+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli Complicity (/thread-3915.html)
Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli Complicity - Jack White - 27-06-2010
Having studied the evidence for nine years, I endorse everything
that Jim says as being consistent with known facts.
If you disagree, it reveals that you have not studied the facts.
Jack
Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli Complicity - James H. Fetzer - 27-06-2010
Thanks, Jack. And here is a very substantial discussion of the Naudet brothers video:
9/11 FILM WAS STAGED
http://911foreknowledge.com/staged-04.htm
Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli Complicity - Malcolm Pryce - 27-06-2010
Panning up and 'accidentally' capturing the plane like that is akin to sticking a needle in the air and accidentally capturing a piece of thread that happens to be flying by.
And what are we to make of the fact that Naudet is almost an anagram of Duane St?
Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli Complicity - James H. Fetzer - 28-06-2010
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 06:43:26 -0500 [06:43:26 AM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>, jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: "Jack White" <jwjfk@flash.net>, "John Costella" <john.costella@gmail.com>,
"Dave Healy" <shake_aeffects@yahoo.com>, "David Mantik"
<dmantik@rtsx.com>, "Doug Horne", MPinc21742@aol.com
Subject: Re: Concerning David S. Lifton . . .(CORRECTED VERSION)
David,
Given the information available to those on this list, your little charade
isn't going to cut it. I had thought you were a person of integrity. You are
clearly not the human being I believed you were and your accusations of anti-
Semitism are cheap and unfounded. You have turned out to be a caricature of
a decent, honest, trustworthy person, and anyone who has dealt with us both
will be well-positioned to determine which of us the in the right and which
of us is in the wrong. I would not have believed that you would be willing
to trash your reputation for a pittance. The fact that I assisted you with
money when you were in need and you have refused to do the same when I am in
need (by simply replaying loans, which you understood to be loans at the time
I lent them to you, as the checks themselves so clearly reflect) demonstrates
that you are corrupt to the core, an indecent, unfeeling, and selfish shell-
of-a-man, who is not only undeserving of admiration but unworthy of respect.
One of us is an honorable man, the other not. It is obvious which is which.
Jim
![[Image: vfi814.jpg]](http://i46.tinypic.com/vfi814.jpg)
![[Image: 30shr8x.jpg]](http://i50.tinypic.com/30shr8x.jpg)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:11:17 -0700 [02:11:17 AM CDT]
From: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>
To: "james Fetzer" <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>, "Jack White" <jwjfk@flash.net>,
"John Costella" <john.costella@gmail.com>, "Dave Healy" <shake_aeffects
@yahoo.com>, "David Mantik" <dmantik@rtsx.com>,
"Doug Horne"
Cc: MPinc21742@aol.com
Subject: Re: Concerning David S. Lifton . . .(CORRECTED VERSION)
TO ALL THOSE WHO ARE RECEIVING THIS GOOFY EMAIL FROM FETZER:
1. In 2003, I made a contract with Fetzer that I would be paid royalties for
my contribution to his Zapruder anthology, based on the percentage of the
book written by me.
2. Based upon a page count, I wrote about 25% of the book.
3. In six years, neither Fetzer nor his publisher has sent me a royalty
statement, even though the book is in its third printing (at least).
4. Fetzer has tried to claim that by writing "royalty" on some insignificant
checks, that that constitutes my "royalty"--and that that somehow is a
substitute for the accounting I am due. The ledger Fetzer has sent me does
not make sense. In one case, he has listed buying from me videos, which (a)
I never had and (b) certainly never sold--to him, or anyone else.
Until Fetzer settles the royalty issue, I don't owe him a penny. That's the
essence of it.
Fetzer never made a proper accounting of royalties, and any monies he loaned
or advanced me were in the spirit of "against future royalties."
As with much else, Fetzer doesn't know what he is talking about.
Although it has nothing to do with the financial transaction between me and
Fetzer, the fact that Fetzer gone on a recent anti-Semitic rampage, arguing
that prominent Jews were part of a conspiracy to destroy the World Trade
Center (and the Pentagon)--and putting the Star of David across the
photographs of these people at his "rediscover 911" website--of course has
nothing to do with any financial transaction between us, but does give an
indication of some more fundamental characterological issues pertaining to
this man.
I'm sure that all readers of this post have better things to do than
endlessly pursuing this matter--as do I myself.
DSL
[NOTE: The "insignificant checks" to which he refers include several for
royalties, one of which--#1321 31 May 2005--was not only for $1,000
but was an "advance on royalties", which reflects that I have not only
loaned him money but I have extended the additional benefit, which I
was not obligated to provide, of giving him ADVANCES ON ROYALTIES.
