An attempt to bring an end to the JFK Forum

[Dawn Meredith]

Mark, you are as ridiculous as usual.

If I wanted to end the Forum, I would simply sue (and there are other living persons who could also do so).

I could probably also fashion a RICO suit which would compel the court to put an immediate freeze on all of John's assets and which if successful would result in triple damages. Moreover, the suit could be brought in any federal court I chose (let's try the most conservative federal court I could find).

This is not a threat.  I am just telling you how simple it would be for me to end some of the nonsense posts if I really wanted to.  I am sure John understands that as well.

Let me also assure you had I wanted to use computer tricks to shut down the Forum I would have found a way to actually shut it down.  You seem to think I am an incompetent conspiratorialist.  I assure you I am not a conspiratorialist but I can also assure you if I was I would be successful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And your cause of action would be?????

Surely you jest!! A RICO suit???

So we're here engaging in some sort of organized crime are we?

"Triple damages?"???? For what?

Don't you remember that you must first prove you have been damaged in some way, which you could not,

and that your "injury" was caused by John (or his agent)...I'd like to hear your theory of how you'd establish that one,

Not to mention proximate cause.

Or are we talking libel here?

Hard to say, you're kinda maxing and matching legal terms.

But you certainly have NO FACTUAL BASIS for any sort of a lawsuit.

Dawn

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn, surely if you are an attorney you must understand what a civil RICO suit is and that there have been myriad legal cases considering whether civil RICO claims apply to certain civil cases. I once successfully handled a civil RICO suit before the Seventh Circuit (A. W. Hemmings v. Barian) (NOTE: Hemmings, not Hemming). Here is the cite: A.W. Hemmings v. Barian, 822 F.2d 688, 692 (7th Cir. 1987) (Please note another coincidence (proving coincidences do indeed occur): I had an important client whose named differed from that of Gerry Hemming by one letter.)

You might find Professor Blakey's discussion of the elements of a RICO case helpful since you are apparently not aware that civil rico claims are regularly brought against individuals not engaged in "organized crime". The link is to Prof. Blakey's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee re applying civil RICO to the tobbaco litigation. (Interestingly, he notes the RICO case I litigated.)

http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/te090501f-blakey.htm

I commend the link to any reader because it has a good discussion of the elements and defenses to a civil RICO suit.

And you must know that RICO suits have been used, successfully, by abortion mills against abortion protestors.

And surely you MUST know that RICO automatically authorizes treble damages.

I thought every attorney in the country was aware of civil RICO suits.

Could I fashion a civil RICO suit that could survive a motion to dismiss? Having successfully prosecuted a civil rico case, yes, I am confident I could.

Am I threatening a RICO suit? No. My only point is that I certainly could use legal action to close the Forum if I wanted to do so. The fact that I stay and take the jabs (some friendly humor and some I have to consider otherwise) ought to say something. I guess it proves John's point in the YAF thread that I have a fear of leftists! (HA!).

Mark's attempted point that I could not state his point about the temporary absence of a controversial member was directed against me because he did not use my name just shows the weakness of his logic. I think it might help if some members went on-line and read about logic and logical fallacies because some of the reasoning here can leave a bit to be desired. I highly recommend that members read Pat's posts and thoughtfully contemplate his logical approach to things.

But we are beside the point here.

Why don't we discuss the Kennedy case?

Believe me, I did not experience any schadenfreude in making this post. It's too bad you did not google civil RICO (or even RICO) before posting that you thought RICO actions would only lie against members of organized crime. But at least you now have a quick primer on civil RICO!

Edited August 17, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Mark, you are as ridiculous as usual.

If I wanted to end the Forum, I would simply sue (and there are other living persons who could also do so).

I could probably also fashion a RICO suit which would compel the court to put an immediate freeze on all of John's assets and which if successful would result in triple damages. Moreover, the suit could be brought in any federal court I chose (let's try the most conservative federal court I could find).

This is not a threat.  I am just telling you how simple it would be for me to end some of the nonsense posts if I really wanted to.  I am sure John understands that as well.

