From : les raphael
Monday 12 June 2006
I am well aware of the difference between my borrowing from the Naudets and Avery's : I wrote to their lawyers to invite them to sue me. They haven't
done it, so it seems I'm not this fiendish libel artist, so offensive I have to have my essay removed from the web.
You invited them to sue you for
breaching copyright, which you had not done, as has been explained to you already. That does not mean you have not committed
libel.
Orphia - it would be me who got sued, not the essay. For which, by the way, refer to
spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm
All previous versions are outdated - and, in some minor ways, inaccurate.
Why haven't you made sure these innaccurate versions haven't been removed from the web? Is it for the same reason you make inaccurate accusations about the Naudet brothers' film?
Oh, I see you 'updated' your essay after I posted the text of my email to their lawyers... is that a 'coincidence'?
It would be nice to hear one of you saying you think Bush and Blair are a pair of lying war criminals. Haven't seen it yet.
This is the best I can do at short notice: Blair and Bush are popularity-seekers who jump on the latest bandwagons like some others I could mention.
From : Les Raphael, Monday 12 June 2006
To Orphia -
"The remarkable documentary about the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre broadcast on BBC1 last night has raised millions of pounds for the families of New York fire fighters who died helping people to escape the twin towers."
From the Guardian article, "Twin towers film raises millions for fire fighters", by Jason Deans, published Thursday September 12, 2002.
Missed this on my first reading. I'd love to know where Deans got his information, since the DVD wasn't released - and I get so tired of saying this, but "as stated in my essay" - until the day after that TV version was broadcast - the date of Deans' article. How did it raise "millions" - advance orders ? Must have been one of the biggest selling DVDs in history - where can I find that in print ? Or maybe Deans was using ESP to predict the sales. You'd think they could come up with even a rough actual figure, 3½ years later : if you can find one, I'd appreciate it - I've never been able to. You might also try digging out how much the deal was for when Gamma-Presse and then CBS acquired the rights to the Naudet footage from these living saints - in the days before the charity story turned up.
If you'd actually read Jason Dean's article you would comprehend that the millions of pounds raised by September 2002 were from sales of the
television distribution rights to networks such as CBS and the BBC, and "broadcasters around the world".
My original post was addressed "To Orphia Nay and others" - the bit about abuse was aimed at "you" plural : but you're quite right - your own post didn't contain any. Just an accusation of libel, which I deny. I know my claims are distressing to some folk - I'm not exactly living a stress-free life myself because of it - but I think we have to face the truth, however ugly it
is, and I think my claims are the truth, or at least heading towards it. I could be wrong, but after all this time, and all the messages of support I've had, I don't think I am - generally - I may have some aspects wrong.
I see you can be reasonable when confronted with the truth face-to-face. Could one 'aspect about which you may be wrong' be the fact that you have no proof of the film being 'staged'? You only have a list of coincidences about the 'miraculous' fact that they captured the plane hitting the first tower.
Have you ever wondered how many people would be up and about videotaping at 8:45am? The Naudets' had been filming firefighters (a worthy subject) for months, and fire stations (especially in one of the biggest cities in the world) would usually be busy, so it would be unlikely that they would be not doing something of filmable interest. Why not create a conspiracy theory that NO TOURISTS FILMED THE FIRST IMPACT. Who told them all to stay in bed and have a late breakfast on their holidays? Silly me, there's no bandwagon to jump on there. Wait - all the Japanese tourists permitted US tourist visas at the time were stealthy ninjas, on a mission to have a grosse matinée and suppress the troof! It makes perfect sense...
Would you think it a coincidence if the Naudets had NOT filmed the impact, despite filming for months and there being an operation attended by the brigade at the time and near the place of the impact? Would you jump on the pod/missile bandwagon and say they were part of the 'cover-up' of that issue?
Conspiracy theorists have an agenda and join the dots to suit it, at the expense of the truth, and their sanity. Face it.. you think you thrive on stress.
Here's an idea : why don't you try writing to Jules Naudet at the e-mail address given in my essay, as someone who rejects my claims, and ask how he feels about them ? I've written several times - and they never come back as undelivered - but he won't talk. Or at the William Morris Agency - or via the lawyers - or at the address for Goldfish Films. I've tried all of them - and a PO Box address for Goldfish that vanished from the net not long after I wrote to it in September 2002 - my first attempt to confront them, with the very earliest version of my convenience list - only a couple of dozen in those days. Still enough to make the case. I don't think you'll get any more response than I've had, but if you do, let me know, and it can be discussed.
Why should I write to them? To dispel any doubts that they are part of a cover-up? I have no doubts. To assuade any doubts I have that they think the conspiracy theory is despicable and baseless? I have no doubts. To assuade
your doubts about a cover-up? I am not your monkey. (Credit to delphi_ote for that phrase.)
les raphael said:
From : Les Raphael 12 June 06
[...]
This part of the Hayden interview is NOT what I asked for - a contemporary
quote, on the day. It's from Firehouse magazine of April 2002, probably from
an interview in October 2001 - that's when the Task Force were busy doing
other interviews I've seen. My attempt to access the original NYT file said
it was damaged - couldn't confirm the date. Unless it was September 11
2001, my point stands. I don't want folk saying it months later, after it had
collapsed - I want predictions from BEFORE. Who said it was going to come
down ?
If firefighters or emergency personell had interrupted their duties to conduct an interview on 9/11/2001, would you dismiss it as disinformation? If a homeless bystander had expressed the same view on that day, would you believe the opinion of a non-expert?
60hzxtl said:
Libel is a a tough one to prove; since you have to demonstrate damages.
Not responding is hardly conclusive - what could they gain? You can sue O.J. Simpson for $40.mil, but if he hasn't got $40.mil, you don't get it.
The fact that they have not sued you for libel does not mean that you have not libeled them
Yes. The fact that Leslie Raphael's article only appeared early this year indicates to me that it may not have damaged the distribution of the film's sales (and the donation of its profits to 9/11 victims' families) much, yet. Only dissuaged buyers would know whether it did for certain. It is up to the Naudets, their lawyers and the William Morris agency to identify those failed purchases, or
to monitor potential and failed sales, one reason why I emailed the lawyers. (I wonder... why did it take him nearly 5 years to accuse the filmmakers of fraud?)
Leslie, you have been given an opportunity to amend or even withdraw your baseless allegations of fraudulence. A brief read of your amended article reveals to me that you are persisting with your libellous claims, and playing with fire.
les raphael said:
Meanwhile, since I'm not being sued, I'll carry on my campaign.
If I was being sued, I'd carry it on.
Notoriety at all costs, eh?
)