All Episodes
Previous Next
May 27, 1999 - Art Bell
01:53:18
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Art's Secret - Internet Defamation
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Don't want to buy wine, Fink.
I'm excited indeed, so much.
The sight of the touch, or the scent of the sound, or the strength of an oak roots deep through the ground.
The wonder of flowers to be covered and then to burst up through tarmac to the sun again.
Or to fly to the sun without burning a wing.
To lie in a meadow and hear the grass sing.
For all these things in our memories are all from the years that are close to us.
I'm a man of my word.
Well, call Art Bell from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
First time callers may reach Art at 1-775-727-1222.
Well, call Art Bell from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
First time callers may reach Art at 1-775-727-1222.
The wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
And to reach Art on the toll-free international line, call your AT&T operator.
And have them dial 800-893-0903.
This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the Premier Radio Networks.
That's what it is, and you are in for a ride this morning.
As many of you know, I left the air unexpectedly some time ago, which caused a great furor.
I'm not going to be able to tell you specifically the reason tonight that I left the air.
You are going to learn a great deal about what has been going on in my life recently.
My guess would be that within the week or less, within a week or less, you will in fact know why I left the air.
You will, in fact, know what the family crisis was that caused me to take that drastic, precipitous step to leave the air.
I now believe that will be public information within the week.
There, however, have been several things fall out from that that has occurred in my life over the last Many months.
Year and a half.
I don't know.
Long time now.
Too long.
It's been like a nightmare for me.
And tonight, it's going to be laid out in front of you.
And to lay it out, I'm going to bring on my attorney.
His name is Gerald P. Fox.
I call him Jerry, and I think you can call him Jerry.
Jerry Fox graduated magna cum laude in 1985 from Georgetown University Law School.
Formerly was associated with Cummington and Burling in Washington, D.C.
N.K., Scholler, Heerman, Hayes, and Handler in Los Angeles.
Lead trial counsel in successful high-profile cases brought by, you'll recall, the Isley brothers, Tom Waits, and Anita Baker.
Jerry represents, or is a partner in, a senior partner in Fox, Spillane, Spock, actually Fox Sigler and Spillane law firm in Los Angeles.
So, in a moment, we're going to begin to unwind a story for you.
And you, oh yes, I guess I should add that we just threw the switch on the official information on my website.
We will be explaining that shortly, but it is on the website right now.
Keith Rowland just threw the switch on that information, so if you have a computer, you've got a little bit of a head start, you can go to my website at www.artbell.com.
And it will be immediately apparent to you.
You may have to do a little reading, but otherwise it will be quite apparent to you what is going on.
To tell the rest of you on the radio what is going on is our mission over the next hours.
Stay right where you are.
Well, I'm never going to stop interrupting myself.
I'm so anxious to launch this information that I guess I just can't stop it.
I'm going to have to live with it.
All right, listen.
I want to give you just a very slight preamble to what you're going to hear.
As many of you know, David John Oates, who is the founder of This reverse speech thing used to be a guest on my program.
In fact, I had him on the program many times, and I don't think he was very well known at all until he was on my program.
And I had him on as a guest because I thought reverse speech was very entertaining.
And, in fact, it is.
And despite the fact that there are problems with the messenger, I think that reverse speech remains an interesting, perhaps, science.
Perhaps not.
And my view on that has not changed.
However, after one particular program with Ed Dames in which Mr. Oates had come on and done a number of reversals, metaphoric reversals.
Now, metaphoric reversals are kind of different.
There are not clear reversals a lot of you will not even know what I'm talking about because it's been so long since he's been on but occasionally in forward speech There is in reverse speech intelligence imparted that would appear to be congruent with Or sometimes incongruent with what is said in forward speech.
It's a very interesting thing to listen to.
And, of course, when you get a clear reversal that everybody can hear and understand why it's particularly interesting and informative.
Now, there's another aspect, a deeper aspect to reverse speech, which is metaphoric.
For example, the quick brown fox jumped over the log.
And from that you might construct, I suppose, whatever you imagine that to mean.
And on one particular program, David Oates was doing reversals on Ed Dames.
I had actually asked him to do reversals on Ed Dames, and I didn't care how they came out.
I didn't care if it showed Ed Deems to be a complete fraud, which I don't believe him to be, of course, but I didn't care.
You know, let the chips fall where they may.
That's the way I've always done my program.
But as the program progressed, David began playing increasing numbers of metaphors, and I had asked him not to do that specifically.
In other words, if you had clear reversals, play them and let the chips fall where they may.
During a break, I would stop and I would ask David, please, David, now we talked about this, please don't play the metaphors.
Play the clear reversals.
Then he would go right back to the metaphors again.
And this just continued and I would go back during the break and I'd finally say, what the hell are you doing?
Come on, we agreed.
Clear reversals.
And so the show ended with no difficulty on the air.
However, as a result of that program, I did not invite David Oates back to the show.
Following that, there were a series of attacks on me by David that appeared on the Internet that were said on other radio programs, and I once even called David and said, David, why are you doing this?
And he would say, well, I wrote that message and I didn't mean for it to get out and it got out.
You know, it just got out somehow and I'm sorry and I'm pulling the message off or whatever.
And it got to sort of a frustrating point where I finally just said, that's it.
You know, that's it.
Just stop attacking me.
Let a period of time go by and all will be well.
And all could have been well.
But for some reason, David chose to continue to attack me.
And so obviously he has not been on program since.
Then enter Robert A. M. Stevens, who came on my program ostensibly to debate Richard C. Hoagland.
Many of you will have heard that.
And it was a farce.
It was obviously I believe, on the part of Mr. Stevens, intended to end the way it did, with his being tossed off the show.
In other words, there was an agenda from the very beginning.
I think he wanted to be tossed off, and he certainly got his wish.
He's going to get his wish in other regards as well, as will David.
However, before we even get to that case, There's something you don't know about.
And this, I think, is where I bring my attorney in, Jerry Fox.
Jerry and I have been working together now for how long, Jerry?
Well, since a little after December 9th, 1997, I think, to be exact.
Okay.
I guess it would be appropriate for me, again, to mention that there was Of a terrible, and you can confirm this in some way for me, Jerry, a terrible tragedy that occurred in my family.
Absolutely.
To a family member.
Something really horrible.
And that what we are going to talk about tonight, to some degree, is fallout from that occurrence.
Is that fair to say?
It's certainly our position that it is, in fact, fallout from that occurrence, as unfortunate as that may be.
Can you, just to give the audience an idea, and I believe that probably all of this is going to be public within a week, would you agree?
Yes.
So, we'll let the public decide for themselves when they hear about it.
I'm going to choose to prevent embarrassment for my family and stress for my family.
I'm not going to be the one to do this.
I've always maintained that from the start and it will continue to be the case, but it will be known soon enough.
Anyway, following that terrible, terrible thing that occurred, I guess I would ask you at that point to pick up where our relationship began and why it began.
I certainly are.
Shortly after December 9, 1997, I was introduced to Art, unfortunately not for the reasons that I would have liked to have been introduced to him, because of the content of his show or because of his wide listening audience.
I was introduced to Art because he was victimized in a way that unfortunately has become all too common, given the internet and the information highway it provides, and also other forms of broadcasting.
They're not as commercial or everyday, such as shortwave radio.
And specifically, on or about December 9th in 1997, a gentleman by the name of David Hinkson was a guest on a shortwave radio show hosted by an ex-FBI agent by the name of Ted Gunderson, who many of you may or may not know of.
Mr. Gunderson was having his radio show broadcast over a radio station in Nashville, Tennessee, which is known by the call letters WWCR, which is in Davidson County, Tennessee, and actually reaches a worldwide audience.
Right.
During the radio show, Gunderson and Hinkson engaged in a discussion which essentially, on its face, most clearly stated, through innuendo and direct statements, That Mr. Bell had been indicted for a crime, that Mr. Bell had bribed officials to dismiss and cover up the indictment, and that the crime for which Mr. Bell had been indicted involved child molestation.
I have to pause here.
I've been practicing law for 14 years, and I've handled my share of defamation cases.
In a defamation case, probably the worst possible form of defamation, or the worst possible forms, Would involve allegations that a person has been convicted of a crime or a felony.
Allegations that someone paid a bribe or somehow was involved in some form of illegal behavior in some kind of a interplay with the government, such as a bribe.
And most clearly, and I think we saw this in the Michael Jackson situation, to suggest that somebody is a child molester is probably the most cruel, Most oppressive and the most mean-spirited form of defamation possible.
Yes, I can't, and I said this to you at the time that we first met, I cannot imagine being accused of something more horrible than molesting a child.
Either can I, Art, and I think probably most of the people in our listening audience would agree, especially those of us who are parents, which I am and you are.
Yes, yes.
Our affiliation began by asking for a retraction.
There was in part a retraction, but I would state strongly that the retraction was not satisfactory.