Anyone who would like to evaluate his charges of anti-Semitism with
regard to http://rediscover911.com, which is not my site but which I
support, should click on the link and take a look for themselves. One
of us, I would agree, suffers from serious "characterological" defects.
I have told David that I would be willing to obtain a royalty statement
from the publisher and have even given him the number of my editor.
This is about the loans, not the contract, which he improperly conflates.
In fact, all three of these checks from 2003 fall into the same category:
Duplicate check notation:
#1239 13 August 2003
David S. Lifton (85 + 50 = 135) $135.00
Duplicate check notation:
#1248 18 December 2003
David S. Lifton (Pig on a Leash) $750.00
Duplicate check notation:
#1250 20 December 2003
David S. Lifton (200 + 500 advance) $700.00
These are apart from the one to which I have previously referred and
do not include #1223 David S. Lifton (honorarium and video) $1,025.00.
Apparently his characterological defects include problems with truth.]
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:14:51 -0500 [06/27/2010 09:14:51 PM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>, jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: "Jack White" <jwjfk@flash.net>, "John Costella" <john.costella@gmail.com>,
"Dave Healy" <shake_aeffects@yahoo.com>, "David Mantik"
<dmantik@rtsx.com>, "Doug Horne", MPinc21742@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: Concerning David S. Lifton . . .
NOTE: The proper legal term is actually "fraudulent inducement".
All,
During my recent visit to LA, I stayed with a close friend and
confided in him my problems with David Lifton relative to two
loans I extended to him, one for $300 in 2005, the other for
$1,000 in 2007. I have had extensive correspondence with him
about this, including sending him copies of both sides of the
relevant checks, which, of course, bear his signature and, in
the memorandum space, clearly state "loan". I have received a
formal acceptance of receipt, but he has not responded to me.
My reason for writing is that I learned that Lifton also tried
to borrow money from my friend, suggesting that this may be a
standard practice for him. Because of my high regard for him
as a student of JFK, I was very accommodating in the past, but
I have reached the point where I no longer have confidence in
his integrity, especially after I have provided him with copies
of the relevant checks. He needed the money then; I need it now.
At the very least, I expected him to acknowledge his indebtedness.
I have been in consultation with a California attorney, who has
advised me that, while this would ordinarily be a case for small
claims court, there may be a pattern here for the more serious
charge of false inducement, where a person seeks money with the
promise of repayment but actually has no intention to do so. If
any of you have been solicited by David for "loans", please let
me know. He has also apprised me that sharing my experience with
you as I am doing now is perfectly lawful and appropriate because
it is true. I am not going to allow Lifton to stiff me for $1,300.
Jim
----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:10:03 -0500
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: You have the checks: what is the score?
To: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
David,
Today I received the written acknowledgment of receipt of the
certified letter I sent you on June 8th, which was dated June
10th. I am attaching a copy of the certification here. And I
am also attaching copies of the two checks I am writing about,
namely: #1340 of 25 December 2003 & #2016 of 7 September 2007.
2003:
Duplicate check notation:
#1239 13 August 2003
David S. Lifton (85 + 50 = 135) $135.00
Duplicate check notation:
#1248 18 December 2003
David S. Lifton (Pig on a Leash) $750.00
Duplicate check notation:
#1250 20 December 2003
David S. Lifton (200 + 500 advance) $700.00
2005:
My checkbook notation:
#1313 David S. Lifton (DVDs/Pittsburgh Conference) $200.00
Duplicate check notation:
#1313 4 March 2005
David S. Lifton (DVDs/Pittsburgh Conference) $200.00
My checkbook notation:
#1321 David S. Lifton (advance on royalties) $1,000.00
Duplicate check notation:
#1321 31 May 2005
David S. Lifton (advance on royalties) $1,000.00
My checkbook notation:
#1340 David S. Lifton (loan) $300.00
Duplicate check notation:
#1340 25 December 2005
David S. Lifton (loan) $300.00
In 2007:
My checkbook notation:
#2013 David S. Lifton (no notation in checkbook) $100.00
Duplicate check notation:
#2013 13 May 2007
David S. Lifton (research support) $100.00
My checkbook notation:
#2016 David S. Lifton (loan) $1,000.00
Duplicate check notation:
#2016 7 September 2007
David S. Lifton (loan) $1,000.00
I write to ask speficially if you acknowledge my loans to you of
$300 on 25 December 2003 and of $1,000 on 7 September 2007? I am
attaching copies of the corresponding checks, which you have in hand.
I would observe that I have not only sent you royalties but I have
even sent you advances on royalties, which were clearly identified
as such. These two checks are equally clearly identified as "loans".
What is troubling me, David, is that I complied with your wishes to
sent copies of these checks, which you can see are signed by you. I
have written to ask if you received them, but you have not replied.
