Press Syndicate.

They have been infiltrated and sabotaged in many ways, burglarized,

the papers have been infiltrated by known federal agents repeatedly.

They have told me about personal knowledge they had of the

manipulation of Arthur Bremer. This is a sad story, one tied

to CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD.

It is absolutely appalling that one of our most vocal FORUM members

was at the center of this effort

I thought this developing conmtroversy deserved its own thread.

Edited July 18, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

I do intend to sue Shanet unless he retracts his baseless charge by this coming Friday. I almost have to. Pat raised the point why I had not taken legal action against this libel before. I had explained that by the time I first encountered it Sprague was dead and beyond the reach of legal proces.

Shanet, you may or may not know, but in a lawsuit you will face what are called "Written Interrogatories". I thought I would give you a little preview.

State every fact of which you are aware to support each of the following facts or conclusions:

(1) That J. Timothy Gratz had heard the name Arthur Bremer before it was in the news when Bremer shot Wallace.

(2) That J. Timothy Gratz had any communications with anyone about any kind of effort to remove George Wallace (by any means, legal or not) from the 1972 presidential race.

(3) That J. Timothy Gratz had any communications, whether verbal or written, with Donald Segretti, or anyone acting on Segretti's behalf, after he reported Segretti's activities to Anthony Ulasewicz.

(4) State all communications you have had, whether verbally or on the internet or in writing, about your claim of a connection between J. Timothy Gratz and Arthur Bremer. Identify each such communication by the date made, the parties to the communication, the method of the communication, and the substance of it. To the extent a copy or recording of any such communication exists, produce it.

Shanet, it will only get worse from that. I will through civil discovery discover every single communication you have had with anyone about this.

And I will publish your lack of response on this Forum. I suggest when this is over, if you had a tail, you would go home with it between your legs.

[Tim Gratz]

To John Simkin:

John, since you "published" Shanet's libel, I would also address the interrogatories in the foregoing post to you as well.

Edited July 18, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

When I was a litigator, I was known as a "bulldog" in fighting for the rights of my clients. Now Shanet will have the opportunity to see why!

Is there any question in anyone's mind that I am not happy with Shanet's charge against me? Or, for that matter, with John's apparent unwillingness (so far) to deal with it?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Shanet wrote (on the Segretti Thread):

I have a number of friends and journalistic associates in Wisconsin.

They have struggled to publish newspapers for many years, under

the auspices of a loose Alternative Press Syndicate.

They have been infiltrated and sabotaged in many ways, burglarized,

the papers have been infiltrated by known federal agents repeatedly.

They have told me about personal knowledge they had of the

manipulation of Arthur Bremer. This is a sad story, one tied

to CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD.

It is absolutely appalling that one of our most vocal FORUM members

was at the center of this effort

I thought this developing conmtroversy deserved its own thread.    

Tim, in the context of the original thread, you've threatened to sue Shanet, and the operators of this Forum.  If you pursue that route, you'll be out of pocket significant sums, and end up with nothing to show for it.  Pat Speer's already outlined a few of the reasons, but there's another.

Nowhere in the above quote does Shanet specify WHO he is talking about or identify WHAT that person did.  Clearly, the intended implication is that he is discussing you, but as to the matter of being "at the center of this effort," is he referring to CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD, or Bremer, or infiltrating the alternative press.  It's just too loosey-goosey. 

And even if, somehow, one deduces that it is you who were at the centre of "the manipulation of Bremer," there is nothing to suggest that you gave him money, taught him how to fire a gun, or pointed him in the direction of George Wallace.  On the contrary, both John Simkin and I have argued that if you were not involved - per the original allegation, which itself wasn't damning of you, only of the "group" with which you, Segretti and Cassini were allegedly affiliated - then the alternative explanation is that somebody intended for you to be thusly implicated.

You've said that you didn't go after Sprague for this because by the time you encountered the allegation, he was dead.  Turner is still alive, last I heard, so you may wish to contact him to determine the genesis for this allegation.  Once you know how it came to be, perhaps you'll have a better idea of how to seek a remedy.

As for threatening to sue John Simkin or this Forum, I think it highly unwise to make such threats against the very facility that allows you to rant here, unless you're anxious to have your posting privileges revoked.  There is no absolute "right" to post here, as another Tim discovered to his chagrin.

As for your status as a "bulldog" on behalf of you clients, I imagine that must have made you quite successful.  I have for some time been intrigued by why you seem to have stopped representing clients some time ago, and have begun making inquires to determine why and when that might be.  I imagine there'll be a tale of some interest behind it.  But, more to the point, unless you were involved in libel laws then, I don't think you have the necessary chops to formulate a decision on this.  Right now, your feelings are hurt, but I think you need to take a few deep breaths and discuss this with a libel expert before making any more threats here.  Making a threat and not following through is worse for your reputation than remaining silent. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited July 18, 2005 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Tim Gratz]

Robert, let me say this: I respect you enough (even when we disagree) that I really expected you would stand in my defense. Take that as a complement.

And by the way there is no doubt to whom Shanet was refering. That defense (if it were a dog) wouldn't hunt!

Edited July 18, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

John, I see you are posting.

I hope you will answer the interrogatories I propounded here. Better to resolve it here than in the federal court in Key West!

[John Simkin]

To John Simkin:

John, since you "published" Shanet's libel, I would also address the interrogatories in the foregoing post to you as well.

About a month ago I posted an extract from Richard Sprague’s book, The Taking of America that suggested Harry Dean was a member of the group that assassinated JFK. Harry did not threaten to sue me. Instead he explained why he thought Sprague had made this mistake. It was clear that all members of the Forum were satisfied with his reply and the matter was dropped.

