John Clark Pro Se Blog Actor, Producer & Writer

Category Archives: Links to Media

Subscribe to Links to Media RSS Feed

Newt Gingrich & The NY Times

Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Media

Newt Gingrich, a Republican, was 50th. speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. He posted this piece online this morning

I grew up in an era when the New York Times was the greatest newspaper in the world. Throughout my political career, there were plenty of moments when I thought the paper’s coverage had an unfair slant. But I knew it remained America’s most revered newspaper, and that generally its reporters held themselves to the highest standards. Screen Shot 2016-11-16 at 7.40.30 AM

Thus I watched with some regret as all of that went out the window this election cycle. It was sad to see a 165-year-old paper destroy its credibility over one election season. But the Times’s complete abandonment of its old standards was obvious to anyone who read its coverage. The paper wrote stories that were unrelentingly hostile to Trump and his supporters.

It allowed reporters to include their personal opinions and political analysis in news coverage. It allowed political reporters to spew their animosity to Trump on social media. (I am old enough to remember when reporters maintained the conceit that they did not have political opinions.)

It published stories about Trump in which it distorted the accounts of interviewees, according to the subjects’ own testimony. It published front page stories and editorials with headlines that accused Trump of “lying”–but never so characterized any of Hillary Clinton’s well-documented lies.

And now the same publisher and the same editor that oversaw this partisan assault are promising to “rededicate” themselves to reporting “honestly”. Perhaps even the paper’s liberal readership has tired of reporting that increasingly resembles the state-controlled propaganda of totalitarian regimes.

Before readers take the paper at its word, they should ask its leadership some of the following questions:

  1. Does the Times have any reporters, editors, or columnists who will say they voted for Trump, and has it hired any new ones?
  2. Has it hired any reporters who are even Republicans?
  3. Has it changed its policies that allowed journalists to express their opinions about the events and people they covered in their news stories?
  4. Will it ask the Pulitzer Prize board to withdraw, and its reporters to return, any prizes that might be awarded for news stories that contained reporters’ personal opinions?
  5. Have its editors retracted misleading news headlines that expressed opinions or pure speculation–such as the paper’s coverage of Trump’s tax returns?
  6. Has it fired reporters who admitted to writing politically motivated “news” stories and encouraged interview subjects to talk to them so they could stop Trump?
  7. Has it retracted its shameful election-eve front-page story “reporting” on Trump’s innermost thoughts and feelings, virtually every sentence of which is filled with reporters’ opinions and speculations–featuring claims like “he is struggling to suppress his bottomless need for attention”?

If the answer to all of these questions is “no”–why would anyone believe that the paper is now “rededicated” to honesty? And why would anyone trust the New York Times to report on American politics?

Well said, Newt. And now for my opinion. The rot started when newspapers no longer “said” anything, it was when writers were revealed by name. Newspapers used to have a voice as a collective, but no more. Now, only consumer brands have voices (usually of their chairman or CEO), and the press should think the same way. However, it is a 2-way street. Authoritarian states do what we’d like and speak with one voice, but we don’t want that either. The only daylight is that democracy has a way of evening it all out. It corrects itself eventually. Or maybe it cancels itself. Nobody hears anything, because nobody’s listening. The myriad voices become a babble.

My Complaint

Posted in Legal Info, Links to Cases & Litigants, Links to legal, self-help sites, LYNN REDGRAVE, My Larry King/CNN suit

 

This complaint was filed in District Court, Los Angeles,  on September 23, 2004. As it contains useful details of my personal story, I post it here again today. Remember, posting dates are for reasons of hierarchical separation, and not necessarily the dates things actually happened. Hopefully, insights will be gained as to how the media works, as well as how lawyers work.

A reminder. I am a Notary Public in the State of California, Commission #2123250. My commission expires September 10, 2019. I have been subjected to background screening with the Department of Justice this week, and have passed with no problems. I have never resorted to bankruptcy protection from predator lawyers. I fight them this way. And so I pursue my purpose of helping people to help themselves with a clear conscience. I am not Alfred Dreyfus.

 

****************************************************************************************

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
Case no. 2:04-cv-03632 WMB-FMO
JOHN CLARK
Plaintiff,
vs.
LAWRENCE HARVEY ZEIGER aka LARRY KING; CABLE NEWS NETWORK, LP, LLLP.; TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC.;
Does 1 thru 10 INCLUSIVE
Defendants.
TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED
(SECOND AMENDED)
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION
ASSAULT, LIBEL AND SLANDER

Judge: Hon. William Matthew Byrne Jr.
COMES NOW Plaintiff, John Clark, appearing pro se, and respectfully states his (second amended) Complaint for Defamation against Defendants, Lawrence Harvey Zeiger, which was his birth name and is believed to be his legal name, now better known under the name believed to be possibly his alter ego Larry King (“Larry”); Cable News Network, LP, LLLP. (“CNN”), Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. (“TBS”); and does 1 thru 10.
This Complaint is asserted by Declaration, and is verified as to its truth.
THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION, VENUE, & SERVICE
1. I, John Clark, Plaintiff, was the spouse and manager of celebrity actress Lynn Redgrave (“Lynn”) for 32 years, and the father of our three children. I have resided in Los Angeles County since 1981, and currently reside in Hollywood, California. Lynn abandoned the marriage and the home in February 1999 and secured a divorce from me in December 2000. I am 71 years old, and have been a United States citizen since 1965. I am now remarried, and live only on my pension. I consider myself to be a “private person” and not a “celebrity,” as are my children, within the meaning of that phrase as it applies to the laws of libel.
2. Defendant Lawrence Harvey Zeiger aka Larry King, hereinafter referred to as Larry King (“Larry”), is believed to live and reside in Washington, D.C. He is the host inter alia of a television interview show, LARRY KING LIVE, the vehicle which carried the offensive material. He is regularly traveling away from his hometown, believed to be Washington, D.C. and broadcasts from various places around the world.
3. Defendant CABLE NEWS NETWORK, LP, LLLP. (“CNN”) has its main office, according to its website, at 1 CNN Center, 100 International Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30348. It is a “Limited Partnership, Limited Liability Limited Partnership.”
4. Defendant TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. “TBS” has its main office, according to its website, at 1 CNN Center, 100 International Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30348. TBS is a division, I believe, of the Time-Warner Corporation, or owned by them.
5. Defendants “Does 1 thru 10” consist of the producers and miscellaneous support for the program LARRY KING LIVE. Their names and identities are not known at this time, but it is possible that my ex-wife may be a Doe, and that Time Warner may be a Doe, and they are not being pursued at this time.
6. The program “LARRY KING LIVE” is seen almost every evening, and I believe broadcast all over the world, and is often repeated. Furthermore, transcripts of the offensive material are published and remain available on the website of CNN. The program is carried by the facilities of CNN, which is owned and operated under the direction of TBS and possibly Time Warner, and possibly broadcast in foreign countries under license.
7. These parties are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court with proper venue. This is a Federal Question. [Fed. Ch. 28: 1331]. I live in the Central District, Western Division, of California.
8. Service of process is being perfected upon CNN and TBS by service upon their registered agent, CT Corporation, at their registered office, at 1201 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30361
9. Service of process is being attempted personally upon Larry King, who is slippery, for his attorney Mark Adam Barondess has told me that he would not accept service of process. Substitute service may have to be attempted.
CAUSES OF ACTION
10. This case is being brought for Defamation, Assault, Libel, Slander, and Interference of Judicial Processes, tortious acts performed upon me, stemming from the effects and results of a broadcast carried to millions of viewers in North America and I believe worldwide, with the cooperation of, under the direction of, and through the facilities of, CNN and TBS and possibly Time Warner on the LARRY KING LIVE television show, on the evening of May 22, 2003. No relationship existed between me and defendants, and there was no contract involved.
11. The acts of defendants alleged in this complaint are in the nature of a tort, and whether this was an intentional tort or a negligent tort will be decided by a jury when the facts are presented.
12. Defendants may claim 1st Amendment Rights of free speech and fair comment, freedom of the press and so forth. But this freedom is restricted as it applies to what has become known as an “all-news” channel. FCC regulations are required to allow REPLY time to individuals who have been personally attacked on the air under the fairness doctrine.
13. Title 47, Chapter 5, §558 (Criminal and Civil Liability), a provision of the United States Code, recognizes that Defendants, as cable programmers or cable operators, are subject to the provisions of and pursuant to “Federal, State, or local law of libel, slander, obscenity, incitement, invasions of privacy, false or misleading advertising, or other similar laws.” Plaintiff will show in court proceedings that defendants were in fact in violation of all or some of these laws.
14. I was denied Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law guaranteed by Article XIV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, by the State of California. Defendants should have been aware of my battle with the State of California, and my past, current and future battles. By their offensive broadcast, they became an influence upon its outcome, thus interfering with my rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
15. Also violated were protections afforded me as a senior citizen under Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare Chapter 35. PROGRAMS FOR OLDER AMERICANS Subchapter I. DECLARATION OF OBJECTIVES AND DEFINITIONS § 3001, as well as local and state laws protecting me as a senior citizen.
16. The United States Constitution was created, as it says in its opening words, to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility . . . . and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . .” [Article 1, U.S. Constitution]. Defendants, in my case, have helped California Family Court to insure that I and my children get none.
DISCUSSION OF CASE
As Plaintiff, it is my hope that Defendants will be punished for their alleged offenses, and that they will take due care before someone else falls into their trap. And if by the efforts of their powerful lawyers I am unable to make my case, then at least, by this Complaint, I have no choice but to state the truth now so as to get the true story out, revealing that which Defendants should have discovered with minimal research, or did, and ignored or suppressed it. Shakespeare put it well, “…he that filches from me my good name….makes me poor indeed.”
Herein are the true story, and background, to the issues which will be presented for consideration by a jury, the sine qua non of this case. The jury will hear, view and review the evidence and decide whether these facts should have been known to Larry King and his producers at CNN and TBS.
They will learn what took place in the events of my life leading up to my being thrown out of our debt-free beloved home for 21 years, and escorted off the premises by armed police on September 13, 2001, onto the street, while I was still on the telephone inquiring as to the lives of three of my children who I knew were situated in New York City at the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and remained silent to me.
This event happened as a result of bizarre rulings sought and obtained by my wife from now retired Family Court Judge Arnold H. Gold, which caused me to investigate the judge from public record sources. Judge Gold’s breakdown of his own marriage, and the reasons behind his fighting for a divorce from his own wife for about five years back in the sixties shocks the conscience, and is revealed later in this document. Terrorism comes in many forms.
The circumstances of the breakup instigated by my wife with the aid of a Hollywood “Divorce Designer” attorney and leading up to this event are well documented in the continuing public records of the Los Angeles Family Court, four different Courts of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court.
THE BROADCAST
I heard through a friend on the morning of May 22, 2003 that it was advertised that my ex-wife would be interviewed for an hour by Larry King that very evening.
Fearful of what she might say, and assuming from its title that the broadcast would be live, I walked down to CNN’s studios at 6430 Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood, a few blocks from my nearby home and presented myself to the staff there for the purpose of being included in the show which I had been on before, and particularly so that I could have some input and control over what my extremely hostile ex-wife might say or not say in the interview.
I had reason to worry at that time of her Larry King Live interview, and I have even more reason to worry at this time. I have just discovered that she and my photographer daughter have a book advertised on Amazon.com, not yet available, and ready to promote, that deals with her breast cancer.
In past years, I had met Larry on more than one occasion when I brought my wife to those same studios for purposes of promoting her, her career and to talk of our future projects, and I expected to be welcomed.
I was especially worried that things would be said that would have an adverse effect on the outcome of several Civil Court cases which were at that time before the California Court of Appeal, Second District, in Los Angeles, and also two Family Court cases still active even now before the Los Angeles Superior Court.
In the divorce case, case no. BD296320 filed by Lynn in March 1999, I still have to go back to show the court that I should be reimbursed for the costs of many thousands of dollars borne by me since she abandoned the family back in February 1999; and in a paternity case filed by my child’s mother, BF013155, I still have to go back to find out where the mother and her attorney are hiding my son, and to get visitation for him.
I had made oral argument before the Court of Appeal’s Division 1 in the Dissolution proceeding on April 22, 2003, just one month prior to the broadcast, and was awaiting a decision. I received news of the justices affirming the decision of the lower court on April 29, and on June 9, I filed for review by the California Supreme Court.
On the same day of the broadcast, an opinion came down from Division 3 in a separate Quiet Title action brought by the attorneys for me and Lynn working together, which was affirmed in our favor.
As for the two derivative cases that were currently before the California Court of Appeal, I have had to plead for dismissal of their review because of this defamatory broadcast.
Here in Footnote 1. I give the text of my Motion for Dismissal dated August 30, 2004, which was immediately granted for the reasons given and in the manner stated, [footnote 1]
fn 1
CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL Case No. B 165744; “JOHN CLARK, Plaintiff/Appellant vs. MELISSA OLIVER, EMILY EDELMAN, JAMES ELIASER, MICHAEL KATLEMAN, ALLYN KATLEMAN, COLDWELL BANKER REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, COLDWELL BANKER REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, INC, COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE COMPANY, COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE, INC., STONERIDGE ESCROW CORPORATION and DOES 1-30 inclusive,
Respondents/Defendants.
APPELLANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS,
I, John Clark declare
1. I am the Appellant. I am 71 years old. I am not an attorney.
2. I brought this Complaint against Defendants in Santa Monica Superior Court in April 2002.
3. The Complaint was for
A.BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
B.NEGLIGENCE
C.CONSPIRACY
4. On September 6, 2002, I brought and declared in open court an Affidavit of Peremptory Challenge before Judge Paul G. Flynn under the code provisions of the CCP [§170.6(5)] which I also filed with the court.
5. I believe this was done properly, but it did not prevent Judge Flynn from making certain rulings and sanctions adverse to me, when I believe he no longer had the standing and power to do so, and out of my presence.
6. However, certain events have happened since that time which I believe has polluted this case, so that even if I were successful in my appeal and this court were to remand it back to the lower court, I believe I could not get a fair or meaningful trial.
7. In May of 2003, my ex-wife celebrity actress Lynn Redgrave (after a marriage lasting 32 years), post divorce, gave an interview to Larry King where, throughout his one hour “Larry King Live” show on CNN (“All The News You Can Trust”), my name and likeness, and that of my small child Zachary and his mother Nicolette, was plastered on the screen in a banner by Larry King and his producers, filled with innuendo and denigration of my character and reputation, and aired before millions throughout the world, while my court cases are still alive.
8. This interference of continuing judicial processes and its effect upon me and my ability to make a living in film and theatre in my professional capacity as a long
time member of the Directors Guild of America, The Society of Stage Directors and Choreographers, the Screen Actors Guild, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and Actors Equity has caused me to file a lawsuit against Mr. King and CNN in Federal District Court for liability for Defamation and related issues [case
04-03632].
been illegal activity by Respondents and other persons and organizations, particularly those involved in real estate deals, yet to be proved but unable to be proved in the California State Civil Court system, leading to the loss of more than two million dollars of my family’s and especially my children’s and grand-children’s savings and family estate, and I believe there may have been violations of US Code Title 18, Part 1, ch. 96, § 1961-68 (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act). Judge Flynn in my civil case before the Santa Monica court would not allow me to pursue defendants and conduct discovery and depositions in order to investigate what happened to bring about these horrendous losses to my family’s investments, and also the theft of several hundred thousand dollars worth of my family’s possessions.
10. That was 2001/2. This is 2004/5. My family and American society has changed. Now we both need to know.
11. Therefore, I respectfully request that this honorable court dismiss my appeal in this case, and that it be on record that this was done at my (at appellant’s) request.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and was executed this 30th day of August, 2004, at Los Angeles, California. (Signed) John Clark, Appellant [end of fn 1]

On arrival early in the afternoon on May 22, 2003 at the CNN studios, I was told to use the telephone on the ground floor to state my business, which I did. I then took the elevator to their floor, where I was told by security to wait outside. Eventually a Mr. Hunter Waters (“Waters”), an employee of TBS, appeared. He stated that it would be impossible for me to appear on the show, because it had been pre-taped on the East Coast believed to be in Washington, D.C. about three weeks previously.
I asked for, and received, Water’s e-mail address, and thereupon walked home and immediately composed and sent the following e-mail to Waters, which I quote verbatim:
“Thursday, May 22, 2003
Dear Hunter,
I shall be watching tonight with a great deal of interest. Regardless of what I see, I can’t help wondering why you did not attampt [sic] to contact me. My input would have made for a better and more balanced show.
Are you aware that all of her career development through the last 32 years culminating in her Golden Globe award and Academy recognition was designed by me? Are you aware of her own 26 year affair with Brandon Maggart since 1977, by whom she got pregnant? Her affair with Brian Dennehy? I may have to ask for equal time. Anyway, I expect you will be hearing from me again. I live just down the road in the Hollywood Hills, on San Marco Drive. You can check me out on IMDb, from Lynn Redgrave’s site.
The attachment lets you know that once upon a time, my visibility was greater than hers. [There followed several picture attachments]
“A long long time ago. And here’s a shot of my last sight of Lynn, giving orders to try to get me arrested when I went back to our Topanga Canyon home to retrieve my possessions after she got me evicted 2 days after 9/11. There she is back with Brandon Maggart and his goon sons and the real estate agents. And one of his sons knocked me to the ground. The police are on their way, but refused to help me after talking with her. There’s a lot you can learn about me, this is just a hint, you missed the big story! But I’ll know just how much, later tonight. And I expect you’ll hear from me again.
John Clark.”

