WHO IS LIBELING WHOM?
MORE ON THAT WARREN FARRELL AND "PENTHOUSE" BUSINESS
By Trish Wilson, © 1999
All rights reserved by author
This lovely little missive was received on Friday by "men-law," an
obnoxious, misogynistic men's and fathers' rights mailing list. Headers
for the men-law e-mail are at the bottom of this page. The men-law text
is in black. My comments are in blue.
NOTE: FAMOUS AUTHOR WARREN FARRELL IS A DIRECTOR OF THE
NATIONAL CONGRESS FOR FATHERS AND CHILDREN, AND
HAS PRESENTED WORKSHOPS AT MANY OF NCFC'S
--Bob Hirschfeld, JD NCFC
Ah, Bob Hirschfeld! What a paragon of virtue! Hirschfeld, formerly an attorney, was disbarred in Arizona in 1998 for twenty-four counts of unethical conduct. The Supreme Court of Arizona cited numerous examples of such conduct,
including his use of non-refundable retainer agreements, and abandoning
clients without notice to serve his own interests -- leaving them to
fend for themselves until he returned. I am talking about someone who
had defrauded FATHERS, yet fathers' rights advocates continue to
support him. Go figure.
Yup, Hirschfeld is a source that is as pure as yellow snow...
Subject: PLEASE BE AWARE....
From: Warren Farrell
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 10:30:12 -0700
I want to make you aware that a woman who calls herself variously Liz
Kates/Richards/Wilson is doing everything she can to try to brand the
major leaders of the fathers' movement as pedophiles ? to say that the
fathers' movement is just an excuse for fathers to be sexual with their
"A" woman? Who is this "Liz
Kates/Richards/Wilson?" My name is Trish Wilson. No "Liz" or "Kates" or
"Richards" in there anywhere. I have never branded any leader of the
fathers' movement as a pedophile, nor have I ever said that the
"fathers' movement is just an excuse for fathers to be sexual with
their children." Quote me where I have written those words, Warren.
She has also been the leading force behind trying to get Kathleen
fired from her post as a syndicated columnist in 300 newspapers.
Kathleen Parker challenges the "deadbeat dad" and "domestic violence as
one-way street" theories.
Why are you bringing up Kathleen Parker?
What does she have to do with "branding leaders of the fathers'
movement as pedophiles?"
Who is "she?" You talking about me, or this three-in-one creature? What
is that thing? A version of Cerberus, guarding what fathers' rights
advocates see as the Feminist Underworld? It reminds be a bit of the
holy trinity. Or, as I'm sure many fathers' rights advocates would view
it, an UNholy trinity. Misogynists like to declare that all of us
alleged "man-haters" are interchangeable.
Please provide valid proof that I have tried to get Kathleen Parker
fired. I know whoever wrote this missive won't be able to provide proof
because I haven't done any such thing. In fact, I have never contacted
Parker for any reason whatsoever. My views of what Parker writes are
irrelevant. She has a right to express her views and publish them as
she sees fit. I respect and defend that right. I have the right to
disagree with her, and to respond accordingly. It's called "freedom of
speech." If the person who wrote this diatribe is claiming that I am
that three-in-one creature who allegedly tried to get Parker fired,
when the truth is that I am one person -- Trish Wilson -- and I have
not tried to get her fired, that person is LYING. THAT is the correct
definition of libel, Warren.
In my case, she is spreading around a misquote about me that appeared in
Penthouse in 1977. The misquote had me saying that I felt that the taboo
on incest was making parents fearful of hugging, touching, and genitally
caressing their children. The hugging and touching part is correct. The
genitally caressing part is incorrect.
Ah, we finally get to the truth. This missive isn't at all about Parker or "leaders in the fathers movement." It is about you.
I own a copy of the original 1977 Penthouse
issue, which includes "The Last Taboo," Philip Nobile's article in
which you were quoted making positive statements about incest. I didn't
copy quotes from Internet web pages or engage in idle gossip about the
article. I own The Real Thing. The genitally caressing part is in that
article. The statement, attributed to you, about "genitally caressing"
is as follows:
"... [M]illions of people who
are now refraining from touching, holding, and GENITALLY CARESSING [my
emphasis] their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving
expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and
What is not "correct" about that quote, Warren? What are you claiming
you actually said? That quote is what was printed in Penthouse. Both
the magazine and Nobile, the author of the article, are behind that
quote. Did you ever request a retraction or correction? Did you take
legal action, such as suing Penthouse and/or Nobile? Do you have valid
documentation proving that you've tried to get Penthouse and/or Nobile
to rectify an alleged misquote? These are not new questions. I've had
information on this business on my website for a very long time, and
I've already posed these questions. They've never been answered. If you
have done any of the above in response to the Penthouse article, I'd be
happy to accept valid documentation from you to prove your claim.