It did not suggest that the gentlemen involved, Mr. Hinkson and Mr. Gunderson, were taking ownership and accountability for what they had done.
It certainly did not answer the question That I think all of us are going to continue to search for, which is why would two individuals get on the airwaves and make this type of a statement about Mr. Bell, which is not true.
We have provided our own and conducted our own investigation to confirm what Mr. Bell has said and which we know to be true, which is that these statements are utterly and completely false and cannot be proven.
And you'd have to actually ask yourself, again, why a person would say these things, because they clearly don't fall into the category of mere accident.
For example... You know, as the program in question progressed, the talk show host could have, at any moment, stopped the dialogue, or had he had a little button push, as I have right here, Could have covered the dialogue and gone in a whole new direction and prevented that discussion from airing But instead that did not occur in this case and the talk show host continued to in in discussion purposely with his guest on this subject of Art Bell being a child molester in I believe he said Indicted for child molestation and then paid to cover up an indictment in a prompt of out of Nye County, Nevada where I live and
And that was the tenor of the conversation, correct?
What was absolutely shocking was to see a person who was hosting a radio program hear this type of an attack on a person without knowing whether any of it was true or false or potentially knowing it was false.
And instead of shutting down the discussion, which would have been the reasonably prudent thing to do and which almost anybody else who's ever had the experience in the broadcast industry would agree should have been done.
Instead, I think it's a fair characterization to suggest that Mr. Hinkson actually was egged on by Mr. Gunderson And that there was some form of instigation taking place.
And the transcript will certainly be made available.
In fact, it is available to the public.
It's an exhibit to the lawsuit that's filed in Nashville, in Davidson County.
And people can read that transcript for themselves.
Oh, they can?
Now, you see, I didn't know that.
So, again, this is in Nashville?
Yes, it is.
In Davidson County?
Yes, it is.
All right.
A lot of people... I think I actually slipped and mentioned on the air that I had made a quick trip in and out of Nashville, and that was when depositions, in this case, were being taken.
So I was, in fact, in Nashville, but I didn't know that there was a public record of the entire transcript.
That's amazing.
Yes, of the transcript of the broadcast.
So, you know, as they like to say, the proof is in the pudding.
As us lawyers would say, the document speaks for itself.
Unfortunately, in this instance, the document does speak for itself, or the transcript does.
And again, the point that I'm getting to is, this is not an ordinary act of defamation by any stretch.
This is not a situation where somebody said a single fact about a person that was wrong and harmful to their reputation.
This was a string of defamatory remarks put together in a way that if taken as true by the
listening audience would cause them to have a tremendously negative reaction
immediately About the person with respect to whom the statements were
made and of course in fact That did occur and I began to get calls
In fact, I believe there was an exhortation on the show by one of the parties to call Art Bell and ask him if he's been indicted for child molestation.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
Okay.
Jerry, hold on.
Jerry Fox is my attorney from a law firm called Fox, Sigler & Spillane in Los Angeles.
And you're only hearing the very tip of the iceberg right now.
So if you're interested in what's going on, there is supporting material on my website right now, and apparently plenty of supporting material in Davidson County in Tennessee, which I'm sure people are going to go and quickly find.
From the high desert, I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
Here is Jerry Fox.
Jerry, welcome back.
Thank you, Art.
Alright, so we are talking about the Gundersen-Hinkson business and the broadcast on WWCR and perhaps other broadcast outlets as well that dubbed me as a child molester, somebody who had paid off to have an indictment squashed here where I live in Pahrump, in Nye County, and we Filed a lawsuit.
You, on my behalf, filed a lawsuit, correct?
Correct.
Where does that lawsuit stand?
What have we done?
And where are we going?
Well, the lawsuit is probably about four or five months away from trial.
As you well know, the commitment in this case is to bring to task those who have defamed you.
And I think it takes a courageous person with a tremendous amount of commitment to react
and respond.
Many a person would either be afraid to or may not have the resources.
And this is what's so frightening about this type of defamation character assassination.
But the goal in this case is to bring these individuals before a jury of their peers and have them answer the question that we've raised tonight, which is why would any human being with any sense of decency make these type of absolutely scandalous statements without Any factual support about another human being?
Well, here's an issue that some would question, and we of course dealt with.
I obviously am a public figure.
I'm heard by millions of people.
I'm on 487 radio stations now.
And so I'm a public figure.
And public figures are a little different than private individuals.
In what way, Jerry?
Well, as the law has developed, I the standard for bringing a suit successfully as a as a
public figure is different than than a private individual.
In other words, I've got to put up with more, right?
Well, there's a certain amount of grief that you have to tolerate that goes with the territory,
I assume, if you are in the public eye.
If somebody says, Art Bell talks about UFOs, he's a nutcase, which I get all the time.
That standard, you know, it goes with the job.
And one also might say there's an exception for opinion.
So, clearly, people in the audience are entitled to have an opinion.
And remember, what we have here is a need to balance an individual's rights under the First Amendment to engage in free speech with an individual's right of privacy.
I really believe that defamation law is married to the concept of privacy, which is to be free from... I feel character assassination is very close to an invasion of the home.
The home in a broader sense, in that this is your persona, your reputation, the community, and so these are the two interests that we're balancing.
A person's right to be free from character assassination, That would deprive them the opportunity to live peacefully in a community with a very sacred and important right of free speech.
And so with our public figures, our courts and our legislature have suggested that if you inject yourself into the public eye on a point that's being controverted or debated, you're going to have to show that if the person made a statement that is false, about you, but they did it with actual malice and intent to
injure you.
Now having said that, one who might be a public figure, with a few exceptions, is rarely a
public figure for all purposes.
And certainly the position we are taking in Nashville is that while Art Bell is a public
figure in the sense that you have the show and a tremendous audience throughout the world,
a very devoted audience, you are not in the public eye or a participant in a debate with
respect to an issue having to do with these types of behavior that have been attributed
to you.
And as I said, the goal of the lawsuit is to have an answer to the question, which was begged by the presentation, the irresponsible presentation over those airwaves of facts that were absolutely not true and which were scandalously false.
I would say that in five or six months, Mr. Hankson and Mr.
Gunderson and the radio station that broadcast those remarks or allowed them to be
broadcast will have to have an answer.
I suspect they don't have a very good one.
A radio station, and I know about this because I've been on radio all my adult life, has
a responsibility for what it broadcasts, does it not?
Yes, it does.
In fact, from state to state, the statutes may differ.
It really boils down to, if I could generalize, a requirement that if you're a broadcaster, that you, in addition to complying with the requirements of the FCC as a licensee, that you exercise some form of due care.
You just can't slap a broadcast up, beam it all over the world, collect the money from
your advertisers or sponsors or for the people paying for the airtime and say, geez shucks
Mr. Bell, I'm sorry that somebody who was paying us money to use our airwaves said horrendously
scandalous things about you.
The radio station or the broadcaster is going to have to show, certainly under the law of
Tennessee, that they were acting consistent with the custom and practice of that industry
in terms of policing its own airwaves.
In the discovery that people could read in Davidson County, Tennessee, there would be
a broad discussion, would there not, of what was the nature of the airwaves.
Was done, whether there was due diligence, what facilities for protection there were, and what the standards and practices at that particular radio station were with regard to their broadcast, not just the one about me, but all of their broadcasts.
Isn't that so?
Absolutely.
There are depositions that have been taken and discovery responses.
In short, not much of anything was done, as you know, Art.
There was no delay switch in this particular instance, which certainly our contention in that suit is below industry custom and practice, and we have an expert who will testify to that.
But to give you just an example of the shocking lack of accountability and responsibility, the general manager for that radio station testified that they had had instances of inviting guests onto their airwaves who were speaking in languages, specifically German, that no one at the radio station understood, no one at the
radio station had any idea of what they were saying, and it later turned out that this person was making remarks
over the airwaves that were racist and somewhat militant in content.
And there's quite a to-do about that.
How could they possibly broadcast somebody speaking in a language that nobody there understood?
In other words, they would not have any possibility of understanding whether horrible defamations or horrible declarations were being made.
They would have no way of even knowing because nobody spoke German.
Well, again, this is another one of those answers that the defendants in that case are going to have to provide, which I doubt my opinion is
that they're going to be able to provide at the time of trial. And mind you, it's our contention, it's
our contention, I would stress, that the evidence we've uncovered is that this radio
station is part of a cult that exists in this world, not just this country, of disseminating hateful
information.
And in the radio world it would be called hate radio.
And I think many of us have read articles about this.
And these people, if you will, live on the borders of our communication network.
They show up in primetime TV and in primetime news broadcasts, but they tend to feed off of mediums such as shortwave radio or, as we'll soon get to, the internet.
