[Rhodes22-list] POLITICAL Re: ... failure of leadership or leading ...
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Tue Oct 21 17:21:28 EDT 2008
Ben,
Let's be clear.
I never said suing Ed (or anyone else) made you an asshole.
I said the implied threat did.
I stand by that.
The "inquiring minds want to know" may be Ed's (though I think the
National Enquirer came up with it before him. I could be wrong, but it's
just a guess); however, YOU used it in the present tense, not some
future possibility.
The whole threat was stupid, and it stank of the same type of
double-talk that lawyers frequently use ("I never said I'd sue, I only
said it cold happen. Sorry if I thought you were talking about ME being
a marxist, and you somehow assumed that when I said that could get you
sued you thought I meant I was threatening to sue").
But feel free, I'm not even saying you should stop, or that folks should
trash them.
But, I know what I did with them.
Out of curiosity, what "criminal conspiracy" did Ed accuse you of?
My skin's just fine on the thinker vs debater nonsense. I know which
category I fit. It's the idiot that posted that revealed themselves. If
you don't agree with him, you're a debater. If you don't, you're in the
"just believe" crowd. He was pretty specific.
I'll look up your reference, and yes, I was asking about "back then",
since that's the time period you suggested. I'm always interested in
reading about specific cases. It's amazing the differences you find in
one person's interpretation of the case compared to the judges
interpretation.
Ben Cittadino wrote:
> Let me be clear Herb.
>
> My remarks to Ed were a colleagial warning to him . He is a grown man and
> he can heed the warning or not. I truly do not want to see him get in legal
> trouble, but if he wants to call names in a public place where other people
> can read those names then he will eventually call the wrong person the wrong
> name and buy himself a lot of heartache. In 33 years of legal practice and
> involvement in hundreds of lawsuits I have never sued anybody for myself,
> and believe me I'm not about to start with Ed. But somebody will sue him and
> win if he keeps it up long enough.
>
> The "inquiring minds want to know" line is Eds, remember(?), he has signed
> off with it like about a million times.
>
> Don't take my remarks as a complete course in the law of defamation. You
> should not assume actual damages are necessary in every case.
> Traditionally, "slander per se" does not require proof of actual damages.
> Example, accusing a woman of unchastity ( oddly enough it doesn't seem to
> apply to men). There are also exceptions for "public figures" which is how
> politicians get raked unmercifully over the coals with no recourse.
>
> Ed's post could fairly be read to call me a "marxist" and a "criminal
> conspirator". I have read his remarks addressed to others along a similar
> vein. He has called into question my father and Grandfather's activities in
> Italy as possibly helping to put the fascist dictator Mussolini into power,
> when he clearly knows nothing of those men. And, you gentle Herb, take up
> his defense. Why? Do you think he is a classy guy?
>
> I've noticed your skin is pretty thin on the subject of whether you are a
> "thinker or debater", or whether you "just believe", in response to somebody
> a while back.
>
> You're question asking for a reference to a lawsuit from the fifties? See
> Faulk v. Aware et al. It's the case of John Henry Faulk that I believe was
> made into a movie. I don't have the cite available but google it, you'll
> find it.
>
> best wishes,
>
> Ben Cittadino
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> hparsons wrote:
>
>> Sorry Ben, doesn't fly. You weren't talking "someday", you said
>> "inquiring minds want to know.
>>
>> People are not the fools you assume them to be. Your idiotic comment was
>> a threat, and anyone that can read could recognize it as such.
>>
>> A Marxist is one who follows the teachings of Marx. I think it would be
>> a pretty easy case to make when one is espousing Marxist philosophies to
>> show that they are indeed marxists, it would only be to what degree.
>>
>> He made no accusation about a particular action, but rather about your
>> philosophical view point.
>>
>> Further, as you said, they would have to prove damages. I think you
>> would be hard pressed to show any damages.
>>
>> Finally, as Ed pointed out, he wasn't calling you anything, he was
>> talking about Obama. He would not be able to be sued for calling Obama a
>> Marxist.
>>
>>
>> I would be interested in some (not many) of the case studies you're
>> talking about. My recollection of the time period you mention (I wasn't
>> around at the time, just studied it) was that the accusations that were
>> actionable were very specific in nature. Keep in mind, Communism is both
>> a philosophy AND a party. One is hard to prove or disprove, the other
>> not so much
>>
>> Personally, I think you need to develop a little thicker skin.
>>
>> And I stand by my statement, anyone that uses what's written on a
>> past-time such as this to threaten, even hint at, legal action reveals
>> themselves as an asshole.
>>
>>
>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>
>>> Herb;
>>>
>>> To address your concern, I would not sue Ed, but somebody, someday (who
>>> doesn't have a sense of humor) will make real trouble for him if he
>>> doesn't
>>> learn that there are rules under our laws about what you can and cannot
>>> say
>>> about people. Call someone an asshole, as you did, and as you have done
>>> to
>>> several in the past, and it means nothing. It is merely an expletive.
>>> It
>>> cannot be literally true and therefor it cannot really hurt anyone. It
>>> says
>>> a lot about the speaker, but vitually nothing about the object of the
>>> speech.
>>> But, accuse someone of a crime (like conspiracy) who you know to be
>>> innocent, disparage someone in their profession where you know or should
>>> know the statement isn't true, falsely say some woman is unchaste, or
>>> spread a story that someone has a loathsome disease when you have no
>>> reason
>>> to believe it, and you may well find yourself responsible for the damage
>>> you
>>> do to that person. In the 1950's calling someone a communist or marxist
>>> could get them blacklisted, could hurt them in their reputation in their
>>> community, could impact their ability to support themselves and their
>>> families. Lawsuits were filed and damages were awarded because people
>>> were
>>> really injured by false accusations. Surely you understand this.
