[Rhodes22-list] POLITICAL Re: ... failure of leadership or leading ...
Ben Cittadino
bcittadino at dcs-law.com
Tue Oct 21 17:52:42 EDT 2008
Now I know why they call you "Has to have the last word Herb". I've said what
I have to say on this subject .
You didn't get it this time.
Your Colleague;
Ben C.
hparsons wrote:
>
> Ben,
>
> When comparing what Ed wrote, is it REALLY your assertion that he's
> doing more than expressing his opinion, but is actually attempting to
> illegally blacklist and boycott someone?
>
> Are you really comparing Ed's actions on here to what Aware, Johnson,
> and Hartnett did?
>
> I just want to be clear....
>
> Sounds a bit hyperbolic to me, not that I'd imply a lawyer would get a
> bit full of himself.... oh wait at minute, yeah, that's exactly what I'm
> implying
>
> I think you need to find a case that is a bit more comparable to what Ed
> did.
>
> And, in the interest of being clear, I don't understand the term
> "colleagial", did you mean "collegial"? If not, maybe you'd better spell
> out the meaning for me, I have to claim ignorance.
>
>
> 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
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/...-failure-of-leadership-or-leading-...-tp20084939p20100171.html
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list