And actually, the situation that we're discussing tonight is very indicative of a problem that lies really at the heart of many of the problems that we're seeing in this country including I would argue the situations that are happening at these high schools with these young children who I believe have been corrupted by this type of hateful militant thinking and it's certainly going to be our contention in that case in Nashville as we take it to the fine ladies and gentlemen of that community and put forth your claim that this station is a
Bottom Feeder, if you will, a station that disseminates this type of hateful, hateful information and hateful, I can't describe it any other way as saying hateful, hateful in tone, hateful in purpose and of course you were swept up in and hurt and damaged by a specific incident of that type of hate radio.
I'm curious from a personal point of view, Jerry, that through discovery, through trial, is there much hope that I will understand why this was done to me?
Do you think there's a chance I will understand that before it's all over?
We want to do, of course, there's a certain aspect of our discussions, as you and I both know, we're privileged and we won't be sharing that until the appropriate time with the public, but I can say this.
I am personally committed, along with my firm and along with others who support you, to investigate the question that we've raised tonight and we will get an answer.
We will get an answer and I think at that time, Art, There's a possibility for beginning to understand.
Gary, let's talk a little bit about free speech itself.
It is our most precious right.
I think it's regarded by most generally as our most precious right.
What does free speech mean?
I've heard the old thing about you can't go shout fire in a movie theater.
That's not free speech.
But otherwise, what is free speech?
I'm going to try not to get too lawyerly here because I myself get a little annoyed when lawyers throw legalese around.
Free speech, in this country, the idea, the notion is that there's going to be a balance between government's ability to regulate us as individuals and our own set of individual rights.
And what we consider to be one of our most fundamental rights is our ability to speak up and protest, to state that we are For or against the Republican Party.
For or against the Democratic Party.
For or against the President with respect to a situation of public importance.
Sure.
For or against a particular type of religion.
And that is really, if you wanted to boil it down to a core, what free speech is all about.
Because as we know, you can get on a plane and fly and land in several other countries and you can't You can't necessarily speak against the government.
There are certain types of religion that if you belong to that religious group, you may get persecuted.
And in this country, as long as you are not making statements that are false and derogatory about another person, you can speak your mind.
Actually, even in this country, you really even have the right to speak False and defamatory things about somebody.
In other words, there is no such thing as prior restraints.
In other words, let's say that I knew a newspaper article was going to come out about me, but I would go to a judge and have it stopped.
The judge would not stop it.
He would say, no, that is prior restraint.
If you're going to take an action, you've got to take it after this article is published.
Isn't that about right?
With very few exceptions, that is absolutely right.
The remedy is to prove after the fact that the statement was false, that there was some failure to exercise due care, some negligence, failure to check facts before the statement was made, and in the case of a public figure, if in fact the statement is within the zone of the public figure's arena, then you'd have to prove some form of malice, and of course a certain type of injury.
So there are requirements, and at the end of the day, what you would secure, provided There's an ability to secure a judgment.
You would secure money damages.
Now, there is some case law suggesting that after a defamatory remark or statement has been adjudged or decreed defamatory, you could prevent the republication or rebroadcasting of that statement.
But even there, that's not a slam dunk.
Not a slam dunk.
In other words, in most cases, our freedom of speech is nearly complete.
But then there's another word that comes in after the speech is made, and that is accountability.
Correct.
If you're a newspaper, And you print something that is false and malicious and injurious to somebody, then you are going to be held accountable in a court of law, most likely.
If you are a radio station or a television station, and you do that, you are going to be held accountable in a court of law, most likely.
Now we have something new in the world called the Internet.
And as somebody once said, you can be a dog on the internet.
In other words, you can post anonymously anything you want.
You can say anything horrible as it may be about anybody you want.
Is that correct?
Well, Art, I'd like to actually, I'll read to our listening audience a quotation from a very important case called Blumenthal v. Drudge.
And many people may know of this case.
And specifically in that case, and it was all about who should be held accountable if there has been defamation over the Internet.
And the court writes, and I have this passage actually blown up and it's in my office because I think this is the nub of an issue that our society has to wrestle with.
And the quote is, the Internet has no gatekeepers, no publishers or editors controlling the distribution of information.
And that's an important distinction to make, because this sets the Internet apart from other means or mediums of broadcasting.
In fact, Congress has created an almost virtual immunity for Internet providers.
People who provide... These are the people who would give you your account and you would dial up.
They're the people you dial up to get on the Internet.
Correct.
So the providers have been given near immunity then?
Correct.
You know, the idea being that this is... If you read the cases, what the courts have said is that the Internet in many ways is a great champion of free speech because With television, or commercial radio, or a newspaper, not anybody and everybody can actually have access to those mediums of communication.
So the idea, the positive attribute of the internet, is that John Doe, sitting at home, behind maybe an outdated computer, but a computer nonetheless, can communicate with millions of people from the safety and privacy of his own home.
And his communication requires minimal investment, minimal time, and once it's written, once he writes whatever he wants to write or she does, that message is disseminated to a mass audience literally with the touch of a button and potentially throughout the world.
And for many people, in fact maybe possibly everyone, this wraps itself around free speech because now we have the average person being able to weigh in And make a statement.
And I think that is a positive aspect of the internet.
Oh yes.
However, the problem, if you could imagine if we all went out on the freeways tomorrow, and there were no police, and you could drive as fast as you wanted, you could take a left or a right turn whenever you wanted, no stop signs, no red and green lights, we'd have accidents constantly.
Lots of dead bodies.
The information highway is very similar by analogy.
And right now, We have sort of a private type of police, and that would be me, and people like me, lawyers who are hired to bring very expensive defamation suits to track down the person who, you know, took a turn at 90 miles an hour knowing they were going to crash into somebody.
And there are no true gatekeepers on the Internet.
And there's something about the Internet that causes a person to feel almost free from accountability.
It has something to do, I believe, with the impersonal nature of communicating over the internet.
You know, if you write a newspaper, people will know where to find you.
Yeah, but if you're just a keyboard in the privacy of your own home, it seems a little different, doesn't it?
Well, that's certainly what we're seeing.
And of course, remember, if you're more sophisticated in the use of a computer, you may be able to remain anonymous.
In fact, you could potentially divert Uh, the victim and cause them to think that somebody else sitting five states away from you is actually the person who's perpetrating the crime or the wrongful act.
And this is very troubling, at least I believe.
All right.
With that in mind, take a break, Jerry.
That's kind of a setup for what's coming next.
So you now know what occurred in Nashville and what is being done about it.
But unfortunately, I wish I could say that is the end of the story.
It really is just the beginning.
Just wait till you hear what's coming next.
From the high desert, with Jerry Fox of Fox Stigler and Spillane, I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
All right, once again from Los Angeles, California, here is Gerard Fox, Jerry Fox.
And Jerry, welcome back.
Thank you, Art.
All right.
It is a little more than curious to me that what happened in Nashville is followed up now by what has occurred most recently.
And I don't know how you want to lay this story out, Jerry, but you're the lawyer, so I'll let you lay it out.
Well, let's try to stick with the facts.
I gave, of course, the preamble with David Oates and the Robert Stevens business at the beginning of the last hour so that it would be easier to digest for the audience now.
Well, let me paraphrase from the complaint that was filed today in the Los Angeles Superior Court downtown, which is now pending before Judge Capai.
And this is a lawsuit that, of course, Art, as you know, you have filed against David John Oates and Robert Stevens.
And specifically, on Mr. Oates' April 3rd, 1999 radio program, he invited Mr. Stevens as a guest.
During that radio broadcast, Mr. Stevens stated that approximately 20 years ago, you, Art Bell, had been arrested and served time.
for trafficking in various aspects of pornography, that you had made pornographic videotapes, and that the entire story had been confirmed by, and this is a quote, a consortium, a syndication of private, end quote, investigators who had located an original article in the Monterey Herald confirming the story.
Now again, I want to be very quick to point out that all of these facts are untrue.
Independent investigation has proven these facts to be untrue.
The Monterey Herald has confirmed that these facts are untrue.
And again... In fact, I actually also went to the Monterey County clerk's office and requested any arrest record from 1970 through 1980 for me.
And of course they wrote back, and we have that document, which is up on the internet on my website, along with a complete copy of the lawsuit that you filed at the end of the day, I believe, yesterday now.
Yes.
Correct?
Correct.
Okay, all that, by the way, folks, is on my website at www.artbell.com.
You can read all the specifics up there.
However, continue, Jerry.
Now, Mr. Oates and Stevens were not content with these statements.
which again are false.
And Arnold, I'll eventually let you describe exactly what's appeared on the internet
because of course you've unfortunately had to read these statements.
Well at the end of that April 3rd broadcast you may recall David John Oates said that he intended the following day
to get a link up on his website so that everybody could jump over to this new website
which was just going up by Robert Stevens to put all of this supposed investigative material on the
internet.
And in fact, Mr. Stevens did put up a website with all of this investigative, supposed investigative material which It's kind of curious, and people can read it on the internet, on my website, but as they charge me with having produced this, I think it said that I produced pornography in off hours with Filipino women at a local television station in Monterey, you know, after hours, that kind of thing.