Incidentally, you have been quoted extensively throughout that article
regarding the alleged benefits of incest. Why focus only on that one
quote? Why not bring up the entire article? But to do so would bring
far too much attention to it, wouldn't it? Especially now, when you're
on a book tour.
I know that the pro-incest statements that you made for that 1977
Penthouse article have followed you throughout your career. Why weren't
those statements a casualty of that "Lace Curtain" you cite so
frequently in your new book, "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say?"
For those unfamiliar with the term, the "Lace Curtain" is an alleged
tendency for most major institutions to interpret gender issues from
only a feminist perspective, or from a combination of feminist and
female perspectives. This is a men's movement creation. Warren, you
cite the "Lace Curtain" as a primary force behind your publishing and
media woes. So, why didn't the "Lace Curtain" affect that Penthouse
article? Your statements were printed, and that issue was released
without a hitch. It's still being talked about over twenty years later.
It seems that this one time your views were expressed was the one time you wish the "Lace Curtain" did what you claim it does.
Your book tour won't go smoothly if the Penthouse gremlin keeps
surfacing to disrupt your claims of being an "empowerment feminist."
When you write that this Liz Kates/Richards/Wilson creature (What the
heck IS that??? It's downright Lovecraftian.) is trying to brand "major
leaders of the fathers' movement" as pedophiles, you're referring
primarily to yourself, aren't you? This missive is really about you
feeling threatened that too many people are going to find copies of
that Penthouse article, and read it, isn't it? You definitely don't
want that to happen. Bad for business.
It wouldn't look good for anyone to show up at book readings
brandishing that Penthouse issue for all to see, and reading directly
from it, would it? You coming out now, over twenty years AFTER that
article was published, and saying that "it isn't true" just doesn't
wash. Since you're promoting your new book, it's probably best to keep
this business under wraps, isn't it? Don't let word get out that you
have made pro-incest statements to a skin mag back in 1977. By the way,
Warren, that is NOT the same as saying that you (or anyone else, for
that matter) are a pedophile. I have NEVER said that you are a
pedophile. I've never labeled anyone in the fathers' movement in that
manner. For anyone to insinuate that I have is libelous.
I have told this Liz Kates/Richards/Wilson that this was a misquote and
that to use this any further was an act of libel. She has been notified
about this by attorneys Robert McNeely and Cindy McNeely of Florida.
She has, though, persisted. Robert and Cindy McNeely have found some
damaging evidence about Liz Kates/Richards/Wilson's background.
I have NEVER been contacted by Robert
NcNeely and Cindy McNeely of Florida. You've never told me anything. I
saw a vague letter on Usenet a few years ago which was purported to
have come from you. It was forewarded by a men's rights activist. I was
named, but you have never contacted me directly. Who is this "she" who
has allegedly "persisted?" Is it that three-in-one creature? WHO is
that? What kind of "damaging evidence" have the McNeely's found? I'd
like to see copies of this "damaging evidence." Against whom was it
found? What kind of a wild goose chase are you on here?
COME ON WARREN, OUT WITH IT!! ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME REGARDING THAT
"PENTHOUSE" ARTICLE, PURPORTEDLY MADE BY YOU YET FOREWARDED BY MEN'S
MOVEMENT ACTIVISTS, HAVE BEEN MAKING THE ROUNDS FOR YEARS. CITE
SOMETHING VALID THAT PROVES YOUR POSITION. ALL OF THESE POORLY-VEILED
THREATS ARE MEANINGLESS.
This is a very serious matter, to make the claims being made here, yet
never having directly contacting me about them. It's also very serious
in that none of it is true. Did you make up this statement, or have the
McNeely's actually contacted you with "evidence?" Frankly, this claim
is skating into libel territory -- real libel, not this vague nonsense you've written.
If you receive correspondence about this, please fax or email this to me
immediately (fax: 760.753.2436; email: email@example.com) so that we can
build a case against her for the law suit. Please also reach Rob and
Cindy McNeely at O: (850) 222-2107; fax: +1 (850) 222-8475;
firstname.lastname@example.org; and email@example.com.