[There were 6 files attached to this e-mail, being digital photographs of Redgrave together with agents of Coldwell Banker who in court recommended Plaintiff’s eviction, her boyfriend Brandon Maggart and his 2 sons, Spencer Brandon Maggart and Garrett Maggart.
Brandon Maggart’s face is covered by a video camera successfully preventing Plaintiff’s recognition of him, but Plaintiff had never met and was unaware of the identities of the 2 younger sons, who Redgrave, having secured possession of the house, had put in charge of Plaintiff’s house and home.
His job was to keep Plaintiff away, and prevent him from collecting his belongings. One of the pictures depicts the moment before Plaintiff was assaulted by Spencer.
Plaintiff called the police, and 2 officers arrived. They did not file a police report after they spoke with Redgrave. At the station-house, officers refused to accept an assault charge.
Another attachment was a video news clip from the web-based archives of Pathé Pictorial in the United Kingdom, a file that showed Plaintiff at that time was a big child star in London entertaining U.S. and British troops in the closing stages of World War II. On May 4, 1945, he was asked to perform for the King and Queen and the two princesses, at a private function of celebration immediately preceding VE Day]
That evening, May 22 2003, I sat and watched and taped the broadcast, which purported to be a discussion of Lynn’s treatment of her breast cancer. I had and still have no problem with this theme, for it is a matter of great public concern.
The broadcast, however, became something else. Defendants, including Larry King and the producers of Larry King Live, had created an elaborately planned and scripted show which sought to reveal that Redgrave somehow is surviving her illness, the implication being that this is because of, or in spite of, the stress caused by the behavior of her husband which drove her to psychiatrists and so on. It is a well-known fact that stress can contribute to the onset of the disease.
The truth however is much different, and is a truth that I, not just a husband and manager, but also a father, have always sought to keep private, not just because of my children’s safety and privacy, but also because it involved our family’s, including Lynn’s and our son’s, green card scam, which is a federal offense. I have since discovered that the Immigration and Naturalization Service is not proceeding against phony marriages after the passage of two years of time, and will not now prosecute.
The Larry King Live interview, about one hour in length with commercials, had the following elements:
After each commercial, at least three times, the network’s logo appears “CNN – NEWS YOU CAN TRUST” before starting the next part of the interview.
Remaining on the bottom of the screen at all times, there is a descriptive caption, the wording slightly changed for each segment.
The program proceeded as follows:
Throughout the one hour interview, the captions at the bottom of the screen changed between the following versions, which is not revealed in the written transcript (to this day still available on CNN and Larry King’s website). They all read “LYNN REDGRAVE TELLS ALL.” and then
Caption #1 “ON HER SHOCKING DIVORCE, HER FAMILY AND CAREER.”
Caption #2 “IN 1998 HER HUSBAND ADMITTED FATHERING LOVE CHILD.”
Caption #3. “LYNN REDGRAVE TELLS ALL, HER HUSBAND FATHERED A BOY W/HIS THEN ASSISTANT IN 1991”.

At this point the camera zooms in on a National Enquirer headline and various pictures of Plaintiff, Redgrave and Nicolette, the boy’s mother.
The boy Zachary is also identifiable (he was then about seven years old.)
The caption changes to “HER HUSBAND’S OTHER WOMAN LATER WED AND DIVORCED THEIR SON.”
And caption #6 read “DIVORCED HUSBAND IN 2000 AFTER 33 YEARS OF MARRIAGE.”
Larry King ends his interview looking into Lynn’s eyes with the heartfelt words “You are a survivor.”
After the broadcast, I sent the following email to CNN headquarters on their website, again quoted verbatim:
“I am Lynn Redgrave’s ex husband of 32 years. I am also a director and actor, and you can check me out on IMDb [International Movie Data base IMDb.com], and I’m older than Larry King.
I have already spoken to Hunter about this. Your taping of the Lynn Redgrave interview on May 22, commenting on our divorce with slanderous comment on me without having the courtesy, indeed the ethical and legal requirement, to get input and corroboration first from me is despicable.
I have always respected and have even been interviewed (with Lynn) by Larry, and I know him to be fair minded.
I can understand his avoiding controversy in a puff piece, I can understand he would not ask Lynn about her 25 year affair with actor Brandon Maggart by whom she got pregnant (later aborted), nor ask Lynn how much she paid her Jehovah’s Witness assistant to marry our son so that she could get a green card and the little boy could stay in this country (yes, this is all in the court record which has been going on now for four years) nor ask about her love affair with Brian Dennehy (which he admits to) [he corroborated this to the London Sunday Mirror, and they published that tidbit] but at the least, he could have asked simple, positive questions, like:
Do you have any kind words to say about your husband?
Do you feel you owe him something for the career you enjoy today?
Didn’t he help you put together, produce and direct your Tony nominated play “Shakespeare For My Father”?
As well as “Saint Joan” for Broadway?
Do you look toward healing of your family relationships, or have you decided to continue to ostracize him from his own family I understand he’s yet to meet his six grandchildren?
Why did you evict him from his home?
Are you punishing him?
It’s all very well for her to play the “No fair, I have cancer” victims’ game, but her shameless behavior today puts Joan Crawford in the shade. And your sensationalistic behaviour makes the National Enquirer (they never go to press without corroboration of their stories) look like the Washington Post.”

