Andy Martin Accuses New York's Progressive Propaganda Sheet of Defamation

It seems that New York's Progressive Propaganda Sheet has been making misrepresentations about Andy Martin. Another day, another lie.

Headquarters mail:
Post Office Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Tel. (866) 706-2639
Fax (866) 707-2639
Web: ContrarianCommentary.com
E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com

Anthony R. Martin, J. D.
Executive Editor
Letters to the Editor and
Public Editor
New York Times
New York, NY
Via e-mail and hand delivery
public@nytimes.com,
letters@nytimes.com,
rutenber@nytimes.com

I would like to request a correction/retraction concerning one area of a story you published on October 13th.

First, some preliminary observations. On Tuesday your reporter published a report that I was the target of "strong attacks from liberals on Monday." It seemed to me that the story carried its own disclaimer, and that on balance the story was sufficient fair and impartial to be acceptable as a matter of law. I stand by that belief and I previously had no intention of challenging that report even though it did contact a serious inaccuracy, namely that the Florida Republican Party had disowned me. The record clearly reflects that was a false statement.

A corrupt Republican, Thomas Slade, with whom I had constantly fought because of his corruption, had absolutely no authority to act on behalf of the party to smear a legally nominated Republican candidate. That issue is legally clear. Mr. Rutenberg has ignored that point. Nevertheless, the issue standing alone was sufficiently remote as not to warrant a lawsuit.

Second, I have had a distinguished career in broadcasting and communications for over forty years. (see www.AndyMartin.com). I was the youngest person ever authorized to operate a TV station.

I have a more distinguished legal and civil rights career than Barack Obama. In over forty years of fighting corruption and helping to send crooked judges to jail, I have indeed had altercations with these crooks. You don't make friends fighting corruption in politics, you make enemies. Chicago remains what one author once called it, a "City in Chains." Barack Obama has been part of the chainmasters, not the liberators.

There has been an obsession at the Times with 1983 litigation where I exposed a corrupt judge in Connecticut, Jose Cabranes, who had his own personal divorce lawyer appearing in a case before him. That is matter of public record. Cabranes and Judge John O Newman then sought to destroy me to cover up their own corruption. I furnished the name of my attorney as a source to support these claims. But, because the word "Jewish" appeared in the litigation, there has been an obsession with falsely portraying me as anti-Semitic.

What does any of this 25 year old nonsense have to do with the 2008 election? Absolutely nothing. The Times is publishing misleading accusations to smear solid evidence against Barack Obama. There is a name for that, with which the Times is familiar: McCarthyism. The Times is engaging in McCarthyism in seeking to smear me with out-of-context and irrelevant incidents from decades past in order to undermine my reporting in the present.

President Bill Clinton reviewed my evidence and rejected both of these corrupt federal judges, Cabranes and Newman, for the Supreme Court.

From the earliest common law days the judicial system has contained a "judicial privilege" for comments made in and around litigation and judicial proceedings. The reason for this is apodictic. Cases get heated, people make strong statements and sometimes legal doctrines which initially appear outrageous are upheld by higher courts. My own "Jewish" claims were later upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court in an unrelated case, which is hardly an anti-Semitic body. Thus, while on first blush my claims might appear exaggerated, and indeed they were, they were part of a legal proceeding in which I successfully advanced a highly controversial legal theory. No one, not parties, not witnesses, not lawyers are held personally accountable for claims made under such conditions. What I exposed was a corrupt "Bankruptcy Ring" in Connecticut. The truth of my evidence and allegations were never refuted. Instead, the crooks responded with smears delivered through a corrupt judge.

The Times was publishing stale news. The same claims were featured on CBS 15 years ago. CBS was also trying to "hype" their story with misleading arguments. The effort backfired.

The remarks concerning a purported "psychiatric finding" in today's Times however are false and defamatory. I advised your reporter of the following: (1) I was part of a team that worked to successfully remove two corrupt judges of the Illinois Supreme Court for taking bank stock bribes. (2) I hold an Honorable Discharge from the U. S. Air Force, and offered to produce a copy. (3) Even before I graduated from law school, I was threatened with retaliation by the Illinois Supreme Court for having successfully exposed the crooked judges. The judges sought to have me drafted, unlawfully, and used one of their agents, John L. Franklin, to attempt to have me inducted despite my Honorable Discharge. (4) Finally, I did appear as ordered at an Armed Forces Induction Station, advised the screener that as a law student I had filed a lawsuit against the draft for sex discrimination, and was told "good day" in about 2 or 3 minutes. I never used the term "spite" in my extensive interviews with Mr. Rutenberg. No one has ever performed any "psychiatric evaluation" on me in my life. And, unlike Barack Obama, I do not have to lie about my family or my past.

