Art Bell faces coordinated defamation lawsuits after false claims—including child molestation (1997, Nashville) and pornography trafficking (1999, Monterey)—were broadcast by Ted Gunderson, David Hinkson, David Oates, and Robert Stevens, despite no evidence. His attorney, Jerry Fox, argues six counts of slander and emotional distress in both Nashville and Los Angeles courts, citing internet immunity gaps like Blumenthal v. Drudge. Bell warns of lingering online myths even after legal victories, urging listeners to share info while dismissing accusations as malicious character assassination. Trials may unfold within a year, with demands for public retractions over truth-defense claims. [Automatically generated summary]
1051 Design to the Switch The sight of the touch, the scent of the sound, the strength of an eye to speed to the ground The wonder of flowers to be covered and then to burst up To come back to the sun again Or to fly to the sun without burning a wing To lie in the middle of the resting place
Just for me Take a thing wrong Take my place I'm gonna see It's not a dream Wanna take a ride?
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 rechart at 1-775-727-1222 the wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295 and to rechard on the toll-free international line call your AT ⁇ T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903 this is Coast
It's a ghost 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...
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 Covington and Burling in Washington DC N.K. Scholler Earman 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, 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.
now we just Keith Rowland just threw the switch on that information so if you have a computer you've 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
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.
They 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, 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 in informative now there's another aspect a deeper aspect to reverse speech which is uh metaphoric uh for example uh the quick brown fox jumped over the 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 Dames 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, and now we talked about this, please don't play the metaphors.
Play the clear reversals.
And 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, look, 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?
I guess it would be appropriate for me again to mention that there was a terrible, and you can confirm this in some way for me, Jerry, a terrible tragedy that occurred in my family 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.
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.
Shortly after December 9th, 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 that are 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.
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 is involved in some form of illegal behavior,
in some kind of an 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.
There was in part a retraction, but I would state strongly that the retraction was not satisfactory.
It did not suggest that the gentleman 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, 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 in discussion purposely with his guest on this subject of Art Bell being a child molester, I believe he said, indicted for child molestation and then paid to cover up an indictment in Prompt, Nevada, Nye County, Nevada, where I live.
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 any 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.
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.
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.
Jerry Fox is my attorney from a law firm called Fox, Siegler, and 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.
So we are talking about the Gunderson-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 Trump in Nye County.
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?
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 in 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 of 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, that 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.
And I would say that in five or six months, Mr. Hinkson and Mr. Gunderson and the radio station that broadcast those remarks or allowed them to be broadcast will have to have an answer.
And in fact, from state to state, the statutes may differ.
It really boils down to, if I could generalize, a requirement that if you are 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, whether or not, of what 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 broadcasts, not just the one about me, but all of their broadcasts.
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 on to 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.
Well, again, this is another one of those answers that the defendants in that case are going to have to provide, and 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.
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 prime-time 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 information and hateful,
you know, I can't describe any other way of saying hateful in tone, hateful in purpose.
And of course, you were swept up in and hurt and damaged by a specific incidence 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?
Well, one of the things that we want to do, of course, is 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 is a possibility for beginning to understand.
Well, I'm going to try not to get too lawyerly here because I myself get a little annoyed when lawyers throw legales around.
Free speech, in this country, the idea, the notion is, is that there's going to be a balance between the 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.
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 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.
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 or 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 is 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.
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.
Well, I'd like to actually, I'll read to our listening audience a quotation from a very important case called Blumenthal versus 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 the Internet.
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 to the Internet.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 Kapay.
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 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.
Now, Mr. Oates and Stevens were not content with these statements, which again are false.
And Art will 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 is 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 is nothing.
So all of 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 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.
And at any rate, all of this was widely then distributed on ye old internet, correct?
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 is nothing short of, again, in my opinion, and 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 Hankson 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?
That is, well, that is the answer that within the week, the listening audience will know and will understand.
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 name 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 Art 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, wasn't he?
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.
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 agreed that you've got conduct that's actionable.
So we have pockets of conduct that we've all agreed are actionable.
Not everything is actionable.
If your neighbor annoys you because they whistle in the morning, it's probably not, although these days, in 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.
Slander per se, another cause of action for slander per se and conspiracy to commit slander per se.
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 actions 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 that we are put 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 graviment 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.
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 to defame, is that correct?
That's correct, because clearly the lawsuit that was filed today contends and alleges that there isn't 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 convince 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.
And here's something for the, first of all, Art, you know, you may want the audience to know we have notebooks, and it's sad to say, volumes of notebooks with emails and letters from people who have been inquiring about the truth of these allegations.
And Art, you have had to spend hours beyond description dealing with people who are calling up saying, is this true?
Are you a child molester?
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 are 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, and he scares the living daylights out of Dorothy, the Tin Man, and the Scarecrow.
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.
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 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 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?
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.
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, or even to a lesser degree, what recourse does that guy or gal have?
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, it 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 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, there may ultimately be the equivalent of Internet police who are checking out activity on the Internet, activity on the Internet.