Let me also assure you had I wanted to use computer tricks to shut down the Forum I would have found a way to actually shut it down.  You seem to think I am an incompetent conspiratorialist.  I assure you I am not a conspiratorialist but I can also assure you if I was I would be successful.

So we are back making threats again. I really do think you need to see a doctor. The idea that you could get this website closed down because members have posted extracts about you from published books or have questioned your sanity is about the most ridiculous thing that you have said on the Forum. So on your instructions the authorities are going to put an “immediate freeze on all of John's assets”. You may be a CIA asset but even they don’t have that power.

Maybe you should consult Donald Segretti and see if he has any ideas on how to get the Forum closed down. Another possibility is to ask Karl Rove. Tell him how I have been saying nasty things about George Bush. Maybe he will have me extradited.

The truth is you cannot close this forum down by using legal or illegal methods. Nor are not even going to try. You are addicted to this forum. Not because it gives you a chance to discuss Christian Fundamentalism, Watergate, Iraq or the Kennedy assassination. You are an attention seeker. I have taught a lot of kids like you. They are impossible to deal with. Their main objective is to be told off. The love the idea of everybody looking at them. Being naughty is the only way they can achieve it. We are told by the experts that they main reason they do it is because they lack love and attention at home. It is very sad but it is also extremely frustrating because their behaviour is very disruptive. As teachers it is our responsibility to make sure that all the children get a good education. Sometimes, for the sake of the rest of the students, they are suspended or expelled. In some cases they are sent to special schools (staff specially trained to deal with emotionally disturbed children).

Most of these options are not available to me (I don’t suppose you could define JFK Lancer as a special school). I will not embarrass you by setting up a poll where people could vote on whether you should be expelled. But you are on your final warning. Do not make threats against this forum.

[Tim Gratz]

John, sometimes it is you who are difficult to understand.

I said several times that I was not threatening to shut down the Forum by discussing a possible RICO suit. All I was trying to do was show the foolishness of Mark's post that I had used my "week off" to orchestrate the "attacks on the Forum" that you described.

And again it is not a threat but I can tell you that a court does have the power to freeze a defendant's assets even before a judgment, and it is a remedy often sought in RICO cases.

You say I am "addicted to the Forum" and yet you argue that I am making threats to shut it down. Where is the logic in that?

Why don't you, instead of lecturing me, tell Mark how ridiculous he was to accuse me of manipulating the supposed attacks on the Forum. I suspect you know full well they did not originate with me.

Yesterday you posted that my motivation was ideology not money. You are only partially correct there. My motivation on the Forum is sincerely to help solve the Kennedy assassination. I think I have proposed the best possible way to really forward the investigation: to have those TRULY interested hire a professional investigator, to have a steering committee help organize an investigation, and to reinterview (on a prioritized basis) the living witnesses, particularly those who might have been involved in the conspiracy. Better yet would be a formal investigation, presumably by a grand jury. I have even suggested that those truly interested could recruit and run a friendly candidate for the DA of whatever county Dallas is in. I think either of those suggestions are things that could be accomplished if someone would "take the ball and run with it".

This Forum has developed very valuable information (and you have certainly done yeoman's work in developing some of it). It has also identified people with a truly amazing body of knowledge about the assassination who could, for instance, serve on a steering committee to help guide a new investigation.

Please don't try to psychoanalyze me. I remember when you booted Tim Carroll off the Forum you privately suggested he was having mental problems. It strikes me that this is violating to the nth YOUR rule about not impugning someone's motives.

Maybe my scenario is getting too close to the truth. I could get conspiratorial and suggest that many of the attacks on me are being privately orchestrated by someone because I am indeed getting close to the truth. I mean all the "garbage" that is going on here is distracting from a serious discussion of the issues and evaluation of the newly discovered evidence. I would bet you anything, for instance, that Mark, who started this ridiculous tangent, has not bothered to read the "Pfeiffer report" that Steve Thomas posted a month or two ago and that I reposted last week.

