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.

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”.

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.

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.

The Larry King case (more)
This morning I appeared before the judge and argued my case against dismissal under the California SLAPP provisions.
As usual for the likes of me, short on cases, on Authorities. But maybe too long on Points.
However, I don’t like the idea of recounting what happened; I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. This is not a nation of Laws, but of Judges. The idea that one can tee off a judge so that he rules against one is abhorrant to me. But then, I’m from England.
So, for now, I shall wait and be patient and see what he rules. He will either dismiss the case, or let me file again, this time with more citations.
I will say that I felt more comfortable in a Federal Court than in a California State court. It’s more relaxed, and the judge sounded interested and spent time, and you get the feeling that you will get a fair shake and not a shakedown.

Next up, an appearance before the Judge 3 days after Christmas Day (I wish the courts would take a real holiday!), to see if he will allow this to go forward. I hope so, because if he dismisses it under the California S.L.A.P.P. provisions, I will have to pay their attorney fees and costs. Or risk more with an an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Most of all, I want a chance to do a voire dire in jury selection. Wish me luck.

My complaint to the British Press Complaints Commission
is based upon this irresponsible piece of journalism.
View image
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:
P.O.Box 3869
December 29, 2004
Your ref. 043278
Press Complaints Commission
1 Salisbury Square
London EC4Y 8JB
United Kingdom
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 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 –

They filed their response, they had 60 days to do it. Davis Wright Tremaine, attorneys for Larry King (and CNN and TBS and Time Warner, and L.A. Times, and N.Y. Times and on and on) can supply their response, I don’t have the character recognition software to do it. Besides, as my father used to say “they can plead their own cause”.
Then I had 5 days to respond to their response, here it is:
Case no. CV-04-03632 WMB-FMO
Does 1 thru 10 INCLUSIVE

