Subject: Re: JFK Propaganda: 2 Paradigms
Date: 03 Dec 1999 20:18:44 EST
From: Martin Shackelford <mshack@concentric.net>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Lurkers should be aware that, a few years back, Feinman wrote a very
strong critique of David Lifton. Lifton's attack on Feinman is part of
an extended ongoing feud.
      David brought up the issue of Roger's legal career a year ago.
Apparently he felt it was time to dust it off and use it again.
      Roger apparently had the misfortune to have the Groden case
assigned to a judge with ties to the Ramsey Clark Justice Department,
Random House (the defendant in the case), and CBS News. The defense was
allowed to raise a new issue in a brief AFTER arguments, and the judge
dismissed the case with prejudice (can't be brought again),
misrepresented the facts presented, and ruled that because the
assassination was controversial there could be no such thing as truth or
falsity on the subject (in fact, a theory of Harrison Livingstone was
falsely attributed to Robert Groden in the Random House ad for
Posner--something that COULD be determined factually).
       The judge then accused Roger of falsely accusing him of bias (a
panel of attorneys later determined there were sufficient grounds for a
charge of bias). Roger had also called the judge's decison "crooked and
corrupt," which was arguably true as well. The judge apparently sent one
of his law clerks to follow Roger, Robert Groden and his wife around the
courthouse, listening in on their privileged conversations, another
gross violation.
        The defendants managed to get an attack on Roger planted in a
widely read weekly  legal gossip column. Another attack was made by an
entertainment law columnist in the New York Law Journal. Neither
mentioned the legal precedents ignored by the judge.
        At the Court of Appeals, the case was handled by a former senior
law clerk to Earl Warren. In April 1995, as Roger was preparing his
argument for the Court of Appeals, a fire destroyed his apartment,
leaving him homeless for five months. After the appeal was lost, the
original court brought Roger up on disciplinary charges, which he was by
then in no condition financially to properly fight. Denied the right to
subpoena witnesses or evidence, he was found guilty on three of five
charges, and he was disbarred by the Federal court in Manhattan. When he
appealed, the case went back to Warren's old law clerk, and he lost
again.
         The disbarment left him able to practice in Brooklyn Federal
Court (as it only applied to Manhattan Federal Court) and the U.S. Court
of Appeals.
        Contrary to Lifton's claim, the disbarment didn't leave Roger
"unable to practice law." The problems resulted from Roger's attempt to
vigorously represent his client (something William Kunstler, Gerry
Lefcourt and other Movement attorneys have often experienced). Lifton
offers an anonymous "one source" to add the claim that Roger accused the
judge of being part of a mafia plot. He needs better sources.

Martin

--
Martin Shackelford

"You're going to find that many of the truths we
  cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
   -Obi-Wan Kenobi

"You must unlearn what you have learned."  --Yoda