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.
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…………..”
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?
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.
My complaint to the British Press Complaints Commission
is based upon this irresponsible piece of journalism.
The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday (editor Paul Dacre – “the most dangerous man in Britain?” asks the Guardian) have writers in Hollywood, and distribute a lot of biased gossipy and inaccurate information. And their reporters are known to supply material to the Florida based tabloids.
I know the writer of this piece well. I cultivated her as a British friend, and she had access to all of my documents.
If you read my letter to the INS, as she did, I don’t know how she can come up with this piece of what is often called “yellow journalism”. The bias against me is palpable. And the persuasive power of celebrity is readily apparent.
Did Nicolette get paid? I don’t know, but she sure has raised her visibility, and can now call herself a “Public Figure” (different rules). As for young Zachy, if somebody sees him, please send him my love, we haven’t seen each other for nearly 3 years. I rather think and hope that it is me he misses!
I won’t divulge the actual complaint, I don’t think it is a public document. But if this kind of reporting should ever upset you, just get on to these people. I think they have some teeth, now.
British Press Complaints Commission
My complaint was rejected, on the grounds that they were within their rights to print, more or less, anything they want to. Editorial slant, to which they are entitled(!)
Well, now I can divulge the actual Complaint, and here it is:
HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90078
December 29, 2004
BY REGISTERED EXPRESS MAIL
Your ref. 043278
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London EC4Y 8JB
John Clark against the Daily Mail Organization
This Complaint is now ready to be filed with you, the delay being due to the first hearing in Federal Court in the Larry King and CNN dispute (case number CV 04-03632) which took place on December 28, and the launching of www.johnclarkprose.com on Christmas Day, which has content pertinent to this case. To the extent they have a bearing on this complaint, the contents are incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
The issues raised in this complaint are explained in the Statement which follows and in the Attachments.
Meanwhile, unfamiliar with where the legal limits of freedom of the press and the laws of libel and slander might lie within Britain, for now, I content myself with this Complaint brought before this honorable Commission, for cause, for what I believe is the Daily Mail’s blatant disregard of the Commission’s new Rules, implemented June 1, 2004, and in force at this time.
Yours very truly,
JOHN CLARK, Complainant
The preamble to the Commission’s Code in force from June 1, 2004, states “All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards. This Code sets the benchmark for those ethical standards, protecting both the rights of the individual and the public’s right to know. It is the cornerstone of the system of self-regulation to which the industry has made a binding commitment. It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit.”
Great Britain and the U.S.A. now have political and security concerns that mandate truthful and transparent press reporting in the English speaking countries. We live in a dangerous world. The following will argue that the Daily Mail’s desire and ability to manipulate news to conform to their own narrow agenda is wilful, the welfare of the public is not properly served, and this behavior should be stopped.
The complaint against CNN filed in Federal Court can be accessed for the purpose of further illuminating and adding to the facts introduced in this statement. It is available on the website.
BACKGROUND: Nearly six years ago, John Clark (“Complainant”) was seriously harmed by untruthful statements made by his longtime wife Lynn Redgrave during an ex parte interview with the London Times, who published her remarks in their March 5, 1999 edition. They got no corroboration from her husband, and his reputation was severely damaged. A complaint was not filed with the Commission at that time, for the reason that she, along with their son Benjamin and Nicolette Hannah, were involved in a false marriage for the purpose of obtaining resident alien status for their pretend daughter-in-law. She is the mother of then 2 year old Zachary, and the intention was for Zachary to be able to be brought up in the United States. However, they were in criminal violation of the Immigration Laws, and could have been sent to jail for making fraudulent statements to a government agency. Complainant was protecting them all by keeping silent.
Because he was sued in Family Court in Los Angeles by both his wife and by Ms. Hannah, on March 12, 2001 complainant wrote a letter to INS Criminal Investigations, copy to the FBI, confessing the fraud (see attachment 1).
The Daily Mail knew all of this, but chose to present their story in such a way that it would continue to inflame public opinion against Complainant, invade the privacy of his son Zachary, and display bias in favour of Lynn Redgrave and Nicolette Hannah.
Now Complainant is re-married, and attempting to re-start his long career in the field of entertainment in England and the United States. In order to correct the record once and for all, he has now published the record of the true facts surrounding the divorce in a website/blog, to be found in the usual search engines used by the press.
Complainant does not dispute the right of the Daily Mail to have a partisan editorial attitude in favor of Lynn Redgrave and Nicolette Hannah (now Nicolette Hernandez), but he does complain of their methods to obtain the information, their distortion of the record, their suppression of facts favorable to Complainant, and how the information is used.
The Details which follow recount what happened in the events leading up to the publishing of the two articles complained of.
A lawsuit was filed in US Federal Court against Larry King, CNN, and Turner Broadcasting System by John Clark as Plaintiff, for Defamation, Libel & Slander brought about during a television interview on CNN between Larry King and Lynn Redgrave, who appeared to be promoting a planned book on breast cancer (the book, just published, is attached)
Copies of this Verified Complaint were mailed out on September
29, 2004, to many of the leading broadcast and print media in the English speaking world, for the purpose of giving them notice that this lawsuit had been filed, and to enable them to read the contents. The purpose was to put a stop to the scurrilous reportage continuing to damage the professional reputation of the Complainant, which his ex-wife was happily, it may be assumed, allowing to continue. Complainant was not looking for publicity, but rather to prevent further public comment.
Apart from reporting that a lawsuit had been filed, no newspaper responded to this mass mailing – nor printed any of its contents – with the notable exception of the Daily Mail. The Entertainments Editor based in London, Nicole Lampert, called Complainant at about 10.30 am (6.30 pm London time) on Tuesday October 5th, attempting to interview him on the telephone. He responded by saying that all there was to say was contained in the document. She confessed she “hadn’t read all of it”. He invited her to do so.