Date: December 27, 2004
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 9
Judge: The Hon. William Matthew Byrne Jr.
COMES NOW Plaintiff, John Clark, appearing pro se and sui juris, to give his response to Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and their alternative Motion to Dismiss and their claim for fees, notice of which was served upon Plaintiff on December 6, 2004, in which they hope to accomplish this before there is a hearing on the matter.
Plaintiff’s Response is made by Declaration, and is verified as to its truth.
Defendants’ answer to my Complaint was served upon me on December 6, 2004. Mr. Wickers, Defendants’ attorney, personally informed me that I had 7 days to respond to it, and that there would be a hearing on December 27, 2 days after Christmas Day. He told me that this was pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4.
Their response includes 71 cited cases, and 12 cited Codes.
It has all the earmarks of boilerplate; perhaps Defendants are used to Complaints for Defamation. Unfortunately, I do not have boilerplate responses. And certainly 7 days is insufficient time to make a properly prepared response, and I consider this advice from opposing attorney to be a form of intimidation.
Their numerous codes and cases are like bumps in the road to justice. And I feel that they see me as just another case of road-kill.
However, as a professional director and actor, I am used to working within set boundaries, and what follows is my response to their response, all I am capable of mustering within the time limitation. My response may lack enough references to codes and cases. It will, however, have the benefit of a plain language common-sense approach to the law.
First, BE IT NOTED THAT in Defendants’ Certification of Interested Parties, filed concurrently with their Answer on December 6, 2004, the company name TIME WARNER is listed. Time Warner, according to the listing in HOOVER’S, is a conglomerate and the parent company of Defendants Cable News Network LP LLLP, and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. I obtained this information at the website of Hoover’s ( to which I subscribe. Time Warner it would appear is one of Does 1-10 described in the Complaint.
As Plaintiff, I reject Defendants’ arguments to my complaint on the basis that they seem to be attempting an end-run around their problem by making a preemptive bid for my Complaint to be struck, using the provisions of the California Anti-SLAPP statute California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.
The statute concerns itself with filings considered to be frivolous, and is designed to discourage such filings by penalizing the complainant with all the costs and attorney fees associated with the Complaint.
I here give my own argument why this Complaint should not be struck under those provisions. I will show that there is nothing frivolous going on here.
Larry King, in his program on CNN “Larry King Live”, gratuitously misrepresented me, who I am, my effects upon the guest and her breast cancer, and made me appear to be a bad person, an object of contempt. Mr. Justice Harlan, in a 1974 case before the Supreme Court [Gertz v. Welch 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997] famously said “Indeed, the law of defamation is rooted in our experience that the truth rarely catches up with a lie.” I have spent the last few years of my life trying to reverse this lie with the truth, at the same time attempting to protect my family from unwarranted intrusion into their private life. I only wish my lost family well.
Lynn Redgrave has waged a continuing campaign to destroy me and eradicate me from her life since the time of our separation, for reasons which to me are only now becoming apparent. She uses all means at her disposal, which includes the harnessing of the energies of celebrity fawning producers and interviewers such as CNN and Larry King that have standing in the eyes of the public. And what is worse, in this process she has kept my children from me. Whether a respectable news outfit like CNN should be allowed to even suggest that she should be supported in that endeavor, given the truth which they must know from public documents, paints the very opposite picture, and that is what this case is all about.
This is the title of her book, which I referred to in my complaint at page 7, line 26, but which had not then yet appeared. My contention that a book was in the works and was being actively promoted, could have been dismissed as mere speculation. However, on or about October 18, 2004, both my ex-wife and daughter Annabel appeared at a book-signing at Barnes and Noble, The Grove, Los Angeles, to promote and sell their book (I did not attend). Pictures taken on this occasion can be found on Lynn Redgrave’s website ( under the heading “New Pictures”. A signed copy of this book is being provided with this response as Exhibit A.
The lengths to which she and my daughter have gone to disown me are extraordinary. For example, at page 72 in the book, I learn for the first time that my daughter Kelly gave birth to a son on April 29, 2003, making me a grandfather for the sixth time.
My name is nowhere mentioned throughout the book. I do not exist. She talks incessantly about “My Annabel”, and “My children” (e.g. page 22) and worst of all, on the acknowledgments page, page 111, all our children are mentioned, and her longtime lover Brandon Maggart is mentioned, but I am left out.
And at her website,, which as her manager I created for her, I and my name have been carefully removed.
The madness of her acts have caused a loss in monetary value to our family estate, our family life savings, I estimate, of 6 million dollars. She caused my eviction from our home, and used her lover and his family to do this.
CNN and Larry King enjoy a reputation for reporting the news as it is, and maintain a Standards and Practices department to ensure that the public can rely on its facts as true. CNN is not and does not pretend to be a gossip channel. Hoover’s analysis of this company is thus: “A unit of Turner Broadcasting, CNN News Group operates 38 news bureaus worldwide (11 in the US) and employs some 4,000 news staff (including talk show host Larry King and network news crossover Paula Zahn). In addition to its all-news channels, CNN Headline News and CNN International, the company operates financial channel CNNfn. CNN News Group also operates a number of Internet sites.”
I have included as Exhibit B a picture which I took of a billboard overlooking La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, at its busiest. “All the News You Can Trust”, it blares. And people believe it.
At page 44, line 16 of my Complaint, I refer to a letter I wrote to the Immigration and Naturalization Service exposing the fraud perpetrated upon that department by my wife, my son Benjamin, and his “wife” Nicolette Hannah when they jointly went to the department on June 6, 1995 to set in progress application for a green card. This letter is dated March 12, 2001, and goes into considerable detail concerning my wife and son’s involvement in the illegal matters concerning our family. This letter was filed with the Los Angeles Family Court in the 2 cases where I was defending myself, and thus became a public document. I now include it here, as Exhibit C, in order to show the huge division between what really happened, and what the news media wants to present and infer happened.
Defendants, in their responsive pleading, appear to believe that Plaintiff wished to serve a retraction demand on CNN. (See their Page 17, line 3). They completely miss the point.