>>> Opinions about a program being "based on mao or marx" aren't actionable
>>> because Brad wasn't talking about a person. He was opining about a
>>> philosophy.
>>> Ed can express his opinion all he wants, but if he calls someone a
>>> marxist,
>>> (and that is a statement of fact not opinion) and that person is injured
>>> in
>>> some real way by that label, he could have a problem. I'd rather he got
>>> a
>>> heads-up to watch his language, than see something bad happen in his
>>> life. I
>>> love Ed. Jesus wants me to love Ed. I even love you Herb.
>>>
>>> Peace, Love,and Dope;
>>>
>>> Ben C.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There you go. Express your opinon Ed, and the lawyer lists vague threats
>>>> to sue.
>>>>
>>>> Ben, sue ME if you want. Anyone that even hints at suing over something
>>>> like that is an asshole. Go look in the mirror, then file your motions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ed;
>>>>>
>>>>> Will you answer some questions for me? What is a marxist as you see it?
>>>>> What
>>>>> makes me a marxist in your view? Does the 1st Amendment to our
>>>>> Constitution
>>>>> immunize folks who libel other folks? Does calling someone a marxist
>>>>> who
>>>>> is
>>>>> not in fact a marxist constitute defamation of character? Do you have
>>>>> any
>>>>> life savings? Inquiring minds want to know?
>>>>>
>>>>> Have a nice day.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>
>>>>> Brad Haslett-2 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obama intentionally and cynically has misled the public about his
>>>>>> relationship with Ayers. This issue isn't going away and it shouldn't
>>>>>> go away. Speculation is strong and the evidence is growing that the
>>>>>> Obama and Ayers relationship goes all the way back to Obama's days in
>>>>>> NYC at Columbia (Ayers was there at the same time and they were both
>>>>>> friends of Dr. Saed) and that Ayers actually ghost authored Obama's
>>>>>> first book (the word count and sentence structure mirrors Ayer's
>>>>>> writing and was written at a 12th grade level, Obama's second book was
>>>>>> written at a 9th grade level). But let's forget speculation for a
>>>>>> moment and stick with what is known. I'm posting a link instead of
>>>>>> the article so you can see the photo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/obama-praised-searing-timely-book-ayers/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We know from tax returns from the Annenberg Challenge that Obama,
>>>>>> Ayers, and Klonsky all had offices on the same floor of the same
>>>>>> building. Michelle and Ayers' wife both worked at the same law firm.
>>>>>> Obama and Ayers appeared at joint speaking engagements (which by the
>>>>>> way, Illinois ethics law prohibits receiving fees for speaking but
>>>>>> Obama's tax returns show "speaker fees" during the period he was in
>>>>>> the Illinois Senate, another MSM oversight).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Just a guy in my neighborhood with a degree in English"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was willful intent to decieve and the MSM has for the most part
>>>>>> let him get away with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The man is a liar, if he were on trial he would certainly be guilty of
>>>>>> perjury - and he may well be, soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brad
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:34 AM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben said, "... Since I socialize mostly with folks in my own
>>>>>>> socioeconomic
>>>>>>> class, while most support Obama, ..." The term leadership comprises
>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>> atributes. And part of what are call traditional values is simple
>>>>>>> honesty.
>>>>>>> Sometimes honesty requires analysis of what is going on and saying
>>>>>>> hey,
>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>> America, we have a problem..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben discounted the Bill Ayers thing. Even if he is a Marxist as is
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>> Ayers, he as an American has an obligation to speak the truth. In
>>>>>>> America a
>>>>>>> Marxist is obligated to tell the truth and not lie about it. So it
>>>>>>> goes
>>>>>>> with his candidate Obama.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what are the elements of Conspiracy? If you know or should have
>>>>>>> reasonable known something? Are you obligated to say something? If
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> not say anything are you a coconspirator?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In Ben's case I have to ask, if a fraud is being commited is he
>>>>>>> obligated
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> speak out?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above is why I routinely for years have quoted:
>>>>>>> In Germany they first came for the Communists
>>>>>>> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
>>>>>>> Then they came for the Jews,
>>>>>>> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
>>>>>>> Then they came for the trade unionists
>>>>>>> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
>>>>>>> Then they came for the Catholics
>>>>>>> and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
>>>>>>> Then they came for me
>>>>>>> and by that time no one was left to speak up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --The Reverend Martin Niemöller, a pastor in the German Confessing
>>>>>>> Church
>>>>>>> who spent seven years in a concentration camp.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben said, "... I, on the other hand, wish there were no connection at
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> because then we could argue about policy instead of who knew who,
>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> when, and what possible difference it makes."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this an admission of an issue? Saying that because most others
>>>>>>> deny
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> connection is using Richard Nixon's arguement that everybody else in
>>>>>>> politics did it, therefore it was o.k. Saying his friends deny the
>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>> does not make it go away. It is Richard Nixon's arguement all over
>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>> Wasn't Nixon a lawyer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does law school teach ask the hard questions in court, but do not ask
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> of yourself? Are lawyers above the law? Inquiring minds want to
>>>>>>> know?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ed K
>>>>>>> Greenville, SC, USA
>>>>>>> attachment for Andrew:
>>>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/file/p20084939/Andrew%2527s%2Bversion.jpg
>>>>>>> Andrew%27s+version.jpg
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/...-failure-of-leadership-or-leading-...-tp20084939p20084939.html
>>>>>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list