It was at midnight on Friday in Los Angeles, that Saturday’s edition appeared on the web page of the Daily Mail, with a story under Nicole Lampert’s name which was a continuation of their old lurid one-sided “scandal” interview with Redgrave targeting Complainant in 2001 headlined “I’VE FOUND NEW LOVE AND I’M HAPPY AT LAST…BUT I NEVER WANT TO SEE MY HUSBAND AGAIN” (see Attachment 2) but made no mention of the now revealed Green Card fraud, of which she was aware.
When Complainant read the published article (see attachment 3), he immediately e-mailed Ms. Lampert complaining of its content and tone which continued to be wholly favorable to his ex-wife, and suppressed facts deemed in their view to be favorable to her ex-husband. It states that Lynn Redgrave refused to comment or to be interviewed by the Mail.
Complainant asked the newspaper by e-mail to refrain from publishing anything further (see attachment 4). There was no response, other than an emailed receipt from Laura Benjamin showing that it had been received (see attachment 5).
Complainant then called journalist Caroline Graham who writes for The Mail on Sunday, a person he trusted as an old friend. She promised to correct the record, and accepted many confidential and personal documents from him by e-mail, including letters between him and his son. She refused to come to his house to meet him in person and view other documents that could not easily be e-mailed, particularly photographs.
Complainant has recently been compiling a book replete with personally taken photographs, detailing his horrendous journey since 9/11. Copies of some of the pictures have been attached as Exhibit 8.
Graham, in one of her emailed responses, wrote “God, John, I have just read the emails from the start and it is just heart-wrenching. I can’t begin to imagine what you are going through. And Bejy’s (sic) answers just aren’t up to much. He obviously has taken Lynn’s side and if he’s not responding to the last msg, it’s obvious that her side is where he’s firmly staying put. It’s staggering. I don’t have children and from this account, I think that’s the way it will remain. I’m also going to contact Nicky again next week – I’m assuming Lynn has had no contact with Zachary? I’ll call you when I’m back in town to discuss where to go next. Thank you for all the information, it’s enlightening and frightening. Caroline.”
It is now apparent that she forwarded these very personal records to head-office.
Her “correction” appeared in an article for The Mail On Sunday which appeared on October 17 under her byline (see attachment 6,) this time with brazen distortions of fact, a whitewashing of Redgrave’s character, and revealing malicious intent towards Complainant, and invasion of the privacy of his child Zachary, who has family living in Los Angeles, New York and London. There is also evidence that the article was heavily edited in London by the editorial staff, the give-away being that the same inaccuracies of age, and date of childhood career appear, despite Complainant’s e-mailed correction on October 9. It should also be noted that this was an “exclusive interview” between the paper and Nicolette, which suggests that money changed hands.
Complainant e-mailed Graham complaining of what is obviously a bias in favor of Redgrave and Nicolette Hernandez and she responded sourly by e-mail on Sunday evening November 28, the full contents of which are included in this complaint (see Attachment 7.) In another email, not included, she said “I can see from your tone that you have simply added me to your list of ‘hate’ figures.”
Complainant’s alleged Code Violations:
Complainant believes that the Revised Code of Practice in effect on June 1, 2004, was violated in the following sections and possibly others:
Paragraph 1, item (ii) [Accuracy, and the right to have a correction made, but the inaccuracy continued].
Paragraph 1, item (iii) [Accuracy. The press is expected to print both sides of a court case (or nothing), and whilst free to be partisan, it is not free to withhold the facts of the case to the detriment of the other side, thus depriving one party of their rights, and concealing new facts.]
Paragraph 6, item (ii) [Children. The child was not interviewed, yet was photographed with his features obscured. If there was consent, why were his features obscured?].
Paragraph 6, item (v) [Children. Details of a child’s private life justified by the fame or notoriety of a parent is a violation].
Paragraph 15, item (I) [Payment made to a potential witness in a forthcoming trial]. The upcoming trial may become a criminal trial due to the theft of large amounts of money and property. Plaintiff has reason to believe that the mother Nicolette was paid by the Mail on Sunday for their “exclusive” interview, possibly $10,000 or more. Graham has often suggested money is available to persons with rewarding stories, and Complainant has never ever been involved with payment of any kind from the press at any time for any reason.
The commission should note that Lynn Redgrave is promoting her new book about her breast cancer which has just come out, with photographs taken by their daughter Annabel Clark, and which removes all mention of her ex-husband. A copy of that book is also attached.
1.John Clark’s letter to the Immigration Department and U.S. Department of Justice dated March 12, 2001 copied to the FBI, available in court records, and provided to The Daily Mail.
2. Transcript of May 5, 2001 article published by The Daily Mail headlined “I’VE FOUND NEW LOVE AND I’M HAPPY AT LAST…BUT I NEVER WANT TO SEE MY HUSBAND AGAIN”
3.The Daily Mail was provided with the “Lynn Redgrave vs. John Clark” information of the court case, and responded with their October 9, 2004 article published by The Daily Mail headlined “HOW LYNN MADE SURE THAT OUR MARRIAGE WAS ALWAYS OPEN”
4.E-mail from Clark to Lampert dated October 9
5. E-mail acknowledgment of receipt of e-mail from Laura Benjamin on behalf of Lampert to Clark dated October 10
6. Copy of October 17, 2004 article published by The Mail on Sunday headlined “ZACHARY, THE REDGRAVE OUTCAST”, under the by-line of Caroline Graham.
7.Copy of Graham’s communication to Complainant on November 28
8.Digital Photographs with descriptive captions, taken by Complainant 5 days after the 9/11 terrorist attack, available to the Mail, but ignored by journalist Graham
– END –