And interestingly, in the documents themselves, it says, well, we were unable to find any record Of any arrest at the Monterey Herald.
It actually says this in the investigation.
It also says, if I recall correctly, that we were unable to find any arrest record of Mr. Bell, but then I believe it says, but these things can be changed or they become, what's the right word?
Jerry, expunged, or whatever it is, over a period of time.
In fact, of course, the Monterey County Clerk's Office wrote back and said we have records that go far back, before 1970, and there's nothing.
So, all the people, there were actually people's names.
Of course, I did live in that area.
There were people's names and phone numbers that were included in this, in these allegations.
And, obviously, attorneys called these people, and they all denied that anything like that had ever occurred.
And that's because it had never occurred.
I feel sorry for my former colleagues, who were subjected, no doubt, to an endless bombardment themselves, trying to find out, with investigators, trying to find out whether these things could possibly be true.
And so I feel sorry for them.
At any rate, all of this was widely then distributed on the old internet, correct?
Correct.
And not a scant item here or there.
I have been appalled in a way I have not been before, and I'm not shy when it comes to these things.
I've seen quite a bit in my career as a lawyer, and people are welcome to log on.
But what has been put forth on the internet It is nothing short of, again in my opinion, viewers are welcome to, as well as the press, delve in and review this stuff themselves.
It is utterly disgraceful and no human being should be required, absolutely no human being should be required to have to carry that burden.
The lawsuit that was filed today states with great specificity The uses of the internet that were wrongful and unlawful, and I don't want to take up the half hour to an hour that I would have to spend going over the specifics of this, but it is really tragic.
And of course, Art, the question that I think that anyone would ask themselves is, why this child pornography?
Why the child molestation?
I mean, why not?
We see Gunderson and Hinkson in one instance, and then now Oates and Stevens picking up on Gunderson and Hinkson.
Well, in a malicious way.
To injure you.
To cause you great distress.
They could, of course, and your family, by the way.
One might ask, well, why not, if they're just slinging a hose, not checking their facts and trying to harm, why not, well, why not an allegation that you're dealing in drugs?
Why not an allegation that you're running a house of prostitution?
Why do they keep coming back?
Why do we see this pattern of child molestation?
I don't know.
That is, well, that is the answer that within the week the listening audience will know and will understand.
Yes.
And once you know that answer, ladies and gentlemen who are listening, you will then understand that these statements aren't just your typical malicious statements.
They are statements that were intended To hurt and maim in a way that will shock and dismay you, and it will then appear, I believe, to you utterly incredible that this gentleman who is on the air entertaining you has even been able to function.
And I can't go beyond that right now, as Zard knows, but there is a reason that these people who are very unaccountable and who are hurting and maiming Mr. Bell by making accusations repeatedly that are false
have continued to harp on this set of defamatory statements.
Even associates of mine, Jerry, my webmaster Keith Rowland, who was thought to be posting on certain websites, which he
by the way was not, was accused by these parties of being himself a child molester
in a posting.
It wasn't he.
We have mentioned that in the lawsuit as well.
Again, I think the safest thing for us to say is for people to go and take a look at the complaint because of course that's very specific and there's a mention made of that, of that incident.
Now, there are six counts in this lawsuit.
I'm not a lawyer, you are.
How does a lawsuit work?
What do these counts mean?
Well, a count is a claim.
And of course, if you're going to go into court, you can't just file a claim called, I'm really mad.
You have to have evidence.
You have to have, although many of my clients, it starts out that way.
You have to have a specific set of facts that fit within a specific area where our courts or our legislature have
Designed have agreed that that that you've got conduct that's actionable
So we have pockets of conduct that that we've all agreed are actionable
You know not everything is actionable if your neighbor annoys you because they whistle in the morning
It's probably not although these days our litigation happy environment
I couldn't say that with certainty, but that's probably not actionable
However, there are certain types of conduct your lawsuit has six different causes of action
and the first is for slander and conspiracy to commit slander and of course slander is a
False utterance with an intent to injure a person that is made orally as opposed to in writing
the slander per se another cause of action for slander per se and conspiracy to commit slander per se and
And slander per se has to do with certain types of defamatory remarks such as alleging that someone's been convicted of a crime or a felony, alleging that somebody committed a hideous act such as child molestation.
Unfortunately, our defendants here have seemed to strike upon the greatest hits of slander.
The third cause of action is for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
And I want to pause here.
There are people who are listening who are going to search for the answer to the question we're putting forth tonight.
That answer is not far from your reach.
And when you get that answer, I suspect that you will weigh in with an opinion that supports this third cause of action.
A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is designed for a situation
where a person knows that they are going to do something to you which is not justified,
not appropriate under the law, with the intent, the absolute intent, to inflict distress,
embarrassment, humiliation, anguish into your life.
And that's what that third cause of action relates to.
The fourth is tortious interference with contract and conspiracy to tortiously interfere with
contract.
And here, the gravamen of the claim is something many of your listeners may be able to relate
to which is because you have to spend more time than you'd probably like to speaking
with me policing this horrible situation and dealing with the absolutely crushing reality
of how this impacts your family and your reputation in your community.
This has interfered, I think it's fair to say Art, with your ability to do something
you truly love.
It's very fair to say.
Which is to entertain this audience.
That's right and I by the way make no bones about it.
I am to a large degree an entertainer, and I've never said otherwise.
That is what I do.
And to come on the air and prepare to do that every night is a pretty significant job, and you've got to be in a frame of mind to be able to do it.
And when you are dealing with people who are calling you a child molester, A pornographer and so forth and so on.
You're not in a frame of mind to do anything except to defend yourself as best you can.
And so obviously my schedule has been temporarily rearranged to allow for that to occur and that's what's been going on.
We have talked endlessly.
The chain of evidence has been put together painstakingly and So in other words, these counts, almost all of them, are counts of conspiracy.
Conspiracy to defame, is that correct?
That's correct, because clearly the lawsuit that was filed today contends and alleges that there is a loose association between what Mr. Oates and Mr. Stevens have done in tandem.
But there is an allegation, and we intend again to try to I convinced the fine ladies and gentlemen of Los Angeles County that there is a conspiracy, not just between Oates and Stevens.
We have included Doe defendants, and I'm not at liberty to speak as to who they are.
But there will be other names.
We are right behind them.
And here's something for the, first of all, you may want the audience to know, we have notebooks.
And it's sad to say.
I mean, for the people in the audience, reduce it to your own life.
letters from people who have been inquiring about the truth of these allegations.
And Art, you have had to spend hours beyond description.
Most of my days, Jerry.
Dealing with people who are calling up saying, is this true?
Are you a child molester?
Right.
I mean, for the people in the audience, you reduce it to your own life.
You have a husband, you have a wife.
You love them very much.
They have a job.
They're somewhat successful.
You're happy.
Someone in your local community who has an axe to grind with your husband gets on the internet that in this day and age, you can be assured most of your neighbors, whether they're wherever they're living, will probably have access to it in some form or capacity.
And this person who has an axe to grind says about your loved one, they are a child molester.
They paid a government official to cover up.
A criminal indictment for child molestation, and they are a vile human being.
Can you imagine, as you go to the shopping center in your local community, or the library, or the bookstore, or to get gas, how upside down your world would be?
Now broaden that on a scale to 8 million people who are listening, who are a part of your life, if you're Art Bell.
And that is the sheer crushing burden that my client has had to tolerate.
Not because he did anything wrong, not because there's any truth to these allegations,
but because there were four people who were allowed access to a certain medium
of communication that's largely unregulated.
And I'm often, when I've been thinking about this situation, Art,
and I think I've mentioned this to you, if you remember the scene in The Wizard of Oz
where you've got the mean wizard who's behind that huge device.
Yes.
And he scares the living daylights out of Dorothy the Tin Man and the Scarecrow.
Yes.
That's how I see these people.
And of course, just as in the end of that saga, the person has, you know, the wizard had to come out from behind his machine.
And we saw him for who he really was.
And that is the, that is what this lawsuit or legal action That's absolutely right.
There is a tremendous debate going on, both on Capitol Hill and in our state legislatures, about how do we regulate the Internet, in particular the Internet, without stepping on the toes of free speech.
And I suspect, and of course this has been written in many an opinion, that we're going to see some form of regulation and sometimes regulation can be a good thing, sometimes it can be a bad thing.
Irresponsibility always seems to bring laws or regulation and nobody, and I'm an advocate of free speech, I couldn't be more so, but Um, like newspapers and television stations, if you, in essence, broadcast something on the internet, then there should be accountability for that.
In other words, you ought not be able to run in and shout, fire, and um, and then simply have no accountability for it as people get trampled trying to get out of the theater.
If you do that in the internet, or on the internet, then you really are not exercising Free speech as we have defined it this evening, have you?
