Replies

Tax Relief--just read your private message to me.

I obtained the entire trial transcript and was able to read the testimony of Alan Stang (author of libelous article) and Scott Stanley Jr. (editor of American Opinion at the time).

During the trial, Stanley and Stang were asked to explain how they went about "fact-checking" to establish that Gertz was, as the article claimed, a "Leninist" engaged in a "conspiracy" to destroy confidence in local police.

When the trial ended with a jury decision against Robert Welch Inc., the trial judge described Alan Stang as follows:

"...a writer with a known and unreasonable propensity to label persons or organizations as Communist...There was more than enough evidence for the jury to conclude that this article was published with utter disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements contained in the article about Gertz."

During questioning, Stang and Stanley made it clear that they started with a conclusion about Gertz and then carefully selected only that material which they thought would discredit him.

If they came across something positive about Gertz, or something which was inconvenient to their pre-conceived conclusion, they discarded it.

During the trial, the JBS acknowledged that "falsehoods" were contained in the article....but they never owned up to how it was possible for those falsehoods to be used in their purportedly "carefully researched" article.

Of course, ultimately, they did pay Gertz $400,000 for their little "mistake".

In addition, I now have the FBI file on Elmer Gertz (who died in April 2000). It is clear that the JBS was gravely mistaken in its attack on Gertz.

Actually, the whole episode reminds me of the JBS attack on Harry Overstreet. I only wish Harry had decided to sue the JBS as well. He could then have brought in FBI officials to testify about the close personal relationship he had with the FBI at the exact same time that Birchers described him as a Communist sympathizer!