Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

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


Vivagalore Vivagalore 31-35, F 3 Responses Jan 20, 2013

Your Response

Cancel

any one who came to this story by way of youtube by jackbarnes... please be ware!!!!


he is a well known *** hole and he goes out of his way to hate on women/feminist here on exp proj, and any one else who he doesn't lik.

he made those video hoping to ruin the those women/feminst and men. jack feels powerless over his world, and he sees women as a threat to that delusional world he lives in.

he has called feminist *****, *****,******* and has threatened them and their families and friends by way of shot gun,many of the feminists here are in contact with authorities. due to jackbarnes aka knightrunner

he claims to have a wife and daughter but yet he spends all his free time on exp prog and avfm and youtube making videos about feminist he hates on.

All I can say is that if what Penthouse quoted Warren Farrell as saying in the article they published back in 1977 was a misquote, how come Farrell didn't demand that they remove or recant the article, and threaten to sue them for libel if they didn't? The fact that he didn't do that suggests that what he is trying to claim now as false isn't, and the threats of a lawsuit he is making is nothing more than bullying to try to stop people from demonstrating the kind of person he was three decades ago.

The above Email dates from 1999.
This ball of wax can be clarified only by an action for defamation, or by a first rate lawyer being paid 100K to write a thorough report. There is no source of funds for the latter.

Who is Liz? What does she think of the father's movement? To whom is "Liz's Response" addressed?
How did Dente come to be in possession of this correspondence between Farrell and his lawyer?
Who are the "major leaders of the fathers' movement" other than Farrell himself? Is there any truth to the claim that there have been attempts to discredit people other than Farrell himself?
Who are the McNeelys in Florida?

""Robert and Cindy McNeely have found some damaging evidence about Liz [edited]'s background."" I am confident that statements of that nature are routinely made in communications between clients and their lawyers. To claim that such communications are defamatory may be true, in a technical sense, but getting indignant about that fact of life is an exercise in futility.

"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?"
It is my understanding that to spread false statements that make it harder for a nonprofit to raise money, and that lead to the cancellation of sponsorships, is technically defamatory.
This is so even though the ostensible purpose of the nonprofit entity is not to make money. For money is to any social organism what blood is to a biological one, a sine qua non.

All sorts of insinuations are arguably libelous. My response is that we should grow thicker skins. The USA has largely moved to a state of affairs such that the only meaningful libel is false and damaging statements disseminated by a media firm about an individual in private life. You and Farrell would both be better off if you took that on board. A free society includes our fellows being free to form and express derogatory opinions about us.


I have long argued that the British common law of defamation is inconsistent with contemporary notions of freedom of speech and the value of robust debate. This inconsistency is grounded in the fact that defamation law evolved centuries before the prevailing notion of freedom of speech. The USA Supreme Court has moved in that direction, but not the jurisdiction I live in, where threats of action for defamation are a dime a dozen. Elected officials here sue private citizens who make insulting remarks about them at town meetings. Years ago, my manager at work threatened me with defamation because I told my colleagues that I had grave reservations about the ethicality of a number of his actions. I replied saying that he was free to sue me, and that if he did so, I would vigorously defend myself on the merits. I set aside 20K in anticipation of legal bills. Nothing came of this threat, in part because the HR mediator assigned to this dispute pretty much sided with me. At any rate, I should be able to draw HR's attention to workplace problems without fearing that the persons I accuse could sue for defamation. Defamation law should not intimidate people into not seeking redress for grievances.

Come on! The source is stayed first thing, ' 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.'
Let me spell.it.out; it's published on a pro Farrell website

Liz is addressing the email...what else would she be addressing?

Liz isn't a who...duh! which is why Farrell looks ridiculous.

clearly you've been provided with ample evidence, you are arguing moot points now...pulling a gish gallop, handwaving and presenting a chewbaca defense!

*stated

" by attorneys Robert McNeely and Cindy McNeely of Florida."

Obviously they are attorneys. Presumably his attorneys.

" Who are the "major leaders of the fathers' movement" other than Farrell himself?" not in the least bit relevant.

" am confident that statements of that nature are routinely made in communications between clients and their lawyers. To claim that such communications are defamatory may be true, in a technical sense, but getting indignant about that fact of life is an exercise in futility."


Most attorney client communication is not published by a third party on a public website, neither is it forwarded throughout a mailing list as some sort of "call to arms".

Lawyer/client communications are completely confidential as stated by knivesout, and would NEVER be published on a website unless the client and lawyer wanted it to be for some sort of purpose.

" You and Farrell would both be better off if you took that on board. "

Excuse me? You can't be seriously trying to insinuate that any of the opinions are MINE ! That's poor form and intellectually lazy. You asked for 'proof' I provided proof...my opinion is not represented anywhere within the posts.

The meaning and context of the long Email quoted above is not as clear or as obvious as you make it out to be. Refer the matter to your lawyer, or communicate with Farrell himself, via his YouTube channel,. I ask that you say nothing more to me, because I find this all baffling. You also have attributed to me all sorts of opinions and theories that I do not hold.

You asked me specifically for proof... I gave it to you and answered your numerous questions. Your factious claim that I've mischaracterized you is a completely unsupported allegation which you use as a smoke screen because my claims about Farrell were supported.

and the email isn't to me as stated numerous times. Why would I have a lawyer? or involve a lawyer in a publicly posted email I'm not involved with? You obviously have some fundamental flaw with your logic.please.troll.elsewhere

and PS this is my story. so you asking me not to respond to your comments on my story is either the most arrogant or the most stupid thing I've heard of.

high five ^

9 More Responses