Farrell Email

FARRELL Email 1, to wit: the ostensible letter of Warren Farrell PUBLISHED BY BOB HIRSCHFELD, J.D. (who is not a lawyer) (anymore) on Steven D. Imparl (who is a lawyer)'s fully moderated men-law listserve.


From BobHirschfeldJD@nolawyer.com
men-law-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: men-law@egroups.com
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/men-law/
X-eGroups-Approved-By: simparl@aol.com / SImparl@aol.com via email
Reply-To: men-law@egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-men-law@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 17701 invoked from network); 6 Nov 1999 01:20:31 -0000
Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (206.165.6.131) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 1999 01:20:31 -0000
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12505; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:20:10 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:20:10 -0700 (MST)
Fri Nov 5 18:20:04 1999
X-Sender: nolawyer@pop.primenet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0
To:
From: BobHirschfeldJD@nolawyer.com (Bob Hirschfeld, JD)
Subject: [men-law] Defamation against Warren Farrell
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: 74aa32ea01c04ef8eb51378fccf3929a

NOTE: FAMOUS AUTHOR WARREN FARRELL IS A DIRECTOR OF THE
NATIONAL CONGRESS FOR FATHERS AND CHILDREN, AND
HAS PRESENTED WORKSHOPS AT MANY OF NCFC'S
ANNUAL CONVENTIONS.
-- Bob Hirschfeld, JD NCFC
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: PLEASE BE AWARE....
From: Warren Farrell


Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 10:30:12 -0700

To all:

I want to make you aware that a woman who calls herself variously Liz [ edited] is doing everything she can to try to brand the major leaders of the fathers' movement as pedophiles? to say that the fathers' movement is just an excuse for fathers to be sexual with their children.

In my case, she is spreading around a misquote about me that appeared in Penthouse in 1977. The misquote had me saying that I felt that the taboo on ****** was making parents fearful of hugging, touching, and genitally caressing their children. The hugging and touching part is correct. The genitally caressing part is incorrect.

I have told this Liz[edit] that this was a misquote and that to use this any further was an act of libel. She has been notified about this by attorneys Robert McNeely and Cindy McNeely of Florida. She has, though, persisted... Robert and Cindy McNeely have found some damaging evidence about Liz [edited]'s background.

If you receive correspondence about this, please fax or email this to me immediately (fax: 760.753.0000; email: wfarrell@home.com) so that we can build a case against her for the law suit.

Please also reach Rob and Cindy McNeely at O: (850) 222-0000; fax: +1 (850) 222-0000; rmcneely@aol.com; and camcneely@aol.com. In particular, if anyone backs off from sponsorship or cooperation with you/us in any way, please ask them to put their reasons in writing and then send me this evidence so we can cite actual damages in a law suit.

If you have any further concerns, please be in touch with me at 760.753.0000.

Sincerely, Warren






__________________Liz's response________________

• 
  "I want to make you aware that a woman who calls herself variously Liz [edited] is doing everything she can to try to brand the major leaders of the fathers' movement as pedophiles ? to say that the fathers' movement is just an excuse for fathers to be sexual with their children."

Someone is doing what?   
Is this a claim that different individuals are all the same "a" woman? 
"Major leaders of the fathers' movement?" (That's laughable. Here's what liz thinks of the father's movement.)

• 
  "In my case, she is spreading around a misquote about me that appeared in Penthouse in 1977. The misquote had me saying that I felt that the taboo on ****** was making parents fearful of hugging, touching, and genitally caressing their children. The hugging and touching part is correct. The genitally caressing part is incorrect."

It's a misquote of what? What do you claim you actually said, Warren? (Feel free to contact me and do tell what you actually claim to have said in response to a question about a "sexual deluge." Anything you say will be put right up here on this website. Can you also can provide me with some kind of evidence, e.g. copies of letters circa 1977 you sent to Philip Nobile or publisher of Penthouse? A legal complaint? Did you sue?)

(Speaking of which... the lawyers for Penthouse (actually General Media) generously offered to supply me with reprints of the article in question to sell from this website. Apparently they were not terribly worried about any alleged misquote. I demurred however, because selling things from a website isn't my bag. I don't pretend to care about issues as a ruse to make money.)

Be that as it may, unless you (or someone else, for that matter) actually can provide me with some kind of evidence to the contrary, I will continue to report truthfully on what Penthouse published and said you said.

The second-hand claim now, years later, when it's politically expedient to do so (Farrell's marketing another book, [edited], which has been reviewed, coincidentally, by Liz [edited]) that "the genitally caressing part is incorrect" just doesn't cut it as evidence of anything but self-interest. (And it's such an odd, vague and feeble sort of denial, unconvincing...)

Was that interview taped, Warren? Send me the tape, and be done with this!

• 
  "I have told this Liz [edited] that this was a misquote and that to use this any further was an act of libel. She has been notified about this by attorneys Robert McNeely and Cindy McNeely of Florida. She has, though, persisted..."

Not true, Warren. YOU have told me absolutely nothing like that. My email address is all over these pages. (This is pathetic.)
So who are you claiming was notified... of... what? May we see a copy?

• 
  ​​"Robert and Cindy McNeely have found some damaging evidence about Liz [edited]'s background."

Lie. There isn't any "damaging evidence" in MY background, Warren, so I guess you're just into libel, ay?

(Such blather. Who do these purported notification- authority figures think they have "damaging evidence" on? Some woman with three names? Is this a fabrication, Warren? Do tell. Because the insinuation regarding me is... libelous. And the claim itself is idiotic. Wouldn't step one in finding things out about a person be to decide who it is you desire
to investigate?)

• 
  "If you receive correspondence about this, please fax or email this to me immediately...so that we can build a case against her for the law suit. Please also reach Rob and Cindy McNeely at..."

And... this would be a case against whom? ("The" lawsuit against the nonexistent three-named woman? Gee. How... vague.)

Now, you wouldn't be trying to give the impression that you have some actual cause of action against me, would you? Because, now, that too would be libelous. (You're on a roll, Warren. Little game aside, you see, both you and the McNeelys know exactly who I am -- and am not -- and so do a lot of other persons.)

So are you planning to sue me? Go for it, Sparky. Tell more lies, make yourself into a complete public *******. Do it.

• 
  "In particular, if anyone backs off from sponsorship or cooperation with you/us in any way, please ask them to put their reasons in writing and then send me this evidence so we can cite actual damages in a law suit. I will also discuss this issue with Carey Linde, whose advice I respect."
•  

"You/us" -- would that be referring to Bob Hirschfeld and you? Damages as in losing money? The ostensible "cause" really is just about your making MONEY? Are you saying that the NCFC is actually a commercial enterprise?



-liz


​