Be a leader, John. The people who are truly making contributions here would, I suspect, appreciate it if you would enforce the rules of the Forum and shut off the personal attacks. You recently posted some interesting material about Attwood and Bundy on the "Fidel" thread. I would certainly rather spend time reading and evaluating that material (and the material that Mr. Howard recently posted) than responding to Mark's ridiculous suggestion that I was masterminding attempts to sabotage the Forum.

I don't often (an understatement) agree with your positions but you are doing some great research work and your opinions are often interesting and thought-provoking. It surprises me that you apparently lack the fortitude or willingness to enforce the rules and confine the discussion to substantive issues rather than personal attacks. As I said, I think the people who are really making contributions here would appreciate it if you would get the Forum back on track.

I mean how obvious is it? Knight does not like my opinion but rather than debate them he makes a post suggesting I was trying to sabotage the Forum and then claims I cannot prove it was directed against me because he did not name my name. I suspect from reading about previous attacks against you you can pinpoint the source of the attacks. You ought to be admonishing Mark, not me!

Edited August 17, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

The only merit of this whole thread is that it has a link to Blakey's excellent summary of the RICO law so Dawn (and others) can learn about it!

[Tim Gratz]

I would also point out, John, that I started the threads on questions to Marina Oswald and the Paines--which could be a valuable organizational tool should there be another formal or informal investigation. And as I said in that thread, the information you posted on Marina was outstanding.

[Mark Knight]

Tim, since you are insisting on keeping my name in the forefront of the discussion (?) on this thread, let me give you a recap of what I actually said:

Without mentioning any names, I pointed out how it seemed an odd coincidence that after a week of the forum running smoothly coinciding with the absence of a certain member, upon that member's return the forum began having a problem with attacks apparently meant to effectively end the forum.

I then wondered whether whether this "coincidence" correlated with the facts that this member was known to have associated in the past with persons known to have trained others in "dirty tricks" operations, and whether this person might have been so trained during his absence.

I have no personal knowledge of whether you're a technophile or a klutz, so I have no way to judge whether or not you are personally capable of such an attack...which is why my post asked this as a question, rather than positing this as a statement of fact.

If you are offended that I would ask such a question, that seems to be something you'll just have to personally work out. I'm not asking such questions about Pat Speer, or Jim Root, or Antti, John Dolva, Dawn, Ron, or anyone else, because I don't find anyone else's posts as disruptive to the flow of actual discussion...whether the others are absent from the forum for a day, a week, or a month, their return does less to disrupt the flow of information and actual discussion than does yours. Witness the thread on Oswald's wallet; I honestly feel that there was a greater exchange of useful imformation on that thread by virtue of your absence there than any comments of yours might have precipitated. That's simply my opinion, but I believe it has a firm foundation in the facts. Yes, you can claim that you started the threads on the Paines and Marina, but only after someone else [Nic] began one on the same idea, but less specific.

It's as if your entire purpose is to deny, delay, disrupt, and derail any serious discussions of any scenarios that don't conform to your fingering of Fidel as the fella. Tim, the world doesn't revolve around you any more than it does around me or anyone else...but I don't see anyone else here behaving as you do. No one else takes umbrage so easily, and no one else is such a "Quick-Draw McGraw" at unholstering the term "lawsuit." My saying this may be offensive to you, but it is merely a statement of fact that you cannot refute with evidence.

The actual merit to this thread is that John has determined the "how" of the attack, if not the "who." So to say that this thread is without merit, save for your link on RICO law--which, if I'm not mistaken, is US law rather than international law--is rather self-serving...but, based upon your history here, I've grown to expect little else from you.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

I have no personal knowledge of whether you're a technophile or a klutz, so I have no way to judge whether or not you are personally capable of such an attack...which is why my post asked this as a question, rather than positing this as a statement of fact.

Truth be told although I am relatively computer literate I am not enough of a technophile to personally launch an attack. Of course, that really means nothing because if I really wanted to I am sure I could find a technophile. Then again, not being a bad guy, I would have no idea how to find a mean-spirited technophile willing to launch a malicious attack.