I don't get it. When you needed money, I lent it to you. Now that I
need the money back, you are being evasive. Please know that I am not
going to let this ride. You owe me $1,300. Are you going to repay me?
I have previously explained that I am sponsoring a symposium on 9/11 in
London on 14 July 2010 at Friends House. I need the money to cover my
expenses. I responded when you were in need. Please do the same for me.
Jim
![[Image: 20qb5af.jpg]](http://i45.tinypic.com/20qb5af.jpg)
Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:
David,
Before I left for LAX, I sent you the copies of
the checks by certified mail. My receipt is
dated 8 June 2010. You must have received them
by now. For some reason, I have not received
back your signature acknowledging their receipt.
Please confirm that you do have them in hand.
Jim
Label/Receipt Number: 7009 1680 0002 3879 3863
Class: First-Class Mail®
Service(s): Certified Mail?
Return Receipt
Status: Delivered
Your item was delivered at 4:16 PM on June 10, 2010 in LOS ANGELES, CA 90064.
Enter Label/Receipt Number.
Detailed Results:
Delivered, June 10, 2010, 4:16 pm, LOS ANGELES, CA 90064
Arrival at Unit, June 10, 2010, 6:55 am, LOS ANGELES, CA 90064
Acceptance, June 08, 2010, 4:32 pm, VERONA, WI 53593
Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:
David,
Send me your address and I will send the checks.
You will see there are two loans for which you
signed, indicating your acknowledgment as loans.
One of them was in 2005, the other in 2007. I
lent you the money when you were in need. I am
in need now. I expect you to reimburse me now.
I will send you whatever I owe you in relation
to the book when I receive royalties. I have
done so in the past. I will continue to do so.
Otherwise, you have demonstrated your complete
lack of character in this and in other ways. I
want nothing more to do with you. Pay me now
and I will send what you are due in the future.
Jim
----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----
Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 11:59:41 -0500
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Royalties owed for Pig on a Leash, and the August,
2003 contract governing its publication in HOAX
To: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
David,
I have two checkes in hand from the Independent Bank of Oregon. Oddly,
I received a call today from US Bank saying they had all of the checks
except for the first one, which was the honorarium check. Insofar as
we have no conflict over that one, I assume what I am getting is going
to be enough. This is just to let you know what progress I have made.
Jim
Quoting "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>:
Jim:
Below my typed signature is my current contact information, when you are
ready to send the check images.
Thank you.
DSL
POSTAL ADDRESS:
11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
Los Angeles,
CA 90064
FAX NUMBER: 310 943 3899
David,
I retired from the University of Minnesota in June 2006 and moved to a small
town--a village, actually--just south of Madison. The "Independent Bank" is
in Oregon, WI, not even Minnesota, which is why you had the name wrong. It
is indicative of your diligence that you were doing this research, however,
and I do believe the cancelled checks with reduce uncertaintly to near zero.
More when I have them in hand--and of course I will send you copies of them.
Jim
Quoting "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>:
Jim,
If we each had lawyers and accountants handling our affairs, we
would not be
in this fix. But we did not. You are/were a philosophy professor; I am a
writer/researcher. So we dealt with each other informally.
Consequently, I cannot "confirm" things about which I have no information,
at my end of the line. That's why these checks should be pulled, and both
sides photocopied. Right now there is a state of uncertainty about some of
this. Uncertainty will be reduced--if not eliminated after the checks are
pulled.
About your question re "Citizens Independent Bank":
When I saw, in your listing, "Independent Bank Account," I wondered whether
that was the proper noun for a bank, or simply your own informal
listing. So
I Googled those two words "Independent Bank", plus "minnesota."
That search
quickly turned up: "Citizens Independent Bank" which was described as " a
full service bank with offices throughout the Twin Cities." So I assumed
that was the proper name of that bank, which you had referred to as
"Independent Bank Account" in your email(s) to me. If that is incorrect,
then I will not use that term.
I cannot explain nor "confirm" your ledger entries. Because--normally--I do
NOT photocopy deposits. I simply deposit them. In a perfect
world, and with
an accountant handling my checkbook, perhaps it would be otherwise. But,
alas, it is not.
What I do know--and am positive about--is that there was only ONE computer
emergency, which resulted in your sending $1,000 (and that was in
September,
2007). I also am positive that there were never any royalty statements sent
to me after HOAX was published. I save royalty statements --they are in a
file drawer, with my tax records. I never received any such statement from
you or from Open Court.
Because there were no royalty statements, and because (as far as I recall)
there was no "second loan," I cannot explain two of your three 2005
entries--specifically, #1321 (for "$1,000, and designated "Advance on
Royalties") and "$300" which is designated "loan."