What Lynn Redgrave and Larry King and CNN and TBS possessed was a bomb aimed at me, a bomb that was planted at the taping on April 21, 2003 (see Redgrave journal entry on page 70 of her book, Exhibit A) and exploded over four weeks later, on the occasion of the broadcast on May 22, 2003. Plaintiff had no desire to participate in the actual broadcast, but as his e-mails clearly point out (Complaint pages 10-13), he would have, given the opportunity, removed the bomb at its source. The opportunity was denied him for the four weeks prior to the broadcast by keeping him ignorant. Four weeks was ample time for CNN to have contacted Plaintiff for comment. But I believe they bore evil intent towards me, and concealment of their plan became paramount for the accomplishment of their goal.
It is my belief that CNN was aware of these matters, and of the ongoing legal procedures still before the courts, and chose to suppress that knowledge. If I am right, and only a Trial and Discovery will reveal this to be true, this will be a classic case of scienter.
Defendants, in their response, do not deal with the fact that Plaintiff makes a showing of Scienter in his Complaint, although he does not use that word which is a legal word. There is nothing in the Rules or the Law which state that only legal words should be used. Complainant is a Pro Se. The circumstances recounted in the Complaint certainly support that allegation.
The new evidence of the published book further confirms that allegation.
It is inconceivable, given the presence of publicly available court documents and given the massive planning, staging and manipulation of the graphics associated with the broadcast, that Defendants lacked scienter.
Defendants appear to believe that their First Amendment rights are unlimited, and claim that the Code of Civil Procedure §425.16 protects them from any attack, no matter where it comes from. It is instructive that this statute, in its first paragraph (a), states . . “The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process.” In this case, they themselves have “chilled the judicial process” in my still ongoing cases as I show throughout my Complaint! That is a bizarre result indeed.
And under (b)1, the statute speaks of the free speech right as connected to “a public issue”. Well, my court cases defending myself from the onslaughts of my wife and one Nicolette Hannah are the public issue, and should have been aired properly, or not referred to at all, for they were not part of the theme of the interview, the public issue there being breast cancer.
I already stated in my Complaint that I have no problem with the theme of Breast Cancer (Complaint page 13, line 9). That certainly is a public issue. But the graphic portrayal of me, Nicolette, and our son Zachary was not part of that public issue. It was strictly a gratuitous “add-on”, included for the purpose of inflaming public opinion by targeting me, and a desire to attract viewers and ratings.
The damage to me was considerable. Included here as Exhibit D is the front page of my Priority Mail envelope to my old friend Army Archerd, perhaps the most important of all of the media columnists here in Hollywood, who writes a column for Daily Variety. I tried to send him a copy of my complaint, as I did to many media outlets throughout the country. There was no indication as to its contents, but it had my name on it, and the envelope was refused and returned to me.
Time-Warner’s claim to unfettered free speech rights was reversed in the case of M. G. v. Time Warner, Inc. 89 Cal. App. 4th 623 (2001), a published case. In his opinion, Justice Gaut J, writing for the majority, stated “…powerful corporate defendants are employing the anti-SLAPP statute against individuals of lesser strength and means, we are constrained by the authorities to permit its use against plaintiffs of this ilk ” (referring to Time-Warner).
I believe I can show a pattern of this type of behavior on the part of Larry King and CNN, which can lead to a claim for damages.
On April 27, 2004 there was a broadcast interview on Larry King Live between Larry King and actress Alison Arngrim, transcribed at In the small world of Hollywood entertainment, it happens that I know Alison, and I knew her parents very well when we both lived in Canada, and I happened to watch the show. The broadcast consisted of her revelation that a close friend of her family had sexually abused her for a number of years from the time she was six years old. She refused, when asked, to divulge the name of the man.
It so happens, quite by chance, that I also know the man she was referring to, although I have not seen him for many years. There must be many in his circle of friends who will have watched the show and will be able to identify him, and he will be a marked man, and perhaps won’t even know why. But I was shocked and appalled that this kind of reporting should be allowed. But one supposes it is O.K. in the attack free universe of CNN, TBS, and the perceived protection of California’s Anti-SLAPP legislation combined with their claimed First Amendment rights of free speech. Interestingly, Mr. King, in his closing remark, states that they had contacted the guest’s father, who said he supported her in her endeavor. Indeed, they are capable of seeking feed-back from a guest’s family.
Defendants are part of a huge conglomerate, which may be reasonably supposed to wield huge power in the entertainment business. As described at the Hoover’s website (, Time Warner is the world’s number one media firm. They own and control the following companies, partnerships, and programs:
The companies shown to be part of their family are, inter alia:
America On-line, Time Warner Cable, Netscape, Compuserve, Warner Brothers Network, Warner Brothers Entertainment, New Line Cinema, DC Comics, Castle Rock Entertainment, Warner Independent Pictures.
Its Publishing empire includes Time Magazine, Time Warner Book Group, and IPC in the United Kingdom. IPC is described as being the Ruler among Britain’s magazine publishing royalty, now with a big presence in Australia too.
Further, they have interests in Court TV and
They are information and entertainment providers of CNN, TBS, HBO, and Comedy Central.
One television show they own through the Warner subsidiary, is Celebrity Justice, an important fact, for Plaintiff appeared recently on their show at their contact and invitation, hoping for the truth to come out, and instead, that truth was again subverted.
Foreign publishers have taken up with hostile and inflammatory voices against me. I enclose a clip from the British newspaper Mail on Sunday as Exhibit E. Their tone is obvious, and I have initiated a complaint before the British Press Complaints Commission.
In a feeble attempt to voice my protest in this sea of hostile media, as a last-ditch defense of my name and reputation, and as an effort to aid other people in this country attempting to conduct their own cases Pro Per or Pro Se as the case may be, (and as encouraged by the Courts with their numerous self-help web-sites for the uninitiated), I have created a blogsite which will appear for the first time this week ( I will certainly be exercising my free speech 1st Amendment rights in a proper manner.
This Plaintiff believes that the public good will be best served by this case being permitted to proceed to trial before a jury.
If huge media entities like Time Warner and its subsidiaries are allowed to proceed untrammeled in the manner described above, we may yet see them parading down the center aisle of a theatre, waving their advertising banner, and yelling “FIRE! FIRE!” to attract attention.
This Plaintiff appeals to this court to allow this case to be heard and therefore for the issues to be aired and tried.
I believe that this is a landmark case, perfectly fitted for the new and dangerous times in which we live.
And I believe I will prevail, for a jury of my peers will understand what is at stake for the good of the general public.
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: December 13th, 2004
John Clark, Plaintiff, pro