These messages were ignored. I believe they refused what was clearly my demand for correction by defendants, an opportunity for me or them to correct the record. I hoped for a subsequent interview, as is covered by Cal. Civ. Code §48a(2).
I believe that Defendants’ response will be based on the premise that they were telling and reporting on the truth, since that is the basis for a defense in libel.
If I am deemed to be a private person, I believe that Defendants will have the burden of proving that what they said was true, and whether the insinuations casting aspersions on my character and reputation were true.
In court I will show that the truth was always available in the public record, and that I will have to put that truth before the jury to prove that defendants are lying, and how I have been damaged.
As broadcasters on the public airwaves, and as a cable operator, under the law and FCC regulations, they have a duty to report the truth, or at least not to dispense lies and suggestive material to the detriment of a person’s reputation.
I believe that this is actual or de facto malice. I was held up to scorn, ridicule and contempt. My reputation was harmed with the result that persons in my community have been deterred from associating or dealing with me.
Defendants CNN and TBS have a legal department and a department of Standards & Practices set up to make sure they comply with the law.
One can assume that this time they thought they could get away with it, and that I would not take it upon myself to spend the remaining years of my life setting the record straight. To continue with the true story:
At a pre-trial Hearing the day before trial was due to start, Judge Gold said I was slow producing discovery, although my wife’s attorney agreed with the court that by then she had all she had asked for.
But Judge Gold set out to punish me anyway, and suggested I should spend the night in prison, unless I craved mercy in some way. I said I felt as Kafka might have felt. “I’ve done nothing wrong, you wouldn’t do that, and besides it’s my 68th birthday today!”.
I was led out of the courtroom in handcuffs immediately. My parting shot was “Well your Honor, we survived the Battle of Britain.”
It was the night before I was due to start my trial representing myself, “pro se”.
It was also the night Lynn raided my private office in the house, with its sign saying “Keep Out, War Room” which contained my trial preparation because she knew I would not be there. This account is not only in the court records, but was published as a headline in the Pasadena Star News a few days later.
I am a life member of New York’s famed Players Club of Anglo/American theatre in Gramercy Park where I helped to change the club’s policy of no female members, and arranged for my wife to become the first female President of the club. I am not now welcome at the club, partly because we saw irregularities over the handling of their priceless historical library and long dead actors’ Foundations under their control and tried to clean it up, resulting in the fact that the New York District Attorney has been watching them for a few years, and the club is now thriving (Lynn was ousted).
I am a member of the Pacific Pioneer Broadcasters club, and we hold a lunch each month at the Sportsman’s Lodge in Studio City. People turn away from me.
I am a longtime member of the Directors Guild of America. I am not deemed acceptable to serve on a committee.
I am a member of Hollywood’s Magic Castle. I am ignored by all except the help when I go there.
Lynn and Annabel have a book coming out next month, telling of her experiences having her breast removed with pictures taken by my daughter Annabel. It is titled “JOURNAL. A MOTHER AND DAUGHTER’S RECOVERY FROM BREAST CANCER.” by Lynn Redgrave and Annabel Clark.
We are told by Amazon.com that the book is not yet available, but will be coming out next month, in October. I believe that the New York Times owns the copyright in the pictures, which were published in their Sunday Magazine a while back, because picture credits stated “Copyright NY Times.”
It is now obvious to me that I have been set up as a promotional lure for the book marketing people to obtain talk show exposure.
I can see it now, Lynn and my daughter sitting with Katie Couric on the “Today Show”. They will need to say nothing about me at all, not even engage in that part, and Larry King and CNN’s work will be referenced by the interviewer.
I can imagine their sitting with Dan Rather on CBS 60 Minutes, or with any of the folks on “Entertainment Tonight”, who deliberately trashed me when the news of our breakup first came out, and set the tone.
Such is the power of celebrity in Hollywood.
But here I remind Defendants that they will be liable for every single utterance made by another broadcaster as a result of their defamatory treatment of me.
It is now more than five years since Lynn abandoned the marriage. I have been offered but turned away money for stories by all television and print media.
This true story is free. Public record.
MY (PLAINTIFF’S) BACKGROUND
I have been a professional actor since 1944, and married Lynn in 1967. We have three children, now all grown. I always considered our family to be a pillar of strength and stability, and unusual in the sense that we became well-known in the Hollywood community as activists for women’s rights, stemming from Lynn’s taking on Lew Wasserman’s Universal Studios in 1981 when she was fired from her successful series House Calls on CBS.
The issue then was whether a new mother and actress should be allowed to bring her baby to the lot to be able to breast-feed the baby between 6a.m. and going home late in the evening.
We started with Gloria Allred and wound up with the corrupt and later bankrupted New York Finley Kumble law firm, and the less said about them the better. It never got heard. But as a result, the studios now have child care centers where actresses can bring their babies to work.
We were married in Sidney Lumet’s living-room on April 2, 1967 after a whirlwind courtship. Pictures were taken for Life Magazine by Michael Crawford, and there was a Time Magazine cover picture of the two famous sisters.
I tried to continue my acting career, but unsuccessfully, and in 1972 I gave it up in support of Lynn, and so she became my career, at her bidding and wishes.
At that time, my first marriage had unexpectedly produced a son literally on our last day together, and was for years troubling because she refused to allow visitation with Jonathan.
They lived up in Canada, and Lynn was hugely supportive and appeared with me in family court up in Toronto on many occasions. I was forever grateful to Lynn for this.
After an eight year sojourn back in my old hometown of London and then Dublin, we moved to New York, where I wanted to turn her into an acting icon for America, to be perceived as a separate person from her sister Vanessa and her loathed left-leaning politics, and to be more available for Jonathan.
Because of my varied background in show-business and in the real world, it was easy for me to become her full time director, writer, drama teacher, coach, photographer, publicist, manager, negotiator and contract maker and paralegal. We had learned to distrust lawyers and agents too.
I was also very happily the family’s driver, pilot with two family planes, caretaker and maintenance man for our properties, horse feeder and general do-it-yourself head cook and bottle washer, while she was out and away making pictures and television series. And by all accepted standards I was good at it, and a great husband and father, and manager too, (although I have since learned that I should have spent more personal time in raising my kids).
I had a hand in every single one of her projects since 1968 to after her abandonment of me in 1999. Our son is now a pilot for Delta, one of our daughters is now a professional photographer shooting pictures for the New York Times, and our proud lesbian daughter Kelly is a teacher in London.
Prior to meeting my then wife in 1966, I had been a New York-based actor, a photographer and with some success a stock market technical analyst and investor, which became my hobby. I learned all about the technical approach to investing with the aid of charts.
We kept, and now she has, my co-op apartment in the historic “Osborne,” across from Carnegie Hall in New York, but because of long-term television series contracts and movie offers in Los Angeles, in 1981 I decided we should move our base to the West Coast, and so I found and created our 5-acre permanent home alongside the State Park in Topanga Canyon, fenced it around for privacy and security, bought two trained guard dogs, and rebuilt and designed it with the help of our old friend Trevor Williams, an award winning movie production designer.
At great cost, I built a custom designed swimming pool with waterfalls, and a Jack Kramer fake grass tennis court (I once played tennis at Wimbledon as a junior), a writing studio for my wife to write, a corral for my show-jumper wife and daughter’s horses, a tack room, garage space for four cars and parking for 40 cars (yes, we held great parties and social gatherings), an Extenderhoe Case backhoe, 2 twelve foot C-band satellite dishes, a website “redgrave.com” before anyone else was doing it, arranging for a web-designer to create her history on it, and a rehearsal studio where I and my wife could plan and create our future projects, and I could help her write her books.
Together we wrote “Shakespeare For My Father”, and her Weight-Watchers book, dedicated to me, “This Is Living”.
Her success was mine too, and because we had a stable marriage, I had made no effort to be on any of the copyrights.
I was happy to be the engine behind her work, and it was a combination that led to many awards and a lot of creative work.
This office space with 18 file cabinets of all of our history, her contracts, huge press clippings, and work, dating from 1963, kept all of the business away from the residence. It also housed my photographic equipment, for future use as a video and film studio.
I began to build a darkroom in the garden for our youngest daughter. I had installed an antique 12 x 6 foot English Burroughs & Watts slate billiard table, a present from my wife for she knew I had once been a boy’s billiards champion back home in England.
I bought a Chickering grand piano which I loved to play on, and helped to teach my children on this piano.
I had stored my photo equipment which included my three working Nikons, their multiple lenses, nine other professional still and video cameras and darkroom and recording equipment from my past part-time profession, for the time when my youngest daughter could use them responsibly – and now she can – except that all of my equipment was stolen from the house when my ex-wife took it over courtesy of Family Court Judge Arnold H. Gold.
I bought a Twin Comanche airplane so my son could get his multi-engine license and develop his passion for flying, and incidentally get out of the drug culture he showed signs of getting involved with as a student. I sent him away to the University of Colorado, and he straightened up.
And I kept company with my little son Zachary every single day of the year until he disappeared into the hands of our notorious Topanga Mexican plumber Ernesto who was married, as a result of the court action of Judge Gold, at the impressionable age of eight.
The so-called “scandal” retailed by the media with the blessing of my wife, was that Nicolette was falsely described as my mistress, that I impregnated her with a “love-child”, that my son married her and thought that the child was his while I kept her on as my secret mistress, or as a “piece of meat” as Nicolette informed the press.
The true story was as follows, again available in court records, but essential to recount here.
In 1990, I was on a business trip to London to secure rights to a television property controlled by the BBC starring Lynn, and which had won her the BBC award as the best TV actress of the year 1989 (“Death of a Son”). I wanted it to be seen in the USA, and bought the property to remake and edit it into a theatrical film with new music, which I did. I thought Lynn’s performance was Oscar material.
We had regularly kept in touch with our old Beverly Hills nanny, now Mrs. Adeline Procter in Palmers Green, who had helped with our children when we first moved to L.A. She was and still is an avid Jehovah’s Witness.
I called her from my hotel as I always did when in London, but this time she was in tears, her mother had just the day before dropped dead in the street from an embolism, and she couldn’t meet me. But she said her sister Nicolette Hannah worked as a consular assistant around the corner from my hotel at the Finnish Embassy, and she would drop by for a cup of tea and give me the details.
This she did, and what I found was a very distraught lady, with an extra reason to be. I learned that the Elders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ cult program had “disfellowshipped” her for reasons I won’t go into here, and under their strict rules this meant that she was ignored and isolated by her family and friends. Her only friend and life support had been her mother.
Our London daughter Kelly befriended her, and a few weeks later brought her to New York where Lynn and I were appearing on Broadway in “Love Letters” for a couple of weeks.
There, she lost her British passport when out with Kelly having lunch at Macy’s, her purse was stolen. Waiting for a replacement, she flew home to L.A. with us, because Lynn was contracted to do a play in La Jolla, near San Diego.
Nicky and I were left alone at the house, with Annabel still at school and Nicky soon to return to her home.
As a result of her huge depression and spiritual crisis and deep sense of guilt, I suggested to her that she should bear a child because a new life of her own would give her a reason for living.
I recalled Lynn and my appearance in a game show “Tattletales” telecast the week of January 18, 1982, with Bert Convy, Dick and Dolly Martin, and Steve Lawrence and Eydie Gormé.
In that show, we were asked whether I would provide sperm to a friend of my wife if asked, and would my wife object? I said given the right circumstances, certainly I would. I guessed right, Lynn when asked said she wouldn’t object too much, but there could be problems down the road. So she guessed right too. I still have that tape.
Yes, Nicky and I decided it was a sperm bank or me, and that was not a difficult choice. Together we decided that I should be the father, and I truly believe this saved her life.
The idea was that she should return to London when the baby was born, and there meet and marry some nice man, up to which time I would support the child. He need never know who his father was, and thus was born a romantic story.
I was with her at the birth in St. John’s Hospital in Santa Monica, the very same day I had to decline attending Jonathan’s wedding in Dublin, and the expectation was that she would go back to England when the baby was a few months old and her visitor’s visa expired.
The plan went awry when – we should have known – we all fell in love with the little boy, whom we had named Zachary John Hannah.
I do not think for one moment that people did not know I was the father, because we look alike, I had a Danish mother, meaning unusual looks for California. Just that it was never mentioned, and the boy called me Dad anyway.
He became part of our family, as did Nicky, and we all hoped she would find and marry a nice rich Jewish lawyer in Beverly Hills and also thereby get her green card and stick around, and meanwhile, Lynn and I set up a trust fund for him, and Nicky put my name in a written agreement that should anything happen to her, I would take custody, and Annabel was over the moon knowing that she had a little brother.
We paid for the child’s education and Nicky was paid a salary, she paid her taxes, and she helped the family run smoothly as my and Lynn’s assistant.
I invested her money, her inheritance from her mother, and made $36,000 profit for her in the stock market.
She lived nearby in a tiny cottage that we had bought for the use of our children as they got older, and from there she had her own life and boyfriends.
But when the boy was two years old, a nice Jewish lawyer it was not.
Instead I found that she had taken up with a friend of ours, Al Goldstein, publisher of New York’s Screw Magazine, and she told me she wanted to marry him and live in Florida.
I was aghast. But he wanted her, he told me, as his West Coast woman, to live in his Hollywood apartment with little Zachary.
He told me, and I have the evidence, that if I stood in his way, he would call the Enquirer and Lynn’s reputation would be ruined. So for a while Nicky got to go to the Mansion and drive his Porsche.
And that’s what can happen to the best laid plans. Thankfully I was able to convince Nicky that she should immediately stop seeing Goldstein because of his threats and what it would do to Lynn’s career, and so she did.
As it was obvious that a Green Card was the key to all of these problems, a plan was hatched by Lynn, Benjy, Nicolette, Annabel and me.
Our son Benjy married her, and he got motivated by the money she paid him which he needed to get out of his waiter career at California Pizza Kitchen and into his professional pilot licenses and a new career,(he is still a pilot for Delta – good luck!).
I have the video of their Vegas marriage, Lynn there, and me, and little Zachary, with the bride and groom, all smiles.
Some time after the marriage, Ben obtained an expedited U.S. citizenship so that he could get the green card for Nicolette.
As I show later, it is in the public record that Lynn went down with Ben to the INS, she signed autographs for the staff, and the green card was secured without further question. Hollywood privilege.
After the green card came in, they got a mail-order Dominican Republic divorce two years later, which may in fact threaten the validity of both of their new marriages, my son to a lawyer and Nicky to our plumber.
Nicolette had restarted the affair she began years before with Ernesto when I paid him to re-pipe the cottage where she lived, and court papers much much later show that she and the plumber forged a plot to take away from us our little cottage, a property worth about $300,000. They now claim to be married, and have disappeared with Zachary.
Now, finally, it’s time to reveal Lynn’s true story, the story which I took care to tell by filings available in court records among other sources.
While we had a long and successful partnership in marriage, the intimate side of it had faded many years before. Beginning back in 1977, Lynn began an affair with actor Brandon Maggart while they were both on the road with Jerry Lewis in “Hellzapoppin’”, and has maintained it ever since. I was appearing in a small part on Broadway in “Comedians” at that time, directed by Mike Nichols.
Shortly after, I was busy producing and directing Shaw’s Saint Joan, her dream part, to star Lynn on Broadway, and during rehearsal, Lynn had an abortion of a fetus that I had good reason to believe, because of the time factor, had not been put there by me.
I was not too bothered about the moral side of it, but I did ask her to consider what this would do to our impending production, to cancel or not to cancel. It was her decision to have the abortion.
It was our nanny at that time, Ada, an English girl now married and living in Brooklyn and available to give evidence, who observed Brandon Maggart visiting my wife’s bedroom after the show and staying all night.
She did not tell me of this until later when she left our employ. And in 1998, Lynn revealed to me that Maggart had wanted to take her away from me because they were in love, and how she decided against it for the sake of our small children.
But by now I was beyond caring, except I thought that we could go forward on a better footing, now that the children had left home, and Zachary’s parentage was now in the open.
In 1989, Lynn brought Brandon to Hollywood for him to play her brother in a sitcom for ABC with a 5-year contract (“Chicken Soup” opposite Jackie Mason) and I did not care then either. And so she maintained the relationship.
We had a quiet but open marriage, perhaps the secret to a long Hollywood marriage.
She, in her quest for truth in her acting roles, had a habit, I believe, to be intimate with some of her willing co-stars.
For example, one of them, star Brian Dennehy with whom she has worked on three occasions, has cheerfully admitted to their affair to the press “a long time ago.” I subpoenaed him to come to court.
Judge Gold continued the hearing until Dennehy left town. Hollywood privilege. Public record.
Lynn is from a strange and talented family, perhaps those qualities go together.
Her mother actress Rachel Kempson had a secret lover for 50 years (we started to write a play about this, “The Mandrake Root”, but then she left before it was finished), her father Sir Michael picked up boys off the street, and her sister Vanessa’s husband Tony Richardson died of Aids. Hollywood behavior? Public record.
The innuendos of Larry King and the National Enquirer and other tabloids are entirely incorrect, but the press appears to have much more fun preserving Lynn’s icon status while maintaining the fiction that their son married their assistant and thought that my child was his.
That is a shocking and disgusting thought, but because there was a federal offense involved, I never could correct it to the press. But I did take care to reveal the truth during the trial, and my letter confessing to the INS is on the record.
I was evicted on September 13, 2001. I was given an hour to collect my things, hook up my old Scout to my trailer, charge the battery and leave, and I lived in that trailer for the next six months.
Lynn secured a restraining order against me so that I have been unable to communicate with her, and abandoned all of the contents of our home to me, even though much of it belongs to her and the Redgrave family, and our children.
I now see that was good divorce designer tactics. (Hollywood’s Family Court attorneys are now called “specialists”. Good word).
The court, giving me a few days but no money, ordered me to retrieve all of the contents of the house the office, the farm equipment, and all of my cars and the backhoe.
I went to get a car, at least, so I could have wheels, but in trying to do that, I was prevented from doing so by Lynn who I thought was away filming in London, and Brandon Maggart and his two sons, and agent Jon Saver of Coldwell Banker who had taken over possession of my home, and then the police who I called.
Photographs of this event are available as exhibits for the court trial. Lynn effectively took possession of everything at the house, and I found out much later she had destroyed many documents, including much of the history of my childhood career, including autographs personally signed to me as a child actor, by Glen Miller, Tommy Handley, Arthur Askey, Tommy Trinder, Will Hay and other luminaries of Britain’s past entertainment world with whom I had worked alongside for the BBC in the forties.
Lynn sealed everything in seven foot crates, and everything was hauled away to be stored in facilities under her name.
She put our three Rottweilers, Portia, Hermia and Puck, to be boarded at a filthy pet-care facility in Burbank. I was able to rescue them, and they are now in the care of our next-door Topanga neighbor.
I still pay for their food, and she, to her lasting credit, loves them, and they have a familiar home, and I have visitation with them regularly.
I did not retrieve all of my belongings until April 2004, and I now find that some documents are missing, as well as most of the record of my past career.
I also observed huge truckloads of material hauled away from the premises by local Topanga contractors, feeding at the trough.
I have three independent inventories of what was left and I now have, which reveal what has been lost or stolen or sold off, more than $250,000 worth. Evidence filed with the court.
I also found that our frozen stock market holdings had fallen precipitously in value (example: Migratec (MIGR), worth $1 million at its height in 1999 is now worth nothing), and that our debt-free real estate was sold under the court’s signature at the start of an unprecedented rise in real estate values by order of Judge Gold. I had no recourse.
Her and Nicky’s lawyers got paid out of escrow in the form of sanctions against me, awarded to them by Judge Gold.
My home and prime 5-acre estate was sold for an unbelievable $1,700,000. I received an unbelievable check for $2,616.03.
My house is now owned by Michael and Allyn Katleman, a fellow director member of the DGA and his wife, who staked their claim with Melissa Oliver before my eviction, and my studio/office is now owned by a real estate agent friend of Oliver (who, remember, represented both buyer and seller).
And I suppose that Lynn remained confident that with her Golden Globe statue, her SAG award, and Academy Award nomination which I helped her obtain through energetic marketing, she was now firmly in the hands of powerful agents and attorneys who would help her become a really big star, with ample cash flow to take care of her future needs, children to adore her for moral support, and a staff of the usual handlers on retainers, manager/agent/publicist/accountant and of course attorney.
She certainly didn’t need me for that any longer, and I have no problem with that. Her present un-insurable condition is ironic.
However, there exist Community Property laws in the State of California. I should not be broke.
The damage done to my reputation and ability to earn a living in the small world of Hollywood and New York entertainment has been perhaps irreparably damaged, and incalculable in terms of lost creativity.
I maintain my active membership with the Directors Guild of America, the Society of Stage Directors and Choreographers, Actors Equity, Screen Actors Guild, and AFTRA. But nobody comes knocking.
I defended myself in the courts, because my lawyers took more than $600,000 cash from me before trial started, and bankruptcy loomed.
And CNN, “THE MOST TRUSTED NAME IN NEWS” claims to tell the truth of what really happened, and spreads it around the world.
DEFENDANT LARRY KING’S BACKGROUND
And who is Larry King, and why should anyone believe what he has to say?
We are about the same age. I have been a professional in the entertainment business longer than he has. Research gleaned from several sources on the web reveals that he regularly interviews senators, former presidents, current presidents, Kings, Queens, heads of state, and enjoys enormous respect in the news business. He needs no introduction here. Everybody I know sees him as the top interviewer in the business. Everybody seeks to be his friend and to get on his show, wrongly titled, as I found out, “Larry King Live.” He sets the trend in interview technique.
We are told by his publicists that he has been inducted into five of the nation’s leading broadcasting halls of fame and is the recipient of the prestigious Allen H. Neuharth Award for “Excellence in Journalism.”
In celebration of his 40th anniversary in the broadcasting industry, Hollywood honored King in 1997 with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for his life’s work.
Larry’s reported salary for the year 2000 was 7 million dollars. His fees for speaking engagements are said to be $50,000 apiece. Public record.
He is married for the fifth time, to actress Shawn Southwick, and is the father of Andy, Larry Jr., Chaia, Chance and Cannon.
He is fortunate, he must see them often.
Contrast this with my life, the father of Jonathan, Benjy, Kelly, Annabel and Zachary, and the grandfather of six. I was allowed to meet them but once. I do not know where they all live, and they support their mother exclusively, moving East to be with her.
Of course everybody listens to Larry King. They believe what he has to say, and they believe he asks all the questions there are to be asked.
As he said at the start of the program, “For the first time, the shocking details of the scandalous divorce that set off a tabloid frenzy. She opens up about everything. She’s been through it all. A no-holds-barred hour with Lynn Redgrave. Exclusive.”
Thank you, Mr. King.
And now, let’s reveal your under-belly, published by E-Online on the web. Call this sauce for the gander:
Birth Name: Lawrence Harvey Ziegler; Birthdate: November 19, 1933. Birthplace: Brooklyn, NY; Occupation: TV/radio host; Significant Other(s): Wife: Frada Miller; married after high school graduation 1953, marriage annulled; Wife: Alene Akins, former Playboy bunny, married 1961 divorced 1963 remarried 1967, divorced 1971; mother of Chaia and Andy; Wife: Mickey Sutphin, married 1964, divorced 1968, mother of Kelly; Wife: Sharon Lepore, production assistant, former math teacher, married 1976, divorced 1983; Angie Dickinson, actress, together 1983-88; Wife: Julia Alexander, married 1989, separated 1990, divorced 1992; King later sued her for slander, case settled in 1994 with order to seal court records; Next, Rama Fox, minister, announced engagement 1992, separated 1995. King and Fox later entered into litigation over financial matters. Next, Deanna Lund, former actress, announced engagement 1995, no longer together. Current wife: Shawn Southwick, singer, model, TV host, met in early 1997, married September 5, 1997, former wife of public-relations executive Michael Levine. Has son (born 1981) from first marriage.
PENDING JUDICIAL MATTERS
My ex-wife sought to influence the justice system in Los Angeles, and has succeeded very well with the assistance of defendants. I have only my pension to live on now, because I got re-married and lost my wife’s lifetime support of $3,000 per month which the court ordered I should be paid, befitting my customary standard of living(!).
I believe there was and still is a RICO game going on, and I intend to prove it.
And what are the Lawsuits which are part of the public record?
Lawsuits, begun against me by Lynn and Nicolette, all in the Los Angeles courts, are as follows:
Nicolette Hannah Clark v. John Clark (Paternity issues) BF 013155 (filed January 1999)
Lynn Redgrave Clark v. John Clark BD 296320 (Dissolution of Marriage, filed March 1999)
Defendant John Clark’s WRIT to DISQUALIFY Judge Arnold H. Gold in Division 1, COA (denied); John Clark and Lynn Redgrave Clark v. Nicolette Hannah SC 063529 (Quiet Title to house in which she lived with her now husband Ernesto Hernandez) denied as to Nicolette by Judge Reid (surprise, but Redgrave was on my side and the judge wasn’t Arnold Gold, and I used a lawyer).
Kellybee Enterprises, Inc. v Illyria Enterprises, Inc. SC 063527 over fraudulent transfer of funds by Redgrave to her new corporation [Not prosecuted, and rulings were made by Judge Gold without attorney representation of a corporation which is mandated by law].
John Clark v. Spencer Brandon Maggart, et al SC 070226 [Judge Flynn as of 8/8/02, to be heard in Civil Court with John Clark v. Melissa Oliver, Coldwell Banker Companies BC 273790 (Judge Chalfant].
Disso Appeal of Dissolution decision to evict me from my home to release funds to pay Redgrave’s attorney fees and other expenses from escrow B151350 [DIV. 1] Consolidated with BOND appeal (bond was set at well over a million dollars, beyond defendant’s ability to raise) case B152947. Affirmed.
Appeal re. Decision to sell guest house below market to release more funds to escrow (within the dissolution case) B159545; APPEAL B151269 [DIV. 3.] of paternity decision of Judge Gold, to pay attorney fees out of escrow; Nicolette Hannah Clark Hernandez APPEAL of Quiet Title Case B157749 in DIV. 3 (denied as to Nicolette); Nicolette’s Writ to deny Judge Reid’s findings in LASC B163150 (denied).
On June 10, 2004, my appeal re. eviction from my home was upcoming, and the theft of much of my belongings, to be presented to the 4th. and 7th Divisions. The suits had been dismissed by Judge Flynn. I have now withdrawn them, as shown in footnote 1.
For the future I am bringing complaints before the appropriate authorities regarding Judge Arnold H. Gold, and his application for a judgeship. He retired immediately after hearing my cases, and inquiries are being made as to what happened to the funds he awarded to several attorneys, one of whom, Nicolette’s attorney James Eliaser, worked with him in Judge Gold’s law firm Pachter, Gold and Schaffer (this being concealed by Judge Gold during pre-trial motions) amounting to several hundred thousand dollars as sanctions against me, to be taken out of the escrow upon sale of my debt-free home after my eviction, under the court’s signature, and with no recourse by me and supported by Family Court rules.
After Judge Gold made his rulings, he then retired from the public bench; his current wife runs a charity. The Commission on Judicial Performance tells me that it has no oversight on retired, or re-assigned retired judges. I have been informed that the District Attorney’s policy is not to get involved with domestic issues in divorces and family court, and they have shown no interest. Where does the buck stop?
“We the people” place our trust in a system which supports clean judges. We are reasonably confident they are free from corruption, as they are appointed by our governors and stay with the approval of, and under the watchful eye of, our Chief Justice, Ronald George. It’s a serious and solemn business.
A request to review Judge Gold’s application to the governor to become a judge has been refused by the authorities, deemed “confidential”. Applying my due diligence, I have learned from public records that he was awarded a judgeship by Governor Deukmejian on 9/13/88, despite the record in his own nearly 5 year long dissolution proceedings (in LASC case number D718500) where he was found by Family Court at that time to be guilty of domestic physical violence, maintaining a mistress, and mismanagement of his wife’s personal funds. He also took custody of their 3 children, and lived in the house owned by his wife, and stopped paying her support, and she just “gave up” as she is quoted, at the time of her agreeing to settle after nearly five years of litigation. He has sat on the bench for years, he has sat on the Court of Appeal, he has written arcane legal books, he is hugely respected by the legal community, and the legal community came to his farewell banquet in droves in 2002 after his “retirement”, from probate and family court.
It is my belief that he acts out his own personal feelings in his rulings towards victims from the bench. He has been deeply involved in the now celebrated case of courageous pro se litigator (“vexatious litigant” they made her) Idelle Clarke, whose daughter was removed from her custody and placed with her ex-husband whom authorities in Children’s Court had found to be sexually molesting her. She’s been fighting for ten years, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court (case no. BD108528). Denied, of course. And a similar fate happened to Janette Katz in Katz v. Katz (case no. BD231366), again Gold’s case.
Judge Gold’s background information is available at the Los Angeles Hall of Public Records, if it hasn’t been removed.
After his retirement, Chief Justice Ronald George directed him to stay in charge of my case, despite my letter to him in protest. I have the letter giving full details and the response from his office. “The appeals court will take care of it”, I was told. They sure did. The L.A. Court of Appeal Division 1 in case B151350, despite my submission from the public record, refused to take notice of Judge Gold’s past and unfitness for family court proceedings in my documents filed with them, and refused to set aside his judgments. I was, in fact, reprimanded, and reminded that Lynn had taken a restraining order against me, so I must be a bad person. The Appeals Court, where, it is said, they “shoot the wounded”. My submission for review from the California Supreme Court was then denied.
I am still working towards having the result set aside.
Judge Gold had acceded to Lynn’s demand that I be jailed for 24 hours on the day before I was to begin the trial proceedings, so at the opening of the trial, just before it began, I read a motion for “disqualification for cause”. CCP 170.3 et seq. This effectively stopped the proceedings. There was delay of several weeks while this motion was considered by Judge Horne, a supervisory judge in Orange County who was in the position of securing votes from all of his judges in order to stay in his position. I didn’t know it at the time, and he wrote that there was no breach of judicial power.
I conducted my own defense at the eventual trial before, yes, Judge Gold. I put Lynn in the witness box. It was there and then that I first heard, under my questioning, that she and persons unknown had entered my office and gone through my paperwork and computer that night, Watergate style, knowing I was in jail, despite my notice “WAR ROOM” on the door of my office to stay out. I immediately moved for a mistrial. Denied by Judge Gold.
Then in the middle of trial, which was held on dates calendared by the court at her request, she surprised me and the court. She abruptly left for England, beyond the arm of the court to recall her for my rebuttals of her lies, and so the trial became a charade. When Judge Gold made his punitive rulings against me, he then retired. He is now a “rent-a-judge”, available, as I overheard him say, for celebrities who would pay more than he was paid by the State judicial system, and advertised to consumers by the ARC (Alternative Resolution Centers, a Limited Liability Company).
My pleadings, made properly in court according to courtroom procedures and the California Code of Civil Procedure and the California Rules of Court and the Local Rules and judges’ personal rules, were many over a period of the last 6 years. A partial flavor of what I have been put through in the several and ongoing cases is listed consecutively in the following defensive pleadings. Many of these pleadings had to be prepared twice, one for each case. Here some of them are, as footnote2.
fn 2
– RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR BIFURCATION OF THE MARITAL STATUS AND JUDGMENT THEREON. REQUEST THAT THEIR MOTION BE DENIED.
– PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE/PROHIBITION FROM ORDER DENYING DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE ARNOLD GOLD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; EXHIBITS
– REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE BASED UPON PENDING DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE GOLD FOR CAUSE IN RELATED CASE NO. BD 296 320 (IN RE. MARRIAGE OF CLARK) BECAUSE OF THIS PENDING MATTER
– REQUEST OF THIS COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE UNDER EVIDENCE CODE OF LETTER SENT TO IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE ALLEGING FRAUD
– REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF DECISION ON CONTROVERTED ISSUES
– REQUEST FOR TRIAL COURT TO STAY ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PENDING RESOLUTION OF MATTERS IN CURRENT TRIAL OF RELATED CASE NUMBER BF 013 155 SO AS TO COORDINATE THE RESULTS
– RESPONDENT’S OBJECTION TO PROPER JUDGMENT IN RESPECT OF KELLYBEE ENTERPRISES, INC. WHICH WAS NOT REPRESENTED
– REQUEST FOR TRIAL COURT STAY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF JUDGMENT
– RESPONDENT’S OBJECTION TO JUDGMENT AND/OR ENTRY OF SAME
– MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE GOLD AND TO ASSIGN ACTION TO ANOTHER JUDGE (CCP SECTION 170.6)
– RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR RULING
– OBJECTIONS TO [PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF DECISION; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
– NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
– SUPPLEMENT TO NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; ADDITION OF CITATION OF RULE 14.4(F) EX PARTE COMMUNICATION (FOR ATTACHMENT)
– EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SETTING AMOUNT OF BOND ON COLINA DRIVE PROPERTY;
– DECLARATION OF JOHN CLARK IN SUPPORT THEREOF
– OBJECTION TO LISTING OF MARITAL HOME FOR SALE PENDING CURRENT SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS; DECLARATION OF JOHN CLARK
– EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 30 DAY STAY OF ORDER TO LIST AND SELL MARITAL RESIDENCE PENDING RESOLUTION OF CURRENT SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND LEGAL PROCEDURES
– SUPPLEMENTAL GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
– RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME;
– RESPONSIVE DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EVICT RESPONDENT FROM HOME; NOTICE AND APPLICATION FOR COURT TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT OFFER MADE BY PETITIONER ON JULY 5, 2001;POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
– EX PARTE APPLICATION SEEKING THIS COURT’S PERMISSION TO ALLOW RESPONDENT TO TAKE UP (cont’d) RESIDENCE AT 21122 ENTRADA ROAD, TOPANGA, PENDING POSSIBLE EVICTION FROM HIS HOME TODAY; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ORDERING 21122 ENTRADA ROAD TO BE SOLD TO SATISFY ATTORNEYS’ CLAIMS FOR APPROXIMATELY $350,000 IN FEES AND SANCTIONS WHICH WERE APPROVED AND ENTERED BY THIS COURT;
– EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR THIS COURT TO SET AMOUNT OF WASTAGE BOND IN ACCORDANCE WITH CCP 917.4 FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTIVE ORDER MADE 8/24/01 BY THIS HONORABLE COURT (IF APPROPRIATE) SO THAT RESPONDENT WILL NOT BE EVICTED PURSUANT TO MARKETING OF HOUSE
– RESPONDENT’S OBJECTION TO PETITIONER LYNN REDGRAVE’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FORCE SALE OF FAMILY HOME AT REDUCED PRICE;REQUEST FOR OSC STATUS;REQUEST FOR RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
– EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR COURT APPROVAL TO MOVE MY POSSESSIONS FROM THE MAIN HOUSE TO THE GUEST HOUSE, AND TO PURCHASE THE GUEST HOUSE
– RESPONSIVE DECLARATION TO PETITIONER’S EX PARTE FILED DECEMBER 19, 2001
– RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASES
– RESPONSIVE DECLARATION TO DECLARATIONS OF LYNN REDGRAVE AND HER ATTORNEY EMILY SHAPPELL EDELMAN
– RESPONSIVE DECLARATION TO PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR THE SALE OF RENTAL PROPERTY AT 21122 ENTRADA ROAD, TOPANGA
– RESPONSIVE DECLARATION TO PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LISTING OF JOINTLY OWNED GUEST HOUSE FOR SALE APPOINTING COLDWELL BANKER AS AGENTS
– MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
– POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF EXPENSES AS SANCTIONS
– NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF EXPENSES AS SANCTIONS; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF AND DECLARATION OF JOHN CLARK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF EXPENSES AS SANCTIONS
– DECLARATION OF JOHN CLARK IN OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OF PETITIONER
– DECLARATION OF INCOME AND EXPENSES OF RESPONDENT JOHN CLARK
– FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. CONVERSION 2. BREACH OF CONTRACT 3. NEGLIGENCE 4. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 5. ABUSE OF PROCESS 6. ASSAULT 7. BATTERY 8. ACCOUNTING
– APPELLANT’S SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; ORDER THEREON
– POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RULING FOLLOWING
– APPELLANT’S FIRST REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; MOTION TO AUGMENT RECORD; ORDER THEREON
– NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RULING RE. SALE OF COMMUNITY ASSETS AT REDUCED VALUE; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOHN CLARK
– DECLARATION OF JOHN CLARK IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON FRAUD ON THE COURT, FRAUDULENT AND INCONSISTENT ALLEGATIONS
– NOTICE OF RESPONDENT’S ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBER
– NOTICE TO COURT THAT THE MAY 24, 2002 FILING FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITS RULING MADE MAY 13, 2002 WAS NOT FILED LATE; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOHN CLARK; DECLARATION OF MIYUKI TSUNODA
– PLAINTIFF’S CORRECTION TO DECLARATION FILED APRIL 26, 2002, ONLY WITH ADDITION OF OMITTED VERIFICATION
– PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS NICOLETTE AND ERNESTO HERNANDEZ’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOHN CLARK
– APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO DECLARATION OF JAMES R. ELIASER DATED MAY 30, 2002 OBJECTING TO APPELLANT’S FIRST REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF
– NOTICE OF INCORRECT NOTICE OF THE COURT GIVEN BY DEFENDANT KATLEMAN’S ATTORNEY ABRAHAM M. RUDY
– APPELLANT’S NOTIFICATION OF NEW ADDRESS; APPELLANT’S CORRECTION: THIS IS APPELLANT’S SECOND APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION
– APPELLANT’S NOTIFICATION OF NEW ADDRESS
– ARGUMENT ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER FILED MAY 24, 2002; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOHN CLARK
– NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ALLOW TESTIMONY FROM BUILDING AND SAFETY RE. NON-PERMITTED CHANGES AT 21342 COLINA DRIVE TOPANGA; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOHN CLARK;
– COURT’S APPROVAL OF RESPONDENT’S UNDERTAKING
– EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR COURT TO INVALIDATE UNTIMELY CLOSE OF ESCROW ON RESPONDENT’S REAL PROPERTY; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOHN CLARK
– CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT (CIVIL APPEALS) COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT
– APPELLANT’S ADDENDUM OF EXHIBITS TO CLARIFY CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT FILED YESTERDAY JULY 8, 2002
– APPELLANT’S APPLICATION FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OAB
– ADDENDUM TO APPELLANT’S APPLICATION FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OAB
and LETTER DATED JULY 10, 2002, (EXHIBIT 1)
– APPELLANT’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR COURT’S INTERVENTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER CASES AND GRANT FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPELLANT’S FILING OF OAB DUE 7/15/02
– EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THIS MATTER IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE; DECLARATION OF JOHN CLARK
– RESPONDENT JOHN CLARK’S NOTIFICATION OF NEW ADDRESS
– AFFIDAVIT, PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, CCP 170.6
– RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF EXPUNGEMENT OF LIS PENDENS; DECLARATION OF JOHN CLARK
SUPPORT OF RELEASE OF FUNDS FROM SALE OF REAL PROPERTY
– APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
– NOTICE OF APPEAL
– APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
– NOTICE OF ELECTION TO PREPARE APPENDIX
– NOTICE DESIGNATING PAPERS TO BE INCLUDED IN CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT
– NOTICE OF ELECTION TO PREPARE APPENDIX
– NOTICE DESIGNATING PAPERS TO BE INCLUDED IN CLERK’S TRANSCRIPT
– EX PARTE NOTICE FOR 30 DAY CONTINUANCE
– RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
– RESPONDENT’S INCOME AND EXPENSE DECLARATION
– NOTICE TO THE COURT OF RESPONDENT’S INABILITY TO FILE BRIEFS DUE TODAY BECAUSE OF THE LOS ANGELES FIRE AND RESULTANT UNAVAILABILITY OF LEGAL AND OTHER SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF JOHN CLARK
– DEFENDANT JOHN CLARK REQUESTS PERMISSION TO FILE DOCUMENTS IN COURT TODAY
NOVEMBER 7, 2003
– SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO COMBINED IDENTICAL RESPONSE AND RESPONSIVE DECLARATION IN BOTH RELATED CASES OF DEFENDANT JOHN CLARK
[end of footnote 2]