Per your email, you do understand that #1313--for $200--and listed as
"DVDs/Pittsburgh Conference" must be an error, since I did not possess any
such DVD's to sell. So I do not understand any of these 2005 entries, and
that is why I suggest pulling checks, and looking at BOTH sides will be
useful.
Again, here are those three entries, and in copying your email,and again
listing these here, and relying on memory, let me again point out the
obvious: we are both fallible human beings relying on memory.
2005:
#1313 David S. Lifton (DVDs/Pittsburgh Conference) $200.00
#1321 David S. Lifton (advance on royalties) $1,000.00
#1340 David S. Lifton (loan) $300.00
With regard to the computer emergency, perhaps you remember an email I
distributed to that "Paul Hoch group" entitled "In Defense of Fetzer,"
making very positive statements about your character, and how you
had helped
me out in a personal emergency--or some such thing.
In other words, I was never out to injure you, or cheat you, and I am not
doing so now.
I'm only giving you my honest recollections: I do not remember
more than one
loan--the 2007 "loan" for the computer emergency (and I'm only
using quotes,
because I did believe it to be an advance against royalties) and I never
received a royalty statement (or a royalty check) from you, after the $50
payment made in August, 2003, plus any followup amounts sent that would
bring the total to $1,000, which our August 2003 contract called for. (So I
do concede that $1,000 was paid--in the form of $50, plus $950, however you
wish to interpret your 2003 ledger entries). But that's where it ended.
I do not claim to understand the rest--i.e. Why your records of "outgoing"
show you sent me checks totalling $5120"-- and that's why these checks
should be pulled, and both sides examined, so this situation can be
clarified.
Let's just do that, so we may put this whole matter behind us. I certainly
cannot "confirm" that I was the recipient of $5120 worth of payments from
you. As I explained, there were THREE thousand-dollar transactions: two in
2003 (the Duluth Conference in May, 2003) and then the August, 2003
contract governing Hoax; and then there was the $1,000 sent me in the fall
of 2007, in connection with the computer emergency. I have no doubt that
your item number "2016", which is listed in your ledger as a loan, is the
$1,000 sent me around September, 2007.
As for the smaller amounts (e.g., $100, in 2007), keep in mind that I had
cartons of VHS cassettes of the Zapruder film, plus Best Evidence Research
Videos. It may well be that you called me up and wanted this or that video,
sent me a check, to cover the cost, plus shipping, and that would account
for that. I would pop a video into a jiffy bag, and send it.
Anyway, that's where matters now stand. There is a degree of uncertainty
present in this situation, and that uncertainty can be ameliorated, and
perhaps eliminated after the checks themselves are pulled.
DSL
David,
I have not listed anything twice (with two different check numbers), which
would be a ridiculous method of accounting. In fact, I have now found two
more checks (in another account--when I moved from Duluth, I
changed banks).
In 2007:
#2013 David S. Lifton (no notation in checkbook) $100.00
#2016 David S. Lifton (loan) $1,000.00
It may be that I made a transcription error about the check number in the
earlier tabulation I sent. So I think you are probably right about that.
Very few copies of the DVD have ever sold, where your explanation relative
to the "Pittsburgh Conference" may be right. So there do seem to be three
transactions for $1,000 or more and one additional transaction
for $100.00.
The fact is that your own records
list it twice, in two different bank accounts--once, in the US
Bank Account,
as item number #1321, as "Advance on royalties"; and then again, in the
Citizens Independent Bank Account, as item # 1340, as a "loan."
Of course,
you do know that these would be treated entirely differently,
when it comes
to the IRS. A "loan" you make (to me) is not taxable. But an "advance on
royalties" is a cost, to you, and fully deductible.
Since these were two different matters involving checks written
on different
dates with different banks and different accounts, I have no idea what you
think you are talking about when you say "your own records list it twice"!
Enlighten me, because this is obviously and effortlessly provable
as false.
Since I didn't identify any check as from "Citizens Independent
Bank Account"
because I know of no such account, please tell me more about this
notation.
What do your records show? Do you have a bookkeeping ledger that would be
useful here? Because I am puzzled about this new additional
$100.00 check.
