Hunt V Weberman Motions

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
I'
:I E. HOWARD HUNT,
Plaintiff,
76-1252-Civ-EBD
vs.
SUPPLEMENTATION OF RESPONSE UNDER

WEBERMAN et. al. RULE 26 (e) (2), FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEEDURE
Defendants.
!j
'•------------------------x
I
ii
Ii
.
:i NOW COMES the defendant, Alan Jules Weberman, pro se,
"
jj and hereby amends his response to plaintiff 1 s question on page
il 29 of defendants deposition of 12 March 19 80 regarding a possible

I
jconnection between the defendant and the Center for National
I.
;! Security Studies, Washington, D.C.
!1 The Center for National Security Studies is now repre-
i1 senting the defendant in a Freedom of Information case, 77-Civ-

11
'i sos8-CLB-USDC/SDNY: Defendant was granted Order compelling the
·1
I,
!; National Security Agency to turn over their copy of a telegram
ii
I
!!that Jack Ruby's brother sent to Havana, Cuba on l April 1963

ti
Ii from Detroit, Michigan by Judge Charles F. Briant. NSA appealed
I
li this . Order and the Center for National Security Studies and the
j' Arnerican Civil Liberties Union are handling this appeal on a

1
· 1
, pro bono basis.

11
11
1! DATED: NEW YORK, NEW YORK

" 23 September 1980 ALAN JUL pro se
:i PRESIDENT
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ASSOC.
SIX BLEECKER STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
TEL: (212) 477-6243
II I
ii
CERTIFICATION OF SE RVICE
I'
I
!i THIS IS TO CERTIFY th a t a true an d correct copy of · the

above motion was mailed to Ellis Rubin 265 NE 26th Terrace
'. 1
!! Miami, Florida on this the 23rd day o # SeP.temb
f r, 1980.
ii
1
1' 1
ALAN JULE
!i
II
II
I,
,.11
llnitrh ltatrB lliBtrict Cltourt
FOR THE
CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-EBD
E . HOWARD HU1\1T, JR. ,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
ORDER FOR PRE-TRIAL
A. J. WEBERMAN,
CONFERENCE
AND NOTICE OF TRIAL
Defendant.
PRE-TRlAL CO:\FERENCE i5 to be held before the HONORABLE EDWARD B. DAVIS

- - - - - ---- ------- --- ---------'----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 300 N.E. 1st Avenue. Miami, Florida in Courtroom V on
Two-Week Period of
\~ed. January 7, 1981 at2:00 TRIALtobebeldat9:30 onJanuary 19. 1981
CALENDARCALLwillbeheldatl:30p.m.on Thursday, January 15. 1981.
PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court and a copy hand-delivered to
the Judge's Chambers at the above address.
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
I. If this cause is a Jury Trial. counsel shall prepare and submit to the Court, at the time of Calendar
Call, any proposed \'oir Dire questions necessary to bring out information in addition to identity of experience,
together \vith any juD instructions not covered in the "'boilerplate" instructions used by the Court. Each jury
instruction shall be typed on a separate sheet and must have a supporting citation of Jaw.
'
I- ~ -- 2. - If ·this cayse is -a -,\"'on--Jury ·Tria/;-the-parties ·shall prepare-and- submit to-the-Coun,- at the time-of
Calendar Call, a carefully prepared set of proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, unslanted and not
self-sening, fully supported by the e\idence which counsel expects the trial to develop, and fully supported by 1he
• ci1a1ions of la·..;.
3. Counsel are charged v.·ith the duty of meeting in Pre-Trial Conference. If the Schedule belo\l.- is not
kept, it is the duty of opposing counsel to insist upon the necessary meetings to effect the Pre-Trial Stipulation.
and, in failing to succeed, to ad\•ise the Court by f\-1otion seeking sanctions against any party refusing to meet as
directed after request.
4. A h1otion for Continuance of the Pre-Trial Conference or Trial proceedings shall not stay the
requirement for filing a Pre-Trial Stipulation unless such Motion is filed and served at least fiftoen (I 5) days prior
'I
to the date on \l.·hich the Pre-Trial Stipulation is to be filed.
TIME SCHEDULE
TEN days prior to Pre-Trial Conference - Attorney' must meet /
SEVEN days prior to Pre-Trial Conference Resume of experts' reports must / ex hang/
FIVE days prior to Pre-Trial Conference - AU discovery must be completed
Fl\'_E days prior to Pre-Trial Conference - Any Memorandum of Law to be fil~

FIVE days prior to Pre-Trial Conference - Pre-Trial Stipulation must be filed
Fl ·or to Pre-Trial - -
UnilatcraJ Pre-Trial Stipulation iiiusr-be-filcd
-
TRIAL DA TE: Parties must be ready for trial any time after the ffi..lrial Conference
19 fd
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ·
COPIES FURNISH.ED TO:
Ellis Rubin, Esq.

Attorne y for Plaintiff
265 Northeast 26th Terrace
Miami, Florida 33137
Mr . A . J. Weberman
6 Bleecker Street
Ne w Yor k, New York 10012
2
.. .
SfATEME!\I OF PROCEDURES TO BE ANNOUNCED AT PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE

WIDCH, TOG£111ER WITH THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRE-TRIAL
CONFERENCE, SHALL CONSTITlffE THE PRE-TRIAL ORD~R
I. Counsel are expected to do everything reasonably possibJe to shorten the time of trial.
2 . Counsel shall eliminate all unnecessary witnesses, stipulate as to all uncontested facts, and reduce
exhibits to a minimum.
3. A numbered exhibit list containing a brief description of each numbered item must be submitted
by each party one day prior to the start of trial.
4. Every exhibit must be pr~numbercd serially, such as P-1, P-2, D-1, D-2, and the numbers must
correspond with the exhibit list. Any exhibit not pre-marked and listed may be excluded by the
Court.
5. If any portion of a deposition is to be introduced at trial, such portions must be reduced t9 the
minimum portions necessary; no discovery-type questions or any repetitive questions will be
permitted. The party proposing to introduce any portion of a deposition is directed to disclose
such portions to opposing party; such disclosure should be made on the day prior to the time the
party expects to offer such deposition. \\'hether the case is Jury or Non-Jury, depositions must be
read from the witness stand.
7. Jmpeachment exhibits (or copies) shall be delivered to the Court before trial.
8. The Pre-Trial Conference shall be traascribed and the costs shall be borne equally between the
parties.
9 . Jn case of settlement, notify the Court at once.
EDWARD B. DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
.
.
.- (

IN AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
E. HOWARD HUNT, CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-SMAr:-iu::o ,~di"-

Plaintiff, '7'.-:<'. , lr.' ~.1 2:? hHJl.I 30
ANSWERS TO REQUESTS FOR
vs. ADMISSION
. ... ,,. ,.. ,
,,- ,-. .. . • .\ I
·r
ALAN J. WEBERMAN, . .l • _.; . - '·
Defendant.
Plaintiff, E. HOWARD HUNT, by and through his undersigned

attorney, files these Answers to Requests for Admissions with-
in fifteen (15) days after service of the Request, and pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36:
7(d) Plaintiff swears that his appointment calendars and
diary and all other written memoranda which would specify his
daily whereabouts in the year 1971 have been destroyed and
are no longer in his possession; consequently, Plaintiff has
no way of determining with whom he might have been in contact
on July 23, 1971. During that month and year, however,
Plaintiff was in contact with some personnel and elements of
the Central Intelligence Agency but does not remember or
believe that the Office of Logistics was among them .
7(e) Lack of reference material, per the foregoing
answer, prevents Plaintiff from swearing that he was in contact
with the Technical Services Division of CIA on August 27, 1971.
However, Plaintiff remembers that he was in contact with repre-
sentat ive s of that Divi sion at various time s durin g the summer
of 1971.
7 (f) Admi tted .
7 (h) Admitte d .
7 (j) Denie d .
7 (n) Denie d, th ere b e in g n o 11
Va te rgat e bu L" gl a r s" unt il
1972 . Howeve r, Pl a i n t if f a dmits hav ing obtaine d d is gu i s e

ma teria l s fo r c e r ta i n pe r s on s i n 197 1.
.'. f I
(
c
l' 7 (r) Plaintiff did not know one Andrew St . Geo!ge in
1961 or at any time thereafter.
The Plaintiff, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

36, swears that the foregoing Answers admitting or denying or
not being able ·to · truthfully admit or deny have been answered
under oath, and the Plaintiff swears that the foregoing .answers
are true and correct.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO

before me this 19th day
~ -~ .,.,--- ,,,.
,. _....
....· :
~{~a-
~ .
My Comm.is~ Expires:
Notmy Public, State of Aorida i:t large
My (om;r.is~ion hp:res M~rch 20. 19'11
lorid• d '1y Amcric.u fi,1e & C.su1hy (:.(om,peq ELLIS RUBIN LAW OFFICES; P . A.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Telephone: 576-5600
By ~·/.
ELLI~RUBIN
L·
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the fore-
going was mailed to MARK J. FRIEDMAN , ESQ. , Attorney for De-
fendant, 350 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, this
19th day of J anuary , 1979.
___UL~~
ELLI S S . RU BIN
-2-
-·~· --1
- .... ;
•
MIAMI DIVISION
E. HOWARD HUNT, CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-SMA

Plaintiff,
-VS-
ALAN J. WEBERMAN,
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Defendant.
COMES NOW the Defendan!, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, by

and through his undersigned attorney and moves for sanctions to be
{mposed by this Court upon the Plaintiff for the following reasons:
(l) Plaintiff has failed to have the admissions
signed by an attorney and instead, they were signed by a secretary
not authorized to practice law, therefore, all matters requested
would be admitted, should be deemed admitted for this substantial
violation of the Rules.
(2) Plaintiff has failed to answer in good faith,
Paragraphs 7b, 7d, 7e, 7f, 7h., 7j,_7n, 7r and 7t.
(3) Defendant further requests that should the
Court fail to dismiss or strike Plaintiff's pleadings, that Defend-
ant be entitled to the costs of proving the desputed allegations
i11cluding µlane fares to New York and Wasl1ir1gton and the cost of
copying documents and the cost of subpeonaing witnesses and Court
Reporters.
(4) Specifically, Paragraph ?b and Paragraph l
of·the answers to admissions relating to Paragraph 4g(b) through
6d of Defendants request for admissions, Defe11dant is hard pressed
to finance the proof required.
(5) At trial, Defendant wo11ld be requ~red to produce
as many as fifty (50) witnesses, m·erely Lo establish custodian of
documents and genuinness of documents for materials Defendant obtained
through the Freedom of Informaiton Act, through the appropriate
Agency.
,i
• •
(6) With plane fares and witness fees and lodging
f ees, thi s would amount to at lea st $300.00 per witness for fifty (50)
w·i tnes s es. Defendant's resources are l ·l rnited in thut Defendant
hedges on being Jn indigent, while Pl~intiff thorugh his bad faith
in failing to admit or deny these matters, has forced Defendant
into being unable to prove the truth of his c lai m in a manner ad-
missable in a Court of Law. Plaintiff should be required to
admit or deny official government materials without delay. This
Court ha s allowed him delay in producing hi s financial backgroun d
ll n cl c o n t i n u t ! d d e l " .v ·j n p r o d u c I n CJ t h e 111 il t er i ,1 1 s ll b o v e an d L> e y o n d hi s
actual tax r etur ns i'n a prior Order on a Motion to Co mpe l same .