But there ultimately, and that might sound bizarre or just two-way out there, but there's going to have to be some form of regulation because it struck me, 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 move to protect their children from certain types of behavior over the Internet.
But isn't it the first thing we teach our children to tell the truth?
Well, and of course, well, 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.
They may very well be continuing through tomorrow and the next day and the next day until these defendants have the root 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.
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.
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 heim 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.
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.
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 registration
you're speaking of might be controlled, either won by the government or an evil entity that may want to...
I'll reserve comment, but you're absolutely correct.
They do build themselves in that manner, and yet the lineup of the broadcast 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.
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.
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.
Nothing bad about anybody.
And a bunch of people that kind of were upset with what I was saying were kind of leaving me these, you know, mails, these emails and stuff, things that would get me in a lot of trouble.
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?
Look, I'm not...
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 this horrible thing that occurred to my family.
But I think it's...
Was it a threat or an actual operation?
I really...
I can only tell you that the indicators are that I think that news will probably be out within the week.
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 your 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.
You know, I lived most of my life, Jerry, as just a radio guy.
And radio guys pretty much live paycheck to paycheck or less, sort of slowly fall behind.
And 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 such a, it's 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.
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, WWCR 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?
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 violent 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?
And that's if somebody has information that relates to that and they're serious and they understand the seriousness of the subject matter, by all means, they should call us.
And the telephone number is area code 310-229-9300.
Jerry, very quickly, realistically, just out of curiosity, somewhat more of a curiosity, I guess, on my part, how long of an odyssey are we in for with respect to Nashville and with respect to the current lawsuit?
The average lawsuit, 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 Kapay, 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 or anyone 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 each case 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.
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 I'm sorry for the, I guess I should apologize to my audience for the way I'm sure they feel jerked around, Jerry, by all that's been happening.
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 a few 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.
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 funky 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.
I know I understand this has been a terrible thing.
And I called 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.
People are very much behind you.
I think that this may not be a consolation to you, but I think that these idiots made a very big mistake because their claims 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, we have sat down and talked to as many people as we have 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.
So, 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 filed, we came upon a lot of other people who supplied us with evidence and testimonials or signed 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?
Well, actually, they can ask, we have a voicemail messaging system, and they can dial for extension 111, which is Mr. Pattis' extension.
Again, Mr. Pattis 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.
In law school, we're taught if you ask a question, a 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.
So 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 will always have some sort of lingering doubt, no matter how clear the evidence and clear the judgment or verdict is.
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 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.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Jerry Fox and Art Bell.
Good morning.
unidentified
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.
And what I wanted to ask Mr. Fox was basically, you know, I'm looking to empower myself because basically what happened is that this person, my ex-husband, as a matter of fact, I told him to stop.
I actually, you know, caught him.
You know, I can compare IP numbers on email.
I 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 threaten to do that, he's going to 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, 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 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.
And there's federal and state legislation and statutes preventing extortion and threats over the Internet.
So 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, there's probably some form of recourse.
unidentified
Okay.
Thank you very much, and all the best to you, Mr. Bell.
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 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 position on whether or not to believe somebody when they start throwing away.
Well, you know, that was said, but if my recollection of the Quresh case was correct, it was said, but it was never proven, at least not in my recollection.
unidentified
Well, I don't think it was ever proven against the Jews either.
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.
unidentified
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 that is a question that's going to come up.
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.
unidentified
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.
Is 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?
Again, I stated a while ago, Mr. Bell, and I know our firm does not, you know, Mr. Oates, 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.
Deportation is that's not what this is about.
Mr. Oates 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 this wrongful comment.
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 linked to them and supported them.
Right.
unidentified
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.
I think this may not be germane, but when Art was talking to Peter Gerston 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, you know, this has become a big, you know, horrible toy that people play with, and it can hurt people very badly.
And it's very hard to, even through lawsuits, to get back to a good name or if you're threatened over the Internet to find redress of super through law enforcement agencies.
And I think that the Internet is very, very, very dangerous place to even dwell on, and much less just search for websites.
Well, you know, 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.
And I want to make clear, too, our firm actually, you know, 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 we're very, obviously you're on the air, we're significant proponents of free speech, but there has to be some form of accountability.
It's a sad day in this world when a man who has worked as hard as you have to get where you have, at the end of the day, has to be burdened with this.
And again, I'm going to end where I began, which is the simple beauty of a defamation case in some ways, if there is any beauty in it, is that at the end of the day, the only defense that a defendant can put forth Really, after a series of technical defenses that would not apply here, is truth.
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 Gunderson-Hinkson WWCR case or the intriguingly similar, recent Stevens-Oates case,
you can reach Davidson Pattis at Fox Siegler and Spillane 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 in parts of the internet.
So if you're unable to get through tonight, you'll make it tomorrow.
I've had several people sending m saying uh server down, server down, I can't get to it.
As a matter of fact, I'm having a hard time getting to it myself.