Jump to content
The Education Forum

Parliamentary Privilege & Libel Laws


Guest Eugene B. Connolly
 Share

Recommended Posts

John, when you suggested that I should carefully follow your thread on "Operation Sandwedge" (that claims that someone associated with Nixon (presumably Ulasewicz) set up EMK for Chappaquidick) surely you did not mean to imply that I was in any way involved in Operation Sandwedge?

Did you?

I have previously stated I never worked for either the White House or the Committee to Re-Elect the President. In 1972 I had a brief stint as a paid employee of the Rhode Island Republican Party. I only met Segretti once and Ulasewicz once, and had no phone calls from him, or from anyone associated with Nixon or CREEP after the Ulasewicz visit to Wisconsin.

So I just want you to clarify that you are not implying that I had anything to do with any dirty tricks on behalf of Richard Nixon or his campaign.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Robert, here is exactly what Shanet wrote:

They [my friends in Wisconsin] 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

You have truncated the actual post, but even the pithy part above is shockingly vague, relative to your interpretation.

Now you know that "one of . . . our Forum members" was an obvious reference to me.

It became obvious once you self-identified.

It is rather clear is it not that Shanet was stating his friends connected me with the manipulation of Bremer? 

No, it's not at all clear.  "Centre of which effort?"  CHAOS?  MOCKINGBIRD?  The Bremer manipulation?  Or the other parts of the post you excised?  "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." 

Surely, none of the above is flattering to the unnamed party to whom it was directed, but I'm unsure how you can zero in on the Bremer issue exclusively, and merely assume what you wish to, and then threaten a lawsuit over it.  As I said at the time, this is WAY too loosey-goosey to earn you a dime in court.

He made no reference to the Sprague book.  Nor does the Sprague book state that I was "at the center" of the Bremer manipulation. 

Had Shanet referenced the Sprague book, there would have been no doubt that he was implying something about Bremer being "the effort", although it was directed at an unnamed party.  That he wasn't sufficiently specific to name either you, or what was alleged about you, is what would have doomed your suit to failure. 

You have elected to take from Shanet's words only that which suits your purpose, to the exclusion of all else, much the same as your modus operandi in dealing with evidence in the Kennedy assassination.  

That had to come from his supposed Wisconsin sources.

That's your supposition, because it advances your claim to be an injured party.  Those who are zealous to take offense cannot sue for the offense they've rushed to take.

And I could be wrong but if Shanet actually had friends who knew something about the manipulation of Bremer don't you suppose he would have posted that very important information?

Clearly, if Shanet knew something definitive about you and Bremer, he could and would have rightly said so.  However, that he didn't do so undermines your interpretation and your basis for claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, in response to your Post #30 above, I explained my reasons why it seemed clear that Shanet was stating that he knew people in Wisconsin who put me at the "center" of the manipulation of Bremer. No where does Sprague say that.

It seems the only clear reading of it. And when he retracted the statement, he specifically retracted that he knew anyone who could connect me to Bremer.

Nevertheless. I will accept your statement that that is not how you read his post, else (you imply) you would have deleted it.

Now why don't you accept MY statement that I never engaged in any "dirty politics" against any political opponent?

As I have said (my face is getting blue) I suspect most members would appreciate it if we ended this back-and-forth and got back to what we are really here for!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now why don't you accept MY statement that I never engaged in any "dirty politics" against any political opponent?

I will be explaining this in the thread on Operation Sandwedge.

Now, why will you not answer questions about your legal career?

Why are you reluctant to discuss your political views in 1972?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, come on, Robert, you are much brighter than that.

GRATZ = Wisconsin resident and political activist.

BREMER = Wisconsin resident

SHANET = friends in Wisconsin

OPERATION CHAOS -- nothing to do with Wisconsin

OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD--nothing to do with Wisconsin

Do you really, really think Shanet was attempting to connect me with Operation Chaos, Operation Mockingbird, or the attempts to disrupt his friend's alternative newspapers? Moreover, he talked of the manipulation of Bremer which he said was a sad story, tied to CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD. Very clearly, the subject of his post was the manipulation of Bremer, not CHAOS or Mockingbird.

I suspect you might agree with Pat about Shanet's judgments, but do you really think he thought I was at the center of Operation Mockingbird, for heaven's sake?

You wrote:

Clearly, if Shanet knew something definitive about you and Bremer, he could and would have rightly said so.

By that same reasoning, if he knew something definite connecting me to CHAOS or Mockinbird he would have said so. So I assume you agree that whatever he was refering to, he was fibbin' about me.

. . .

But now I must confess that I was indeed involved in the intelligence business even before the Nixon campaign. You see I was the person after whom the TV spy Maxwell Smart was modeled. But I was never very successful, and was usually caught. I guess it was the constant talking into my shoe that gave me away!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, come on, Robert, you are much brighter than that.

GRATZ = Wisconsin resident and political activist.

Yes, we know you lived in Wisconsin.  The extent of your political activism is still undetermined.  But perhaps time will tell.

BREMER = Wisconsin resident

And also a political activist, don't forget.  Let's not leave out his purported appearances at SDS meetings and such, precisely the kind of role that Ken Reitz and Dennis Cassini and Tim Heinan were seeking infiltrators to achieve.  [bremer wasn't a student, and hence ineligible for membership.]

SHANET = friends in Wisconsin

That's the claim.

OPERATION CHAOS  -- nothing to do with Wisconsin

You know this how?  Only those involved could make such a claim.

OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD--nothing to do with Wisconsin

You know this how?  Only those involved could make such a claim.

Do you really, really think Shanet was attempting to connect me with Operation Chaos, Operation Mockingbird, or the attempts to disrupt his friend's alternative newspapers? 

Who knows what Shanet intended?  He was frustratingly vague, wasn't he?  Which is why your libel action against him would have tanked even before discovery. 

Moreover, he talked of the manipulation of Bremer which he said was a sad story, tied to CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD.  Very clearly, the subject of his post was the manipulation of Bremer, not CHAOS or Mockingbird.

If you still fancy your chances in a court of law, it's not too late to sue him just because he already apologized.  Go ahead.  Make your case.

I suspect you might agree with Pat about Shanet's judgments, but do you really think he thought I was at the center of Operation Mockingbird, for heaven's sake?

Who knows what to make of you, Tim?  You pilfered a guest's information from his bill to provide it to Ulasewicz more than 30 years ago.  I'm sure your former employer wouldn't have condoned that and might have reconsidered your employment, any more than your present employer would condone posting here all night long while on company time.  Rove, Reitz, Segretti, Ulasewicz.... your past is cluttered with interesting people.  Today it's Winslow, Hemming and how knows who else?  Perhaps once I've gleaned more about your former legal career, a clearer picture of you will emerge.  For now, let's just say the jury's still out, shall we?

You wrote:

Clearly, if Shanet knew something definitive about you and Bremer, he could and would have rightly said so.

By that same reasoning, if he knew something definite connecting me to CHAOS or Mockinbird he would have said so.  So I assume you agree that whatever he was refering to, he was fibbin' about me.

"Fibbin'?"  Possibly.  He admitted to overstating his case.  If you'd like to know more about his thinking, why not contact him

All I've done is try to illuminate for you the reasons why any libel action by you would have failed.  I see now why the Wisconsin Bar wisely thought to impose Continuing Legal Education requirements upon its members.   

Edited by Robert Charles-Dunne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert wrote:

If you still fancy your chances in a court of law, it's not too late to sue him just because he already apologized. Go ahead. Make your case.

Robert, I gave Shanet my word I would not sue him if he retracted the statement, which he did and did so in a manner that I considered gracious. I am upset about his fib, of course, but I accepted his apology and no way am I going to go back on my word to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, I'm not sure if you've ever been a contributor to other forums, but I have. Anyhow, to my undertstanding, when you go to a forum it's like visiting someone in their home. The webmaster has the right to tell you to leave. Knowing this, I've been amazed at the way you've treated John. I've also been amazed at his level of tolerance. I think you should acknowledge that if John was as a conservative he would have kicked you out long ago, as only a practicing liberal like John would tolerate so much. NO WAY would a pro-Bush website tolerate someone taking over their forum and arguing with everyone, and then threatening to sue everyone who implies he might be a commie (or a murderer). I believe you owe John an apology so we can move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I appreciate your opinion. I would point out to you that this part of the Forum is called "JFK Assassination Debate" and it could hardly be a debate if everyone had the same POV now, could it? I would also point out that I have been the subject of tremenduous abuse and childish name-calling ("cowardly charlatan" is just one example) in clear violation of the rules of the Forum. To use your analogy, if you were a guest at someone's house, and one of the other guests insisted on calling you names in front of everyone else, you would probably leave the party.

I would certainly apologize to John if I thought an apology was due. But it now appears John is going to try to implicate me in "Operation Sandwedge" (whatever that was).

Perhaps the way to resolve this is to have an outside mediator, perhaps an ethicist, review the postings and make a suggestion who, if anyone, owes who an apology. I am willing to consider this.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you guys would consider having a dueling match. This was a popular form of resolving conflict, in the early to mid 1800's of our past history,

Actually, an ancester of mine, was really big on dueling. He was sometiems a hot-head and lot of his conflicts had to do with defending his wife's honor from slurs and innuendo made against her.

After two happy years of marriage, they learned to their dismay, that her ex husband had not obtained a divorce, only permission to file for one. Now he brought suit on grounds of adultery.

After the divorce was granted, the couple quietly remarried in 1794. They had made an honest mistake, as friends well understood, but whispers of adultery and bigamy followed them. Although he was quick to avenge any slight to her.

This was of course, our 7th US President, Andrew Jackson and his wife Rachel Donaldson Jackson.

Andrew Jackson Painting

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/re...ge/32_00018.jpg

Rachel Donaldson Jackson

http://www.thehermitage.com/jackson/biogra...essean/img1.jpg

I am aware that Jackson also killed a man in a dueling match, but we won't think about that part.

Just a bit of history mixed with humor for you guys!

______________

Dixie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew Jackson was also the first governor of Florida.

Interesting to hear of your ancestry.

Perhaps the duel could be in the form of a written debate, summarizing the salient portions of the postings, and the debate submitted to a neutral party to decide the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Eugene B. Connolly

Tim Quote:

John, I never engaged in any illegal campaign activities.

I never did anything to intimidate Mr. Turner. I complemented(?) him on his work.......

Should this not be "complimented"?

EBC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eugene, you are correct of course, and you are to be complimented on your "sharp eye".

To compliment is to give praise or honor.

To complement is if one thing is similar to another, such as the sofa and the love seat complement each other.

Thanks!

I've often thought that whoever made up the English language simply ran out of words.

For instance, "pair" and "pear", etc. etc.!

Edited by Tim Gratz
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...