And I’m not through yet.
The dates are not important, but they started in December of the year 2000 when, pursuing California’s proud liberal penchant for allowing sound heterosexual marriages to be broken up by a dissenting spouse without effort to repair the problems, I was fired by my wife and off-loaded with ease and approval by the courts on December 20, 2000. Public record.
All of these submissions, requests, pleadings, motions and responses are easily available to be read by anybody, especially the research facilities of the “Larry King Live” production staff, and the inquiries undoubtedly made by the Standards and Practices departments of CNN and TBS who regularly check with their legal departments.
Perhaps, given the chance, I could have persuaded them to stay away from the entire subject of our divorce, and stuck with the serious side of women’s breast cancer.
VERIFICATION
I declare under penalty of perjury according to the laws of the State of California and the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct except to those facts which I believe to be true to the best of my information and belief, and would so swear to in court.
Executed at Los Angeles, California. Dated: September 23th, 2004
______________________________________
John Clark, Plaintiff, pro se
CONCLUSION
1. Lynn Redgrave, using Defendant Larry King’s status and credibility, set out to influence the course of Public Opinion and American Justice in Hollywood’s courts at the time that the justices were making their deliberations. Larry King fell for it. CNN fell for it. TBS fell for it. They should be punished. I should be made whole.
2. I needed to get on the air with a rebuttal to the insinuations and harm done to me by Larry King and Lynn Redgrave. I am now the object of scorn in my home town. My ability to make a living seems to be nil.
3. This clearly is a case of de facto slander and libel upon my reputation, accompanied by actual slander and libel on the false information broadcast which was a lie, that should have been uncovered with minimal research which I believe the station and the broadcast facility had a duty to undertake. I believe that the Limited Liability partnership of Cable News Network and the TBS Corporation had a duty to take proper care through their Standards and Practices and legal departments.
4. I believe I am a private person, and I believe that my experiences are a matter of Public Concern, and CNN has a greater duty to report on my experiences in the Los Angeles Family Court system than to suppress the information in order to help promote Lynn Redgrave’s book and career at the expense of her ex-husband and supporter for 33 years.
5. If I am found to be a “public person” and therefore with a higher standard of proof, I believe that I can show through discovery that this invasion of my and my children’s privacy was done with actual malice, that is with knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, in order to provide entertainment and ratings to a hungry public and demanding sponsors.
6. I believe this has had a direct and adverse effect upon my ability to restart my acting, producing and directing career, as well as an adverse influence upon future trial court proceedings, and my constitutional right to due process and the pursuit of happiness in my golden years.
7. As for my glorious son Zachary John Clark – who knows – her lawyer has illegally hidden him somewhere. The broadcast tends to approve his being kept away from me.
TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED
I, John Clark, demand that this case be presented to, and decided by, a jury.
Wherefore, I, John Clark, demand:
(A) Trial by jury.
(B) That judgment be entered against defendants, Lawrence Harvey Zeiger aka Larry King, Cable News Network LP, LLLP, and Turner Broadcasting News, Inc., severally and jointly, for actual damages in an amount not less than Ten Million Dollars, with punitive damages assessed by the court.
(C) That all costs of my action be assessed against Defendants.
TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED
Dated this the 23nd day of September, 2004
______________________________
JOHN CLARK, PLAINTIFF

Radio Times now searchable

Posted in A SPACE FOR NOSTALGIA, Links to Media, Links to Showbiz sites

The BBC’s Radio Times, published from 1929 to the present, has been digitized as a database, and is now searchable up to 2009. Just remember to put titles and names in quotes, or it will come up with each word individually. You can copy-edit it, just like Wikipedia, or add information if you know it. The curators will first check out your edits before accepting them. (Genome=Genetic makeup of an organism. Thus says the BBC.)

http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/

 

Just William Society Magazine interview

Posted in A SPACE FOR NOSTALGIA, A SPACE FOR REFLECTION, ACTORS' & DIRECTORS' CORNER, Links to Media, My Family and Me

John, I see you were born in London in 1932 and attended Watford Grammar School. Given that you started working for the BBC in 1944 you must have planned to be an actor from a very early age. Was that always your ambition? Did you have early training?

Three nos. I had no plan to be an actor, no ambition, and no training. When I went to Kings Langley’s Rudolph Steiner school (locally known as the “do as you like” school), at the age of ten, I was cast in the annual school play, Puck in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, performed outdoors in the garden. But that was it, and I hated doing it, it seemed kind of gay; I was not turned on to acting, and had no thoughts along those lines. 