(7) This matter should proceed to a rapid trial
and Defendant s hould be paid by Plaintiff for the cost of proving
these documents, either pretrial or at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests a pretrial Order that
would allow him costs per Federal Rules for all ma tters, either
ad 111 i t t e d nor den i e d , or u n rec o l l e ct e d ; or i n the al tern at i v e ,
Plaintiff s hall have ten (10) days to either admit or deny those
matt ers and failure within the ten (10) day s would allow costs
if this Court so Orders to be imposed .
Respe ctf ully submitted ,
MARK J. FR I EDMAN
Attorn ey for Defendant
350 Lincoln Road, Suite 422
Miami ,Beach, Florida 33139
Phone: 53 2-5409
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of th

foregoing Motion for Sanct ion s was mailed to the office of ELLIS
RUBIN, Attorney for Plaintiff, at 265 N.[ . ?G th Terrace, Miami,
Florida 33 137 , this (b.4 day of --~=-W-J=----1.----· l 9 7 8 •
-... • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
'
IN AND FOR THE SO UTHERN DI STR I CT OF FLORIDA
E. HOWARD HUNT, CASE NO. 76-1252 -CIV- SMA

Plaintiff,
-VS-
ALAN J. WEB ERMAN, MEMORANDU M OF LAW

Defendant.
COMES NOW the Defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, by and

through hi s undersigned attorney, and submits this Me morandu m of
Law in s uppor t of his Mot ion Reque s tin g Sanctions a nd states as
fo llow s:
(1) Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rule 37 (b)(2), the District Court Judge is spec i fica lly provided
the power to i ss ue Orders declaring sanctions upon a party that
fai l s to obey a di sco very Order. These sanctions may include an
Order st rikin g out pleadings or parts thereof, dismissing the act io n
or any part thereof, r e ndering a default ju dgmen t again st th e dis-
obedient party , prohibiting the disob edient party from introducing
de s ignated matters into evidence or other sa nct ion s as the Court may
deem proper or necessary. Sa id Federal Rule 37(b)(2 ) further states
that the Court may require th e par ty "failing to obey th e Order or
t he attorn ey ad vi s ing him or both to pay rea s onable expe ns es , in-
cluding attorneys fees , caused by the failure, unless the Court
f ·ind s that the failure wa s s ub sta ntiall y justified ."
WH EREFORE, Defe ndant ALAN J. WEBER MAN, re spec tfully
pray s that thi s Court g rant a default in the Defen dant' s fa vor or
other s an c tions as this Honorabl e Court deem necessary and proper.
Respectfully s ubmi tted ,
)J)
MARK J . fRICDMAN
Att ornl'y lnr Defendant
'.l!lO Lincoln Rodd, Sui Le 42 2
Miami Beac h, Florid a 33139
Phone: 532-54 09
•
•
MIAMI DIVISION

Plaintiff,
vs.
ALAN J. WEBERMAN,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS,

AND MOTION TO STRIKE OR DENY SAME, AND
MEMORANDUM OF LAW CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 5 HEREOF
The Plaintiff, by and through his undersigned attorney,
moves to strike and deny the Defendant's Motion for Sanctions
previously filed in this cause on July 28, 1978, on the follow-
ing grounds:
1. Pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 36, the Defendant
WEBERMAN, on June 28, 1978, served the Plaintiff by U. S. mail
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, which request allowed Plaintiff to
respond thereto "within thirty (30) days after service of
this request."
2. On July 24, 1978, the Plaintiff did submit his sworn
answers to said request, pursuant to Rule 36, and served a
copy thereof on the attorney for Defendant WEBERMAN. The
attorney for Plaintiff was out of the jurisdiction on that
date and authorized his secretary to sign the certificate of
service on said answers; but in an abundance of caution, upon
receipt of the Motion for Sanctions, an attorney in the law
office for Plaintiff did sign an additional certificate of
service.
3. Defendant WEBERMAN has moved for sanctions because
"Plaintiff has failed to have the admissions signed by an
attorney . . . " Rule 36 does not require that an attorney sign
requests for admissions; this Rule requires "the party to
whom the request is directed" to serve a sworn statement
either denyi~g
• •
the matter or detailing reasons why he cannot
truthfully admit or deny those matters. This the 'Plaintiff
has done herein.
4. Defendant also moves for sanctions on the grounds that
Plaintiff has failed to answe.r in good faith certain requests
to which the Plaintiff has responded that he has no recollection
of same, therefore, he can neither admit nor deny; or has failed
to answer because the request contains insufficient information
to answer, all according to Rule 36(a) . Plaintiff has not re-
fused to answer any request.
5. Finally, Defendant moves for sanctions and expenses
from Plaintiff to prove the authenticity of three legal pages
listing affidavits and memoranda , telegrams, lab reports, and
letters allegedly obtained from certain U. S . Government
sources . Defendant complains because Plaintiff will not admit
the genuineness of those documents. Plaintiff neither admits
nor denies because there was no certificate or indication of
genuineness of said documents attached to the request for
admissions . Naturally, if Defendant provides some proof,
I
Plaintiff will gladly admit genuineness, but cannot do so at

!
this time. /
Defendant relies on Rule 37(b)(2) in asking this

Court to impose sanctions upon Plaintiff for failure to obey
a discovery order. In the first place, there has been no
discovery order entered in this cause; secondly, Rule 37(b)
(2) specifically refers to violations of Rule 34, and Rule
35, but not Rule 36.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff would move
to strike or deny Defendant's Motion for Sanctions.
P.A.
-2-
• CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
•
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was
mailed to MARK J. FRIEDMAN, ESQ., 350 Lincoln Road, Miami
Beach, Florida 33139, this 1st day of August, 1978.
-&~.D
RU~
-~
ELLIS S.
I
I
'
I
I
-3-
f
I
UNITED DISTRICT COURT

STAT~ S
FO H THE
---------------------------x
x
E . HOWARD IIUNT , JR. I x
x
Plaintiff, :x 76-1 252 - Civi l-EBD
x
x
vs . x
x MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT .
x OF DEFENDANT ' S MOTION FOR
[\. J . WE BERMAN et . al. x ADMISSIONS
x
Defendants . x
x
---------------------------x
RULE 36 (a), F . R. C.P . states that a party may serve
upon any other party a written request for admissions .
respec t fully submitted
DATED: 11 DEC . 80 ALAN JU~ES WEBERMAN pro se

N . Y., N. Y. SIX BLE'ECKER STREET
NEW YORK , NEW YORK
TEL 2 1 2- 47 7-6243
CERTIFICATIOH OF SI:RVICE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a true and correct copy o f the
above was mailed to ELLIS RUBIN / 265 NE 26th Terr. / Miami /
Flor ida, this the 11th day of Decembe r, 1980.
:'/itJ~
7\LAN JU1JES WEBER.MAN
-------------- ------- - -
I
f
..__,l
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
~
E . HOWARD HUNT, FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTI ON NO . 76- 1252 - EBD

'
J·
vs . ., .
,I
A. J. WEBERMAN, ANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

Defendant
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, E . HO WARD HUNT, by and through

his undersigned attorney, and fi l es these Answers to Requests for
Admissions withiri thirty (JO) days after servic e of t he Request ,
and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedur e J6 ~
1. That as to Requests l(A) - l(C) , 1(E) , l(G) 1 (X) ,
Plaintiff has no knowledge and , the refo re can neither admit nor
deny the authenticity or genuineness of the documents . rI •
2. As to Requests l(D)" and 1 (F), Plai ntiff admits the

genuineness of the documents.
:'
J. As to Requests 2 (AA) , 2(BB) , 2~GC) , 2 (EE) , 2 (GG) , .
,,
,~ili- 1), 2(JJ) , 2( LL), 2(MM), 2( NN ) , 2(00) , 29WW) and 2 (YY) ,
Plaintiff has no knowledge and, therefor e , can neither admit nor

1
·7 the truth of the state~ents .
4. As to Requests 2(DD-1), 2(FF- 1) , 2( HH- 2) , 2 (VV),

2(XX), 2 (AAA) and 2(CCC), Plainti ff admits the truth of the state-
men t s .
5 . As to Requests 2 (DD-2,3, and 4), and 2( FF- 2) ,
Plaint i ff denys t he truth of the statements .
6. As to Request 2(ZZ), Plaintiff states that the
narration appearing on pages 256-57, 285 , 296, 308, 324 and 327 is
accurate and , therefore , denies t h e Request in that regard . Plainti f f
admits inaccuracies on pages 252 - 255 and on page 258 . Plaintiff
also admits inaccuracie s on pages 277 and 284 but states they were
only discovered after the book was published. Plaintiff has no
knowledge as to .whether the narration on page 2 76 is inaccurate a nd ,
ther efore , ca n neither admit nor deny s ame .
- 1-
·.,·
7, As to request 2(BBB ), Plaintiff would admit that a

correct statement would read: "That Mullen Co . Inc. established a
,_
Free Cuba Committee for the CIA" .
Re spectfully Submitted,
ELLIS RUBIN I.A W OFFICES, P .~ .
Attorney for Plaintiff
265 N.E . 26th Terrace
~iami , Florida 33137
(305) 576- 5600
By:
~
E=L=
L~r=
s--=
s~.--=
R~u
=B=r
=N=-~~~~~
I HEREBY CERTIFY t hat a t r ue anc correct copy of the

for egoing was mailed to ALAN JULES WEBEP.~IJAN , pro se, Six Bleec ker
-Street, New York , New York this 2nd day of January 1981 ,
By'~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ELLIS S . RUBIN
.,
- 2-
.
' :' .~
Ut/ITED STATES DISTRICT COUR1'

FOR THE
SOUTHERN D!S'l'RICT OF FLORIDA
Ji .
. } :'',j;' :- ' '
"· '· E. Jl011AHO II UNT Jr. ,
Plaintiff and
Counterdefendant,
.1~·!.. ,,..
'
I •
.. . ·..
.
vs.
76-Civil-1252-EBD
( .
ALAN JULES l'/EBERMAN, MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
Defendant and DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
Counterplaintiff. JUDGMENT
-----------------------------x
.
.·. .
,;:\
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This is an action brought by E. Howard Hunt pursuant to 28 U.S.C .