Before I order copies of these checks, please confirm there are
the checks:
US BANK ACCOUNT:
2003:
#1223 David S. Lifton (honorarium and video) $1,025.00
#1239 David S. Lifton ($85 + $50 per agreement) $135.00
#1248 David S. Lifton (no notation in checkbook) $750.00
#1250 David S. Lifton ($200 + $500 advance) $700.00
2005:
#1313 David S. Lifton (DVDs/Pittsburgh Conference) $200.00
#1321 David S. Lifton (advance on royalties) $1,000.00
#1340 David S. Lifton (loan) $300.00
2007:
INDEPENDENT BANK ACCOUNT:
#2013 David S. Lifton (no notation in checkbook) 100.00
#2016 David S. Lifton (loan) $1,000.00
Total: $5,210.00
I intend to order copies of all of these checks from the banks
after I have
received confirmation from you. Since the book was published in
2003 and I
was not receiving royalties for 2003 until 2004, it appears to me that I
was sending your royalties in advance, which I was not required to do. I
would appreciate your acknowledgment that sending royalties in
advance, not
to mention extending you personal loans, was not something I was obligated
to do but was done because of our relationship. Kindly
acknowledge as much.
Jim
P.S. And of course you remember that, when you asked me for the money for
your computer and I was emphatic that it was "a loan", you only grudgingly
acknowledged that it was a loan. You cannot possibly have forgotten that.
Quoting "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>:
Jim,
Pardon the delay since our previous communication, but we have had
a visitor
from another country.
As promised, I am enclosing a pdf file of the final draft of the
August 3,
2003 contract governing the publication of "Pig on a Leash," my
66,000 word
(120 page) piece on the Zapruder film which was published in HOAX (Sept
2003). In some other storage box is the actual hardcopy of this contract,
signed by both of us, but I don't want to delay further looking for that.
This agreement was the result of certain discussions I had with a legal
advisor in July, 2003, the transmission of this draft to you,
and then your
agreement (we had a number of telephone conversations, in which you and I
reviewed these details). After we agreed to these terms, I then submitted
the hardcopy contract to you, you signed it; and then I
submitted the text
of Pig on a Leash, and then the very rushed editing process began.
For me, this was a very creative endeavor--I was helping contribute to an
anthology that would show that the "extant" Zapruder film was a forgery.
I was not thinking primarily about money--at all. On the other
hand, I did
not want to be taken advantage of, should the anthology "take
off" and be a
big hit. As you might understand, I have a folder full of notes
pertaining
to my conversations on just this point with the legal advisor,
and then our
conversation, after I had faxed this draft to you.
THE CONTRACT OF AUGUST 3, 2003
This contract called for an advance (against royalties) of $1,000, which
would cover the first 7500 copies of HOAX. It specified an
initial payment
of $50--"on signing"--and that left $950 remaining.
If you look at the two ledgers you sent me, I call you attention to item
#1239 on the US Bank Account:
1239 David S. Lifton ($85 + $50 per agreement) $135.00
That "$50 per agreement" is the initial payment specified in
this agreement
of August 3, 2003. (I cannot say what the $85 is for. Remember: I had
Zapruder videos, plus Best Evidence videos, etc.)
Per our August 3, 2003 agreement, that left a remainder of $950
to be paid.
Without further information, I cannot state, with certainty, which of the
following entries in the US Bank Account listing you sent
accounts for that
$950. But, for example, it could be the "$750" (which is marked "no
notation in checkbook") plus the $200 which (inexplicably) is labeled
"DVDs/Pittsburgh Conference". I say "inexplicably" because, as
I stated in
a previous email, YOU sent ME the Wecht conference DVD's, gratis,
and yet in
your US Bank Account ledger, this transaction is listed "in
reverse"--i.e.,
as YOU having written ME a check for $200, as if I sold them to you. In
other words, for tax purposes, this became a cost you incurred. This is
incorrect. I never had any such videos to sell---to you or anyone
else-- and
the only set I ever possessed was the one you sent me gratis.
Since I did
not sell you any such Pittsburgh Conference DVD's, I do not
understand why
this transaction is recorded as a $200 check written to me.
All very well. . . Now let's move on.
ROYALTIES
Having dealt with four different publishers who published Best Evidence
(Macmillan (1981-hardcover), Dell (paperback) Carroll & Graf (1988, trade
paper), and New American Library (1993), plus Rhino and Warner (who
distributed the Best Evidence Research Video), I am well aware of how
royalty transactions are normally handled.
Once every six months, an envelope arrives, and it contains 3 items:
(1) A transmittal letter (from the publisher, to me, or my agent)
(2) A Royalty statement (listing the number of copies published, etc.)
(3) A check
Not once in the six and half years that Open Court press has published
Hoax--25% of which contains my writing--has there ever been a royalty
statement sent to me. In other words, contrary to the legal agreement we
made in August, 2003, I have never received an accounting. Ever.
So I have no way of knowing how many copies of HOAX were published.
When we spoke in August, 2003, and you were making estimates as
to what the
future might hold, my records show that you assured me that
"Assassination
Science" and "Murder in Dealey Plaza" each were in their sixth or seventh
printing, and about 16,000 copies of each book had been published.