Your first show on BBC radio was The Will Hay Programme in 1944 where you acted as D’Arcy Minor, the swot of St. Michael’s. How did that come about? And was it fun working with Will Hay?

My family lived in Chipperfield, Herts, in those days, and I was coming home on the bus after school one day in August, when a man came up to me who I recognized, for he lived down the road. His name was Alick Hayes, and he asked me if I was a good reader. I told him yes, and he said could I come over later, meet his wife Zillah, have a cup of tea, and read him something out of the Evening Standard, so after supper I did. He tested me for fluency, to see if I could read without stumbling, and he was pleased that I could. He then explained that he was a BBC producer, and was about to start a new BBC radio comedy series, but the young actor he was going to use had just got sick, and he had an emergency, and maybe I could help out.

The show was The Will Hay Programme (The Diary of a Schoolmaster) and the part was that of a very clever young swot who said very long multi-syllabic words instead of shorter ones whenever he answered the schoolmaster’s questions. Mr Hayes wanted me to play it, just the first show, and he said it would save him from having to find another actor quickly from an acting academy. It was going out live in front of an audience from the Paris Cinema, a basement BBC studio off Piccadilly Circus, in just three days’ time.

I raced home, told my parents, said please let me do it, it sounds like fun, and it pays money. So my mother took me up to London next day, and that is where I met Will Hay and the rest of the cast – one schoolmaster and three students, so-called. Smart was the cheeky one (played by the very professional actor Charles Hawtrey), Beckett the dumb one (Billy Nicholls, on his day off from the RAF), and D’Arcy Minor, the studious swot (me). The joke was that I was the only real schoolboy (eleven years old). Will Hay was repeating the same schoolmaster act he had done in several of his films (Good Morning Boys, 1937, etc). It will be remembered that the comedy came out of the fact that he was a hopeless teacher, and the students took over.

That first day I remember well. Continue Reading

Lynn Redgrave, Jailed (not really)

Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants, Links to Media, LYNN REDGRAVE, My Family and Me

How would this headline have looked back in 1999? Because that is what I was trying to prevent and DID prevent, at great cost to me as it turned out.

 

LYNN REDGRAVE, SON, NANNY JAILED

Illegal Green Card Scam. Feds step in.

Lover Revealed.

   By ALISON BOSHOFF

   29 March, 1999

John Clark today reveals the truth about his 32 year marriage to actress and star Lynn Redgrave in this exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, now that his wife is headed for jail. He says he does this to “clear the air”, but that it gives him no pleasure whatsoever.

He says that about ten years into his marriage, Lynn revealed that she began a secret affair with actor Brandon Maggart, following in the same footsteps as her mother, actress Rachel Kempson, who maintained a secret 40 year affair with noted theatre director Glen Byam Shaw, bi-sexual husband of Upstairs Downstairs actress Angela Baddeley. She told John that Brandon wanted her for himself, that they loved each other, but that, like her mother, she would not dump John because of their small children, in much the same way that Rachel’s husband Sir Michael Redgrave wanted to keep his 50 year marriage going as a gay cover. However, she said she would continue the affair, and in fact arranged for Maggart to join her in the next dressing-room in the failed 1989 ABC-TV series Chicken Soup, where she co-starred with comedian Jackie Mason. Maggart proudly posted these pictures on his vanity website, as trophy proof which are worth a thousand words, he says. They show her at the Farmer’s Market in Santa Monica, then the two of them with Bill Clinton, and finally, in a picture take by their daughter Annabel, revealed her relationship with the Maggot (as John refers to him.)

 

This picture, taken from the website, shows John’s family, (and on the left Maggart’s son also named Brandon, who the court put in charge of the house during the term of his eviction.)

According to John, she became pregnant by him, but aborted the baby during rehearsals for Saint Joan, a Broadway play he directed for her. She told him that he would be “kept on” to continue to organize, manage, and assist in all aspects of her career, at her direction, so as to be able to dispense with agents, publicists, lawyers, money managers, and for protection from the press. And to continue to run the home, chauffeur the kids, and feed her horses. For his part, he says that since it was his only job, he told her “O.K. but all bets are off” as far as his own personal life was concerned. So he became the cuckolded husband.

He went on to present her in her first solo Broadway show Shakespeare For My Father, which he put together from her first scribblings, re-wrote parts of it, financed it alone, produced it alone, and directed it alone. That show was nominated for a Tony. He continued to stay in the background, uncredited, for that’s the way she insisted it be. He later found out that was a bad idea. She erased him from the record.

When the sister of their former English nanny Adeline came to live with them in 1990, the family dynamics changed. Nicolette Hannah was a “failed” Jehovah’s Witness who had been banished from the sect for having an affair with a married man. In her misery, and to help her carry on with her life, he suggested that a baby would be in order, and that he would arrange for its birth and send them both back to England where she could start a new life, and that he’d send her money until she found a husband.

Lynn was aware of this arrangement, and heartily condoned it. In fact, the day his son Jonathan was to be married in Dublin coincided with the day the baby was going to appear. He couldn’t be in both places at the same time and so, at Lynn’s suggestion, he attended the birth at a hospital in Santa Monica, and sent Benjy to Dublin.

His son from his first marriage, Jonathan, was a last minute baby appearing after his separation from Canadian actress Kay Hawtrey years before, in 1963. Furious because of his marriage to Lynn, she, using a Toronto family-law lawyer, denied him access to Jonathan in his growing years, ignoring court orders. John did not press for jail-time for Jonathan’s mother.

When Nicolette’s baby turned out to be a boy, he inevitably replaced the missing years of Jonathan. They named him Zachary John, and the only problem was that he was captivatingly adorable, and the family fell in love with him. Annabel got a brother, Lynn a grandson, and Zach got a father (but didn’t know it), raw irony at its fullest. Nicky, as she was always called, had named John as surviving parent in  her holographic will, in case anything happened to her. He became his guardian angel of a sort, and John says his first duty was to make sure the boy was happy and had a place to play and call his second home. John unwisely introduced Nicky to his and Lynn’s porn publisher friend Al Goldstein, whom they had helped save from prison in a midwest trial over his controversial Screw Magazine, being mailed across state lines. Nicky swooned into his ready arms, and decided she wanted to marry him, a horrifying outcome from Zach’s point of view.  He interceded successfully, and then the next danger came from an entirely unexpected source, Ernesto, his married Mexican plumber. He had hoped for a better quality husband for her, a nice rich jewish Beverly Hills corporate lawyer, perhaps. But it was not to be. (She did marry him, years later.)

While Lynn knew what was going on, they made sure that their children did not, and arranging for mother and child to stay in America meant careful planning, which turned out disastrously.

John is sorry that Lynn and Benjy and Zachary’s mother are in jail. It turned out to be unwise to meet with agents of the Justice Department using the “I am a celebrity” approach in an attempt to make sure they would not check up on Benjy’s arranged marriage, (for which he was well paid by Nicky.) They did check up. Was John involved in this attempted scam? Yes, he says, he was. And he wrote privately to tell them he was, and did not hear back. They left him out of it.

Meanwhile, the culprits have yet to appear in court to answer a few questions, for celebrities cannot be seen to get special treatment. In fact, they should be aware that celebrities are often used, depending on who they are, to set an example for the general public to know that they are not exempt from the harsh punishment of the law.

John says that Lynn was always a woman living “under the influence”. By that he meant that due to her strange upbringing, she was ill-equipped to handle life when she suddenly became a celebrity in competition with her already established and ambitious older sister Vanessa, and the intrusions of her father and his boyfriend’s planned projects into her evolving career. John says that, having lived the celebrity life before he met her, he was just the person to be her partner, and help her feel safe, secure, and well promoted upon their move to the United States where he was a citizen. And that if she were to leave him she will fall under another influence, probably through the advances of the always roaming sexual predators, and find that her days are numbered.

However, now that John sees his life with Lynn has come to an end, he breathes a sigh of relief, and wishes her and their kids well, and looks forward to getting back to his first love, which is acting and directing and film making, and to be a part of Zachary’s Topanga Canyon life as he grows up. He says he has no regrets at all, and perhaps his only failure, as a Redgrave, was not being a homosexual.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Google my name John Clark, and I just found that the Daily Mail was at it again. They’ve “updated” that article from 1999 when it was all happening and it was all about damage control caused by Nicolette’s lawyer James Eliaser, Esq., and attached it to the comments I made to a couple of reporters from the gossip agency Splash at my door on the occasion of Lynn’s death a couple of years ago. The Splash folks turned around and sold our conversation to the Daily Mail as though it was they who had interviewed me. Now, due to Google’s improved software, anyone googling my name comes up with that article, with the headline

The love child who broke Lynn Redgrave’s heart: In the week the actress died, her ex-husband tells of his shame and regret

By Alison Boshoff

UPDATED: 19:42 EST, 7 May 2010

I had already reported their dishonest tactics to the Press Commission in London (see that subject dealt with on the left).

There are two new biographies of the Redgrave family about to appear. One is the Donald Spoto biography titled The Redgraves: A Family Epic, and the other is The House of Redgrave, The Secret Lives of a Theatrical Dynasty by Tim Adler. I fully expect to be slaughtered again, with the same Daily Mail courtesy, a blood sport indeed. I shall buy them, read them, and report on them. As for me, an interview I gave to the Just William Society will be appearing shortly in their magazine, which will start me off on my book, yet to be finished.

In the meantime, in the sure knowledge that these authors will have got it wrong as far as my life with Lynn is concerned, let them read and ponder the facts, as filed under oath in my COMPLAINT against Larry King and CNN in District Court in Los Angeles on September 23, 2004. Here they will find out the whole story. That’s how I’ve been spending my time. Some retirement! But I think it is useful to educate the public on the workings and failings of our judicial system in these United States of America.

Anyway, it is for these reasons that I cannot let these false impressions of me sit there any longer, for there are still Lynn fans out there who refuse to accept me. It’s the same with professionals and the media, and it interferes with my rights, civil and professional, and my ability to make a living. I figure that after 12 years, the statute of limitations will have run its course. Both ladies hoodwinked me and hoodwinked you, with the help of a court of law, an evil judge, and evil attorneys by the name of Emily Edelman, and James Eliaser, all in it together for the money.

I think that readers can see from this that I have no “Shame and Regret” whatsoever. But please be advised that I was never interviewed by Alison Boshoff. If the Daily Mail cares to print this now, they have my permission, freely given.

To Lynn’s fans who are furious at me for bringing this up saying “let the dead R.I.P”, I have this in reply. I firmly believe in L.I.P. (Live in Peace). Anyway, how do we know that the dead are resting in peace? We don’t. I know that Lynn certainly didn’t die in peace, for she was essentially a good person (or I wouldn’t have agreed to marry her) and knew exactly what she was secretly doing to me, motivated by her lover, his 2 sons, a highly paid trickster of a lawyer, and a judge with a shady past. Her death resulted from something called Karma.

I needed to attend her funeral for many private and personal reasons. My son, feeling loyal and bound by her orders, forcibly stopped me at the church in Kent, Connecticut, and I nearly met my own death in a nearby hospital. I wish I could report that my kids are back with me now. Not so. I haven’t heard from them since. Meanwhile, the First Congregational Church and the Actors Fund adored her. In return for their adoration, she bequeathed $10,000 to each in her will. She later got a memorial fundraiser for the Fund, so good for them. They need the money.

In 1999 The Daily Telegraph wanted to pay me a million dollars, which would be split with their writer, for a joint book, and I turned them down, because Lynn’s life would have been destroyed, and I would have looked like a short term husband on the make. I am not, and have never needed to be, that kind of a person. I told them that when the time came, I would be writing my own book, alone, and I’ve kept their correspondence as proof. (n.b. It will not be called “Enter the Plumber”). And, BTW, I’ve never accepted a penny for an interview.

That time has come. Stay tuned. From now on I’m ready, maybe to self-publish if I have to. I need to be paid!

 

Don’t Divorce Me! Kids’ Rules for Parents on Divorce

Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Courts & Judges, Links to Media

This is HBO’s half-hour documentary, telling it from the kids’ point of view. It is being repeated through October, and should be watched.

Essentially, it is about hearing from the kids at home.

Continue Reading

Daily Mail at it AGAIN!

Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Media, My Daily Mail complaint

It’s been brought to my attention that the Daily Mail published a piece a few days after the death of my ex that purported to be the result of an “exclusive interview” with me.  It ran under the name of Alison Boshoff (whoever she is) on May 8th, to be accessed all over the world.  It was headlined THE LOVE CHILD WHO BROKE LYNN REDGRAVE’S HEART: In the week the actress died, her ex-husband tells of his shame and regret.  As my readers know, I brought a complaint against them to the British Press Complaints Commission. Daily Mail Complaint detail.

Continue Reading

ANN O’NEILL, LOUISE ROUG, GINA PICCALO

Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Courts & Judges, Links to Media

Wikipedia would consider the LA Times to be a “reliable source” in their category “Biographies of Living People”. After all, they were the only ones attending the trial to report on it. So let’s analyze the newspaper’s report, forensically, for the sake of the record, just to investigate whether they are reliable. This is what I wrote immediately after the news appeared:
March 13, 2001
These were the low-lifes that the Los Angeles Times was responsible for concocting this story, although only Roug covered our trial.

Continue Reading

Tweet Like Email
Comments Off on ANN O’NEILL, LOUISE ROUG, GINA PICCALO

Broadway success, but what really happened?

Posted in Links to Cases & Litigants, Links to Courts & Judges, Links to Media

It’s my birthday today, which reminds me of another birthday, spent in jail. There was some interest from the press at the time, and I consented to be interviewed.

It was with the respected Los Angeles Times. What they did to me gives the best example of why the press is not to be trusted, if they have an agenda, which they usually do.  It set the tone for me up until the present time.  With Nightingale, Lynn Redgrave seeks to continue the spin. And she doesn’t grant interviews, a normal process in the promotion of a play.  What the lawyers did, some might say was foster criminal fraud behavior, covered up by the courts and the L.A. Times.  So read this, and let’s not hear any more of the nonsense in critics’ reviews:

 

Tweet Like Email
Comments Off on Broadway success, but what really happened?

LOUISE ROUG in IRAQ?

Posted in Links to Media

I see that Louise, that Danish pastry of a journalist for the Los Angeles Times, is reporting key facts from Iraq in the trial of Saddam Hussein for war crimes.

I know her, of course, you’ve already seen how she handled my trial:

Sunday, April 4, 2001
Home Edition
Section: Southern California Living
 
Actress Lynn Redgrave was on the witness stand in Los Angeles, hating every minute of it. She was being questioned by her ex-husband in one of the nastiest Hollywood divorce trials in years. John Clark, acting as his own attorney, drew close to show her a document. Redgrave flinched. "Please, I would rather he didn’t," she implored the judge.

"I understand that sparks fly between you and Mr. Clark," Superior Court Judge Arnold Gold told her. "Just grit your teeth and answer his questions." …In court, Redgrave was demure and wore black. Clark was rumpled, often removing his jacket and complaining of the heat. . .

Today she reports from the scene in Iraq, the trial judge being Abdullah al-Amiri, a Shiite Muslim.

Well, here was a difference. At my trial, Saddam Hussein (as he came to be known around Los Angeles Family Court) sat on the bench, his other name being Arnold Gold.

That being said, she tells us that prosecuting attorney Munqith Faroon demanded on Wednesday that the judge step down after an outburst by the defendant the day before. He charged that the judge had shown bias in favor of the defendant by allowing him to use the courtroom as a bully pulpit.

Judge Amiri then made a statement that made sense, and rang loud and clear.  He said "WE ARE  ALL EQUAL IN FRONT OF THE LAW."

I wish. I wish he’d been my judge, our family court could use him.

However, at the end of the day, Louise had importantly failed.  She failed to note whether or not the defendant’s attorney removed his jacket. Was he rumpled? Did he complain of the heat? It must be very hot in Iraq, do they have air conditioning?  Did Saddam flinch when asked questions?  Did he grit his teeth? Did he wear black? Was he demure?

Perhaps Louise’s problem was that she didn’t have the Times’s supervisor of gossip Gina Piccalo, or her ghost writer Ann O’Neill or the Calendar Editor (none of whom ever talked to me), standing behind her to give her a nudge.  But I would bet that Louise’s blonde hair was impeccable.

A word in her ear from me.  DON’T lose your head and try taking any of the witnesses out for lunch to gain their confidences, and later write against them in a biased manner.  Because if you try it out there, well, they have their methods.  Hint.  They don’t go to court.