•:. .,'
13 32 to. obtain a· 2. 5 million .dollar libel ·judgment against defendants.
This memorandum of law is respectfully submitted by the defendant in
support of h.is motion for summary judgment.
ARGUEMENT ONE
I
I
Arguement One is based on Hew York Times vs Sullivan, 376 US 254,
I 270, llL Ed2d 686, 84 S. Ct. 710 (1964). It is supplemented by
Time Inc. v Pape, 401 US 279, 28 L .Ed 2d 45, .91 S. Ct. 633 (1971) which
\
extends Times vs . . Sullivan to appointed public officals. The applicable
law of Florida in regard t.o defamation is codified in Palm Deach News-
paper Inc vs. Early, 334 S. 2d 50 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1976) cert den. and
in Early vs. Palm Deach Newspaper Inc ; 354 So 2d 351 (1977) in which
the Fourth Dis.trict Court of Appeals held that the principle of Times vs.
Greenbelt Cooperaive Pub. v Bresler, 398 us 6 11-12, 90 s. Ct 1537,
26 L Ed 2d 6 (1970); Beckley Newspaper Corp. vs. Hanks, 389 us Bl, 82-85,

885 Ct 197, 19 L.~Ed 2d 248 (1967); Garrison vs. Louisiana 379 US 64 74
' '
i .'
85 S. Ct 209, 216, 3 L Ed 2d 125 (1964); Henry vs. Collins, 380 US 356,
. . 1· 357, 85 S. Ct 992, 13L Ed 2d 892 (1965) .

·'
\ . In.each of the following cases, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
entry of summary judgment against a public figure libel plaintiff:
Martin Marietta Corp. vs. The Evening Star, 417 F. Supp. 947 (DC-1976)
Rev. A.C. Spern vs. Time Inc, 324 F. Supp 1201 (1'1.D. Pa. 1972);
Hutchinson vs. Proxmire, 4 Media L. Rptr. 1016 (7th Cir. 1 June 30, 1978),
aff'g 431 F. Supp. 1131 (W.D. Wisc. 1977); Walston vs. Reader Digest,
. it. .
•1 578 F. 2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1978)", aff 1 g 429 F. Supp. 167 (D.D.C .. i977);
Meeropol vs. Nizer, 560 F. 2d 1061 (2d Cir. 1977), aff' g 381 F. Supp
29 (S.D.N.Y. 1974).
The principles relied on by the defendant in its Motion for Summary

.,
•. • Judgment ~ave found expression in several additional cases. In three
~ '~ :,
~:.~\«•;« cases, .federal courts have granted, ·or affirmed the granting of, summary
Jc:·
• judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff was a public figure who had
' not come foward with clear and convincing proof of "actual malice".
Arnheiter vs. Random House, 578 F. 2d 804 (9th Cir. 1978) (Navy captain
challenging publication of a book concluding that his removal from com-

I
mand by superior officers was proper); Vitale vs. National Lampoon,
449 F. Supp. 442 (E.D. Pa. 1978) (woman whose nude photgraph was featured
in Playboy Magazine complained of use of her photograph, together with
accompanying comment, in defendant's parody of Playboy; Logan vs. District
of•Columbia, 447 F. Supp; 1328 (D.D.C. 1978) (criminal defendant arrest-
ed in undercover fencing operation challenged newspaper report that he
was one of several arrested person who.were using illicit drugs.)

'
.,,...l Sullivan applies to defamatory actions in Florida. Other applicable cases
include. Gertz vs. Welch, 418 US 323, 342-43, 94 s. ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed
2d 789.
.
.' ARGUEMEHT Tl•/O
Davis vs NBC and Novel vs. Garrison are supported by Bon Air Motel
vs. Time Inc. , 426 F2d 8 5 8 in which the Co.urt re-affirmed the position
taken in Time inc. vs. McLaneyf, 5 Cir 1969, 406 F2d 565 nnd held that
"publications concerning matters of public interest are protected by
the first amendment absent proof of actual malice." Also see Wasserman**
vs Time Inc., D.C. Cir 1970, 424 F2d 920.
ARGUEMENT THREE
Original Complaint (s): Other relevant case law regarding stories
based on previous stories include Mistrot vs. True Detective Publi.shin2,

:;\,_,.,
.., . ·.1 .
•i. ·> 46 7 F2d 12 4.
I , '. .
Original Complaint (bb) and (cc): Other decisions regarding the
"doctrine of serious doubt" include Oliver vs. Vil'lage Voice, 417 F. Supp.
235 (1976), Hensley vs. Life Inc, 336 F2d 54 ( l971) and l\dey vs. United
l\ction for Animals, 361 F Supp 457 (1973) all of which resulted in
summary judgment in favor of defendant.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Other decisions that support Buckley vs. Little incl lide Ocala Star
Banner co. vs. Damron, 401 U.S. 295, 300-01, 91 S. Ct 628, 28 L Ed. 2d
,· ~7 (1977); Time Inc vs. Pape, 401 US at 290-92, 91 S. Ct 633; Monitor

Patriot vs. Roy, 401 US 265, 274-77, 91 S. Ct 621, 28 L Ed. 2d 35 (1971)
*Micheal t·\cLaney is a casino operator and close friend of Jack Ruby's

close associate, Lewis J. McWillie.
** Jack Wasserman is Carlos Marcello's former attorney.
The constitutional privilege of neutral reportage, outlined by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Edwards vs. Nationa l
\ '
Audubon Society, 556 F. 2d 113 {2 d Cir. 1977), was the basis for the
affirmance of the . dismissal of a libel claim in Kra~ss vs . The Champaign
'' · News Gazette Inc., 3 Media L. Rptr. 2507 {Ill. App. Ct. 197 8 ).
Finally, in Karp .vs. The Miami Herald, 3 Media L. Rptr . 2 5 81
(Fla. D. Ct. App. 1978) the Florida District Court of Appeals affirmed
the granting of summary judgment to a libel defendant on the ground
that there was no genuine use of material fact concerning the absence
of negligence.
.~ •'i CONCLUSION
' .
....
~
For the foregoing reasons defendant's motion for summary judgment
should be granted.
DATED: New York, New York

1980
Respectfully submitted
ALAN JULF.S WEBERNAN pro se

SIX BLEECKER STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORI<
TEL: (212) 477-6243
:' ..
1 '
I
FOR THE SOUTHERl'! DISTRICT OF
E. HOWARD HUNT, JR. , FLORIDA
Plaintiff, CIVIL 76-1252-EBD
vs.
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO
A. J. WEBERMAN et. al. REDISCOVERY AND MOTION TO
END DISCOVERY
Defendant.
COMES NOW the defendant and counterplaintiff 1 Alan Jules
Weberman, pro se, and moves this Court for an Order compelling
plaintiff E. Howard Hunt to comply with discovery pursuant to
F. R. C.P., Rules 26 (b) ( 1) and 34 (a), on the following grounds:
1. The discovery sought is for a proper purpose, i.e. to
determine ho.w many times plaintiff has been convicted of the
same offense he accuses defendant.of committing. Discovery is
also sought relative to defendant's countersuit. Counterplaintiffl
wishes to determine if a pattern exists of filing groundless,
frivilous lawsuits against writers and researchers who link
plaintiff to the Kennedy-assassination.
2. The purpose of the discovery motion in question is to gain
evidence impeaching the plaintiff's credibility for a possible
upcoming trial, not to gather information for a forthcoming
book. Defendant is not currently writing a book on E. Howard
Hunt, although a revised paperback edition of Coup D'Etat In
America is planned for the distant future. This lawsuit will be

I
I
relevant to the facts presented in any new edition of Coup D'Etatl
since the subject of instant matter is E. Howard Hunt's alleged I

i'
links to the Kennedy assassination and one of the defendant's
I
pleadings is truth. If plaintiff wishes to narrow the issues in
this matter he should amend his original complaint to cover only
the issue of "actual malice". As the complaint now stands, i t
contains over thirty averments dealing with a broad spectrum of

Kennedy assassination research.
!
-rf. I
I '1
,·~-=··--1··
:.. ~
•
' 3. The information sought be defendant is only available in
the Court where the litigation in question occured or in. a
nearby Federal Documents Center e.g. if defendant wished to
determine the outcome of Hunt vs. National Tattler he would be
forced to make a trip to Chicago for documents already in the
possession of plaintiff's attorney. If defendant attempted to
ascertain the captions of all the libel lawsuits the plaintiff