What "case?" And against whom? This isn't
the first time you've threatened a lawsuit in connection with that
Penthouse article that just won't crawl into the woods and die. Is this
"case" against me? Against this "Liz Kates/Richards/Wilson" chimaera?
What "correspondence?" Do you mean gossip you receive from fathers'
rights advocates? Do you believe everything those people send you via
e-mail? I hope not, but judging from what I've read in your new book,
that is obviously not the case.
It's not a good idea to take what they claim at face value, Warren. What they don't
say rightly damages the credibility of those who write in support of
the fathers' rights movement. Contrary to your book title, plenty of
women ARE hearing what men in the men's and fathers' rights movements
DON'T say. A telling example of "what they don't say" is the "National Cry for Children"
rally. Brad Ingram is the rally's founder and organizer. Contrary to
the scads of press releases he has written, he isn't someone who just
wants to be a good dad. Ingram is a convicted wife-beater, an alcoholic
with two DUI's, and a deadbeat who hasn't paid child support since
1997. The aforementioned Kathleen Parker just wrote an article about
that rally for USA Today. She's about to get a nasty wake-up call when
she finds out the truth about certain people's personal backgrounds.
It's called "credibility," Warren. Or, in the case of claims made by many fathers' rights activists, the lack of it.
In particular, if anyone backs off from sponsorship or cooperation with
you/us in any way, please ask them to put their reasons in writing and
then send me this evidence so we can cite actual damages in a law suit.
I will also discuss this issue with Carey Linde, whose advice I respect.
Why would anyone back off if what you
claim here is right? What are you doing here? Allowing people who want
to gang up on those who have spoken out about that Penthouse article a
means of providing their opinion as evidence without giving those who
speak out a chance to confront their accusers?
"You/us?" Does the "you" refer to disbarred attorney Hirschfeld? Who is
the "us?" You and Hirschfeld? The fathers' movement and Hirschfeld? You
and NCFC? Are any and/or all of you planning to make money from this
latest "law suit?"
Carey Linde? Where did this person come from? And is Linde an attorney?
You don't outright state here exactly who Linde is. What happened to
the McNeely's? You don't respect their advice anymore? Are you even in
contact with them? Just what kind of little game is this, anyway?
If you have any further concerns, please be in touch with me at
You've obviously written this missive in
response to someone who had contacted you about ... what? You are very
vague throughout the whole thing. Who contacted you? Since Hirschfeld
placed this missive on men-law, did he contact you? Was he representing
himself, or was he representing NCFC? Are these "concerns" related to
this Liz Kates/Richards/Wilson creature who allegedly tried to get
Kathleen Parker fired from her job? Or are they about that Penthouse
article? Is money involved? This missive is very vague, Warren. It
seems to me that the primary purpose of it isn't really to set things
straight, but to keep this Penthouse business under wraps.
Word of advice, Warren: Don't accept what you are told at face value, especially when it comes to claims made in this missive.
Imagine a credit card with a 0% Intro APR and Instant Approvalƒ
It seems impossible, but it?s not. Visit GetSmart.com?s Credit Card
Finder and click on instant approval cards right now at
WARNING. This message is copyrighted 1999 by its author. All rights
reserved. Any reproduction of this message outside MEN-LAW without the
prior written permission of the author is strictly prohibited and may lead to severe civil and criminal penalties.
A copyright on a libel threat? Some people will do ANYTHING to prevent other opinions from getting airplay, won't they?
-- Talk to your group with your own voice!
Is this so that Women Can't Hear What Men
DO Say on men-law because they'd rightly be outraged by the
misogynistic content of that mailing list?
Mailing-List: contact firstname.lastname@example.org
X-eGroups-Approved-By: email@example.com / SImparl@aol.com via email
Received: (listserv 1.276); by a1; 06 Nov 1999 01:25:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 17701 invoked from network); 6 Nov 1999 01:20:31 -0000
Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (22.214.171.124) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 1999 01:20:31 -0000
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12505; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:20:10 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:20:10 -0700 (MST)
Received: from 206-132-49-92.nas-1.SCF.primenet.com(126.96.36.199),
claiming to be "KFVTJUML" via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id
smtpdAAAbOaOly; Fri Nov 5 18:20:04 1999
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
From: BobHirschfeldJD@nolawyer.com (Bob Hirschfeld, JD)
Subject: [men-law] Defamation against Warren Farrell
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"