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.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[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

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”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?