·-- I
was involved in via public channels, a trip.to every Courthouse
in the nation, both State and Federal, would be required since
each Court has its own Civil Index, and no central index exists.
t
4. Although discovery in this cause has been going on for four I'
I
years it is still proper because: I!
a. Order of 7 October 1980 states that all discovery
must be completed five days prior to the pre-trial
conference of 7 January 1981.
b. Defendant recently dismissed his attorney and has

only been conducting proceedings in his own behalf
for si:-: months.
c. Defendant learned about plaintiff's libel conviction

approximatly two months ago while researching his
Motion for Summary Judgment.
5. This cause has been set for Jury Trial for ,the week of
19 January 1981. Plaintiff's refusal to comply with this motion
and defendant's Interrogatorie to Party have placed an excessive
burden on the defendant in his preparation for trial since. he
needs this information to aid in that effort.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing was mailed to ELLIS RUBIN, 265 NE 26th Terrace, Miami,
Florida, on this the 3rd day of· December, 1980.
Dated: 3 December 1980 re~/ttl~y submi.tted,

New York City
tt?'!A._ /;, "Jt. (_ ~
Alan Ju es \·/eberman,pro se
Six Bleecker Street
New York, New York
'l'el: · (212) 4 77-6243
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
FLORIDA
E. HOWARD HUNT, JR.,
CIVIL-76-1252-EBD
Plaintiff,
vs.
A.J . WEBERMAN, OBJECTION TO REDISCOVERY AND
MOTION TO END DISCOVERY
Defendant.
COMES NOW the Plaintiff E. HOWARD HUNT, JR. , and

moves this Court for an Order deny ing Defendant's Motion for
Rediscovery, and putting an end to all discovery in this
cause, pursuant to F. R.C.P. Rule 26C, on the following grounds ·~
1. The discovery sought is for an improper purpose,

i . e. to harrass the Plaintiff. ·
2. The inf ormat i on the Def endant seeks is not for
purposes of this action nor reasonably related thereto, but is
in fact an attempt to use this Court to facilitate re s earch for
a book the Defendant is writing .
3. The documents the Def.endant requests are all Court
files which are public record and are equally or more easily
available to Defendant than they are to the Plaintiff .
4. Discovery in t his cause has been ongoing for a
period of more than four (4) years, and Defendant has had the
opportunity to and in fact has , discover all relevant information.
5, This cause has been set for Jury ~rial for the week
of January 19, 1981. Discovery may be ended at this time without
causing any prejudice or undue burden to any party. To allow
discovery to continue would place an excessive burden upon the
Plaintiff in being forced to respond to Defendant's continuous
and improper discovery demands.
-1-
"'-~
-. ........

foregoing was ma±led to ALAN JULES WEBERMAN, pro se, Six
Bleecker Street, New York, New York this 21st day of November,
1980.
ELLIS RUBIN LAW OFFICES, P.A.

Attorney -for-Plaintiff
265 N.E. 26th Terrace
Tel: (305) 576-5600
~.
-2-
' ,,i
1
11
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF FLORIDA
E. Howard Hunt, Jr.
Plaintiff
vs.
CIVIL-76-1252-EBD
A.J. Weberman
MOTION FOR REDISCOVERY
Defendant.
------------------------x
NOW COMES the defendant, A.J. Weberman, pro se, and
respectfully requests the plaintiff,.E. Howard Hunt, pursuant
to the F.R.C.P., Rules 26 (b) and 34 (a) to produce the following
for inspection within 30 days from receipt of this request:
1. All records, documents, Court papers etc. on any libel

cases wherein plaintiff in instant matter was named as
a defendant or co-defendant.
2, All documents, Court records etc. concerning Justo Carillo

vs E. Howard Hunt, Civil Case 40172, Circuit Court for
Montgomery County, Maryland. All documents and receipts
concerning Judgment entered against E. Howard Hunt for
libel.
DATED:
OCTOBER 21, 1980 respectf~lyJsubmitted
(IJ~t LJG.-~, I~
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Alan Jul;s Weberman, pro se

Six Bleecker Street
New York, New York
Tel: 212 - ~77-6243
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this

Motion for Rediscovery was mailed to Ellis Rubin I 265 NE 26th
Terrace, Miami, Florida 33137 this the 21:.:31' ,day ·0f ctober,
1980. ./j''i,
· /...... '.'{A
1 ~
'I ·
v "/'• 1[,..
_.
b --
\ .
________ L ___ _ ,.
. •~
'
..
... - ....
_ -~•--- ·' ...... -.,.--,.,....-,-~-=·---~~,...·-'""-"·-""·'"'··...,--=~-=--;,.-~.·"'·~.· - - - - - - - - - - - - ·--- --···--·-·
- ' ..
~
CASE NO . 76 -12 52-Civ-EBD
E . HOWARD HUNT ,
Plaintiff,
OBJECTIONS TO
vs. INTERROGATORIES
A. J. WEBERMAN, et al . ,
Defendant .
The Plaintiff, by and through his ·undersigned

attorney, objects to the Interrogatories filed by the
Defendant WEBERMAN on July 14, 1980 on the grounds that
at a pre-trial conference held earlier this year in the
case at bar, this Court indicated that a trial date
would be set in this cause before the end of 1980 . It
was also at that pre-trial conference that both sides
represented to the Court that all discovery and all
preparation for jury trial had been completed and that
all that remained to be done was the setting of the trial
date.
Since that pre-trial conference, the Defendant
WEBERMAN has dismissed his attorney and has proceeded pro
se with the approval of the Court. Acting on his own
behalf, the Defendant WEBERMAN has proceeded to engage in
a renewed fishing expedition, filing requests for produc-
tion, interrogatories, and other discovery techniques
that had been completed long before 1980.
Plaintiff would show that the Defendant is
engaging in harrassment and is papering this file with
alleged requests in an attempt to delay the furtherance
of justice.
WHERE FORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff
requests this Court to strike and to deny the interroga-
tories referred to above and to issue its order putting
to an end additional requests for discovery by both
sides, and Plaintiff would renew the request of this
Court to set a trial date in this cause that has been

pending since 1976.

Tel: 305-576-5600
By :r::·$, ~
ELLIS S. RUBI:
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy
of the foregoing Objections to Interrogatories was
mailed this 16th day of July, 1980 to A. J. WEBER.MAJ.~,
pro se, 6 Bleecker Street, New York, New York 10012.
By s: /J. L
ELLIS S. RUBIN'
<
-2-
·.;"
~:4
;i'!-'
.;
i:'
·i
,,
Ii
l:1
--------------------------------x
i
E. HOWARD HUNT, Jr .
.!1,
·1 Plaintiff,
Civil Action # 76-1252-EBD
!1
i vs.
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO
i PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS
II A.J. WEBERMAN et. al. TO INTERROGATORIES
~l Defendants.
!j --------------------------------x
11
I·
I
I
NOW.COMES the defendant, A.J. ·Weberman, prose, and
II herein presents the following responses to plaintiff's motion
of 16 July 1980, titled ''Objections ~o Interrogatories''.

I
Ii 1. Rule 26 (a), Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure, states:
\\ "Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following

"H methods: •.. written
I
I
interrogatories ... Unless the court orders
otherwise under subdivision (c) of this rule, the frequency of

I
use of these methods is not limited.'' Plaintiff objects to
i interrogatory yet fails to state cause of action upon which

I his motion should be granted. Plaintiff's "motion", having
11
·' failed to state a cause of action, is, in reality, nothing more
ii
!I than an informal complaint.
i 2. Rule 33 (a), Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure, states:
iI
"Interrogatories may, without leave of court, be served upon the
I plaintiff after commencement of the action and upon any other
i
I party with or after service of the.summons and complaint upon
1'
:I that party." Defendant is within the scope of this rule in his
"
ij desire to interrogatory plaintiff. The interrogatory dated 14
July 1980 is first such interrogatory filed in instant matter.

II
III 3. During the pre-trial con~erence of March 12, 1980 it was
i/ determined that defendant would have until October or November
of 1980 to complete pre-trial discovery. It was understood that
l:
~-'
-~
11
!
instant matter would be set for trial at this time. The
interrogatories in question do not disrupt this schedule.
4. Subsequent to this pre-trial conference it was mutually
stipulated by defendant and plaintiff that discovery would con-
tinue in relation to the deposition of Richard M. Nixon. This
stipulation appears in the deposition of A.J. Weberman, 12 March
1980. Defendant has filed a motion to compell Mr. Nixon's
testimony.
5. Plaintiff states that "Defendant is engaging in harrassment
and is papering this file with alleged requests in an attempp
to delay the furtherance of justice." Assuming, for the sake
of arguement,that instant matter does come to trial in the fall
of 1980. Discovery at this juncture does not interfer with
plaintiff's projected praceedings in any way. Defendant is not
trying to harrass the plaintiff through his motion for discovery
or interrogatories. Defendant is currently compiling evidence
for a motion for summary judgment, based on all previous plead-
ings, interrogatories, motions, depositions etc.
6. Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure, states: "A party
may, through interrogatories, require any other party to ident-
ify each person whom the other party expects to call as an ex-
pert witness ... " Question 39 of interrogatory in question con-
cerns such witness.
WHEREFORE, based on the preceeding, defendant requests this
honorable Court to order plaintiff, E. Howard Hunt, to answer··.
defendant's interrogatory, pursuant to Rule 37 (a), Federal Rules
of Civil Proceedure.
DATED: 22 July 1980