In a recent email, and addressing these ledgers recently sent me, showing
multiple checks you wrote to me, you make the statement:
QUOTE these are ALL CHECKS FROM ME TO YOU, which means that, over the
years, I have been sending you a lot of money. UNQUOTE
Let's take a closer look. There are--primarily--THREE times you sent me
funds, and for very specific reasons. Let's review them here, so that we
can avoid such loose and ambiguous language:
INSTANCE #1: The May, 2003 Duluth Conference
At your invitation, I attended the May, 2003, Duluth conference, on the
Zapruder film. You covered my airline, and a room at Fitger's
Inn. To keep
costs down, a friend drove me from Minneapolis to Duluth, and
also attended
the conference (paying the full fee, I might add). I made a one
and a half
to two-hour presentation on Sunday, May 11, 2003. At the time, I
signed the
appropriate releases, and you have been able to include my
presentation in
DVD's which you have sold.
Further: my presentation is currently on YouTube (with the attempted
interruption by Mantik, clearly designed to embarrass me, but which then
turned into an embarrassment for him--as explained in a previous
email--deleted). On Saturday, May 10, you brought up the
subject that you
were planning a book, and suggested I write something for it.
When I said I
would have to be paid to do that, you recently called that
"extortion"--which was, to put it mildly, quite inappropriate. In any
event, the $1000 honorarium, plus the $25.00 for a Best Evidence
Video --for
a total of $1025--is what item #1223 is about. In addition, you
covered the
airline, and the local hotel (Fitger's Inn), plus the "to" and
"from" taxi
fares in L.A. That may be the $85 listed in item #1239, but I have
no way of
knowing that for sure.
INSTANCE #2: August 3, 2003--Our Contract re Pig on a Leash
After reaching an agreement for Pig on a Leash--which took at
least 2 weeks
of full time work to write--you paid the agreed upon fee of $1000. First,
$50 was paid "on signing" the 8/3/2003 contract; the remaining $950 (I'm
assuming) was paid, but--as previously noted--I cannot be sure
which entries
account for that $950. (Because there is no entry for "$950" and
what does
appear is subject to more than one interpretation).
INSTANCE #3: The Computer Emergency --September, 2007
In the fall of 2007, when my computer was stolen, and in response to that
very serious personal emergency, you sent $1,000. As you know, it was my
understanding that was sent in the spirit of an "Advance against
royalties,"
but you insist it was strictly a loan. The fact is that your own records
list it twice, in two different bank accounts--once, in the US
Bank Account,
as item number #1321, as "Advance on royalties"; and then again, in the
Citizens Independent Bank Account, as item # 1340, as a "loan."
Of course,
you do know that these would be treated entirely differently,
when it comes
to the IRS. A "loan" you make (to me) is not taxable. But an "advance on
royalties" is a cost, to you, and fully deductible.
I have no way of understanding how you keep your books, or what some of
these entries mean. All I can do is read what you sent me.
HOW MANY "LOANS"?
I have also pointed out that, although there was only one "loan" made to
me--there are TWO "loans", with the identical check number (#1340) on TWO
different bank accounts--#1340 on the US Bank Account (where the "loan"
amount is listed as $300) and #1340 on the Citizens Independent
Bank Account
(where the "loan" amount is $1,000).
In your email to me dated 5/23/10 (at 12:25 PM), you write, by way of
explanation: "It is coincidental that there are two checks with the same
number but drawn on two different accounts, one for $300, one for $1,000,
both of which appear to have been loans."
To me, that is about as plausible as the Single Bullet Theory.
Only here,
we are dealing with the "single loan theory."
Even Arlen Specter, who apparently had trouble counting wounds
(and bullets)
would not count money this way.
THE UNIQUENESS THEOREM--AS APPLIED TO LOANS
Let me spell this out: As in mathematics, there is a "uniqueness theorem"
that applies here. As far as I know--and I will stand corrected if I am
shown to be wrong--there was only ONE loan that you ever made to
me (a loan
which I was certain would be far less than the royalties owed
me) so again,
I do not understand these records.
My main point is: we basically had three--I stress three--one-thousand
dollar transactions. Again:
#1: The agreed upon honorarium for my appearance at the Duluth Conference
(5/9-5/11/2003); plus related expenses which I cannot identify from these
ledger listings.
#2: The agreed upon $1,000 fee for the royalty on the first 7500
copies of
HOAX (which was agreed upon in our August 3, 2003 contract)
#3: The $1,000 sent in the fall of 2007, in connection with the computer
emergency--and which you have insisted was a loan, and which I
believed to
be an advance against royalties.
These three items total $3025, and then there were ancillary expenses
connected with the Duluth trip. Perhaps the total might approach $3500. I
don't know for sure. But I do NOT understand why the total of your checks
made out to me total $5,100. That makes no sense (to me) at all.