But your question was really an innuendo, Mark, and I think you are smart enough to know that. Had I been guilty, do you think I would have had a "Perry Mason moment" and confessed in response to your question? That is just nonsense and you know it.

In my opinion, all you were trying to do was feed suspicions to certain members of the Forum so gullible they accept any allegation of a right-wing conspiracy.

I say that because I think you know better.

Even though you at first thought you could pretend the post was not directed against me because you did not name my name. Well I am sure there is not a single regular poster who did not know who you were referring to.

I once tried to tone down the rhetoric by "apologizing" if I had offended you (as I obviously had). You are the one who is keeping the attacks going.

Let me tell you something, Mark. None of the perceptive people on the Forum would "buy" your innuedo. All I think you have accomplished, at least among those members whose opinions merit consideration, is to lower their opinion of you.

Why don't you once and forever foreswear the personal attacks and concentrate on the issues? If it makes you feel better, I have read some of your recent substantive posts and there was some meat to them.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

I have no personal knowledge of whether you're a technophile or a klutz

Well, I used to think that when a book said you should reboot a computer if all else failed, that means you would give it a second good kick.

I would never condone physical violence against another person (with obvious exceptions such as a "just war") but it sometimes works when used on ordinary electronic equipment like television sets!

[Adam Wilkinson]

John, I have a message appearing saying that I am not authorised to view this page and by back and forward buttons do not work with this site anymore, but are fine with others, all started happening about 1 week ago.

[John Simkin]

John, I have a message appearing saying that I am not authorised to view this page and by back and forward buttons do not work with this site anymore, but are fine with others, all started happening about 1 week ago.

Ignore the message and click five times rapidly on the back and forward buttons. You can also navigate by using the headings at the top.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

It's a poor guest indeed who regularly pisses off his host and then dares him to do something about it. I'm not qualified to know whether you need the psychological counselling that John advises, but one doesn't need qualifications to discern a singular lack of etiquette and tact. Shape up, old chum.

Re: your hollow threats on RICO grounds, let me just remind you of a few requisites you lack in this regard.

First, representation. Perhaps you plan to represent yourself. In which case, presumably you are currently applying to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to have your licence reinstated, for that is the only method by which you could salvage your papers, a dozen years after they were revoked.

Second, if not self-representation, then you presumably will hire a hot-shot lawyer. The court costs alone will prove prohibitive. Even those lawyers who are prepared to work on a contingency, or pro bono, still expect the client to bear the out of pocket costs associated with an action. Even that can prove problematic to those of modest means.

Third, there is the small matter of demonstrating financial harm. The purported libel against you that you claim transpired here has caused you what financial harm, exactly? Did it kill off your budding career? Did it cause you to be fired unfaily from a job? Did it cause your employers to yank your internet priviliges while working on company time? What untoward fate has befallen you as a result of the purported libel against you?

Fourth, the entire basis of the RICO statutes is an ongoing criminal conspiracy. Who here has conspired to commit crimes? Who here has conspired to commit libel against you?

Tim, it takes massive cheek to threaten shutting down the Forum at the precise time that it is clearly the victim of unethical attacks. Rather than rally to the aid of the very soapbox that allows you to spout your content-free posts, you choose this exact moment to deliver lines like: "This is not a threat. I am just telling you how simple it would be for me to end some of the nonsense posts if I really wanted to. I am sure John understands that as well." Ending the nonsense posts will not prove to be "simple," dear boy, though comments like the one above illustrate that the man who posts them surely is.

It is in our mutual best interests to refrain from making personal attacks on each other here. We must all be mindful of that. Reasonable people can disagree and remain reasonable. Yet, more than once now, our resident ex-lawyer has leveled threats of legal action against those who hold him in low regard, as though such threats will elevate him in our estimation. Perhaps it is because to the man who has only a hammer, each problem is a nail. But, Tim, you don't even have a hammer. You once did, but it was taken away from you for not using it properly. Keep fouling the footpath here and you'll soon forfeit your right to post here as well. And you'll have none to blame but yourself.