N.Y., N.Y.
,,
I,'I
:i
ll
I
I
I CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of defend-
ant•s "ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECT-IONS TO INTERROGATORIES" was
·mailed to Ellis Rubin, Attorney-at-Law, 265 NE 26th Terrace,
Miami, Florida, on this the 22nd day of July, 1980.
ALAN JU S WEBE
SIX BL CKER STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
TEL: (212) 477-6243
I
II
I
i
I
I
I
I
.1
·- I
I
I
'
I
11 '
I
i I
I
i . ··- - - - _L,
-.. •UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR T
•
IN AND FOR THE SOUTHER N DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Plaintiff,
-V S-
ALAN J . WEB ERMAN, MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Defendant.
COMES NOW th e Defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, by and

through hi s undersigned attorney, and s ubmits this Memo r andu m of
Law in s upport of his Motion Request in g Sa nct ions and states a s
fo llow s:
(l) Under the Federa l Rule s of Civ il Procedure,
Rule 37 (b)(2) , the District Court Judge is s pec ificall y provided
the power to issue Orders declaring sanctions upon a party that
fail s to obey a di sco very Order. These s an ctions may in c lud e an
Order st ri king out pleadings or part s thereof, di sm issing the action
or any pa r t thereof, rendering a default judgment agains t the di s -
ob e dient party, prohibiting the disobedient party from introduc in g
des ignat ed matters into e vi den ce or other sanctions as the Co urt may
de em proper or ne ces s ary . Sai d Federal Rule 37(b)(2) further states
that the Co urt may require the party "failing to obey the Ord er or
the attorney advi s ing him or both to pay rea sonable expenses, in -
e l uding attorneys fees, caused by t he failur e , unle ss the Court
f ·in ds that t he fai lur e wa s s ubstilntial l y ju stif i e d. 11
WHEREFORE, Defendant ALAN J. WEBERMAN, respectfu ll y

pr ays t hat this Court grant a default in the Defendant' s favor or
ot her s anctions as this Honorable Co urt deem necessary and proper .
Respectfully submitted ,
)J)
MARK J. --nu EDMAN
Att ornr>y lnr Defendant
:lbO Lincoln Hoad , Su it e 422
Mi il mi l3 ei:l c h, Florida 33 139
Phone: 532-5409
• '
CERTIFICAT~. O_F~RVJ ~!_
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of

the foregoing Memorandum of Law was mailed to the office of ELLIS
RUBIN, Attorney for Plaintiff, at 265 N.E. 26th Terrace, Miami,
~)
Florida 33 137, this - - - day of j~ • 1978.
UNITED S'l'ATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE

Plaintiff and
counterdefendant, Civil Action Nwuber
76-1252-EBD
vs.
AMMENDED MOTION FOR
A.J. \'IEBERl1AN et. al. SUMMARY JUDGHEN'l'
Defendant and
Counterplaintiff.
II
----------------------------x
NOW COMES the defendant and counterplaintiff, Alan Jules
Weberman, pro se, and prays this honorable Court grant him relief
under Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure, predicated on
the fact that: " ... the pleadings, depositions, and answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment
!
as a matter of law." F.R.C.P. Rule 56 (c).
ARGUEMENT ONE
II
THERE IS NO. GENUINE ISSUE AS '1'0 ANY
MATERIAL F<ACT ANO SUMMARY ;JUDGMENT
UNDER NEW YORK THIES VS. SULLIVAN
IS APPROPRIATE
l. Plaintiff's Original Complaint avers that defendant's book,
Coup D'Etat In America (Third Press, 1995 Broadway, New York, New
York-1975) contained several passages that were ''outrageously
false and maliciously written." Among these passages were at
least four which accused Hunt of participation of a crime in his
offical capacity. These were: ''By 1963 Kennedy's murder was being
planned by assassination experts.within the CIA .. " (Original
Complaint ''b''); ''But why, after all its painstaking precautions,

would the CIA let pictures of Howard Hunt, disguised as a tramp
on the scene of.the Kennedy assassination, circulate?" (Original
Complaint ''j"); ''But perhaps the strangest thing about Oswald's
·-· .. ·
Fair Play for Cuba Corruni~tee was the fact that some of the.
·literature was stamped with the address '544 Camp Street'. As
mentioned earlier, this was the address of the Cuban Revolution-
ary Council, an alliance of anti-Castro groups put together by
the CIA. It was also the New Orleans address of Howard Hunt,
who worked closely with the Cuban Revolutionary Council" (Original
C~mplaint 11
1''). The preceeding sentences were, in fact, printed
in Coup D'Etat In America and indicate that the author is discuss-
ing the possibility of Howard Hunt being involved in the Kennedy
assassination as an agent and offical of an agency of the United
States government: the Central Intelligence Agency. Because of
this, defendant's first defense to plaintiff's averments are
predicated on the assertion of the New York Times vs. Sullivan
decision that public officals'may sue for libel only when they
can demonstrate that statements were made with actual malice:
Although Howard Hunt was no longer a public offical when ins.tant
matter was filed, Howard Hunt was an appointed offical in Novem-
ber, 1963, the year author asks questions about Hunt's behavior
in an offical capacity, in the book that is the subject of this
lawsuit. In Rosenblatt vs. Baer, 383 US 75, 15 L Ed 2d 597,
86 S. Ct §69, Sullivan vs. New York Times was extended to include
appointed officals.
2. In 1976, when instant matter was filed, Howard Hunt was
a public figure. This fact is not in dispute. Curtis Publishing
·Co. vs. Butts, 388US130, 154-55, 18L Ed2d 1094, 87 s ct 1975
·(1967) extended New York Times vs. Sullivan to include public
figures. In Church of Scientology vs. Lazares, 455 F. Supp. 420
(1978) Times vs. Sullivan was·held to apply to defamatory actions
in the state of Florida.
3. If this matter is to be determined on the basis of New

York Times vs. Sullivan the next qu~stion is whether or not
.actual malice motivated the defendant. ''Malice'' is the ''material
fact" and if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
~-.---
~----~-· -·--------·- -- -------· ----·· -
''". ·':" -..;-· ,; . ·~ ., . • ...... .I • <:• • - ' ......
. . .. . ' .. ~ .
the moving party is ent~tled to a judgment as a matter of law .
Marsh vs. Commercial, 265 F. Supp. 614. The plaintiff, aside from
avowing it exists, has produced nothing to give the slightest
bit of support to the allegation that there was actual malice.
In Reliance Insurance Co. vs. Barrens, 442 F . Supp. 1341 (1977) ,
United States District Judge C·harles Brieant granted the def-
endant's Motion For Summary Judgment after defendant asserted his
good faith under oath, and no evidence whatever existed to contra
diet such assertion. Defendant in instant matter has asserted
his good faith under oath and will also produce numerous exhibits
which will prove that his state of mind in 1974-1975 was not in
anyway malicious. Plaintiff has produced no evidence of malice ,
which, in the context of a libel suit simply does not mean illwil
or spite . Rather, "malice" must be taken to mean fradulent,
knowing, publication of a flasehood, or reckless disregard of
falsity. (ibid.) In Brown vs. Skaggs, 563 F2d 983 (1977), malice
was defined as " . .. intentionally doing an act the known and
necessary consequences of which are injury to the person . " Def-
endant has attached documents "A" and "B" to this motion in
accordance with Rule 9 (d), Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure,
to show that defendant was not maliciously trying to injure
the plaintiff when he was writing and researching the book in
question. Attachment A shows that defendant's motivation in
researching this area was part of an ultimatly successful attempt
to introduce a bill in the United States House of Representatives
to investigate the Kennedy slaying. In conjunction with this
effort, defendant worked with Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez
(Dem·. -San Antonio, Texas) . Congressman Gonzalez , who would be-
come the temporary Chairman of the House Select Committee on
Assassinations (HSCA) stated that defendant Weberman should be

given an opportunity to testify about Howard llunt and Frank
Sturgis' connection to the Kennedy assassination before the
\
-.~-:-.. --:\.---:--·
... ,. .·,. .. .
·. .... ·.-..
• - l j. .
· ' .
1• • ' ,· . \
aforementioned Committee. ( s ee Attachment B.) When the HSCA
came into existence the def e ndant furnished them with research
material, which included information on Howard Hunt. (see
defendant's Attachment C); when the HSCA issued its Final Report ,
Coup D'Etat In America was q uot ed as a source. (see Attachment D)
Coup D'Etat In America was also cited by James Earl Ray during
his testimony before the HSCA. (see Attachment E) Defendant
has also attached portions of a deposition given by Mr . Gaeton
Ponzi, a salaried employee of the HSCA. (see Attachment F) Mr.
Ponzi was acknowledged as an expert in the field of the Kennedy
assassination by the stipulation of the plaintiff and defendant.
(see Fonzi Deposition page 5) In 1975, shortly after the public-
ation of Coup D'Etat In America Mr. Ponzi contacted defendant in
his capacity as an investigator for Senator Richard Schweiker
(Rep.-Penn.) Mr. Ponzi observed defendant as his research con-
tinued after the publication of the first edition of Coup D'Etat
In America. When questioned as to possible malice on the defend-
ants part, Mr. Ponzi testified that he "did not believe that Mr.
Weberman was deliberately making-up lies to specifically malign
Mr. Hunt." (Ponzi Deposition page 37). Mr. Fonzi testified that
the defendant did not manifest "reckless disregard of the truth":
When questioned about the defendant's research and the adaquacy
thereof, not only did Mr. Fonzi state that defendant's research
was "competent" (Fonzi Deposition page 6), he stated-"I would
characterize Mr. Weberman's archives and Mr. Weberman's know-
ledge of the Archives as probably one of the most competent in
the field." (Fonzi Deposition page 1 9) "Mr. Weberman (is) one of
the most persistant, thorough and productive researchers I know
of." (Fonzi Deposition page 38). Mr. Fonzi indicated that the
book in question was protected by the First Amendment when he
stated: "Prior to my work with the Committee, I considered the
possibility of Mr. Hunt 's involvement". (Fonzi Deposition page
33) "Prior to my joining the Committee, I believe that there was
··- - ·-- -...... - .::-:---..- -- -~ - ---:-·· . -..·~ :~ ·-·- -

.
--.- - - - --.. - .... _ ____ ____ _____.. -·----- 1.... ... . . .,....._. ---·- - - - ---- -
' .. •• '...: •· ••J :-: )(:-
-~~
r
the possibility of his being involved in the Kennedy assassin -
ation.'' (Fonzi Depositio~ page 34) Mr. Fonzi was unable to com-
ment on how his work with the HSCA had influenced these beliefs
since he was, and still is, under a secrecy oath.
ARGUEMENT ONE-CONCLUSION
4. Defendant has demonstrated that Howard Hunt was an ap-
pointed offical in November, 1963, that he was a public figure
when he filed this suit in 1976 and that defendant was not
motivated by malice when he authored Coup D1 Etat in 1974 and
1975. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
Sununary Judgement under New York Times vs. Sullivan is appro-
priate.
ARGUEMENT TWO
MATERIAL COMPLAINED OF BY THE PLAI NTIFF

WAS OF SUFFICENT PUBLIC INTEREST TO FALL
UNDER THE PROTECTION OF U.S.C.A. CONST .
AMENDMENT ONE AND FOURTEEN
S. In Davis vs. NBC, 320 F. Supp. 1070 (1970), Eugene c.