But, because as a young lawyer I had successfully made powerful enemies in the local judiciary, they were able to use their judicial power to demonize me by publishing their false accusations.

Psychiatry is serious business. If the Times has to defend itself against my lawsuit, I do not believe you will find a single psychiatrist in the United States who will attest that a draft physical and a 3-minute meeting constitutes a "psychiatric" evaluation. The fact that Mr. Rutenberg mentions his "psychiatric exam" twice shows that he is now trying to rape me all over again, 35 years later, in the service of yet another crooked Illinois politician, Barack Obama. Had Mr. Rutenberg told your readers the context of the so-called psychiatric encounter, most people would have found it insulting that the 38 year-old incident was even included in your report. Your story thus constituted an abuse of psychiatry as well as being transparently false and defamatory.

Mr. Obama's own sister has admitted her family and brother attended Muslim services while he lived in Indonesia. How Mr. Obama can lie about an objective fact escapes me. He was a Muslim at least until the age of ten. No one knows when Mr. Obama claims to have ceased being a Muslim because he has never furnished an actual date when he converted to Christianity. I have never seen a date when Obama says he accepted the Christian faith. Have you?

The Times itself has been caught in the same controversy by publishing other writers who also accept the general Muslim precept that a person is a Muslim if born to a Muslim father. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?scp=2&sq=obama+apostasy&st=nyt

Mr. Obama's father was a Muslim and he was a Muslim to the end of his days. He received a Muslim funeral. If we have no date when Obama stopped being a Muslim, doubt is created. That doubt has been created by Obama, not me.

I have forty years of experience in Chicago politics (see www.AndyMartin.com) I have studied Barack Obama for four years. I was in Chicago during the "Days of Rage" when Bill Ayers and his supporters rioted in downtown Chicago and paralyzed a Chicago official (Dick Elrod). Based on extensive research and experience, I went on Fox News and expressed my informed conclusions and opinions. They were expressed as opinions because we still do not know all the facts: Obama refuses to discuss them. But the circumstantial evidence is indisputable that Obama was part of a radical clique at Columbia, where he met Bill Ayers, and where Obama began his career as a radical politician. I was on the Columbia campus during that period and knew the tenor of the place. That is my opinion based on the evidence, and I stand by that evidence and opinion.

In the courts we have what is called the "adverse inference rule." When a party refuses to produce probative or exculpatory evidence, you are permitted to draw an "adverse inference" that production of that evidence would be adverse. Obama obviously believes that telling the truth about his life would be adverse to his political future.

In closing, I want to make clear that I am not linked to any political campaign and I have functioned at all times as a highly respected and successful Internet columnist and editor. Thus, because your false claims about my "psychiatric" history defamed me in my profession or business, they are defamatory per se. You are obviously trying to damage sales of my book, Obama: The Man Behind the Mask.

The Times has every right to support Mr. Obama. The Times does not have a right to lie about my life, or smear me, as part of its pro-Obama reporting. Interestingly, Mr. Rutenberg only looked for people who would attack me, such as the slimy Mr. Slade. He did not look for any favorable comments on my life. That's bias in anyone's terms.

I would like to resolve this matter without the need to file a lawsuit. The facts as stated above are correct and documented. But in the past the Times has shown a proclivity to provoke lawsuits rather than protect the truth. If needed, I will take action, very reluctantly. Nevertheless, since this letter is being disseminated on the Internet, I want to make it clear I will work with you to avoid a lawsuit if you wish to act responsibly.

Fox News was courageous in assembling the truth about Obama, and Sean Hannity is to be commended, not condemned, for an outstanding program. The very vehemence and viciousness of the Obama response is compelling evidence that Obama still can't face the truth about himself. I am afraid we are about to elect a liar.

In 1999, I did indeed run a TV commercial against George Bush on Channel 9 in Manchester, New Hampshire. I said, "George Bush wants to bomb Iraq. He's dangerous and he wants to be president" I saw before anyone else where George Bush's weaknesses would lead us. The TV spot provoked the same kind of venom that my current reporting about Obama is eliciting. In five decades of reporting, I have been on three presidential or presidential candidate enemies' lists, in both parties. I am honest, impartial and independent.

The truth is always painful to politicians, of both parties, because it undercuts the lies they want us to believe. But who was right about Bush in 1999? And who is right about Obama today? History has judged my 1999 comments as accurate. I am equally confident of future judgments on my 2008 reporting.

Sincerely yours,

ANDY MARTIN

Note: This Letter to the Editor, or alternatively an Op-Ed submission, should also be deemed a legal defamation notice although, as indicated above, I would prefer to resolve this controversy without another lawsuit against the Times. If, on the other hand, you want to pay high-priced lawyers to lie for you, have at it.