In short: I don't know what some of these "other" ledger entries signify.
Please note: I had hundreds of copies of the Z film VHS, and the Best
Evidence Video, and so perhaps you purchased some of those from
me--this is
just a conjecture. Always, I will defer to the documentary evidence.
THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE CHECKS
Which brings me to my final point: Maybe some clarification will
emerge when
you actually pull these checks; and when you DO obtain them,
please be sure
to photocopy BOTH sides in sending them to me.
Rather than making broad general statements about how much money you have
been sending me, or how much you have loaned me, let's recognize that, as
the saying goes, "the devil is in the details."
So let's pull these checks, examine both sides, and try to make
some sense
of these ledger records.
After we have done that, I can then call--or have my agent call--
Open Court
press, to understand how it is possible for there to be no
accounting, for a
period of six and a half years, for the sales of a book where a legal
agreement was signed in August, 2003, and where my writing
constitutes 25%
of the book.
DSL
Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli Complicity - James H. Fetzer - 28-06-2010
Dawn,
Actually, it was me critiquing DiEugenio for an irresponsible review of Horne, where he was trashing Horne for his admiration for Lifton. I took him to task on the ground that he clearly had not read the whole book or understood it, because Horne was explaining how the work of the ARRB had supported and substantiated Lifton's thesis of surgery to the head and other forms of body alteration. I was stunned that DiEugenio would write such an unworthy piece, but he does not appear to understand either the medical evidence in this case or the Zapruder film. It was very disappointing, but not as disappointing as this. I will track down my criticism of DiEugenio and post it here.
Thanks!
Jim
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Jim:
Before I became overly busy with work I was following the l-o-n- g thread at the other forum and saw Lifton's many attacks on you and Judyth. (I have long ceased to be registered there so could not respond) .
I have just two questions re the above: What about Jim DiEugenio's article did Lifton attack? (In brief)
And on 9-11. Clearly a false flag, inside job and I suspect Zionists had a hand, but recently someone told me that one of the things you believe about 9-11 is that there wer no planes at all. Not that the planes were remotely controlled but that there were none. Is this your belief? Please do not direct me to numerous web sites as I am in the mids of preparing for three trials, two this month so have not time to research this, just ask the question.
Thanks,
Dawn
ps Good luck in getting back your grand.
Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli Complicity - James H. Fetzer - 28-06-2010
James H. Fetzer, on 10 April 2010 - 02:22 PM, said:
Well, I remember watching them pack the "evidence" into a vehicle with great fanfare on the 26th
and I thought it was very, very odd. I was impressed with these observations by Armstrong, so I
am going to be both surprised and disappointed if he is wrong about this. I found it fascinating.
You of course are right about the time of the creation of the commission. I double-checked and I
typed it correctly. I don't see any citation or reference, but this appears on pages 2-3 of his Intro-
duction. Strictly speaking, I should say the second and third page, since the Introduction has no
page numbers. I note his "Index" error and others in my "Judyth" and the 1st "Judyth/Jim" threads.
James H. Fetzer, on Apr 10 2010, 03:40 AM, said:
Some participants on the post about Costella's review of Horne berated me for posing this on that
thread. So I am creating a separate thread to make the points I would like to make here instead.
Michael,
You make some nice points, where not only has Costella missed the boat completely but DiEugenio
in a different way. It seems to me that Jim is very good on the trees, not so good on the forest. I
offer this early paragraph as an illustration of what I mean, where he, too, has something wrong:
All the above introductory material is necessary to understand my decidedly mixed feelings about
Inside the ARRB. There seem to me a lot of good things in Horne's very long work. And I will discuss
them both here and later. But where the author gets into trouble is when he tries to fit the interesting
facts and testimony he discusses into an overarching theory. Because as we will see, although Horne
has revised Best Evidence, he still sticks to the concept of pre-autopsy surgery, and extensive criminal
conduct by the pathologists. And as Lifton clearly suggested in his book, Horne will also argue that the
Zapruder film was both edited and optically printed. (Lifton pgs. 555-557)
Unless DiEugenio is writing his reviews as he goes and does not realize what unexpected findings await
him, the fact of the matter is THERE WAS PRE-AUTOPSY SURGERY and EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL CONDUCT
BY THE PATHOLOGISTS, including lying to the HSCA and to the ARRB. And, of course, as he demonstrates
quite decisively, the arguments against film alteration advanced by ROLLIE ZAVADA, by DAVID WRONE,
and by JOSIAH THOMPSON have been thoroughly demolished in the course of Doug's extensive studies.