Davis, a former employee of reputed organized crime figure
Carlos Marcello sued NBC Incorporated for broadcasting a story
that alleged that Davis was "C.lem Betram", the mysterious figure
who called Marcello attorney Dean Andrews shortly after the
Kennedy assasiination and asked him to go to Dallas to represent
Lee Harvey Oswald on a "pro-bone" basis. In granting . defendant's
Motion For Summary Judgment in this case the Court ruled that
publication of information of public interest is inununized from
damages unless there is proof that it was committed with knowledg
of its falsity or with serious doubt about its truth. Nine years
after this historic determination the HSCA named Carlos Marcello
as a possible co-conspirator with Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald
in the assassination of John Kennedy.

6. In Novel vs. Garrison, 338 F. Supp. 977 (1971), Gordon
Novel, another plaintiff with ties to Carlos Marcello , sued New
Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for alleging, in a
Playboy Magazine interview, that Novel was part of a conspiracy
.. _: - -...·--··--- . ........ ·--····- -- · --· -·-- - - ---~---- --- - --- - ..- --- - ..... -·------- - - -·
~.. ~-;-~ ,·.,, ~ ·· : ....... : ."'" ,.. .... ~:. . .. : ... ~·- "ti,.;'.: .,_ .. ... · . . ··,.·... ....... ....,..,- ....,,. ~.~-· · • .. · ~ . - . ·. .. ... ;:.> ~ ... .
• ,.,.J' 'J' r
"r":::~'!'J~:
f I
·-.··: •,
• "l • '
.'i. ~ 1"· . .,
•t '
' . •
• • '
' , •' ·~
'
., . •' ,
• ' tf
..
to murder the President of the United States, John Kennedy. The
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. granted the
defendants Motion For Sununary Judgment and rules that the plaintif
in a libel action was an "individual involved in an event of
public or general interest" and thus could not prevail unless he
showed by clear an d convincing proof that the alleged libel was
published with "actual malice", that is,' with know l edge that it
was false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or fals ity,
where plaintiff was connected with an investigation into the
assassination of the President . Garrison, an important elected
offical was held to be engage in controversy of international
significance involving alleged presidential assassination plot.
Howard Hunt's background fits the crite rion established by
Novel vs. Garrison since Hunt, was also connected with an invest-
igation into the Kennedy assassination. During his deposition of
14 April 1978, page 8, Hunt admits being subpeoned by th e HSCA.

Hunt also testifed before the Rockefellar Cormnission and the
Church Committee regarding the Kennedy assassination. In
LaBruzzo vs. Associated Press , 353 F. Supp. 979 (1 9 73), it was
held that in a libel action involving publication of a matter of
public interest, showing of actual malice may not be presumed,
but is a matter for proo! by plaintiff; moreover, a bare allega-
tion of malice, standing alone, is not sufficent to withstand a
motion for summary judgment. The Court held that 11

the character
and content of the publication is a constitutionally impermissibl ·
evidentiary basis for the finding of actual malice." (ibid.)
Throughout plaintiff's initial deposition he pointed to "an
entire mischaracterization" as evidence of malice. For example,
on page 43 plaintiff contends that the passage in Coup D'Etat
In America reading-"Hunt arranged for troops to begin training
in Honduras and eventually Arbenz was deposed ... " wa s lib e lous
and malicious-"Because it is part of an entire mischaracterizatio
of me."
7. Aside from pointing to this "mischaracterization'' as proof
.... -··- - - . .. __..... -- · . ---- ·-- - -- ·

.! - ' .. .·. ·. . .... :·-:::·' ~- ":
~ .· .
of malice, plaintiff also po ints to the "seriousness of th e
charges" as evidence of ~al.ic e . During the status conference
regarding instant matter h e ld on March 12, 1980, Ellis Rubin
cited the gravity of the alleged charges that "Mr Hunt was in-
volved in the crime of the century" as proof of malice on the
part of the defendant. In Washington Post vs. Keogh, 125 U.S.
App. D.C. 32, 365 F2nd 965 (1966), the Court ruled that the
seriousness of a charge in a publication in itself i s not pro-
bative of reckl e s sness with respec t to truth for purpose of
libel.
ARGUEMENT TWO - CONCLUSION
8. The assertion in Novel vs. Garrison an d Davis vs NB C that
if a plaintiff in a lib e l action was an "individual involved in
an ·event of public or general in terest" he could not prevail
unless he showed by clear and convincing proo f that alleg e d libel
was published with ac tual malice applies to his c ase since
several government Corranissions a nd Committe es felt that Hunt's
testimony would be r e levant in the . matter of th e Ke nnedy
assassination. Since the ma~erial complained of by the plaintiff
was incorporate d into severa l of the se offical government in-
vestigations, the ma terial complained of was of sufficent public
interest to fal l unde r the protection of the First a nd Fourteenth
Amendme nts to the U.S. Constitution. P laintiff has failed to
prove ma lice apart from the text of the book in question nor
aoes j plaintiff's contention th a t the charges are "grave " prove
mali ce .
ARGUEMENT THREE
THE FACTS PRESENTED IN COUP D' ETAT IN

AMERI CA REGARDING HOWARD HUN'r WERE TRUE
AND CAME FROM RESPONSI BLE SOURCES. ANY
CONCLUS ION S DRA\\IN FROM THE FACTS WERE
CLEARLY THEORET I CAL: 'rHEREFORE DEFENDJ\NT' S
THIRD DEFENSE IS T RUTH.
9. Defenda nt will address each of the averments as they appear
i n pla intiff' s origin al and amm e n ded Complai n ts .
• 1.
> J ..,
,.+....- -·- ·-· ---:.::=.::.::- _-_-.:::.:-..·- .. :· ... . . .. -·-·---···---- -----· -·. --·-·- -----·- --- - ·- - . ..-··---· -·- _..,_ ----- : -. ---·-. -.
.:-. ,, . . ~- · . ... . . -- .. . . · .~· ~-·
10. Original Complaint {a) deals with Chapter Two of coup
D'Etat In America which is clearly titled "The Theory". The
sentence '' Chapter two is therefore the conclusion that we have
drawn £rom the arguements we shall present from chapters three to
ten." is a l legedly false and maliciously written . In Hotchner vs
Castillo, 551 F2d 910 (1977), the United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit, ruled that a writer cannot be sued for simply
expressing his opinion of another person. A "theory" on a part-
icular historical event, and the activities of participants
in that event, fall within the realm of clearly stated opinion
and are not in themselves actionable. In Orr vs Argus Press,
586 F2d 1108, (1978) the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth
Circuit, ruled that everyone , citizen or reporter, has the right
to comment on matters of public importance, and expressions of

0
opinion and even misstatement of fact are not actionable in
libel suits unless made maliciously for the purpose of damaging
anothers reputation: "It is now established as a matter of
constitutional law that a statement of opinion about matters
which are publically known is not defamatory. As the Supreme
Court said in Gertz vs. Welch- 'Under the First Amendment there
is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion
may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of
judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas . '"
11. Original Complaint (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) deal
with sentences clearly labeled "Theory" and are not actionable
for the same reasons as (a) .
12. Original Complaint (h) deals with the sentence-"The:re is
overwhelming evidence to suggest a link between convicted Water -
gate burglary mastermind, E. Howard Hunt and Lee Harvey Oswald."
Webster ' s dictionary d<!fines the word "suggest" : "c . to mention
or apply as a possibility". The writer of the passage in para-
graph (h) Qf the original Compaint is merely expressing his

opinion that there is a strong possibility of a Hunt/Oswald link.
There is evidence to support this possibility. One piece of this
evidence was presented as an Attachment to Howard Hunt's depo-
;
I• ·
.
~-,. ... _ _ ,_:_ ___ ,:_:=;:~ -
. -. -.. ~ -,------- --·- -- - -,- · - - · .. ~ ·.. -··--- ...- .. - - ..··· ----· . - ··- -· ... - ··
" ..
·. . . :::,·· . , .·· . . .
.. t • •
-ition of June 3, 1977 - a letter possibly from Lee Harvey Oswald
to a "Mr. Hunt". The HSCA exami.ned thi s letter and determined
that - "It is impossible to determine positively whether the
letter to Hunt is or is not in the handwriting o f the same person
as the other writings purporting to be Oswald's." (HSCA Hearings,
Volume VIII page 246) The question still remains an open one.
The HSCA also conclude d that Oswa ld mi ght have been associated
with members of the Cuban Demoncra tic Revolutionary Front.
(see Defendant's Attachment G , page 133) On page 36 of Howard
Hunt's deposition of June 3, 1977 he states-''I worked only with
the Democratic Revolutionary Front." The HSCA also named David
Atlee Philips, a close associate of Howard Hunt's in the CIA , as
a possible associate of Oswald. ( see HSCA Hearing Volume X pages
37-53). Finally, in plaintiff's deposition of June 3, 1977,
def endant submitted pages 788' a n d 7 89 of a deposition t ake n in
the course of the tri a l of Orlando Bosch (USDC-SDF-Mi arni-68 -420-
er-WM) which a lleged ly link ed a Mr. Hunt to Bosch. In Marita
Lorenz 's deposition of 25 J anuary 1978 she co nfirm s a Bosch -Hunt
link and links Bosch with Oswa ld. (Lorenz Deposit i o n page 56 )
13. Original Complaint (i) deals with the "tramp photographs"
- pictures of three "dere licts" who we r e picked-up in the
vicinity of the Dallas Texas School Depository short l y after the
Kennedy assassination. Once again the writer is suggesting a
possibility rather than stating a fact. In the Publishers No te
to Coup D'Etat In Ame rica, page xv, it is stated: "It is im-
portant to emphasize that the a uthors cannot state for sure that
these me n (Hunt and Sturgis) are identical to the "tramps ".
14. Original Complaint ( j) : "But why, after all his pains-
taking precautions , would the CIA l et pictures of Howa rd Hunt,
disguised as a tramp on the scene of the Kennedy assassi n ati on,
circulate?" This question is offered, arg uendo , and is not a

s t atement of fact . It i s not actionable per se , since i t as ks a
question that is within the limits of fair c omment on a p ublic
figure as defined by New York Times vs Sullivan .
15 . . Original Complaint (k) : "In 1 9 49 Howard Hunt wr ote
~--:--_::::-:-: . -.- -...-- -.....·..:-- -:- \._ .. .__ ____