Vanessa Redgrave Replaces Lynn

Posted in Links to Media, LYNN REDGRAVE

Tucked away on page 4 of today’s L.A. Times entertainment section, Mike Boehm reports that Lynn’s sister Vanessa will be taking over in Lynn’s one woman show, “Nightingale” at the Mark Taper Forum next month.
I was hoping that Lynn’s appearance locally would mean that she would be able to appear in LA Family court, so that we could wrap up some outstanding matters in her lawsuit against me, filed in 1999. After the trial she fled California with our children and took up residence in Connecticut, where she and they have stayed hidden ever since.
Oh well, at least the audience will be treated to a fresh interpretation of the play, which deals with their maternal grandmother Beatrice. And maybe it will sell more tickets. But this news rated a mention on page 1, surely.
Sept. 9 update
Today’s L.A. Times printed a correction. It said, in full,
“”Nightingale”: An article in Tuesday’s Calendar section about an effort to entice new theatergoers with free tickets to more than 50 shows on Oct. 19 said Vanessa Redgrave was the star of “Nightingale” at the Mark Taper Forum. The play features Lynn…
So now I was really confused. To me that says not only will the play be STARRING Vanessa, but it will also be FEATURING Lynn (yeah, in the hierarchy of showbiz billing, there’s a difference…)
I called the box office, and was assured that Vanessa Redgrave will NOT be in it, so I’m passing it on.
Wonder if the LA Times has ever printed a correction of a correction.

THE END of Larry King Suit

Posted in My Larry King/CNN suit

October 15, 2012

I recently received an email from a law student in Scotland who wanted to know what happened to my appeal in the Larry King case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where I asked for a remand back to the lower court for a trial, giving grounds, or maybe, fingers crossed, they’d make a ruling for me at their level. Lol.

This case arose a few years after my divorce from Lynn was over, remember, and she’d been doing the rounds to promote her book, which she’d written with our daughter’s very graphic photographic illustrations, to show how she had overcome breast cancer. This is what happened:

The Ninth Circuit is based in San Francisco, and travels around the state. I booked a time a few weeks later when they would be in Pasadena so I could give my “oral” argument, where the real decisions are made, if they haven’t already been.

I had filed all the necessary paperwork, followed their protocol and “Court Rules” (copies, bindings, the record, etc.). But I then sent a request, in the form of a letter with duplicates, asking if I could bring a monitor and tape player to the oral and play parts of the actual Lynn Redgrave broadcast, so they could more clearly understand that the chyron scrolling in the lower third of the screen during the interview contained words which were untrue and gave intentional false meaning and innuendo on what was being discussed in the interview, which was supposed to be about how she had recovered from breast cancer. My concern was not least about the fact that the juxtaposition of the words flashing by was intended to suggest that somehow my behavior had contributed to it. And of course, the taped show had been doctored days later, before it was broadcast.

To my astonishment, I received a formal reply letter stating that my request amounted to “discovery”, and that it was untimely, and the request was denied. I felt screwed.

By now I was thoroughly disheartened, and didn’t lock up my appointment. I did nothing more. CNN’s lawyers had prepared an agreement for me to execute, saying that I apologized for challenging their right to say anything they like about public figures under 1st Amendment prerogatives, in return for which they would not ask for their legal fees and costs. I ignored it, and waited for the S.L.A.P.P. It never came, and Lynn died 6 years later. From breast cancer. I hear her book sold well.

I’ve heard nothing since.

I met Piers Morgan a few weeks ago at a charity event. I asked if he’d like to interview me, I’m available, but he didn’t look enthusiastic. (Maybe when MY book’s ready?)

I don’t really think anyone cares about the CNN case any more. Life has a way of moving on, and I’m sorting out the good things from the first 30 years of our partnership.

This site is designed to express disgust at the workings of the California version of the U.S. justice system, and tries to help others venturing into it, with or without a lawyer. That’s my revenge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL WRITTEN BRIEFS FOR LARRY KING SUIT

Posted in My Larry King/CNN suit

[FULL THREAD IS TO THE LEFT UNDER “MY LARRY KING/CNN SUIT”]
Due to the dire consequences (dismissal) if I filed a brief late without prior written permission on motion from the court, when my opponent’s answering brief came in late with no prior motion, I filed a special motion to have it disallowed for that reason, and by the way, to give me my trial in the lower court, unapposed. This was denied. Nice try, me.
So their Answering Brief was put on the record, and I’m sure if the lawyers care to print it, they will do so at their website (as my father used to say, “they can plead their own cause”).
My Reply Brief to theirs (no more Briefs, thank heaven) was filed yesterday. Their points to which I am replying should be self-evident.
Faithful readers will surely want to keep up with events, and so here it is:
********************************************************
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NO. 05-56399

JOHN CLARK, Appellant,
vs. LAWRENCE HARVEY ZEIGER aka LARRY KING; CABLE NEWS NETWORK, LP, LLLP; and TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC.; Appellees.
On Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Central District of California Honorable William Matthew Byrne, Judge Presiding District Court Case No. CV-04-03632-WMB-FMO

APPELLANT’S INFORMAL REPLY BRIEF

Appellant is referred to herein as “John”. This is John’s response to Appellees’ 37 page late-filed Brief.
John is a pro se, without funds, and without legal training. He cannot process appellants’ contentions by examining the 59 cases they cite one by one. However, his argument is simple, his points forceful, and his cited authorities are few.
REFERENCES TO APPELLEES’ BRIEF ARE TO THEIR PAGE NUMBERS
Page 3
First paragraph: The onscreen captions, or chirons, which John claims were defamatory, were added AFTER the recording of the interview, in the editing room. This fact is not disputed.
Their footnote: John alleges in his complaint that CNN acted maliciously, and deliberately disregarded the truth by not fully disclosing the facts. John believes that his contention is sufficient to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b(6).
Page 4
First paragraph: Appellees contend that John’s verified Complaint is “replete with salacious allegations about his ex-wife’s romantic involvements, his former in-law’s sexual histories, his eviction from the longtime family home, and many other subjects.”
The reason these matters had to be brought up is to demonstrate that John needed to have contact with the producers of the interview PRIOR to its broadcast, billed as “Larry King Live“, in order to make sure that any and all matters of a private “sensational” nature should not be discussed at all, and to protect himself from being held up to a false light. It was too late, the program was taped, and was about to be aired. John does not agree that these facts are “salacious”.
Second paragraph: Referring to the two on-screen chyrons at the center of this case, Appellees make the following statement as fact.
That “….plaintiff fathered [the child] by his family’s former personal assistant, [and] plaintiff acknowledges that he, in fact, fathered the child. He admits this fact yet again in his Informal Brief.”
It is for this court to decide whether that statement of the world famous spokesperson – Larry King – for “CNN – All the News You Can Trust” is an honest and straightforward depiction of the truth, or whether it is a comment designed to uphold the reputation and career, and promote a book, of the guest, Lynn Redgrave, John’s hostile ex-wife, and attract viewers to Larry King Live with a sensationalized banner graphic, which is a commercial undertaking for CNN, at the expense of John and his reputation.
The paperwork and materials included in this case and now in the hands of this court amply demonstrates a different truth.
John happily and proudly revealed (not “admitted”) that he was and is the father of the child as a result of a humanitarian arrangement with Nicolette, the ex Jehovah’s Witness, then a desperate person in need, a circumstance explained on page 2 of his Informal Opening Brief, and that she was a family friend, and not an assistant.
Appellees refer to John’s court-ordered eviction from his home by his wife, and so does John. There are graphic photographs of this chilling event on John’s website “www.johnclarkprose.com”, which is incorporated into this appeal by reference.
Page 5
Appellees claim that dismissal is proper under Rule 12(b)(6) if it “appears beyond a doubt” that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support his claims. John believes that were this case to be remanded back to the lower court for trial, he would be able to support his claims.
Furthermore, John’s arduous journey through Los Angeles’ Family and Civil Courts since 1999, (and not over yet), provides an over-abundance of material available to any reputable media outlet’s research departments seeking to avail themselves of facts, such as being imprisoned by soon to be celebrity judge for hire (retired) Judge Arnold Gold the day before representing himself pro per at his trial in Los Angeles Family Court. John believes that the public airing of CNN’s unfavorable views actually have an effect on the course of his cases in the aforesaid courts.
Page 6
Third paragraph: Appellees refer to the retraction-demand statute, California Civil Code §47a. Appellees still don’t get it. Larry King and CNN gave John no chance to set things right, and their failure was due to the fact that the program was taped. It was too late already to make the necessary adjustment, and to insist that they refrain from any disparagement of John. A risk they were obviously willing to take. It is extremely unfortunate that John’s effort to set the record straight can only have a hurtful impact upon his now estranged family. Further evidence that CNN’s actions were irresponsible.
However, if this case can be brought to trial, an amended complaint, if granted, might well address the possibility that, in a strange twist, CNN’s failure to give John a voice was an attack upon his First Amendment freedoms! It’s all very well to state that John was free to say whatever he believed to be true somewhere else, but the means of saying it were controlled by CNN and denied by CNN. Indeed, John could cry out his truths on a mountaintop or deep in the forest, and if he is not heard, he becomes like the proverbial falling tree.
Page 13
Appellees again claim that “Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim”. John again states that he did not father a child with the family’s personal assistant, and that to state so as truth was defamatory. The statement is not a “minor inaccuracy”, it is a huge, misleading, lie.
Page 14
Appellees, by way of justification, aver that, as one court explained, “a particular word or phrase ordinarily cannot be defamatory unless in a given context it reasonably can be understood as having an easily ascertainable and objectively verifiable meaning. The vaguer a term, or the more meanings it can convey, the less likely it is to be actionable.” An examination of the tape will show that, even if, which is not admitted by John, Larry King’s words were held to be “vague”, it was the context provided by the added moving banner graphics which made King’s comments no longer vague.
Page 15
The statement that the divorce was “shocking” was true only if the sealed details of the separate child custody and visitation case was revealed. Since it was not, it actually was not shocking, it was a divorce not contested by John, and the details are a matter of public record.
Last paragraph: The term “love child” is a loaded term in today’s world, and raises audience reactions that are not appropriate to the truth of what really happened. Furthermore, the matter of the child was not brought up in the divorce court at all, as the records demonstrate. The matter of the innocent child was a quite separate trial, also handled by Judge Gold, and the sealed record is not available to the public.
Page 16
Appellees refer to an interview that John voluntarily gave to the television show “Celebrity Justice”. It is ironic that Celebrity Justice is a program that John later found out was owned and controlled by Warner Brothers, a unit of Time-Life, which owns appellee Turner Broadcasting and appellee CNN. After the program was aired, John emailed to producer Omar Lugones on October 21, 2004, to complain that they had edited his appearance on the show. See footnote below for the content of the email.

[footnote: no mention of Lynn’s lovers, no mention of the circumstances which brought the baby about, no mention of the green card scam, no attempt to talk to Al Goldstein, no attempt to talk to Ernesto the plumber or Nicolette, no attempt to talk to Brandon Maggart, no use of the pictures I sent you of the lineup at my gate after my eviction, no mention of my case against Los Angeles Family Court, no mention of the corrupt judge Arnold H. Gold, and on and on and on. And the Larry King Live tape you borrowed from me to show the graphics just helped make their case against me, namely that they were merely reporting on the truth, and boy, did John Clark deserve what he got, just another screwing around husband. It’s as though my complaint and my details to my son and the letter to Immigration I suupiled [sic] you with was consigned to the dumpster! Did your owners get to you – Time Warner and their lawfirm Davis Wright Tremaine? That makes sense to me. You certainly gave them what they would have wanted to see. 15 year affair with Lynn’s assistant indeed! My Love Child indeed. I sounded like every scheming unfaithful husband around, and you did me no favors.]

Page 17
First paragraph: Again, Appellees state that John “admitted” fathering a child with the person who was “shortly thereafter his and Miss Redgrave’s assistant. Then finished the paragraph with the bald statement that “Thus, this statement is also true.” Thus, in their misleading statement, Appellees continue to demonstrate that their entire enterprise, including their legal department, would appear to be ethically challenged.
Final paragraph: “Her husband’s other woman later wed and divorced their son.” That statement without the accompanying fact that this wedding took place to ensure a green card for the “other woman” as they put it, is truly shocking, as they intended it to be for their audience. This kind of pandering for ratings points is at the heart of what CNN should be held accountable for, and is another reason that this trial should go forward, as a public service. They need to be asked what exactly are the standards practiced at their so called Department of Standards and Practices that deserve their sobriquet “All the News You Can Trust”.
Page 18
Last paragraph: Larry King asserts to his audience that Lynn Redgrave will “open up about everything. She’s been through it all. A no-holds-barred hour with Lynn Redgrave. Exclusive”. (Exclusive – to all the news you can trust – emphasis added).
This statement is deliberately misleading. It says that there is nothing more to tell, which is far from the truth.
Page 20
First paragraph: Appellees state that the United States Supreme Court has mandated that a court must examine for itself “the statements in issue [in a defamation case] and the circumstances under which they were made to see … whether they are of a character which the principles of the First Amendment … protect.” (Emphasis added).
If this standard controls this case, it is clear that CNN provided the circumstances that should not allow them to claim First Amendment privileges.
Page 24
First paragraph: Appellees claim that telling a “half-truth” is OK, it is merely a “version” of events, and a broadcaster is not required to present every possible version of events.
To which John responds, try telling that to the West Virginia coal miners’ families, who were told on January 3, 2006, as truth by CNN that the trapped miners were all alive.
Try telling that to our State Department, who were told that CNN was disseminating as fact that the Iranians were claiming the right to manufacture nuclear weapons. In a speech by Iranian President Ahmadinejad on January 14 of this year, he claimed that “Iran has the right to nuclear energy“, not too interesting. CNN’s version was that he said “The use of nuclear weapons is Iran’s right”, much more attention getting. They were forced to issue a retraction and correction later.
Page 26
First paragraph: Oddly, Appellees bring in the case of Hustler Magazine and the Reverend Jerry Fallwell, and state that a “satirical portrait of the Plaintiff” is somehow connected with this case. John’s mind is boggled at the thought, and wonders if they are including a satire defense.
Page 33
John acknowledges that he was once a child star, albeit 60 years ago. He also acknowledges that he appeared in the movie Jagged Edge in 1985, his last appearance as an actor, and actually his last work outside of representing Lynn Redgrave for the thirty-three years of their marriage. He has been unable to find work since that time. And therein lies the damage.
Whether a person, once deemed to be a public figure, can reclaim rights of privacy is not known to John. Judge Byrne held that he was a public figure. Judge Byrne is no longer with us, and if the case were to be held before a different judge, the result might be different.

284 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2002), Buskirk v. Cable News Network

This case was ruled upon by this court partly in Plaintiff’s favor, and is on point in John’s case. Buskirk brought a case for defamation against CNN and Time Warner, based upon a series of television and magazine reports stemming from Operation Tailwind, a 1970 United States military operation conducted in Laos. The district court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Appeals Court AFFIRMED the district court in part and REVERSED and REMANDED in part on a Rule 12(b)(6) determination by the lower court.
It is noteworthy that Buskirk’s case rested upon more than one interview he gave to CNN, and the facts that CNN retracted and attempted to correct itself in 2 subsequent broadcasts. In John’s case, he has had no interaction with Appellees whatsoever, no interviews, no retractions.
With reference to Buskirk’s case, the justices remarked as follows:

“Statements, although perhaps ‘true’ when viewed in isolation, may create an overall false impression when considered in context. See Renwick, 304 S.E.2d at 600; Tyson, 351 S.E.2d at 842. See also Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc., 38 S.W.2d 103, 115 (Tex. 2000) (applying Texas law) (“[A] plaintiff can bring a claim for defamation when discrete facts, literally or substantially true, are published in such a way that they create a substantially false and defamatory impression by omitting material facts or juxtaposing facts in a misleading way.”); Dixson v. Newsweek, Inc., 562 F.2d 626, 631 (10th Cir. 1977).”

“A publisher may not escape liability for defamation when it takes words out of context and uses them to convey a false representation.”
CONCLUSION
1. John Clark, Plaintiff and Appellant, respectfully asks this court to grant him a remand to the District Court for further action, at which time he would get himself a lawyer.
2. If this court cannot do so, then Appellant asks for a ruling that this has not been a frivolous claim and is not subject to the California Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, which would enable Appellees to charge John with their fees and costs. It is unclear whether Judge Byrne in the lower court gave them that choice.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of March, 2006.
By:________________________________
John Clark, Appellant Pro Se

Tweet Like Email
Comments Off on FINAL WRITTEN BRIEFS FOR LARRY KING SUIT

Hila Keren, LEGAL SCHOLAR?

