The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©
Jeff Rense Threatens Ken Adachi with Libel Lawsuit Over Commentary on Makow v. Rense Controversy
From Ken Adachi, Editor
April 20, 2012
Jeff Rense Threatens Ken Adachi with Libel Lawsuit Over Commentary on Makow v. Rense Controversy (April 20, 2012)
Free Speech for those who can afford it
I somehow knew that Hitler's birthday, April 20, would not come and go without incident .I received an e-mail this morning from the Los Angeles law firm of Gerard P. Fox, the same law office, I believe, who sued Ted Gunderson on behalf of Art Bell back in in April, I think, of 2002. The letter claims that all comments made by me about Jeff Rense in my Feb. 22, 2012 article are considered "abusive" and "offensive" in nature, and that all "commenting on or relating to, discussing, involving, showing, describing, concerning, analyzing, or evaluating his person to be libelous in nature and in breach of the copyright he holds in his own name."
Therefore, anyone who expresses any opinion about Jeff Rense that is not to his liking can expect to be sued for libel and, according to the section 45 of the California Code of Civil Procedure quoted in the letter, anything that Jeff Rense considers " hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation" is also grounds for libel.
Gee, I thought we lived in America, which has a Constitution that protects free speech, but I guess free speech is only available to those who can afford it. I've also noticed that Jeff Rense exercises the freedom of free speech in all of his radio interviews and commentaries, which are often critical in content of others, especially criticism aimed towards Henry Makow.
I just re-read my entire commentary posted on Feb. 22, 2012 titled The Battle Between Jeff Rense & Henry Makow and Its Predictable Outcome (Feb. 24, 2012)
and I see nothing that even comes close to defamatory or libelous in content. I discussed how the break with Henry Makow came about and then I discussed a number of issues that I found wanting in the content at Jeff Rense's web site. I expressed my criticisms of a number of things about the material posted to his site and some of the guests he interviews, but I said nothing to defame or libel him personally, unless merely criticizing someone is print is now grounds for libel. If that's the case, then we no longer have free speech on the Internet, but rather we have free speech for those who can afford .it. Mind you, this is the same Jeff Rense who is forever complaining about the theft of Constitutional guarantees by the government.
If you examine page 2 of the Fox letter to me, and then read my Feb. 22 article, you will see that I mention NONE of the specific allegations that have been assigned to me. I didn't say a word about Jeff's marriages, or his income, etc.
I suggest that interested readers copy and save the above Feb. 22 article, since I guess I'll have to take it down, unless I'm anxious to spend a lot of time and money defending myself against a frivolous lawsuit. I was also threatened by a libel lawsuit from Paul Drocton about a week ago because I had posted a LINK to Henry Makow's article about Paul on my Current News page. Paul claimed that I was a "co-defendant" in libel with Henry. I told Paul I would take the link down, but reminded him that he had invited Henry's criticism by jumping on the Bash Henry Makow Bandwagon at rense.com in order to impress Jeff Rense, and that what goes around, comes around.
It's simply amazing that Jeff Rense, of all people, would employ the same "hate" speech muzzling tactic that is used by Zionists to silence any expression of criticism, as he jumps into the same pool himself, when it serves his purpose. This is a sad day for America, and even sadder for Jeff Rense, the courageous, "award winning" journalist.
© Copyright 2012 Educate-Yourself.org All Rights Reserved.
Subject: Demand for Retraction of Content Published
From: "Erica Doctrow" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, April 20, 2012 10:08 am
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Kathleen Johnson" <Kjohnson@gpfoxlaw.com>
To whom it may concern,
Please see the attached correspondence.
Thank you and have a wonderful day.
Erica Doctrow (Secretary to Gerry Fox, Kathleen Johnson and Jana Moser)
Law Offices of Gerard Fox, Inc.
10866 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1550
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Law Offices of Gerard Fox, Inc.
10866 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1550
Los Angeles, California 90024
April 20, 2012
Gerard P. Fox
VIA EMAIL ONLY
PO BOX 3046
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
Re: Demand for Retraction of Content Published Via
To Whom It May Concern:
This office, and the undersigned, has been retained to represent the interests of Mr. Jeff
Rense. We are contacting you regarding the abusive and offensive nature of the content
a website hosted by your company.
Continued failure to take meaningful action in response to this complaint violates relevant
provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, please allow this letter to
serve as notice that Mr. Rense considers all content published via the website
found at http://educate-yourself.org/cn/warbetweenjeffrensehenrymakow22feb12.shtml
commenting on or relating to, discussing, involving, showing, describing,
concerning, analyzing, or evaluating his person to be libelous in nature and in
breach of the copyright he holds in his own name. California Code of Civil Procedure
§45 defines "tibel" as follows:
[A] a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing,
picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which
exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or
which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a
tendency to injure him in his occupation.
(See also, c.c.P. §48a; see Condit v. National Enquirer, Inc., 248 F. Supp. 2d 945, 955, (E.D.
Cal. 2002), order entered Condit If. National Enquirer, Inc., 2002 WL 31996127 (E.D. Cal.
2002) [tabloid publication which included defamatory statements on its website had time to
ascertain the truth of the allegations before publishing]; Condit v. Dunne, 317 F. Supp. 2d
344 (S.D. N.Y. 2004) (applying California law) [finding statements were not protected by the
April 20, 2012
First Amendment simply because they appeared in a gossip column, ruling that while the
context of ailegedly defamatory statements influenced the impact of the statements on the
audience, no context gave free reign to a commentator to publish false facts as if they were
true]; Del Junco v. Hufnagel, 150 Cal. App. 4th 789/ 60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 22 (2d Dist. 2007) [false
statements regarding plaintiff physician's medical training and education in counterfeit web
site operated by defendant damaged plaintiff's professional reputation and were actionable
statements of fact for purposes of defamation lawsuit].)
In particular, your attention is drawn to any material connected with/ commenting on or
relating to, discussing, involving, showing, describing/ concerning, analyzing, or evaluating
any and all commentary, speculation, and allegations regarding:
- Mr. Rense's past and present marriages, divorces, and any other romantic and/or sexual relationships;
Mr. Rense's financial solvency and/or debt, the amount and disposition of the
income he derives from his radio show, advertising, and other business ventures,
and the amount and disposition of charitable donations raised by Mr. Rense;
- Mr. Rense's purported mental, physical, and/or emotional condition, and any
informal or formal diagnoses of any illness, disorder, or deficiency:
- Any verbal or physical abuse purportedly committed by Mr. Rense, including
alleged threats or duress imposed by Mr. Rense, as well as the nature of moral
and/or spiritual values held by Mr. Rense.
Therefore, a formal demand is hereby made that you cease to host the website
found at http://educate-yourself.orgicniwarbetweenjeffrensehenrymakow22feb12.shtrnl
and, to the extent possible, retract or delete any of the content found therein,
within three days of the date of this letter, or by midnight on April 24, 2012.
Alternately, you may immediately publish a correction statement with a full and
completer unqualified apology on all Internet areas containing the defamatory
content. The correction statement and apology is to be printed in at least the same size type
and appear of at least equal prominence as the defamation complained of. In the event you
choose to ignore this demand, both general and punitive or special damages will be claimed
in any civil action against you.
Gerard P. Fox, Esq.
|All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice.|