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote=Adam Wilkinson,Aug 17 2005, 10:39 AM]

John, I have a message appearing saying that I am not authorised to view this page and by back and forward buttons do not work with this site anymore, but are fine with others, all started happening about 1 week ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

_____________________

I am having the same problem. As well as the problem I noted on the ed thread devoted to "problems on the forum". (In trying to do a rather lengthy post this morning.)

So the solution to utilize the "back " and fwd" buttons, and hitting them 5 times won't make the "not authorized to view this page" message go away.

Sure hope this gets resolved.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

Dawn, surely if you are an attorney you must understand what a civil RICO suit is and that there have been myriad legal cases considering whether civil RICO claims apply to certain civil cases. Am I threatening a RICO suit? No. My only point is that I certainly could use legal action to close the Forum if I wanted to do so.

I Of course I know what a damn RICO suit is, civil or criminal. My question was:

"And your cause of action would be?""

Put differently: How are you "damaged", what are you actual damages?

What would be your basis to get the forum closed down?

How could you PROVE you were in fact damaged?

No one here has accused you of anything, no matter what most of us may think.

(I guess you could get the thought police after us)don't need your little primers in the law, I do my 20 hours of annual CLE and

tho I do not practice Civil Law, I did so for two years in MA, when I was in a law firm. (86-88)

Why don't we discuss the Kennedy case?

We were until YOU threatened another lawsuit, and threatened one to close down this forum.

You're the one who continually changes the subject, or injects humor where such is innapropriate, like your little "name game" on the threats to Jimmy Carter's life thread.

[Gerry Hemming]

Dawn, surely if you are an attorney you must understand what a civil RICO suit is and that there have been myriad legal cases considering whether civil RICO claims apply to certain civil cases.  I once successfully handled a civil RICO suit before the Seventh Circuit (A. W. Hemmings v. Barian) (NOTE:  Hemmings, not Hemming).  Here is the cite:  A.W. Hemmings v. Barian, 822 F.2d 688, 692 (7th Cir. 1987) (Please note another coincidence (proving coincidences do indeed occur):  I had an important client whose named differed from that of Gerry Hemming by one letter.)

You might find Professor Blakey's discussion of the elements of a RICO case helpful since you are apparently not aware that civil rico claims are regularly brought against individuals not engaged in "organized crime".  The link is to Prof. Blakey's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee re applying civil RICO to the tobbaco litigation.  (Interestingly, he notes the RICO case I litigated.)

http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/te090501f-blakey.htm

I commend the link to any reader because it has a good discussion of the elements and defenses to a civil RICO suit.

And you must know that RICO suits have been used, successfully, by abortion mills against abortion protestors.

And surely you MUST know that RICO automatically authorizes treble damages.

I thought every attorney in the country was aware of civil RICO suits.

Could I fashion a civil RICO suit that could survive a motion to dismiss?  Having successfully prosecuted a civil rico case, yes, I am confident I could.

Am I threatening a RICO suit?  No.  My only point is that I certainly could use legal action to close the Forum if I wanted to do so.  The fact that I stay and take the jabs (some friendly humor and some I have to consider otherwise) ought to say something.  I guess it proves John's point in the YAF thread that I have a fear of leftists! (HA!).

Mark's attempted point that I could not state his point about the temporary absence of a controversial member was directed against me because he did not use my name just shows the weakness of his logic.  I think it might help if some members went on-line and read about logic and logical fallacies because some of the reasoning here can leave a bit to be desired.  I highly recommend that members read Pat's posts and thoughtfully contemplate his logical approach to things.

But we are beside the point here.

Why don't we discuss the Kennedy case?

Believe me, I did not experience any schadenfreude in making this post.  It's too bad you did not google civil RICO (or even RICO) before posting that you thought RICO actions would only lie against members of organized crime.  But at least you now have a quick primer on civil RICO!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

-------------------------

Y'all:

I have filed a few dozen Civil R.I.C.O. lawsuits since the late 1970s.

[see: Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1961, et seq.]

