John Kerry Sued By POW Group

[carpro]

Originally posted by Daisy:
It seems as though this lawsuit is in retaliation to the ones a couple of vets filed against them for defamation.

Probably so. I've read their lawsuits and seen the pictures they say "defamed" them. Kinda laughable but still cost Sherwood a ton of money to defend.

Do you think there is a chance they might be doing the bidding of Kerry?

I'm in agrement with Joseph. Kerry is the only one that can stop this tit for tat.

He should sue the Swiftboat Veterans and POW's for Truth, take the stand under oath and tear 'em up!

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by carpro:
Probably so. I've read their lawsuits and seen the pictures they say "defamed" them. Kinda laughable but still cost Sherwood a ton of money to defend.

If they were not lying, then the suit is not laughable and they were defamed. If they were lying, then Sherwood should recoup his money. In the meanwhile, he is using these suits as fundraising points, probably successfully.

Do you think there is a chance they might be doing the bidding of Kerry?

Sure, it's possible, but I don't know how likely as they are not his minions.

I'm in agrement with Joseph. Kerry is the only one that can stop this tit for tat.

What nonsense! Sherwood and this incarnation of the Swift Vets could stop it if they chose.

He should sue the Swiftboat Veterans and POW's for Truth, take the stand under oath and tear 'em up!

Perhaps, I don't know.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Daisy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carpro:
Probably so. I've read their lawsuits and seen the pictures they say "defamed" them. Kinda laughable but still cost Sherwood a ton of money to defend.

If they were not lying, then the suit is not laughable and they were defamed. If they were lying, then Sherwood should recoup his money. In the meanwhile, he is using these suits as fundraising points, probably successfully.

</font>[/QUOTE]Maybe they should sue Kerry. Those pictures were the same ones Kerry displayed in his book, "The New Soldier".

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by carpro:
Maybe they should sue Kerry. Those pictures were the same ones Kerry displayed in his book, "The New Soldier".

It's not so much that they were used as how they were used.

...
17. In Stolen Honor, the defendants improperly used photographs from "The New Soldier," placing Dr. Bjornson (and other Vietnam combat veterans) in a false light.

18. With minimal research, defendants would have been able to discern that Dr. Bjornson was, in fact, an honorably discharged Vietnam veteran, who served in Vietnam during the war.

19. All defendants, including VVLF and NewsMax, knew or should have known of the misrepresentations and false light presentations contained within Stolen Homor, yet continued tp publish, sell or otherwise distribute Stolen Homor in spite of knowing (or with due diligence should have known) that there were serious issues with regard to the veracitiy of Stolen Homor.

pg 5

20. The use of Dr. Bjornson's picture in Stolen Homor, as an example of a fraudulent verteran who never set forth on a battlefield or left the comfort of the States, or even served in uniform except in mock comtempt of the military, is especially egregious, clearly dishonest, defamatory and reckless, with the scuttilous purpose of placing Dr. Bjornson in a false light and harming the reputation of Br. Bjornson.
...
Source: VVLF.org Bjornson Complaint (linkie - pdf)

Dr. Campbell's suit doesn't mention any pictures taken from "The New Soldier".

NewsMax was also a defendant in Bjornson's suit. Were they reporting on the SwiftVet thing while an interested party?

 

[Loren B]

I agree with Joseph. Have Kerry countersue and sign the form. Let's get the truth.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Daisy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carpro:
Maybe they should sue Kerry. Those pictures were the same ones Kerry displayed in his book, "The New Soldier".

It's not so much that they were used as how they were used.

</font>[/QUOTE]Dr. Campbell's suit doesn't mention any pictures taken from "The New Soldier".

[/QUOTE]

How convenient. It also doesn't mention that he was not named in the film. And neither does Bjornson.

Being a Vientnam veteran myself, I have to wonder about Campbell. After all he is a self confessed war criminal.

Newsmax is named because they eventually paid to have the film shown after the Kerry machine had threatened and browbeat Sinclair Broadcasting executives, advertisers and stockholders.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by carpro:
Maybe they should sue Kerry. Those pictures were the same ones Kerry displayed in his book, "The New Soldier".
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daisy:
Dr. Campbell's suit doesn't mention any pictures taken from "The New Soldier".

How convenient.</font>[/QUOTE]Say what? How is it "convenient" that Dr. Campbell's suit doesn't mention the pictures you implied were at the heart of his suit?

It also doesn't mention that he was not named in the film.