Posted in My Larry King/CNN suit

Thank you Google!!
This “scholar” from the legal community, has written a piece, hugely damaging to me, which would appear to have a Hollywood movie script in mind rather than any form of enlightenment for its narrow audience made up of law students, lawyers and judges (the “legal fraternity”). It suggests that the truth virus that infected James Frey’s brain in the writing of his memoir “A Million Little Pieces” may have been a mutation from embedded origins in U.S. law schools, where the art of withholding rather than changing truth in order to tell stories that win cases, is endemic.
It comes from one Hila Keren, a self-described visiting lecturer from the Faculty of Law, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Center for the Study of Law and Society, and is pedantically entitled: “Textual Harassment: A New Historicist, Reappraisal of the Parol Evidence Rule, with Gender in Mind”.
In it, she uses me to illustrate her thesis that there is a connection between the case of the contemporary “Hollywood Scandal” (stemming from Nicolette Hannah vs. me and Lynn Redgrave vs. me in Judge Gold’s Family Court), and pairs it with a four hundred year old British scandal involving Isabel, the Countess of Rutland.
Her article concludes that the flaws and biases underlying the Parol Evidence Rule remain acute and calls for a serious reconsideration of its justification. “In this way, this article offers an original, and hopefully useful argument against excessive formalist textualism in present-day contract law.”
Yes, Contract Law. The serious law student should read it in its entirety.
Textual Harassment
The contents of her thoughts expressed in the article betray her loyalty to the rule of law, and suggests that her true loyalty was to one Bettye Goldstein (sorry, Betty Friedan) who just died. She even admits to “a feminist chip on my shoulder” on page six.
Now, why do I care?
I care because I have a case on appeal in the Ninth Circuit against Lawrence Harvey Zeiger (sorry, Larry King), CNN and other celebrity pandering parties, which goes to the heart of what I consider to be a Civil Rights case, given that I am now shut out of the field of working entertainment professionals due to circulated nonsense such as this, deeply effecting certain of my constitutional rights.
Will anybody read this article? Only, she hopes, the most important people in the field of judicially run U.S. law.
The article was presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association in Chicago (2004) and at the Center for the Study of Law and Society in Berkeley and, according to Keren’s own words, “Has benefited from the participants’ insightful remarks. For thoughtful comments and helpful suggestions along the evolvement of this project, I would like to deeply thank Kathryn Abrams, Ayelet BenYishai, Anthony Cox, Filippa Corneliussen, Danny Evron, Gerald Frug, Rosann Greenspan, Ron Harris, Tami Kricheli-Katz, Kurt Keren, David Lieberman, Mike Macnair, Charles McClain, Annette Nierobisz, Michelle Oberman, Gabriela Shalev, Derek Walker, Dvora Yanow and Eyal Zamir. Special thanks also go to Stephanie Blazewicz and Justin Brown of the American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law who were so helpful in editing the article. I am also grateful to the Center for the Study of Law and Society in Berkeley for a unique interdisciplinary and international research environment and to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for generous financial support.”
Not a one of whom read the complete court record, which remains unsealed to this day.
If she or any members of her research/support group had read the record, they would have found that Nicolette’s attorney, James Eliaser, was upset that he had been ruled against, and made a motion for a new trial based on the parol evidence rule.
I filed a Motion to deny his request. The law is clear, and my objection included, inter alia, the following Points and Authorities:

“Where the validity of the agreement is the fact in dispute, this section does not exclude evidence relevant to that issue. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1856(f). This section does not exclude other evidence of the circumstances under which the agreement was made or to which it relates, as defined in Section 1860, or to explain an extrinsic ambiguity or otherwise interpret the terms of the agreement, or to establish illegality or fraud. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1856(f).”

If anybody had read the testimony of the plumber, Ernesto Hernandez, now, sadly, the child’s pretend father, they would find that he lied under oath about his involvement prior to the formation of the grant deed, revealed in the discovery of his concealed phone records. Due diligence would also expose the connection between Nicolette and pornographer Al Goldstein (why does the name-word “Gold” keep appearing in my life?). And the fact that I put a real estate lawyer on the stand who gave sworn testimony that he was halfway through putting the little house into a trust deed for the benefit of Zachary on instruction by me, when I ordered him to stop because I had just been attacked by Eliaser filing a lawsuit on behalf of Nicolette.
Decent and wholesome people might conclude that maybe, just maybe, I cared about the child’s welfare, and cared not about screwing the child’s mother. We were both long gone from that scenario. It had served its purpose.
I just sent the following e-mail to Keren at her published address which is kerenhi@mscc.huji.ac.il:
“I hope this will reach you.
I just came across your astonishing piece on me and Lynn Redgrave and Nicolette Hannah, and I must say I am more than shocked at your readiness to assume the worst about me, in order to write an eye-catching piece of ersatz melodrama.
Please tune in to my web page:
www.johnclarkprose.com
It will clarify for you the dilemma that confronted me back in 1998, and the reasons for my seemingly strange behavior as reported in the gutter press at that time. It is unfortunate for everyone concerned, especially young Zachary, that the truth is now out. I’ve held nothing back. It contains facts which would render your analysis devoid of credibility.
I do not take lightly that you wrote your piece without contacting me first. The ease with which you “filled in” the bits you did not know about, in order to write a simplistic and feministic diatribe against me, are certainly your first amendment privilege, but are more worthy of a National Enquirer journalist than a legal commentator, law student lecturer, and legal scholar.
The judge, John H. Reid, in Santa Monica Civil court, looked beyond the four corners of the grant deed towards fraud, as a result of the plumber being put on the stand and examined. Only the transcript, which I have, reveals what was really going on at that time.
Perhaps her attorney, James Eliaser, is a friend of yours, as he was the friend and ex-employee of Judge Arnold Gold’s lawfirm [Pachter, Gold & Schaffer, 1970-88, a concealed fact]. Judge Gold ordered me to pay Eliaser almost $200,000, and kicked me out of my home to get his hands on the escrow for his old chum. Gold is now a “judge for hire”, beyond the powers that keep such people in check.
Perhaps I should exercise my first amendment privilege and make an entry about you in my website, to warn law students away from your research methods, and biased analysis. And you actually lecture law students? Tell them how to bring malicious lawsuits and make money? No wonder our system of justice is so perverted.
Perhaps you should be involved in my current case against CNN and Larry King, in my appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Defendants may say they relied on the details of your “scholarship”, and it’s all your fault.
But mostly, you missed a far more interesting story, perhaps a bit too complicated for you to come to grips with, requiring some investigative work, and more than the protestations of your loser friend.
Regardless, I think you owe me at least an apology, and a nod to Eliaser, for his uncredited input.
John Clark”

Opening Brief in my Larry King Suit

Posted in My Larry King/CNN suit

I filed this, at the last allowable minute, on January 10, 2006.
I received a call from a publication asking for comment – I said the document speaks for itself. I’m told the document is viewable at the Ninth Circuit filing office in San Francisco, and is a public document.
So I’ve decided to publish it here, for the interest of self-represented parties, and to satisfy the simply curious. It joins other documents filed by me under the sidebar “My Larry King/CNN suit”.
Appeal Case Number 05-56399 (Ninth Circuit)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Appellant John Clark (hereinafter “John”) now a senior 73 years of age, brought suit against Larry King, CNN, and Turner Broadcasting (hereinafter “Defendants”) for their actions taken during a broadcast of a pre-taped interview with John’s ex-wife, actress Lynn Redgrave, on the program “Larry King Live” on May 22, 2003. The suit was filed and accepted 10/08/2004 as a Second Amended Complaint. The complaint demanded a jury trial for good reason.
Defendants sought to have the case dismissed immediately by Motion, under California’s SLAPP rules. Judge William Matthew Byrne held a hearing with the parties in open court on 12/28/2004 to consider their motion. He heard orally from both sides, and after a lengthy hearing stated that he would take it under submission and issue an order early in the New Year.
The court waited seven months until 08/05/2005 to issue its order of dismissal, with prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
For this court to properly understand the context of the dispute, the facts as they were submitted to the court by written submission on the record are that John fathered a child in a private arrangement with a friend of the family, a visitor from England, on a tourist visa. The woman was in distress, was shunned by her Jehovah’s Witness family and friends (disfellowshipped, they call it) because she was a “sinner” who had transgressed their strict rules. To worsen her mental state, she had a few days before lost her mother, who had died in the street of a brain haemorrhage. Her mother was her only friend, apparently. John and his family invited her to stay a few weeks at their home in Topanga to get away for a while. Lynn Redgrave was out of town working and John got to talk with her a great deal, and rightly or wrongly, he suggested to her that a new life would be the best solution and give her something to live for. So she became pregnant by mutual arrangement, and the idea was that she would return home at the expiration of her visa, and the baby would be born back in England, and that would be the end of it as far as John was concerned. Things went terribly wrong when she refused to leave, overstayed her visa, and became an illegal. John’s wife and son went down to US Immigration to help gain her a green card, his son married her to expedite the process, getting paid by her to do it, and so it was that the little boy became an American citizen. But everybody broke the law. The woman then stayed on as the family helper, for John’s own daughter was herself still a small child. And there everything would have been fine, except that this woman secretly submitted to the advances of John’s plumber, and they together found a lawyer willing to stage a malicious prosecution for a piece of Redgrave’s earnings, and the house she was living in. The National Enquirer intercepted the summons at the courthouse, causing John’s wife to be concerned about what this would do to her career. John consented to agree to an uncontested divorce.
Another fact submitted to the court at the hearing was that John, in an effort to tell his side of the story since no media was talking to him, created a blog-site on the internet where he could let the entire truth be known. The site is at www.johnclarkprose.com. The record shows that the judge did not know what a blog was.
John’s site reaches a few thousand people around the world with his truth. CNN reaches several hundred million around the world with their half truth version.
ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL
This appeal is focused upon one and only one issue, which is whether or not John should get his trial before a jury.
John’s issue is that Judge Byrne took it upon himself to act as not only the judge but also as the jury. He wrote in his decision of dismissal 10 pages of his reasons why the case should be dismissed and not go to trial, and that John had no probability of success.
John believes that the court’s opinion was entirely the subjective opinion of the judge, and that if a trial were to be held before a jury, the subjective opinion of his peers would have been entirely different.
At the (only) hearing on 12/28/2004, the question came up that Defendants were 1. Exercising their First Amendment rights of free speech, and 2. were telling the truth, anyway.
John has made it clear in his documents filed with the court that he had no problem with the interview itself, which dealt with his ex-wife’s career and her unfortunate breast cancer.
His problem was with the graphics which defendants wrapped around the screen, the content of which are revealed in the written submissions, and can be seen on the video-tapes. The description of the texts appear in the judgment at page 4, line 18, with the court’s comments.
The court’s subjective evaluation can be demonstrated at the paragraph starting at p. 4, line 23, where the judge holds that John is objecting to “trivial” mis-statements of fact.
As a television professional himself, John knows that these graphics were not present during the interview, but had to be edited in later. There was a period of several weeks between the interview and the delayed air-date.
Only at trial would John have the chance, through the legal processes of Discovery and Deposition, to learn how it came about that the interview was not allowed to stand on its own merits, and how and when it was that the text was pasted on later, which provided a completely different context to the interview, and which John claims has harmed him greatly.
The court further demonstrates its lack of understanding at p. 5, line 13, where it states that “No reasonable person who watched this interview would conclude that either King or Redgrave implied that the divorce caused or exacerbated her breast cancer. {Emphasis added].
John believes that a jury is the proper place to look for what is “reasonable”, and not a sophisticated judge.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
At the oral hearing on 12/28/2004, the defendants claimed they were 1. exercising their First Amendment rights of free speech, and 2. were telling the truth, anyway.
John’s response was that there are limits to free speech, there’s no carte blanche, one well-known example being that one cannot run through a theater yelling “fire, fire”.
The defense also takes the position that the program was telling the truth.
John takes the position, and indeed it is the central proposition of his case, that what CNN did was tell a half-truth, and that a half-truth can be, in fact, a lie.
At the oral hearing, he gave as an example that if a soldier’s image and name were shown on television, and he was described as a murderer and a killer, withholding the fact that he was a soldier, that description would be the truth but not the whole truth, and would be severely damaging to the reputation of that individual, and not the truth.
The key issue here is whether the withholding of key facts renders the truth to be a kind of fraud and lie, and it falls to a jury of ordinary people to decide where the division lies between a harmless “stretching of the truth” and a shocking descent into the abyss of falsehood.
What is the meaning of legal truth? The ‘Lectric Law Library’s Lexicon On “Truth” says the following:
“TRUTH – The actual state of things. In contracts, the parties are bound to tell the truth in their dealings, and a deviation from it will generally avoid the contract and even concealment, or suppressio veri, will be considered fraudulent in the contract of insurance.” And further on, “The Constitution of New York declares, that in all prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous, is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted.” (Emphasis added). [http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t111.htm}
In the case at bar, John believes he can show at trial that the motives of CNN and Larry King were in fact for the purpose of gaining ratings points at the expense of John’s reputation, which is a commercial purpose. Their description of the relationship between his son and John’s alleged mistress, and the innocent child whose image was shown in these graphics, were half-truths, made for the purpose of generating lurid and sensational interest from the viewer, and actually destroying what was originally intended to be an honorable act.
Here is what Merriam Webster has to say about half-truths:
Merriam Webster defines a half-truth as a partially true or partially fabricated statement made to deceive or to escape censure “a public led astray by the half-truths of a dictator” [Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (9 Jan. 2006)].
At page 5, line 22 the court examines the question of whether defendants made their constructs with “actual malice”, that is “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” [New York Times Co. V. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964)].
John believes that he could convince a jury that defendants did in fact “act with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”. (See footnote)
John went down to the TV station early on the day of the broadcast demanding that he be a part of the broadcast, so as to ensure that he would not be defamed by his wife, in particular. He was informed that the interview had been pre-taped. The court found that John did not make the necessary Cal. Civ. Code § 48a request for equal time, and therefore CNN had no obligation to set the record straight.
John believed that, as a non-lawyer, he had demonstrated the meaning of what he wanted to do, and the court wrongly decided that he should be held to a legally professional “by the book” standard, and that his informal request should not stand. John believes that this is further proof that the court was making decisions unfavorable to him and was interested in keeping him away from a jury.
At p. 8, line 16, the court states that Plaintiff does not show a “reasonable probability” that he will prevail on the defamation claim. John comments that this is the judge’s opinion, that in front of a judge he might not, but before a jury, that is another matter which the court does not want to give him the opportunity to find out.
So, not only did John not get a jury trial, he did not get a trial at all. Except that the proceedings which brought forth the ruling from the district court have all of the earmarks of a trial, without, however, the rules and procedures of a trial, which John feels is an abuse of the court’s discretion and a denial of due process.
John believes that this incident had and still has a direct bearing on the outcome of his legal problems in family court, which are not over. The financial situation between his ex-wife and John is still an open one, and there will be further court appearances. And also, court appearances in the matter of his son Zachary, who is currently being hidden by his mother with the aid of her attorney.
John notes that the court “could” strike the complaint under the California rules, but does not, only under the Federal rules.
RELIEF SOUGHT FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL
Appellant John Clark respectfully asks this court to remand this case back to the district court for a trial before a jury.
footnote
Although this is outside the record, it is worth noting here that the television media fiasco in its reporting of the miners trapped down the mine at West Virginia just after Christmas 2005, and their reporting that they were factually all alive, instead of reporting that there was a rumor that they were all alive, will haunt them for many years to come, and goes to the heart of what drives CNN and its ilk, in their unending quest for viewers, ratings, and profits. John watched the unfolding of this travesty on CNN.

Tweet Like Email
Comments Off on Opening Brief in my Larry King Suit

APPEAL PROCEDURES IN FED COURT’S 9th CIRCUIT

Posted in My Larry King/CNN suit

The judge turned me down in Federal District Court here in Los Angeles, and I have decided to follow up with an appeal.
I feel I owe it to my readers in keeping with my mission, which is to provide some kind of map based upon personal empirical experience traversing America’s legal system.
I also think I have a chance of getting my case before a jury, which is where it belonged in the first place, before the judge sided with Larry King’s attorneys and struck my case after waiting a good seven months after his promised quick ruling last year.
Already, I am impressed with the Ninth Circuit’s attention paid to Pro Pers (or Pro Ses), those of us who dispense with an attorney for whatever reason, and approach the justice system “in one’s own person.”
There are clearly stated rules to follow, and they even provide a 25 minute video detailing clear instructions. Cost $15. Sure beats California’s State system.
So follow on, for more legal enlightenment.
And it’s back to basics once again for me.