.. ,,
-- 7- - ·- ·- -r-- - ---· ---~ ---- - --- -·-- - ....
.. .. ........ ... "':' ..
. ~
" - :_
• . ! ....
Bimini Run, a spythriller s t arring an ex-Marine, gambler and
soldier-of- fortune named Hank Sturgis . It is obvious that some-
where along the line, Hunt and Fiorini ' s paths had crossed ... In
a·way Hunt is telling the truth; he did not know Sturgis then ,
instead he knew Fiorini." There is strong evidence from the
depositions taken in this case, along with the docume nts attached
to these depositions, that Frank Sturgis and Howard Hunt were
aquainted prior to 1971; HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi testified:
"Question: Did you discover any evidence as to whether or not
Frank Sturgis knew E . Howard Hunt p rior to Novemb e r, 1971?"
"Answer: Prior to my joining t~e Committee, yes." This evidence
was supplied by Marita Lorenz. In Ms . Lorenz's depos ition, page
26, she confirme d this information under oath . Othe r depositions
taken in the course of discovery proceedings back-up h e r
assertion: Bernard Barker test~fied th a t h e knew S turgis pri or
to Watergate (Barker Deposition page 32) and tha t he also knew
Howard Hunt prior to Watergate. (Barker Deposition page 27)
Stur gis testified that he knew Barker p rior to Watergate (Sturgis
Deposition page 62 ) and that he also knew Alex Rorke . Barker
testified that h e knew Alex Rorke . (Barker Depos ition page 33)
Hunt t e stifie d that he knew Pedro Diaz-Lanz (Hunt ' s Initial
Deposition page 34 ) and Sturgis t e stified h e kne w Diaz-Lanz
(sturgis Deposition page 62 ) a nd Diaz -Lanz testified that he
knew both men . (Lanz-Depos ition page 5 ) Finally / Hunt t es tified
that he knew Manuel Artirne (Hunt Deposition of June 3, 1 977
page 58) and Barker testified that Artime knew Sturgis . (Barker
Deposition page 33) . Sturgis testified h e knew Artime. (Sturgis
Deposition page 62) Defendant has exhibited these relationships
graphica lly in Attachment H. The v a lidity of this sort of spe c-
ulation was confirmed in CIA docume nt 1 35 1-1059B 1 which was
attached to th e deposition of A. J. Webe rman take n on J uly 9 ,

1977; In th e course of evaluati n g a possib l e S turg i s-CIA connect-
ion the CIA evaluated the possibi lity of a Hunt/St u rgis relation-
s hip in 19 63 . Final ly , it s h b uld be not e d h ereto , th at documents
' '."!+"" r
!( I '
IL.ao.l.. - · - - · - - - - - - - - - -- · - _.. __ -- - ---- - - ··-·- -----·--·· ·····--·~ .. . . ·-··-··--- - - ·- -

.·... .. . . .. _t. . \ .. ' . t o .....
..
"'""• . - - • •'.!•
.~· ' ~"' ·'

obtained from the United States Secret Service (see Attachment I
pages 2 and 3) indicate that Pedro Diaz-Lanz arid Brigade 2506,
wpich was headed by Manuel Artime, were considered threats to
President Kennedy in November, 1963. Orlando Bosch is also men-
tioned in Attaclunent I on page 4.
16. Original Complaint (1): "But the strangest thing about
Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba Committee was the fact that some of
its literature was stamped with the address "544 Camp Street".
As mentioned earlier this was the address of the Cuban Revolution
who worked closely with the Cuban Revo lution ary Cou nci.l." This
contention is not libelous because:
a) It is true: Marita Lorenz's· address book for 1962 contained
the following notation-"E. Howard Hunt / 544 Camp Street" . (see
Lorenz Deposition page 56 and Attachment J)
b) The connections between the Cuban Revolutionary Council, its
predesessor, the Cuban Revolutionary Front and Lee Harvey Oswald
and 544 Camp Street a .re matters of public debate . In Volume Ten
of the HSCA Hearings, Gaeton Ponzi discusses these relationships.
(se e Attachment G) Defendant's pioneering work in this area help-
ed stimulate the HSCA in this direction. Howard Hunt was conn-
ected with th e Cuban Revolutionary Council despite his denials
during his initial deposition. (see Hunt's Initial Deposition,
pages 36 and 44) In support of this contention, defendant offers
reproductions of specific pages from Howard Hunt's book, Give Us
This Day, which contradict plaintiff's deposition. (see Attach -
me nt K pages 182-184) Defendant has also attached copies of page
3726 from Book Nine of the Hearings Before the Se l ect Committee
on Presidential Campaign Activ~ti es to s h ow that Hu n t was

conne cted with the Cuban Revolutionary Council in Miami ( see
Attachmen~ L) Th e FBI inve stigated the possibility that Oswald

picketed the Mi a mi office of the Cub an Revol ution ary Coun ci l
l"' , . .
L::::::=..= ::.-=:::~·~·:·.~·~:--: -·~_-:-·.::· . - - -- -- -;---·- ------·- -- -- ----- --· ___. - ---- ··· -· ····- -- ···- ---·-·"-·- - ·-·· ........
:· .. ·. ·.
.· ~ ....:.:·.-:-1' :..
- ~:· · :._
(see Attachment Ml so a connection between the two is not
"outrageously false".
17. Original Complaint (m) : "In 19 54 Bannister started the
Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean (ACLC) ' which helped over-
throw the leftist Arbenz regime in Guatemala. Howard Hunt was
in .charge of this operation •.. " Guy Bannister's connection with
the ACLC first appeared in a book titled Power On The Right
written by former FBI Agent William Turner. (Ramparts Press,
Berkeley, Calif. 1971). The connection between the ACLC and the
overthrow of Arbenz has recently been declassified by the U.S.
Army in a document they sent to the FBI (FBI # 64-29230-341) .
The fact that Hunt was in charge of part of the anti-Arbenz
effort was published in the New York Times Magazine on October
20, 1974 in an article by Douglas Hallet, who had worked on

.
Charles Colson's staff in the Nixon White House . In Go ldwate r
vs. Ginsburg, 414 F2d 324 (1969), the United States Court of
Appeals, Second Circuit, held that r eliance upon newspaper
articles, books etc. are factors which, with other factors, are
probative of whether a writer and publisher were motivated by
actual malice. In Rosanova vs~ Playboy, 580 F2d 859 (1978), the
United States Court of Appea ls, Fifth Cicuit, hled that the
subjective awareness of probable falsity required in a public
figure defamation actio~ could not be fo un d where the publisher's
allegations were supported by a rn~ltitude of previous reports on
which it reasonably relied; defendant was required to show that
allegation was made on th e basis of sources which were not be-
lieved to be false.
18. Original Complaint {o): "When Hunt worked in the Office
of Policy Co-ordination, the predecessor of the CIA, one of his
main interests was to 'reverse Italy's leftward political trend
and defeat the Communists at the po lls." This statement in no way

is actionable since it originates with Howard Hunt. (se e
Attachment N) In Novel vs . Garrison (previously cited) it was
held that where it appeared that the substance of statements
. -.* ,-
." , ; ,...
claimed to be libelous originated with t h e plaintiff, Surrunary
Judgement should be granted.
19 . Original Complaint (p): "After the Front folded, Smith
became the New Orleans delegate to the Cuban Revolutionary Co u ncil
(CRC) which was also connected with Hunt." Hunt's connection to
the CRC was already discussed in paragraph 16, infra . Smith ' s
relevance to the JFK assassination is discussed in paragraph
1-3 . of Attachment G, pages 127 - 128. Defendant is speculating
on connection between Mr . . Smith, who was closely with the Cuban
Revolutionary Front and Council , and Howard Hunt, who was also
. close l y connected with both .these CIA- sponsored organizations .
Mr. Smith refused to be deposed .
20 . Original Complaint (q): uDuring the planning of the Bay of
Pigs ·invasion, Howard Hunt also worked for Double-Chek, a dummy
electronics firm located just'outside Miami." In this sente nce
defendant is speculating on the possibility of a connection
existing between Gordon Novel and· Howard Hunt since both men were
-connected with the CRC and the propaganda effort r e lated to the
Bay of Pigs invasion . Defendant has attached FBI document which
indicates a possible connection between th e CRC and Novel. This
has been included and labeled Attachment O. The possibility of
a Hunt/Novel relationship is not "outiageously false '' . Jack
Anderson r eported on August 15, 1974 that Charles Colson, the
former e mployer of Howard Hunt, had contacted Gordon Novel. The
statement of a Hunt/Novel connection is therefore neith e r
"outrage ously false" or "malicious ly written."
21. Original Complaint (r): "Hunt worked on domes tic propa-
ganda for the Council and it is likely that he knew Gil." Hunt's
connection with the CRC h as been previously doc ume nt ed . Gil' s
connection with the CRC h as been . documented in Defenda nt's
Attachment P, a United States Secret Servi ce do~ument. Spec u-
l a tion on a possible connected between Gi l and Hunt is th e refore
n ot· " o utrageo u s l y f a l ~e ".
22 . Orig inal Comp l aint ( s ): "Jim Garr i son discov ered that in the
1i fall o f 1 9-63 Ferri e ma d e q ui te a fe~ ca l ls to :·'. e xico City . Howard 1

i!
~ -
_J~~~~~~~~~~~~ \
1~ .
L. ~.-.-.-__ __ .:, _ _ _ ·-:-------::-:~: . .·-. -.. .\---~----"":"
.... · -:·· ..: . , .. -···. ,·· _, ... '·.
- - - -- ------- - -· --
Hunt was station chief ther e around this time." The facts came
from two sources: The statement that Ferrie made calls to Mexico
City before the assassination came from the Honorable James
Garrison, during several private telephone conversations with
him in 1974. The second statement, regarding Hunt ' s presence in
Mexico City came from Tad Szulc's book, Compulsive Spy (Viking
Press- New York-1974). In Goldwater vs. Ginsburg, previously
cited, the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, held
that only if the repeater knows that the words are false or
inherently improbable, or if there are obvious reasons to doubt
the veracity of the person quoted or accuracy of his reports
then repetition constitutes libel. New York Times vs Conner,
365 F 2d 567 (1 966), confirmed the principle that p rotection of
the First Amendment is not limited to statements whose validity
is beyond question or which reflect an objective picture of
reported events;"While the verification of f acts remains an
important reporting standard, a reporter without a high degree
of awareness of their probable falsity may rely on statements
made by a single source, even though they reflect only one side
of the story .. " The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth
Circuit, reversed an Alabama District Court ruling against the
New York Times partially because- "Every challenged statement
has been traced to an identified source. There is no evidence tha
any of the sources have denied giving the questioned information
to Salisbury, that Salisbury twisted or misstated the information
given to him, or that Salisbury e ither knew or had clear grounds
to suspect that the statements might be false." (ihid.) Defendant
had no reason in 1974, nor does he have any reason at present ,
to doubt the veracity of Tad Sz ulc's reportage. In Mr . Szulc 's
deposition, pa~ 28, we were told that he wa s employed by the
New York Times as a correspondent for twenty years . In 1 958