If he is recognisable in the clip(s) of him, while the narration accuses the soldiers of fraud with the implication that that refers to the soldiers shown at and around that moment, then he may have a case against Sherwood et al, but none against Kerry as you had advised.

And neither does Bjornson.

Dr. Bjornson's picture is used.

Being a Vientnam veteran myself, I have to wonder about Campbell. After all he is a self confessed war criminal.

Yeah, right. Wonder away.

Newsmax is named because they eventually paid to have the film shown...

My point. They paid to have it shown at the same time as they were covering the story? Isn't that crossing the line?

... after the Kerry machine had threatened and browbeat Sinclair Broadcasting executives, advertisers and stockholders.

Kerry's campaign rightly pointed out that broadcasting it for free, uninterrupted just before the election would be a significant and material contribution to the opposition.

 

[Brother James]

How come draft dodger Bush gets a pass? I spent eight years in. My daddy couldn't get me a pass.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Brother James:
How come draft dodger Bush gets a pass? I spent eight years in. My daddy couldn't get me a pass.

He's not a draft dodger, Brother James. I don't know what the name is for what he did, but it is not "draft dodger". He may not have served in Vietnam, but he did join the Texas National Guard (cutting ahead of 200 or so men in line) and serve on a political campaign, so no dissing the prez.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Both Bush AND Kerry served, and AFAIK, got honorable discharges. That's where it begins, and ends, for me.

 

[Jimmy]

Having served in Veit Nam the very mention of John Kerry turns my stomic. I well remember arriving at the San Fransico air Port and having to pass through a type of dog run to board our buses. On the other side of the fence were hundreds of kerry & Fondas pals spitting on us and calling us all baby killers & murderers. I am so thankful that the good Lord saw fit to prevent him from becoming commander and chief.

 

[carpro]

Mary Ann Mcmanus strikes again.

From a Front Page Magazine interview:

McManus: "Well, let’s begin with the issue of freedom of speech. Does it mean you can lie and defame people and government policies, say just any old thing you want including outrageous lies? I can’t help but wonder: who sued Michael Moore for Fahrenheit 9/11? George Butler for "Going Up River," Jane Fonda for just about anything, or John Kerry for his 1971 senate testimony? Regardless of the content of their statements--truth, fiction, hyperbole--their right to proclaim it is protected. Our rights apparently are not protected."

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Which is yet another problem I have with the current president. Let's not forget that last year, one of the main proponets of silencing freedom of speech for the Swift Vets and Vietnam POW's was none other than George W. Bush.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Which is yet another problem I have with the current president. Let's not forget that last year, one of the main proponets of silencing freedom of speech for the Swift Vets and Vietnam POW's was none other than George W. Bush.

Joseph Botwinick

Playing politics. Staying above the fray. That sort of thing.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Playing politics against freedom of speech and Vietnam Vets and POW's doesn't seem logical. He could have just kept his mouth shut althogether and stayed above the fray. Or, he could have said that they don't represent him and his POV if he thought they were wrong. But, he crossed the line when he encouraged silencing them.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[LadyEagle]

Page-3 warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 4:30 a.m. ET by one of the Moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by carpro:
Mary Ann Mcmanus strikes again.

She's a bit of an idjit.

McManus: "Well, let’s begin with the issue of freedom of speech. Does it mean you can lie and defame people and government policies, say just any old thing you want including outrageous lies?

She should know.

I can’t help but wonder: who sued Michael Moore for Fahrenheit 9/11? George Butler for "Going Up River," Jane Fonda for just about anything, or John Kerry for his 1971 senate testimony? Regardless of the content of their statements--truth, fiction, hyperbole--their right to proclaim it is protected.

She seems to indulge her own self in this diatribe.

Our rights apparently are not protected."

No one is stopping her from proclaiming truth, fiction & hyperbole....what in the world is she on about?

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Playing politics against freedom of speech and Vietnam Vets and POW's doesn't seem logical. He could have just kept his mouth shut althogether and stayed above the fray. Or, he could have said that they don't represent him and his POV if he thought they were wrong. But, he crossed the line when he encouraged silencing them.

Joseph Botwinick

He did indicate that he had nothing to do with their ads. Instead of supporting them outright , he used them to try to silence Kerry's mouthpieces Moveon et al. He never condemned them, instead he said he would ask them to stop running their ads if... Kerry did the same to the many 527's running anti Bush ads in Kerry's behalf. At least, that's the way I remember it.

Of course Kerry wasn't about to do that. And Bush knew it.

 

[LadyEagle]

Closed.