Civil RICO has been used in child custody and divorce cases all over the U.S., and very successfully. Moreover, under "Criminal R.I.C.O.", and expecially in the southern states such as Florida , Georgia, etc. -- entire judicial circuits have been adjudged to be "R.I.C.O. Enterprises" [along with individual prosecutor's offices, Public Defender's offices, etc. !!]

If Gratz wanted a guidebook on how to mess up just about anybody or any group, he just needs to buy a copy of Dr. Susan Huck's 1989 book: "Legal Terrorism, The Truth About The Christic Institute".

Danny Brandt's www.namebase.org has this to say about the book --

Huck, Dr. Susan. Legal Terrorism: The Truth About the Christic Institute. New World Publishing, 1989. 171 pages.

Susan Huck is a conservative ex-Capitol Hill aide who produced this book with assistance from Theodore Shackley and other fans of U.S. covert activities. It suffers from red-baiting and too many gratuitous slurs.

Yet Huck has some valid points, and she did some homework. There were problems with the Christic Institute -- most particularly with Daniel Sheehan (Harvard Law 1970 and also Harvard Divinity), who frequently seemed to be long on style and short on substantive research. He founded Christic with his wife Sara Nelson and Jesuit William J. Davis in 1981. Nelson is connected to Hollywood entertainers with deep pockets. After working the Karen Silkwood case, Christic took on plaintiffs Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey. Avirgan's injuries from a bomb in Nicaragua offered a hook for a RICO-conspiracy civil suit against an array of ex-CIA types. Ideological glue was provided by Christic's theory that the same "secret team" had been running things for forty years. Nelson's advance work for Sheehan's slick speeches, along with the Jesuit connection to churches, brought in up to $50,000 per week for the Christic road show. Meanwhile, the ex-spooks were deposed through discovery proceedings that Sheehan, who was enjoying himself, tried to drag out. In the end it was thrown out of court, and Christic was assessed $1 million for the defendants' legal expenses.

ISBN 0-9624273-3-0

----------

Search the NameBase site: While the best way to search for names is to use NameBase, most can also be found here by using only first and last name, separated by a single space, with no quotation marks.

____________________________________

The story centers on the phony Civil R.I.C.O. lawsuit filed by Danny Sheehan with reference to the infamous "La Penca Bombing" on Costa Rica/Nicaragua border area [san Juan River] -- which in actuality was carried out by Sandinista assassins attempting to kill "Comandante Zero" (Eden Pastora). I was with Pastora during 1978-1979 during the fight against Somoza.

Because the lawsuit was based upon fantasy, hearsay, speculation, and the plagiarizing of books, the Miami Federal Judge [King] ordered a "Rule 11" judgement against the Christics for $1.7 million, and dismissed the case "With Prejudice". In other words, it was "laughed-out-of-court".

I met with the Christic "investigators??" at Bud Fensterwald's office during the pendency of the suit, and gave them identification information as to the assassin who used an altered Danish passport, after having inserted the photo of one of the mercenaries who had fought for Somoza until July 1979. The Sandinistas had recovered his "alias" travel documents inside Somoza's bunker upon occupying Managua.

What is behind all of this "Gratz Bashing" anyway?? Are folks supposed to adhere to some kind of "Party Line" on this forum??!!

I am the one with the documentation on the Soviet G.R.U./Cuban D.S.E./D.G.I. plot to assassinate JFK. The very same G.R.U. that plotted to assassinate Khruschev during 1961 [but were dissuaded from same by K.G.B. Chief Vladimir Semichastny, who mandated that "...we will take care of him politically!!".

The same G.R.U. which controlled the ICBM and other missile artillery regiments when they carried out "Operation Anadyr" [behind Khruschev's back] and moved the missiles and nuke warheads into Cuba during June, July, and August 1962. My team received the first Intel on the missiles and we gave Senator Keating some tidbits, but were later forced to go to Florida Governor Ferris Bryant with same, and he then took action which forced JFK's hand during late September 1962. [see: Miami Herald, Aug. '62]

Gratz isn't about to discuss this matter in this forum because it is MY proprietary information, and will be going to a Federal grand jury in the near term.

Chill out -- citizens and comrades,

GPH

______________________________