Well, not as it was envisioned.
And Art, of course, the troubling factor here is for someone such as yourself, who has the loyal support of not just your network, but the people who listen, you can come to an attorney, like myself, and you can self-police.
And we will self-police this.
There will be a conclusion.
And these people will be held accountable.
For a lot of people who can't do that, there is no solution, is there?
Well, that's what I was about to get to.
I'm sure as we're talking tonight, there are thousands and thousands of people who are nodding their head up and down.
Who have been maligned.
Absolutely.
All right, Jerry, hold tight.
We're at the bottom of the hour.
Time goes by very quickly.
I will not add while you're having fun.
I'm Art Bell, this is...
...
...and we're going to allow you to ask questions in our usual way here.
Gary Fox, you're back on the air, and we left off.
This is what I'm doing.
I'm responding to these horrible things with you, an attorney, and you're an attorney.
You know attorneys are not cheap.
That's right.
Of course, I have a few plumbers now that charge me about as much as I charge, so we're not alone.
However, Jerry, where we were going is the average person, or somebody who might frequent internet chat rooms or whatever, the average person who would be defamed in the way that I have been defamed, Well, the really blunt answer is not much.
If in fact the activity is some form of obscenity or stalking or harassment, Then there are federal criminal statutes, and again, they'd have to actually try, and the line is so long now to the local law enforcement officials who are actually studying Internet behavior that's wrongful, that even there, it's doubtful you're going to get a swift response.
And if you're talking about civil recourse, unless you can find a lawyer or a group of people who are going to represent you pro bono, or possibly on a contingent fee basis, and that's very hard to convince a law firm to do because of the uncertainty of bringing a lawsuit against a group of persons who may be camouflaged under some kind of an internet scheme, it really is...
They may be left with absolutely no recourse and they would suffer the same burden that we're talking about tonight in their local community and feel absolutely helpless to respond.
So for those people there is going to have to be some kind of change and I know the screech goes up whenever you talk about any sort of regulation of the Internet or any sort of change in the Internet whatsoever, and I don't want much of a change in the Internet.
All I really want is accountability.
That's the word.
Not censorship, not abridgment of freedom of speech, but accountability as it is seen in practice by broadcast media, newspapers, or anything else.
In other words, write anything you want, but You know, somehow have your name on it so that if you have slandered somebody and ruined somebody's good name, you can be held accountable.
You know, Art, I was thinking the other day, again with the analogy being to the highways we actually drive on, I could envision a situation where someday, to be on the Internet, you'd actually have to have some form of a license.
And if you conducted various acts over the Internet that were wrongful, just like you after a certain number of points would lose your license, uh... there there may be there may ultimately be
you know at the equivalent of internet police who who are checking out activity on the internet activity
on the internet but they're ultimately in that might sound bizarre or just
to to lay out there but there's going to have to be
some form of regulation because it struck me You know, we have now, and most people are aware of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which was passed by Congress.
And there, of course, very quickly, people moved to protect their children from certain types of behavior over the internet.
Of course.
But isn't the first thing we teach our children to tell the truth?
Of course.
But then, unfortunately, the first example we give them is how to lie.
And of course, it's very difficult to teach a child not to lie if in fact what they see is that over the internet people can be defamed and there is no accountability.
That's right.
That's exactly correct.
So, by the way, these defamatory statements that were on the internet didn't stop, did they?
Well, I'll make a bold prediction here, Hart.
They may very well be continuing through tomorrow and the next day and the next day until these defendants have the rude awakening of showing up in a courtroom and seeing a jury and a judge and have to come out from behind those computers.
Well, all I know is it can make a person's life nearly unlivable.
And that's been the case with my life over this period of time.
And I'm glad now that the audience at least has some sense.
Though there are so many details involved in all of this that they would almost have to read the complaint in its entirety.
And even then, they're not going to get some of the testimony of witnesses that we have, and that is for the protection of those witnesses.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
But as things unfold, they'll certainly learn more.
And again, if you were to put the pieces of the puzzle together, you'd start with the lawsuit in Nashville, and you would read that complaint, and it's very specific.
You would then take a look at the lawsuit filed here in Los Angeles, and I'm going to suggest that there will be, within the week, a third piece of the puzzle.
You put those three pieces of the puzzle together, Go knock on the doors of WNQM, WWCR, Mr. Gunderson, Mr. Hinkson, Mr. Oates, Mr. Stevens, and you'll have your answers.
Boy, do I want answers.
Jerry, boy, do I want answers.
Alright, I want to take a few calls and a few questions from the audience.
I have no idea what they're going to ask.
I never do.
But I want to take a few calls, and I'm sure People do have questions, so let's see what we get.
First time caller line, you're on the air with Jerry Fox.
Hi.
Hello.
Hello.
You're going to have to yell at us.
Not very loud.
Where are you?
Houston, Texas.
Houston.
All right.
Yes, I just had a comment about all that your attorney's been talking about.
It's really sickening to what depth people really go to to harm others.
But really, truthfully, there's one shining light And all of this muck, if you will, Art.
I know it's hard to believe that, but as much as we complain about the good ol' U.S.
of A., we have the courts.
That's right.
And we're real people, like you and me, that are going to decide on this.
And truthfully, Art, there are so many people that don't even believe this for an instant, that listen to you and know you.
In Texas, we have a saying, and I don't know if you can have to, you have to beep one word of it, but it's, payback's a bitch.
No, I don't have to beep that.
Okay.
But, you know, that's all I've got to say is that when the people listen to this, payback's a bitch.
And the reason why it's happening to you, Art, is because you reach a lot of people.
And I think you know that.
Um, you're absolutely right.
Thank you very much.
Look, I do know that.
I know that when you reach the top of what you're doing, people shoot at you because you're the biggest target.
And I don't mind being shot at.
I've been shot at all my life, metaphorically.
Heaven forbid I use that word, but I have been.
In other words, people shoot at me and I don't mind.
I'm here to be shot at, vocally.
And I don't mind, but I don't think that that includes the kind of bullets that have been coming at me.
Child molestation, being accused of being arrested and done time for pornography and all this kind of stuff.
It's insane.
It's insane to the point that, you know, and I talk at various times about conspiracies here on the radio of various sorts.
But one can see a pattern emerging from all of this.
And this has been going on now, Jerry, since the beginning of the national thing.
Actually, prior to that, even, for a long time.
I mean, we're talking about a couple of years of this kind of thing flying at me.
Absolutely.
Art, as you and I both know, It is our contention, and it has certainly been building through these lawsuits, that there is a consortium of players, if you will, that are behind this.
We're not far behind them.
If you're some Joe out there, and you're part of that consortium, we'll be there soon.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Jerry Fox, hi.
Hello.
Hello there.
Yes, Richard, Orlando, Florida.
Hello, Richard.
There may be one of two possibilities of why.
And the first may be the same reason that the government could not take Saddam Hussein down,
is because Saddam is being protected by an evil entity, and the regular session you're seeing now is a very bad one.
you're speaking of might be controlled either one by the government or an evil entity that
may want to...
Well, in fact, it is, of course, evil.
I mean, what you heard described as the standard and practice is in itself, in a runaway way,
a kind of evil, and that's what we're going after, isn't it, Jerry?
And that's what the courts and attorneys like yourself and... Well, actually, a very interesting point I think we skipped over is the radio station that broadcasts around the world these defamatory remarks about you advertises itself as a Christian radio network.
Christian?
That's a little ironic, actually.
I'll reserve comment, but you're absolutely correct.
They do build themselves in that manner, and yet the lineup of the broadcasts they make... Actually, I think they are predominantly a radio station that blocks out time.
In the broadcast industry, that means you, Joe Blow, Go in with dollars in your hand, and you buy airtime, and you just broadcast whatever you want.
Something like that, right?
Yeah, I mean, I think through our case we found that they do in fact have legitimate Christian radio programming.
Of course.
But unfortunately and sadly, Mr. Gunderson, who bought a block of time, I think it's fair to say that it's our contention that his show drifted far from the values that, at least I know, relate to Christianity.
And Mr. Gunderson is an ex-FBI agent, isn't he?
He holds himself out as one and has testified under oath that he was with the FBI for a very long period of time.
Basically, I was kind of faced with a problem like this.
I was on the internet just kind of having fun, you know, just writing stupid stuff.
Not nothing bad about anybody.
And a bunch of people that kind of were upset with what I was saying.
We're kind of leaving me these, you know, mails, these emails and stuff, things that would get me in a lot of trouble.
Yeah.
What's my job in that?
Yes.
And, um, basically... Okay.
Uh, West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hi.
Hi, Art.
Hello.
Hello.
How do you maintain your sanity for all this?
That's a really good question.
How do I maintain my sanity through this?
Well, to some degree I haven't.
I mean, basic sanity perhaps, but the ability to come on the air every night and broadcast has been compromised.