Around the same time I posted am extract from the same book where Sprague said the following:

What evidence is there that Bremer's attempt on Wallace was a directed attempt by a conspiratorial group? Bremer himself has told his brother that others were involved and that he was paid by them. Researcher William Turner has turned up evidence in Milwaukee and surrounding towns in Wisconsin that Bremer received money from a group associated with Dennis Cassini, Donald Segretti and J. Timothy Gratz.

Over the last few weeks members have attempted to discover if this statement is true. For example, we have tried to find out the name of this group that Turner refers to. Unlike with Harry Dean’s explanation, your account of these events have been far from convincing.

I ran this forum at some considerable expense. I do this in order to allow members to discuss attempts by governments to mislead their citizens. You, going by the number of posts you make, make use of this freedom more than most. This includes you making ridiculous claims that “communists” were behind the assassination of JFK. I have accepted your right to post these comments as one of the consequences of “freedom of speech”. I do not expect thanks for this, but nor did I expect to be threatened with legal action for not deleting a posting that appears to you to be libellous. I think you should be ashamed of yourself. Do you really think I will do as you ask as a result of these threats?

[Shanet Clark]

This is a full public retraction of all statements I have ever made

concerning TIM GRATZ.

I was wrong.

I apologize.

I had only the material posted here to go on.

I exceded the standards of decorum, and I apologize to the member.

This will also be my final posting on the FORUM.

Best wishes to all...........

[John Simkin]

In the past I made some references to Tim Gratz.

I disavow all of them and apologize to Mr. Gratz.

He is a scholar and a gentleman and I meant him no harm.

This will be my final posting in the forum.

Shanet Clark.

I am surprised you have given in to Tim’s bully boy tactics. Even so, do not let this stop you from posting on this Forum. If you do, Tim will have won. We can’t allow that can we?

[Tim Gratz]

As I told Shanet in another thread, I appreciate his apology. He was a gentleman to make it and I think it took him courage to do so. It is important that he acknowledges that the only basis for his posting was the statement from the Sprague book.

Now on to John. John, I have repeatedly said that I have the greatest respect for your web-site. It is a marvelous educational tool. And although I disagree with most of your political positions, some of your postings are very astute and insightful.

That being said, I find it quite amazing that you should expect me to apologize. In my opinion, you have every much legal responsibility as the editor of a print medium to prevent the publication of libel. To state that someone was involved in a conspiracy to murder that resulted in the crippling of an individual is about as libelous as one can get. From Shanet's posting, it is now evident that the only basis he had for associating me with the attempted Wallace assasination was the statement from the Sprague book. In my opinion, I believe that you should have immediately deleted Shannon's statement that I was "at the center" of the Bremer attack on Wallace until you determined what basis if any he had for saying that. Once you determined he had no basis, you should have left the post deleted.

Let me say for the umpteenth time you do not know what IF ANYTHING Turner said. All you have is a statement from sprague that contains no reference to anything. As a historian, you should know the standards: he should have cited to either a book, an article, or even to an interview with Turner (identified by date).For all you know, Turner just manufactured the allegation.

You say you find my explanation less than convincing. All this does is further outrage me. Let me make this perfectly clear: I'd never even heard of Bremer before he shot Wallace; my last dealing with anyone from CREEP was when Ulasewicz interviewed me about Segretti. I asume you have the date of the interview from Ulasewicz's book. How can my denial be more absolute than that?

Let me point out that it was at least two months after you posted Sprague's book and said how wonderful it was that you noted the comment about me and Bremer. It seems rather clear you had not even read the entire book for which you were so fulsome in its praise.

I found your statement that you run this forum "to allow members to discuss attempts by governments to mislead their citizens" most curious. Talk about an agenda. Perhaps I was wrong; I thought the purpose of the Forum was to attempt to discover who killed Kennedy.

Until you discover anything else (which of course you never will) I think I am entitled to a statement from you that despite the statement in Sprague's book, which you are unable to verify and is unreferenced, you are aware of no evidence to associate me in any way either with Arthur Bremer or with the attempt on the life of George Wallace. Forget (for the time being) the law. I think old fashioned morality and decency requires you to do that.

[Dawn Meredith]

I am surprised you have given in to Tim’s bully boy tactics. Even so, do not let this stop you from posting on this Forum. If you do, Tim will have won. We can’t allow that can we?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

_________________________

Shanet:

PLEASE do not leave.

Tim is over-damn reacting, and I totally concur with John's post.

Bullies should not ever win.

Dawn

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn, if a client came to you and a newspaper had wrongfully accused him of murder, or rape, I assume you would advise the client of his legal remedies, including a suit for libel or defamation.

Would you not?

Pat had implied that perhaps the fact that I had not sued Sprague for libel was of some evidential support for his statement--until I explained I could not because Sprague was dead.

Sometimes when a baseless charge is made against you, you have no alternative but to exercise his legal remedies.

Shanet has admitted there was no legal basis for his charge against me--that I was at the center of the manipulation of Bremer.

Dawn, how can you as an attorney claim someone is a bully for exercising his legal rights?

Trust me: a true bully would have just sued Shanet and made his life miserable--rather than asking for, and then graciously accepting, his apology.

[Mark Knight]

Tim, before using the term "graciously" in describing your acceptance of Shanet's apology, I suggest you turn your dictionary to the word "grace," as the root of the term "graciously." I don't detect ANY "grace" in your handling of this matter...at all.

Edited July 19, 2005 by Mark Knight

[Tim Gratz]

I would never want to wish evil on anyone.

Otherwise I would wish that you, Mark, Dawn, John, whoever, would sometime be falsely accused of a despicable crime, so you could experience what it feels like. It is not a pleasant feeling.

I was the victim here, ladies and gentleman. But apparently you can only find sympathy for persons with whose politics you agree. I find that strange.

Not one of you has said yet we can understand why you were upset about the false accusation.