[Rhodes22-list] POLITICAL Re: ... failure of leadership or leading ...

Wed Oct 22 07:09:17 EDT 2008

This is funny..... a debate about suing Ed! :-)

Wally

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>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
> __________________________________________________
>