I mean, there are nights, you just can't know, there are nights when I'm looking at coming on the air and discussing and doing what I love, And I'm just not mentally capable of doing it, because I'm immersed in all of this.
It's a nightmare.
It's an absolute... It's a nightmare, bigger than you can believe, and bigger than you know, even as a result of what we broadcast tonight.
Frankly, the biggest part of the nightmare we haven't told you about tonight.
So... When's that coming down?
When are we going to hear about that part again?
I, I, look, um, I'm not, uh, as I've said many times, I'm not a prophet, so I can't know when this other information is going to break about what I, this horrible thing that occurred to my family, but I think it's... Was it a threat or an actual operation?
Um, I really... Okay, I appreciate that.
I can only tell you that the indications, indicators are, that I think that news will probably be out within the week.
Well, they can't kill you, right?
I beg your pardon?
They can't kill you, so they're discrediting you, right?
Well, it's funny that you should bring that up.
Because, Jerry, there have been, as part of this, there have been physical threats, haven't there?
Well, we have testimonials that people are afraid for your safety and that various forms of threats have been made.
Again, you know, you have the resources, fortunately, but I can assure the listening audience that You have a supportive network and a law firm that's capable
of securing restraining orders and mobilizing the protective net that you need.
But who wants to live under those circumstances?
Again, I'm fortunate.
I lived most of my life, Gary, as just a radio guy.
Radio guys pretty much live paycheck to paycheck or less, sort of slowly fall behind.
I have the good fortune of having become a success and have some additional resources
so that I can have people like yourself and people who take care of security and that
sort of thing.
But God, Jerry, the average person out there under these circumstances being stalked, for example, and I know you specialize in that area of law, stalking.
What in God's name do they do?
Well, just the other day I had a client whose resources are not very significant.
They're vegan.
They support a cause that is very not-for-profit, and they do live off of some contributions, and they're very proud of this site.
Someone hacked into it, destroyed the site.
It's a form of cyber-stalking.
The answer right now is for a lot of people, and I'm sure of this, This internet, which is like everything, with the good comes the bad, things are swinging around a bit where there is a tremendous public outcry for forms of protection for the average Joe.
And I believe that Congress is now considering several bills, aren't they?
Well, there's every day up on Capitol Hill a different form of bill that relates to a whole wide variety of issues.
Jerry, hold on, we'll be right back.
Back now to Jerry Fox.
Jerry, thanks for staying on.
No problem, Mark.
Jerry, before we proceed, there's so many people on the lines waiting to ask or say something.
Whatever it is, I'm not screening these calls.
I do want to say this.
If anybody in the audience has any information relevant to these cases, and I refer, of course, to the Gunderson-Hinkson case, W.W.C.R.
back in Tennessee, although I think we're on good solid ground there, as we are really in both cases, but if anybody has any information relating to those cases that we don't yet know about, or the Stevens-Oates case, which is now filed, they could contact your law firm, could they not?
We are certainly searching for the truth, and if somebody has Facts that can be substantiated.
We're willing to listen because at the end of the day there's an ultimate answer behind the answer I think we already know.
The question really isn't were these statements false.
We know they were.
The question isn't whether they are vile and defamatory on their face.
We contend they are and we will prove they are.
The ultimate question that we are going to get the answer to is why is consortium victimizing
you in this way?
If somebody has information that relates to that and they are serious and they understand
the seriousness of the subject matter, by all means they should call us.
How would they get hold of you?
Our telephone number is 310-229-9300 and specifically they can ask for Davidson Patiz and he is
heading up our effort to reach out and find who is behind this.
Davidson Pettis, right?
Yes.
And the telephone number is area code 3-1-0-2-2-9-9-3-0-0.
Jerry, very quickly, realistically, just out of curiosity, somewhat morbid curiosity I guess on my part, how long How long of an odyssey are we in for with respect to Nashville and with respect to the current lawsuit?
How long do these things take to get done?
To get to a jury?
The average lawsuit, depending on the jurisdiction, I know in Nashville they are moving their cases along pretty well within a year and a half of filing.
California, we have fast-track rules in our state court.
Judge Kapai, who's presiding over your case, moves his calendar pretty well, and you could
anticipate a trial within a year.
In terms of the ultimate answer to this specific odyssey, Art, as you know, neither you nor
this firm, not even one part of our team, harbors any animosity towards Mr. Oates or
Mr. Stevens or Mr. Gunderson or Mr. Hinkson.
We don't have time in our day for that and we'd have no reason to.
What we are outraged by is not the individual but the conduct and the defamatory statements and of course to a certain extent the defendants in these cases hold the key to the answer to your question.
If these gentlemen were forthcoming and made full public retractions and let us know what in God's name motivated them to make these malicious statements and why, that would certainly be a step in the right direction and it could end this odyssey much quicker.
If they require me to bring them into a courtroom and prove these statements are false and to impeach their character with evidence that's admissible in a courtroom, And put them before a jury of their peers to be examined and to have their motives examined.
I will do that.
And that will not happen slowly.
Justice doesn't move fast.
But it does move.
And we will get there.
And it will not be two or three years from now.
It will be sooner than that.
Well, that's some comfort.
Alright, first time caller on the line, you're on the air with Jerry Fox and Art Belheim.
Hi, Mr. Bell.
This is Mike from Mobile.
Mobile, Alabama.
Hi, Mike.
Yes, sir.
I appreciate you taking my call because I'm not... I'm a listener, not a caller.
Okay.
I love your show.
I've followed you for years.
Thank you.
I want to tell you that... and bear with me, please, sir.
What you're going through is outrageous.
I'm ashamed that you have to deal with this, but I emailed Mr. Oaks and challenged him in more ways than one.
I looked at his website.
link from your site is you know on the um What was it the?
I don't know I'm trying to think.
It was the action.
Anyway, you had his site linked in your site, so I linked to it, and I saw his site, and he had a webmaster build his site.
He's had 81,000 hits on his site.
And I'm just a regular old country boy from Mobile, Alabama.
And I built a site three months ago, and I've had more hits than he's had.
And I don't even know how long he's had his site up.
But Mr. Bell, I appreciate you.
I trust you.
And I'm with you 100%.
Well, thank you.
I appreciate that statement of support.
That's very nice.
Thank you.
That's still a lot of people.
85,000 people if that's really what it is.
That's a lot of people and I don't mind telling my audience that I have been bombarded both on the air and off.
I do have a button I can push to erase the last seven seconds and obviously if somebody's calling up and telling me I'm a child molester or a Pornographer or something like that.
I push that button and I take them out so It's been an unfortunate fact of my life now for altogether too long and and I'm sorry for the I guess I should apologize to my audience for the the way I'm sure they feel jerked around Jerry by all that's been happening and And I just haven't been able to talk about it, dating back to the tragedy that occurred in my family through these two horrible, horrible things that I've been going through.
My audience probably feels like I've been jerking them around, you know, with being gone and then with being here fewer hours.
And I felt I've been burdened with this intense need to explain to these people I feel so close to Why this has all been happening, and that's why this show is so important to me this morning.
Well, Art, you know, the reality is that you've been forced to live in the shadow of a great and egregious lie, and that's not easily done, is it, Art?
No, it's not easily done, Jerry.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Jerry Fox and Art Bell.
Hello.
I had a couple of Comments and a question.
Okay, where are you?
I'm in Reno, Nevada.
Reno, okay.
You're gonna have to yell at us a little bit.
Just right up north.
There you go.
I went to both the Oates and Stephens sites.
Yes.
I was absolutely disturbed.
Not only were their claims ludicrous, they were also worded poorly and just ignorant.
I fully support you.
I will continue to do so and will be adamant and vocal about it.
My question is about Keith, your webmaster?
Yes.
How is he dealing with this?
Well, poor Keith, wonderful Keith.
Keith has been supportive of me throughout all of this and I guess Keith was chosen as a target by these people because he is associated with me and there have been postings calling him a child molester and how do you think he would deal with it?
Not very well.
Keith is a devout Christian and to be called a child molester no matter what your faith is in my estimation the lowest thing that anybody can be called.
I mean, it's just the worst thing you can say.
That and maybe what Hitler did, mass genocide, I don't know.
We're all in this nation protective of our children.
God knows I'm protective of mine.
And when you are accused of doing such a horrid thing, it doesn't, in my mind, it doesn't get any worse.
So how's Keith doing?
He's holding up.
But how would you be doing?
Not well at all.
My other comment is I commend you greatly for holding on as long as you have and for taking this as well as you have done.
Thank you.
It's just amazing.
Well I wish, thank you, I wish I could say that tonight and what you're hearing is the worst of the news but it is not.
And that rest of that news will Well, I'm sure it will be public shortly.
I have always maintained that I will not be the one to break this news and hurt my own family.
I will not do that.
Nevertheless, because of legal processes that are underway, is that a fair way to say it, Jerry?
Yes, it is.