Tweet Like Email
Comments Off on APPEAL PROCEDURES IN FED COURT’S 9th CIRCUIT

L.A. TIMES LOSES CIRCULATION

Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Media

Our local majestic L.A. Times informs us that they are losing circulation. They must be hurting real bad, with a 6.5% fall in Monday through Saturday circulation and 7.9% for Sundays.
Executive Vice President Jeff Johnson, who will become publisher of the paper next month, tells us that to help close that gap, the paper will spend $10 million on advertising this year, including direct mail, television and radio campaigns.
Somebody needs to tell them “up there” that the money would be better spent to help create another newspaper.
Los Angeles, the second largest city in the country, has a population of 16 million, and can boast of only one newspaper. Voice-wise this is a one horse town, and that is a shameful, shocking, fact.
San Francisco comes up with the Examiner and the Chronicle (population 7 million).
Seattle has its Post-Intelligencer and Times (3.5 million).
San Diego has The Globe and the Union Tribune (1.24 million).
The Times’ stagnating and boring methods have brought it to the point where it doesn’t just print the news, it “proclaims” the news. After all, why otherwise, since there is no one around to challenge the system.
One cannot help but notice that their news is spread by a myriad of editorializing reporters and journalists, under their own names. If you want to get their ear, well, you probably can. What they practice is a form of wanking.
And for the more readable and arresting voices of dissenters, arguers and debaters, we have to look elsewhere.
The voices that truly challenge the status quo of local government and law enforcers and the courts (and the Los Angeles Times) are to be found in small local publications, such as the Los Angeles Daily News, which covers the Valley.
And to prove my point, their circulation rose slightly, 0.1% for Mondays through Fridays and a small drop of 0.5% on Sundays.
It wasn’t always this way. The old Evening Herald and Express merged with the Los Angeles Examiner back in 1961, and became the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, and this Hearst flagship disappeared in 1989, and one wonders why. It should be reborn or reinvented.
One thinks of a lone lawyer, trying to invigorate a community, and not succeeding. Bring in another lawyer in opposition, and sparks can fly.
If the Los Angeles Times is smart and cares about its own health and the health of this city, it will donate the earmarked $10 million to help find a building and fund another newspaper. No, not as an act of pure altruism, but in its own self interest. And they should not retain any ownership whatsoever, just the opposite. They should either GIVE or LOAN the money, and attract independent investors.
The interest of potential readers should not be underestimated, and I have a hunch that Los Angeles citizens will respond with enthusiasm.

LA TIMES LEAD EDITORIAL DEFINITION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PRESS

Posted in My Larry King/CNN suit

Today, the L.A. Times laid out my case for me, John Clark vs. Larry King, CNN, TBS, and maybe Time Warner. I bet Larry and CNN’s lawyers aren’t pleased, especially as they also represent the LA Times!
LATimes 1st amend ed.jpg
If you want to read it clearly, click here:
View image
It has to do with the press publishing news in reliance upon the source of the news being accurate. And if it isn’t, whether they should be held liable.
The case began where a small newspaper in Pennsylvania relied upon the truth of whether a certain councilman’s accusations that the mayor and another city councilman were in fact “liars”, “queers” and “child molesters”, yelled out at a stormy meeting outside council chambers.
They sued the media for damages based upon the fact that the charges weren’t true, and the newspaper’s story repeating them constituted defamation.
The Pennylvania Supreme Court reinstated the libel lawsuit against the reporter, the editor, and the publishing company. The justices cited the famous 1964 landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, New York Times vs. Sullivan (see my links to cases at the left).
That case requires plaintiffs to prove “by clear and convincing evidence that a newspaper knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth published a falsehood.”
The case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they were content that the case did not need to be interfered with, and denied review.
The L.A. Times claims that the media exercises the doctrine of “neutral reportage” when it comes to public and prominent figures, and even when reported charges are proved false (i.e. The Reverend Jerry Falwell’s accusation that Clinton was addicted to cocaine), the media has a right to report it anyway, on the basis that citizens are able to sort truth from tale.
Neutral Reportage, as the courts have called it, surely means what it says. And there’s little neutrality in the media these days. They all seem to exercise their editorial POV, to the detriment of one side or the other, depending upon who they favor, and the L.A. Times is probably one of the worst offenders, in my opinion, despite their Pulitzers (or perhaps because of them).
Here in Hollywood, many people will be following the case, as I certainly will be, and as also the media will be around our country (but not the Daily Mail and Evening Standard in England and their agents in the U.S., I’m sure they could care less.)
The case is Troy Publishing Co. v. Norton and Wolfe, 04-979.

Tweet Like Email
Comments Off on LA TIMES LEAD EDITORIAL DEFINITION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PRESS

MEDIA “POLLS” TO INFLUENCE VATICAN VOTING?

Posted in My Larry King/CNN suit

Reported by CNN, globally.
WATCH it in action, see how the media begins to manipulate public opinion. This is the seed. It will grow quickly. It’s terrifying.
[My emphasis is added]
“(CNN)
Sunday, April 3, 2005 Posted: 6:14 PM EDT (2214 GMT)
A majority of U.S. Catholics surveyed want the next pope to have a theological outlook similar to that of Pope John Paul II, but they would also like to see changes on issues such as birth control, stem cell research and allowing priests to marry, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Sunday.
Large majorities of Catholics and non-Catholics polled said they believe the next choice of pope matters to the world, the survey also found.”

[Then it goes on to say – if you get that far]
“In telephone interviews mostly conducted before his death, two-thirds of the 254 Catholics polled said . . . . “
WHO GIVES A DAMN WHAT 254 PEOPLE SAY!
THERE ARE WELL OVER ONE QUARTER OF A BILLION PEOPLE LIVING IN THESE UNITED STATES.
HOW CAN CNN AND USA TODAY AND GALLUP EVEN DARE TO SUGGEST THAT THEIR POLL HAS ANY SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER. THIS “POLL” SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A REFERENCE. THIS EFFORT TO INFLUENCE VOTING IS A MISREPRESENTATION OF AMERICA TO THE WORLD, AN ABUSE OF THE AIRWAVES AND A SCANDAL, AND THEY SHOULD BE STOPPED BY LAW AND THEIR METHODS INVESTIGATED BY THE FCC
I worked for the British Broadcasting Corporation for a period of six years in England. I worked for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a period of six years in Canada. They are quasi governmental organizations, and yes, their pay is lousy, but they are recognized all over the world, and are known globally to be indeed “The Most Trusted Names in News”.
But who is CNN? Why do they find it necessary to be an “LP, LLLP”? [Limited partners, Limited Liability Limited Partners]. That, for those who don’t know, is a double layer of concealment of the identity of the partners for their protection.
Protection from what? Personal protection from people like me?
Who are they? Are they American citizens, all of them? And why should we care?
The importance to get answers to these questions is self-evident, and they probably think they are protected by some Constitutional right to privacy. Well, here’s why.
CNN is the closest we get in this country to an international broadcast organization, sending the face of America to the rest of the world.
They have the ability to manipulate the news, as we see by the above “poll”, by a sampling of just 254 people. It is my belief that the Gallup and USA Today names are thrown in as a diversionary tactic to gain credibility. 254 is about .00009% of the population, based on 300,000,000 people, all of whom are “Catholics and non-Catholics”. Already, I have heard the information repeated on talk radio with the sampling figure left out.
It was the famous British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli who coined the phrase “Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics” a century and a half ago. Here, this “statistic” is not even worthy of the name.
In my humble opinion, and this is only one person’s humble opinion, this is a wake-up call to our government and our State Department.
A Congressional Committee should be formed to investigate just what are the identities of hidden people behind all news organizations for public scrutiny.
An investigation could reveal editorial agendas having little to do with facts.
And acceptable rules of the science of statistical analysis should be set for the running of “polls” such as this. Right now, they appear to be run for the influencing purpose of a. creating public opinion, b. creating government policy, and c. using their broadcast privilege to present our face before the world.
We’ve experienced the fiasco of CBS and Dan Rather (what happened to the producers, have they resigned?). The Voice of America no longer exists as we knew it (see VoiceAmerica.com), and CNN may have taken over the role. The United States of America, our government, our democracy as practiced over here, is on the line.
And not least, it also has to do with Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, and we have a right to some answers! Too much is at stake these days.

Tweet Like Email
Comments Off on MEDIA “POLLS” TO INFLUENCE VATICAN VOTING?

THEY’RE STILL AT IT!

Posted in My Daily Mail complaint

Thank God for blogs, for story straightening in today’s world. The media is used to having the last word, but now things are changed. We bloggers are the new court of last resort providing the new last word, with results that CBS found out to their cost over the Dan Rather thing. As usual, the devil can be found in the details so often suppressed in media reports, depending on their bias. Enter, the Blogger!
Below is an extract from London’s Evening Standard, a tabloid module that fits into the Daily Mail’s sprawling empire, on the occasion of Lynn Redgrave’s (my ex’s) 62nd birthday on March 8th. Seems that my complaint to the UK Press Commission complaining of the Mail’s policy towards me, detailed elsewhere on the left, was dealt with simply enough – they rejected it, with the result you see here.
The writer of this piece of bullshit from Lynn with the approval of The Evening Standard editors, was Mr. (or is it Ms.?) Emine Saner:
“Redgrave’s very public divorce from John Clark, in 2000, shattered her. Clark had had an affair with the couple’s PA, Nicolette, and secretly fathered a son, Zachary, with her. Nicolette, still refusing to divulge the identity of her child’s father, then went on to marry Redgrave’s son, Ben, and Lynn treated Zachary as her grandchild. When Nicolette and Ben broke up two years later, Clark began pursuing her once more. She took out a restraining order on him – at which point the whole mess came out into the open, leaving Lynn Redgrave devastated. To call the divorce acrimonious is something of an understatement. She never speaks to her ex-husband now, and neither do her children. “I tried to but it didn’t work out,” says Annabel. “He’s missed out on this whole chapter.” The Redgraves also have no contact with Zachary, though not through choice. “I wish we could see him,” says Redgrave sadly. “We would love to see Zachary.” Redgrave started to go to church regularly during her treatment, something she hadn’t done since she was a child. “I knew there was a woman minister at the church near where I live and that’s where I go now. I’ve found it fantastically helpful and I think the forgiveness aspect is one of the most helpful things, it includes the times you need to forgive yourself.” And the times you need to forgive others? Her ex-husband? “I have begun to include him in my prayers,” she says. “That took a big step but one day I was able to, so that was good. Anger goes away, that’s always a good thing. The divorce was so long ago, I’ve almost forgotten it.” She flashes a smile at daughter. “Good thing I’m a good liar, isn’t it? I realised I wasn’t getting away with that one…………..”
Indeed.
While I am glad that Lynn has recovered from her cancer, I am not glad that my daughter states that I “missed a whole chapter”, and joins with her siblings in their collective rejection of me.
For the record, I don’t wish to have my name even mentioned in her interviews connected with her book promotion, because of the inferences allowed to hover over my involvement with our past marriage, which is now over, and because I am remarried, and looking for work. But, if she insists on it, then I hope she and my daughter will have the honesty, and integrity, to refresh their memories by re-reading “My letter to the INS-The scam” [left pane] and to provide answers to the following questions which are based on the true facts, which an inquiring press should want to be asking:
– Isn’t it true that you attended the sham wedding of your son with Nicolette and the rest of your family in Las Vegas on July 13, 1994, which was videotaped, and you knew that your son was paid $8,000 to marry her, and that this was not a real marriage?
– Isn’t it true that on June 6, 1995, you and your son Ben and Nicolette Hannah, together went to U.S. Immigration in Los Angeles to be interviewed by government officials for the stated purpose of obtaining a green card for her, and that you knew you were breaking the law?
– Isn’t it true that you have always known that your husband fathered Zachary with your friend Nicolette (who was not your PA then) as a favor to her?
– Isn’t it true that you have always known that Nicolette had boyfriends, such as your friend Al Goldstein, publisher of the porno “Screw Magazine”, who she wanted to marry, and that this figured in your decision about how to handle the green card application through your son?
– Isn’t it true that if your husband had not kept these secrets, you might well have wound up in prison, along with your son, for defrauding the United States Government at a time when Green Card fraud was a public issue?
– Isn’t it true that it was you and Nicolette who later filed lawsuits against your husband, and he had to try and defend himself in court without a lawyer, because you wouldn’t release funds?
– Isn’t it true that it was revealed in court that Nicolette and her plumber boyfriend unsuccessfully sued through their attorney James Eliaser to obtain ownership of that little cottage you owned, where they made their home?
– Isn’t it true that they failed, because the case was heard before a different judge who did not work with Eliaser in the same lawfirm, as did Judge Arnold Gold who employed Eliaser years ago in his firm Pachter, Gold & Schaffer, and who presided over the Zachary matter?
– Isn’t it true that as a celebrity, you expected and got special treatment from Judge Arnold Gold in court through your attorney Emily Edelman, who became your alter ego, and who made all your decisions for you, including having your husband put in prison the day before he started his case about to defend himself?
– Isn’t it true that Judge Gold caused your husband to pay for your and Nicolette’s attorney costs from his share of the community estate?
– Isn’t it true that Judge Gold retired right after these cases, away from the judicial oversight of the California Supreme Court?
– Isn’t it true that, as we see in the topic “MY EVICTION PICTURES”, you personally helped evict your husband with the help of agents from Coldwell Banker along with your longtime lover Brandon Maggart and his sons, a relationship you have maintained since 1977?
– Isn’t it true that, as one result of losing his home, he cannnot now provide a home for visitations with Zachary, whom you claim to love?
– Isn’t it true that you caused the family court to sign away the sale of your mortgage free home just prior to the unprecedented boom in real estate values, and caused your stock market investments to be frozen at the top of the securities market bubble, causing the loss of millions of dollars to you and your family’s community estate and inheritance earmarked as your legacy to be passed on to your children and grandchildren?
– Do you have a hole in your foot, as well as a hole in your head?

– Do you think that these activities of yours have helped your career, or harmed it?
Again, I have created this blogsite for the use of the press, among others.
My challenge to the press is that now you know where to reach me, and now you know where to do your basic research regarding the California court’s liquidation of the Clark/Redgrave family and its assets, why the silence?

BRITISH PRESS

Posted in My Daily Mail complaint

None other than Ken Livingstone, the Lord Mayor of London, had this to say about the British Press (or some of them). He was commenting on the death of Princess Diana.
“The real underbelly of British reporting are the scum of the earth. Bad journalism actually takes people’s lives.”
Wonder which papers he was referring to.

LARRY KING CONTINUES HIS REIGN

Posted in My Larry King/CNN suit

According to Daily Variety, CNN has extended Larry King’s contract, keeping the interviewer at the cable news network through 2009. Worth $7 million a year (that’s $28 million), the deal assures the future dominance of “Larry King Live”.

Posted in My Larry King/CNN suit

Congratulations to Larry King
Dear Larry,
Re. Gary Condit vs. Dominick Dunne. Lawsuit for Defamation.
I watched your show last night, Larry, and I was pleasantly surprised to see you were fair in giving everybody concerned with this yet-to-be-heard suit a chance for a prior public hearing. Your researchers must have taken a lot of trouble, and all points of view were represented. I especially liked your showing of the video’d depositions of both parties.
And I was jealous of the fact that Condit’s children, Cadee and Chad, were there to speak with you in defense of their father. I wish my Benjy and Kelly and Annabel could be more like them!
And it’s great to see you print a quotable transcript of your show so quickly too.
I will examine this one, and will next come up with a proposal for a similar show that will deal with my defamation suit against you.
With best wishes, John Clark
PS. My sympathies over the resignation of your Eason Jordan, CNN’s Chief News Executive, keeper of “All the News You Can Trust”. It’s really rotten to be misquoted and have a shadow appear over one’s character.
UPDATE: March 15. It is today reported that the suit was settled between Gary Condit and Mr. Dunne, writer for Vanity Fair, who apologized to Mr. Condit, and paid him an undisclosed amount (why are these amounts always “undisclosed”?), as it was also, back in December, with American Media, publishers of The Star, Globe and National Inquirer.
Oh well, for his opponents it was just the cost of doing business. For Condit, it was just the cost of his work, his career, his political life, and the peace of mind of his family. I wish him well, even if the media has probably conditioned the public’s perception of Condit perpetually in stone. I hope his attorney remembered to structure the settlement as a tax free payment.

Posted in COMMENTARY-Passing parade, Links to Media

Dan Rather and Memogate
Millions of words have already been written providing a haze surrounding this subject. Let’s try to clarify.
The argument boils down to “Should the on-camera personality (read anchor) be in charge of what we see and hear?”, with the news departments and producers relegated to being mere functionaries of the anchor?
Or should it be the other way around?
The BBC and the CBC seem to still do it the old-fashioned way, the talent is paid to present the news only. In personality-driven America, we viewers are led to believe that the talent actually drives the news wagon. Rather, Couric, Lauer, Williams, Russert, Brokaw, Sawyer, Gibson, Jennings, Smith, Zahn, King, King, Dobbs, Blitzer, O’Reilly, are names that immediately come to mind.
We are told that they arrive at the studio and sift through the incoming emails, faxes, wire services, memos, and one presumes fan letters, to decide what we should be hearing and seeing before going on the air.
And if that is the case, whom do we blame when the news appears to be false or biased?
What is bias in news reporting, anyway, and where are the limits?
If the reported news is untruthful, the answer is clear, and it is not bias. It may be propaganda, though, which one assumes is ok, but only if it comes from a reliable government source, like Condaleezza Rice (but not if produced under contract with a government source.)
What about reporting only part of the news, the part you wish to release which supports the bias, and withholding the part that tends to not support it?
The air needs to be cleared on these questions. The tail should stop wagging the dog. And the FCC might be the oversight government agency which ought to get themselves involved and help provide some answers.