Egad! Somewhere DiEugenio expresses his preference for the physical evidence over the medical and
photographic, as though he did not understand that ALL OF IT has been planted, fabricated, or faked.
NOTE: DiEugenio should read the first few pages of HARVEY & LEE, in which John Armstrong observes:
Chief Curry turned the physical evidence over to the FBI and it was immediately taken to FBI Headquarters
in Washington, D.C. FBI Agent James Cadigan told the Warren Commission about receiving the evidence
(Oswald's personal possessions) on November 23rd, the day after the assassination. But when Cadigan's
testimony was published in the Warren volumes, references to November 23 had been deleted. Neither
the FBI nor the Warren Commission wanted the public to know that Oswald's personal possessions (phys-
ical evidence) had been secretly taken to Washington, DC, and quietly returned to the Dallas police.
During the three days that Oswald's possessions were in FBI custody many items were altered, fabricated,
and destroyed. The "evidence" was then returned to the Dallas Police on November 26th, and used by the
FBI and Warren Commission to help convince the American people that Oswald was the lone assassin.
As the physical evidence was undergoing alteration FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed
within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. This report
was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they "officially" received the
"evidence" from the Dallas poice, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before
the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete.
. . .
On November 26 the FBI secretly returned the physical evidence (Oswald's possessions) to the Dallas Police
where it was "officially" inventoried and photographed. When the Dallas Police received t he evidence they
were unaware that many of the items had ben altered, fabricated, and/or destroyed. President Johnson soon
announced the FBI was in charge of the investigation and, a short time later, Bureau agents arrived at Dallas
Police headquarters.
As television cameras recorded the historic event FBI agents collected the evidence, loaded it into a car, and
drove away. The public was unaware that the FBI had secretly returned the same "evidence" to the Dallas
Police earlier that morning.
Pat Speer, on Apr 10 2010, 11:17 AM, said:
If that passage really came from Armstrong, I'm afraid his research is not as good as people claim it is. The Warren Commission was formed on the 29th, one week after the assassination, not two weeks after, and the FBI essentially took over the case with Oswald's death on the 24th.
As far as Oswald's possessions, they were inventoried going out on the 26th. The list stretches something like 17 pages. The real problem as I see it is that no list or photo was made of the evidence sent out on the 22nd to be tested, that was returned on the 24th. This includes the paper bag and the paper bag sample. This is the evidence Cadigan saw on the 23rd, not Oswald's possessions.
And if he really did say he saw the possessions on the 23rd, and it was changed, it's not that surprising. The FBI and WC re-wrote the testimony of the FBI's experts, and kept no detailed records of what they changed. While there are memos in the files noting minor changes, some major changes have been detected for which no memos can be found. The HSCA not only re-wrote the testimony of its witnesses, but changed the wording of the questions they were asked, in order to make them fit more closely the SCRIPT written by Blakey and his staff that the congressmen were supposed to follow.
Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli Complicity - James H. Fetzer - 30-06-2010
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:49:02 -0500
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "David S. Lifton" <dlifton@earthlink.net>
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Royalty Statement for 2008
David,
Jan has found a royalty statement for 2008,
which is very suggestive. 112 copies were
sold and I earned $235.68, of which 25% to
you would be $58.92. So I think it might
turn out that, by giving you advances, I
actually overpaid you even in relation to
the royalties alone.
What I would like to know is whether you
are going to pay me what you owe me after
you are convinced by the royalty state-
ments what moneys were actually due? I
am very suspicious about your intentions
based upon your non-responses after you
received the checks.
What do you expect me to think? I now
regard you as having induced me to lend
you money on fraudulent grounds. And if
I were anti-Semitic, what would I be do-
ing lending you money? A friend told me
he couldn't believe you would trash your
name for $1,300! But you are.
Jim
Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli Complicity - Dawn Meredith - 01-07-2010
Not much you can do, except sue in small claims court. Maybe it would make Judge Judy or better yet Joe Brown. Now THAT would be interesting.
Half joking but also serious. Contact Joe Brown. He's a good guy. One of us.
Otherwise, lesson learned.
Dawn
Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli Complicity - James H. Fetzer - 01-07-2010
Dawn,
This is a great idea! Do you know how I can reach him or his producer?
Many thanks!
Jim
Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli Complicity - Dawn Meredith - 05-07-2010
James H. Fetzer Wrote:Dawn,
This is a great idea! Do you know how I can reach him or his producer?
Many thanks!
Jim
No but his friend and fellow MLK researcher T Carter has a facebok page. You could message her via her page. Or just google him and I am sure you will find it.
Joe was one of two keynote speakers at COPA in 1998- (Vince Salandria was the other). Got to hang out with them all, that was an incredible conference. As was 09, and I definately plan to attend this Nov.
Dawn