It will become public and I just don't know how I'm going to deal with it when that occurs.
Anyway.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Jerry Fox and Art Bell.
Hi.
Hi.
Hi, Art.
Yes, sir.
Yeah.
Art, I'm on your side 100%, and I think you're going to win, and in fact, I'm sure of it.
But I have a little problem with it, and I'm not saying this against you, so don't get mad.
No, say whatever you want.
Look, just open lines.
I'm just afraid That I'm going to hear something, this is going to set what they call a precedent, and I'm afraid that I'm going to hear something on one of those little communist radio stations down there in Costa Rica, how finally somebody has done something against these, you know, it is a flunky little radio station, I've listened to it, and you cannot regulate these individuals' morality.
And if you get a law that says, well, they've got to shut up and shut them down, what I'm worried about is them communists are going to say we've had a victory down there, and... In other words, you're worried about the regulation, right?
And it's going to lead to the very people that we... our own government being able to take the same effect.
Yeah, I know.
I know.
This person's concern, Jerry, I think is... has to be addressed.
In other words, I agree with him.
The last thing I want to invite on any of us is more government regulation.
My God, we've got too much now.
And so I don't know what the answer is.
I have no idea what the answer is.
I don't want, you know, you mentioned the Internet, please.
I don't want the Internet, please.
I want accountability.
I want... Correct.
There's a significant difference between restraint and accountability.
Restraint focuses on, as the word would say, restraining.
Once you get into restraint, now you're getting into subjective decisions about what should be restrained.
Accountability, basically at its core, says if you've done something wrong, stand up and take responsibility for it.
Be accountable.
Be accountable for what you publish.
Be accountable for what you broadcast.
Be accountable for what you say.
If you want to stand tall in the well and make an accusation, It's a serious disease.
Have your facts to back it up.
And if you don't, be prepared to defend yourself in a court of law.
That's correct.
The civilized way to do it.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Jerry Fox and Art Bell.
Hi.
Hi, Art.
This is the first time I've ever called you.
I've listened to you for a long time.
Welcome to the program, then.
Pardon me?
I said welcome to the program.
Well, thank you.
And I know it's been said before, I don't mean to sound trite, it comes from my heart.
I know, I understand this has been a terrible thing and I call to let you know that people do understand and it's not an easy thing for you to publicly come out and tell people about.
No.
People are very much behind you.
I think that this may not be Well, you know, thank you, ma'am.
I would also like to add, Jerry, maybe you ought to say something.
are so outrageous that it's very easy to see that this is a hateful act and this
may be the very thing that kills them. Well you know I thank you ma'am I would
also like to add Jerry maybe you ought to say something I'm not the only person
by a long shot nor is Keith Roland who has been hurt by these people over a
period now of years.
There are other people who have been harmed, who are afraid, who may be in actual physical danger as a result of all this.
True?
We have sat down and talked to as many people as we I've been able to and we've talked to a number of people who have first hand knowledge and have given us testimonials that are very concerning and these testimonials make clear these people have suffered, they've provided accounts of how they've suffered horribly.
No, I mean, obviously, as we've talked about, Art, no, you're not alone, because the stories of people who are being terrorized or victimized over the Internet are legion now, unfortunately.
Well, as we did investigation and discovery in the Oates-Stevens lawsuit that's just now We came upon a lot of other people who supplied us with evidence and testimonials or signed affidavits.
Affidavits, that's the word, thank you.
Of what they have been going through with these same people for quite a long period of time now, correct?
Yes, the statements, they'll speak for themselves.
They'll be made available also to the public at the appropriate point in time.
They're very powerful.
But yes, absolutely, there are a good half dozen people who are attached to this on the
victim side who have come forward and have something to say about it.
I don't like to put words in someone's mouth.
They've signed sworn statements.
These are brave people.
Well, they're people who care about you and care about making sure that at the end of
the day the right thing is done.
And they're people that I certainly admire because they don't have to get involved in standing up for you and for themselves.
And they've done that, which is courageous.
Some very gutsy people.
Hold on, we'll be right back to you.
Remember, if you have any information that bears on either one of these cases, Contact Davidson Pattis at area code 310-229-9300.
That's 310-229-9300.
310-229-9300.
That's 310-229-9300.
I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
♪♪ Jerry Fox, Jerry.
Art, just to mention, you caved the number out just before we went to a break, and I gave a number that...
Oh, I gave a wrong number, didn't I?
It's 310... 229-9300.
Yes.
I'm sorry.
I was reading somebody else's number here.
Sorry about that.
310-229-9300.
310-229-9300. If you have any information that bears on either one of these cases, 310-229-9300.
That would be during normal business hours during the week, right?
Well, actually, they can ask.
We have a voicemail messaging system and they can dial for extension 111, which is Mr. Patez's extension.
Again, Mr. Patez is heading up the rest of our investigation and he would appreciate hearing from anyone who's, again, who has substantive information that would be useful.
Alright, sorry about the wrong number, folks.
310-229-9300.
Yes, that's correct, Art.
This is Bill from Springfield, Massachusetts.
I was just wondering, why would David Oates fight the hand that fed him?
Because you made him famous.
bill for sprinkled massachusetts bill of springfield massachusetts you're gonna
have to go to the second i'm sorry i'm with the car i was just wondering why
would david like to hear that them
because you can you put him in a little famous i would do so just you
uh... doesn't make sense it is uh... is
It's the same question, sir, that I've been asking for a very long time right now.
And you know, he's like ruined your reputation.
Even if you win this, there's always going to be people with doubt in their minds saying maybe he did this, you know.
Yeah, that's a really, really, really good point.
Jerry, that is a good point.
In other words, no matter how you clear your name, Once somebody slams something into this on you like this, some of it sticks, doesn't it?
In other words, no matter what you do.
Well, that's in fact the point of a defamation suit is that there's always that cloud of uncertainty.
In law school we're taught if you ask a question at trial of a witness and you say, you beat your wife, sir, don't you?
Well, even if there's absolutely no truth to it, for the rest of that trial the jury is going to walk out of that room And they're going to take a look back at that person.
There's a certain insinuation, a type of allegation that if you make it, you leave the listening audience pregnant forever with just that little question and that is really the irretractable portion of a defamatory remark.
Really, even with the best we have, and you're one of the best in our courts and our system, in the end, you're still left with some people who always have some sort of lingering doubt, no matter how We're committed to go to court.
We could secure a verdict that is covered in the press, and the majority of people are going to know what we already know, which is these are false statements made with a malicious motive.
However, you could be on a cruise years from now with your family and off of the Greek Isles and somebody who picked us up on the internet or over shortwave radio who didn't follow the court proceedings could walk by you as you're sitting in a chair and give you a look or come up and you would forever, forever be plagued by this Yeah.
Uncertainty.
It's one of those things that it's like an urban legend.
It bounces around on the internet no matter how many times it's knocked down.
It just keeps bouncing around.
So there's damage done that can really never be Really can never be changed.
Wes to the Rockies, you're on the air with Jerry Fox and Art Bell.
Good morning.
Good morning, gentlemen.
Very nice to talk to both of you.
Mr. Bell, I sympathize with you 100%.
I hope for all the best for you.
I kind of know what this feels like.
I've been being put under emotional distress through email by somebody I know who used to say that he would never hurt me.
And now what he's doing is pretending to be somebody I used to be involved with and threatening to Send this phony picture, porno picture of me to my family and friends.
This sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?
It sure does.
By the way, my name is Marion.
I'm calling from Southern California.
What I wanted to ask Mr. Fox was basically, I'm looking to empower myself because basically what happened is that this person, my ex-husband as a matter of fact, Uh, I told him to stop.
I actually, you know, caught him.
I, you know, I can compare IP numbers on email.
I'm got a little bit of savvy.
And I basically told him that if he doesn't stop, I'm going to take legal action.
And he basically said that if I threatened to do that, he's going to, uh, he's going to, um, basically say, Bill, there's a lot of things in your past that I'm sure your family don't want to know.
So what I'm basically trying to figure out is, you know, legal terms and such.
I'm not very legal savvy.
I'd like to know the difference between defamation of character and libel.
Well, defamation is a term that's used to describe both libel and slander.
Libel and slander refer to the two different ways in which a person can be defamed.
Libel is a statement that's made in print, in a newspaper, magazine.
Flander is an oral statement either made to a third party by spoken word or over the airwaves.
The internet, depending on, you know, you could have something that's liable and slander.
You could have text that's printed, but you could have an audio where it's spoken word.
A broadcast, for example, that might be live.
So defamation is inclusive of both liable and slander, and liable and slander refer to either written statements or oral statements.
I see.
So in the short term, in my situation, what would that be characterized as?
Well, I'll tell you, what you described to me triggered a whole series of reactions, but just a few quick reactions.
First of all, obviously, the courts are now issuing restraining orders against cyber-stalking.
When you have a domestic situation between a husband and an ex-wife, you can go to the family law courts and they have their own procedures for trying to mediate disputes like this or issue restraining orders.
There's federal and state legislation and statutes preventing extortion and threats over the internet.
The best advice I could give you is to sit down with a local attorney who seems like they know what they're talking about, but obviously if the facts are as you suggest they are.
Probably some form of recourse.
Okay, thank you very much and all the best to you, Mr. Bell.
Thank you.
I hope for all the best and I'm sure justice will be done.
Thank you so much.
Okay, thank you.
Take care.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Jerry Fox and Art Bell.
Hi.
Hello.
Hello.
Yes, my name's Jay.
I'm in Nashville, Tennessee.
Yes, sir.
This is a horrible burden for you to go through and I hate to see it, but I think what they're trying to do is really destroy you, because this position is basically an undefensible position.
Even hardcore prisoners hate child molesters.
That's a fact.
And I understand, don't quote me as having all the facts on this, but the Germans during the Nazi campaign used this type of malicious gossip about child molestation against the Jews in order to reduce them to a non-human species so that it wouldn't be so bad when when they attacked them.
And I also believe I've heard that David Koresh was involved in child molestation, but knowing what I know, I take a second, you know, Well, you know, that was said, but if my recollection of the case was correct, it was said, but it was never proven, at least not in my recollection.
Well, I don't think it was ever proven against the Jews, either.
So these are things that you say when you want to... Really hurt somebody.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, and that's not... that's not good.
Can I make a couple other comments?
Sure.
All right.
Terrence McKenna.
Yes.
Have you spoken to him?
No, not yet.
He's in the hospital in Honolulu.
Are you sure that he wants to be healed?
Because... Yes, I am.
You are?
Yes.
Okay.
Because I thought the whole process... Yes, sir, the request that I made is... I don't want to pursue this right now.
We'll get back into it.
But the request I made came directly from Terrence to answer your question directly.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Jerry Fox and Art Belheim.
Hi there, good evening.
This is Carrie from Tempe, Arizona.
Hi Carrie.
Hi there.
Art, listen, I don't want to hurt your feelings by asking this question, but I really feel I have to.
Because if I don't, I'm afraid that the media tomorrow is going to raise this question.
Go ahead.
So what I'm looking for is from both you and Jerry Fox, An unequivocal assurance that this lawsuit is absolutely on the up and up.
You have it from me.
You're damn right it's on the up and up.
Jerry?
Well, I can tell you.
You could be disbarred, right?
Well, no, I couldn't be disbarred because the reality is that our law firm would never file a lawsuit that it did not believe in, that it did not research.
We're fine lawyers.
We stand by our reputation, and I can attest to Mr. Bell, who we've come to know.
This lawsuit's not just on the up and up.
Well, see, I trust Art implicitly, and I listen to his program all the time, and I think he's absolutely wonderful.
But unfortunately, there are these East Coast media wags who, for whatever reason, I think they're personally and professionally jealous of Art.
That is a question that's going to come up.
Is this a publicity stunt?
Oh, hell no.
Ma'am, with all due respect... Who would bring up something like this as a publicity stunt?
I know, I know.
But still, there will be people who will ask that question, unfortunately.
Within the next week, I'm fairly confident that anyone with any modicum of common sense will understand and appreciate that this is very much a serious matter.
Extremely serious.
To be taken seriously, and that the lawsuit's not just on the up-and-up.
It is a lawsuit that will be taken through to a conclusion, if need be.
Oh, and also, Jerry, one question I did have.
Now I got this information off the internet, so who knows if it's correct?
But I understand this Oates character is not a U.S.
citizen, that he's from Australia.
If any of this action, let's say if he is found liable, you know, liable for all of this, can he be deported because of this?
Is he in fact an Australian citizen?
I think it is a fact that he's an Australian citizen, I'm not sure.
Ben, I don't know what the answer to that question is, Jerry.
Yeah, I think it's a little beyond the scope.
Again, I stated a while ago, Mr. Bell and I know our firm does not, you know, Mr. Rhodes, the person, is not someone that anyone on this side of the fence harbors animosity towards, whether he's an Australian citizen or a U.S.
citizen.
The deportation is not what this is about.
Mr. Roach has made a set of statements that are not true.
We know them not to be true.
We want him to come forward publicly and retract those statements.
If he won't do that, fortunately we have a court process.
He'll be sworn under oath.
We'll prove they're not true and a jury will address.
In the case of Mr. Oates, aside from whatever statements he may have made, he had a radio show in which he allowed Robert Stevens to make these initial allegations and then link to them and supported them.
Right.
So, Art, I just wanted to let you know that I have a lot of friends that listen to your program, and we just support you all the way, and we think you're great.
Very kind of you.
So, thank you for your time, gentlemen.
Thank you, and good night.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Jerry Fox and Art Bell.
Good morning.
Yes, I'd like to make a comment on the internet and the way it's gotten.
I think we have what we call internet neuroses.
I think, this may not be germane, but when Art was talking to Peter Gersten the other night, he was talking about how He thinks we've inherited a technology that we're not ready to deal with in terms of computers and the internet.
I think this is kind of something that applies to this in that this has become a big horrible toy that people play with and it can hurt people very badly.
It's very hard even to lawsuits to get back to a good name or if you're threatened over the internet to find redress for super through law enforcement agencies.
I think that the internet is becoming a very, very dangerous place to dwell on, much less
just search for websites.
Again, there are many positive attributes to the internet.
In fact, now that we've come to rely on it, I think many of us couldn't imagine life without it.
But it's like every other form of commerce.
There needs to be responsible use.
People need to be accountable.
People need to be decent to one another.
And if we don't do it on our own voluntarily, nine times out of ten the government comes in and does it for us.
So it's somewhat of a self-imposed fate.
If we don't clean up our act, some of us, on how we use the internet, we're inevitably going to invite regulation that we'll probably end up complaining about.
And I really, again, I want to say I'm a really, really, really staunch supporter of free speech and I don't want the audience to read this as an invitation for all kinds of government intrusion into the Internet.
But some form of accountability, when you go up there and you write a message about somebody, it ought to be From you.
Signed by you.
A number by you.
Something or another.
You mentioned licensing.
Some way or another that people will know who you are when you've written a message defaming them.
I don't know of any other way to say it.
And I don't know of really the cure for this.
But I'm leery of regulation too.
It's the last thing I want.
But, God, what else are we going to do?
I want to make clear too, our firm actually, I wouldn't want anyone to think that we're a pro-regulation firm that comes down squarely on restraint.
Obviously what we've been talking about over and over again is truthfulness, truthfulness in an account of a set of facts.
I mean, ironically, one of my partners, Jay Spillane, recently filed a lawsuit against Network Solutions that is very much on the side of free speech, and it has to do with the giving out of domain names and whether that's done properly and there's issues of free speech.
So I think you and I are both saying the same thing, which is, obviously you're on the air, we're significant proponents of free speech, but there has to be some form of accountability.
That's all.
And so I don't want to be confused, you confused or me confused, with somebody who's trying to destroy the Internet.
I don't want that to happen.
I want accountability without destruction of this valuable, important medium.
Jerry, for all you've done for me so far, and all we have before us, I want to thank you for what you have done.
Well, thank you, Art.
it's a it's a sad day in this world when a man who has worked as hard as you have to get where you have
uh... at the end of the day has to be burdened with this
uh... and again on the end where i began which is uh... the simple beauty of a defamation case some ways
and if there is any beauty in it is that the end of the day the only defense that a
defendant can put forth really
or a series of technical defenses that would not apply here is truth
and this case will come down to the truth and art you and i know where the truth
Yes, we do.
Jerry, thank you again, and get some sleep.
Thank you very much.
Take care.
That's Jerry Fox, my attorney.
Again, anybody with information, please call Davidson-Pattis.
That's Davidson-Pattis at area code 310-229-9300.
That's area code 310-229-9300.
9300. From the high deserts, I'm Art Bell and we'll be right back.
Now you can take advantage of a special limited time offer from U.S. Navy.
news and world reputations.
This is a production of the National Library of Congress.
East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
First time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
1-800-825-5033. First time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222 or use the wildcard line
at 1-775-727-1295 to recharge on the first time.
Good morning, everybody.
National Line, call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the Premier Radio Networks.
That's exactly what it is. Good morning everybody, I am Art Bell.
And that was my attorney, Jerry Fox, who is a tremendous person and who has been through hell and back with me over
all of this.
And I'll say it one more time, if you have any information bearing on the Gundersen-Hinkson WWCR case or the
intriguingly similar recent Stevens-Oates case, you can reach Davidson Pattis at Fox-Siegler-Sans-Felaine
in Los Angeles at area code 310.
229-9300.
That's 310-229-9300.
And if you are curious about the case as it is, it is entirely on my website right now.
And now there is a serious bog down tonight.
▲
Export Selection