Mr. Szulc was awarde d the Maria Morris Cabot Go ld Medal by
Columbia University; in 1969 th e Journalistic P rofessional
Fraternity Bronze Medal for reporting on th e invasion of Cz ~c ho-
s lovakia . Mr. Szulc ' s allegation t hat Howard Hunt was in Mexico
r.-- .. ---~·---- . .
Ii_-:--.:---·--::- ..-.--.:--:·-·---·-:-· - ----··-::- - - ·- --.- -..- .- ---·- - - -·----·· ·······- - ·l.-·· --- ·---·- -- . _-
"•. ··.·.!· :;• ( . ·.
:. .~·· ::
City in October of 1963 was studied by the House Select Committee
on Assassinations. (see Att achme nt P) Mr . Szulc was previously
called to testify before .the Senate Select Corruni ttee on In tell-
igence Activities since he was a personal friend and confidant
of President John Kennedy. On page SO of the Szulc Depostion,
Mr. Szulc stated that he s till believes the statement about
Howard Hwit and his presence is Mexico City in 1963 is still valid.
The United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia ,
Alexandria Division ruled that Mr. Szulc was entitled to protect
the source of this information. (78-Civil-616-A)
23. Original Complaint (t): " General Alexander Haig , another
Watergate-linked figure, was probably involved with Hunt and
Nixon because he was in the Caribb e an Section of the Planning
Di vision of the Departme n t of the Army at th e time of Bay of Pigs~·
Defendant does not make any as s ertions concerning Gen e ral Haig
and the Kennedy assassination. Haig is cite d as a possible Nixon-
Hunt link during the early 1960s. An assertion of an association
with General Haig, now Commander of the Nl\TO forces in E urope is
not libelous - d e spite Mr. Hunt' s d e s c ri p tion of Ge n e ral Haig as
"somewhat notorious." (Hunt Deposition of June 3, 1977 page 55)
24. Original Complaint (u): "~erry Buchanan was th e ex-convict
brother of James Buchanan, a clos e fri e nd of Sturgis and a
possible CIA agent, who, as we s hall see later, ma y have worked
with the omnipres e nt Howard Hunt." A connection b e twee n Buchanan
and Hunt is not "outrage ously fa lse"- Hunt stated : "I t a lk e d
with Frank Meyer over the phone" (Hunt De position of June 3 ,
1977, page 56) Frank Meyer was a friend of Nathanial Weyl, ac-
cording to an FBI document from the National Archives which I
have included and l abe led Att a chme nt R. Anoth e r FBI docume nt,
included and lab e led Atta c hme nt S , indica tes Mr. Wey l was a
fri e nd of James Buchanan.
25 . Or igina l Comp l a int (r) : "Whe n James McCor d was ca u g ht bug -
ging the Demo c r a tic Na tion a l Commi t t e e o ff i ce i n t h e Wate r ga te he
was u s ing the n ame Edward J . Ma rtin. Hunt wa s us in g th e c ode name
"Mr. White "" Thi s state me nt is not "out r ageou s l y fa l se . It i s
\
\·---- - ---- - ·.··-- ··---- __..... · - - ---
____,, - -------- -· - - --···· - -- ---· -·- .. .... -· - -···· .. - - - · -·--
·:
..·: ..... ~
- •. . ·... .( . ... ..
~
. . .· : .. - ,-: .
based on information gathered by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein,
two award-winning journa+is ts. See Attachment T page 22.
26. Original Complaint (w) and (x). Both the statements in
Coup D'Etat quoted here are based on statements in Compulsive
~by Tad Szulc, pages 96 and 99. See paragraph 22 infra.
27. Original Complaint (y): "Hunt's safe also contained materia
relating to an investigation of Chappaquidick . He cultivated
informers within the Kennedy clan and may have for ged documents
blaming the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion on a secret
agreement between Kennedy and Castro." The first assertion of
fact comes from All The President 's Men by Woodward and Bernstien .
(see Attachment T pages 305-306) The second assertion of fact
comes from Hunt's book Unde rcover . ( see Attachment N pages 147-
148) The third allegation comes from Book Nine I Se lect Comm-
ittee on Preside ntial Campaign Activities I Heari n gs I p 3879.
(see Attachment U) In this telephone transcript plaintiff
confess e s to accusation of forging docume nt s which he claims
in his lawsuit is libe lous . He exp lains this in his deposi tion
of Jrme 3, 1977 page 84 by alleging that when he said "Sure"
he said it because - "I didn't know what he was talkin g about.
I just said sure and l e t it go at that." In Orr vs. Argus P ress,
previously cited , the.United S tates Court of Appeals, S ixth
Circuit, ruled on libel and interpre tation of offical do cuments:
"A sub sidiary first ame n dme n t principle con cern s s tatements
describing or summarizing offical documents . In c ase s where
plaintiff is public figure for the purpose of the "malice"
standard, the Supreme Court has held in Time Inc. vs Pap e ,
401 us 2 79, 91 S Ct 633, 28 C. Ed 2d 4 5 (1971), that a ny ration-
al inte rpreta ti on of a public document is a s uffice nt defense
as a matter of law to a s uit fo r defamation."
28 . Original Comp l aint ( z ): "The people connected with the

Bay o f Pigs ope r ation and Wate r gate certai n ly had a motive fo r
killing Kennedy; they fe lt he was sta n ding in the way o f t h e
"liberation of Cuba ". This statement is base d on def e n da nt' s
,
·..
-------- - -··----
' -~ · - ·
... ... - . ··-- --· - - --- -- - ·-
. ~·: . . . ..... ·.,
..;..· \.
....
. ..
-· ' .. . ,·; " <'; • .. •· " " ; I
...
·
. : . . ·..-. p.·:-..J. .-
- · 1 , ....
interpretation of Give Us This Day, plaintiff's book on the
Bay of Pigs. (see Attachment K, page 13) It is neither out-
rage ously false or maliciously written. In Buckley vs. Littell,
539 F 2d 882 (1976) the United States Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit, held that systems of government, democracy and
totalitarianism are matters where the widest latitude for debate
in the interest of the First Amendment should be given: "0ur
Constitution thus contemplates a bias toward unfettered speech
at the expense, perhaps, of compensation for harm to r eputation ,
at least wher e a public figure and a topic of enormous public
interest, going to the heart of political discourse is concerned.'
29. Original Complaint (aa): "Hunt laid the blame for the Bay
of Pigs fiasco a lmost entirely on Kennedy and there is r eason
to believe that he suspected the President of being part of the
"international communist conspiracy". See paragraph 28, infra
and Attachment K, page 178.
30. Original Complaint (bb) (cc) : "Hunt as tramp 11 - on page xv
of Coup D'Etat In America it is made clear that - "the authors
still cannot state for sure that thes e me n are identical to the
tramps." On page · xx the publisher states-"There is substantial
evidence to suggest that claims in the press which link Howard
Hunt to the "tramps " .. • have a strong basis in fact ." Page 69
of Coup D'Etat contains the following line: " ... the oldman tramp
looks just like E. Howard Hunt." Nowh e re in Coup D'Etat do the
authors say th e tramp was defi nitly Howard Hunt . P l aintif f avers
that ass~rtions such as the foregoing are '' sheer fabricatioh by
the defendants" when in fact the idea of a tramp/Watergate
connection did not originate with the m. (s ee Attachment V page
4) Defendant Webe rman has stated : "The pictures were first
brough t to my attention my Steve Sotor , ~ rofessor of As tronomy
a t Co rn e ll Univers ity . .. " Mr. Sotor is h ow h ead of r esea rch for

the National Education Television Network ' s "Cosmos '' se rie s 'with
Carl Sagan . P l a intiff cites the availability of th e FBI ' s
photoreport on the tramps vi a the Rock e fe ll a r Commission Report
~ -- ------------- ·---- · ---~-· --·· --· - ,,__J

~ __ ... ___.... ·:·: .. ~··-:. ..... . ··- --·... ·-- --· -----·--··- - - -- - - - ---·-- ---- -·· -· - _·_··:·~-- ...... .
~- .... 4:·:, .. .·· . . ..
,-1 .
I' ' • I
•• •· ' j . . : ~· •
as proof that the defendant knew the "tramps" were neither Hunt
or Sturgis at the time of publication. Defendant did not believe
the Rockefellar Report and included a critique of it on page
224 of Coup D' Etat In America . Defendant also cited numerous
instances of "FBI cover-up" in Coup D'Etat In America , in re-
lation to the FBI's work for the Warren Commission. Because of
this it is unlikely that defendant would regard the FBI's
determination in this matter as the "final word". In the case
St Amant vs Thompson, 390 U.S. at 731, 88 S Ct at 135, the
Sumpreme Court held that to find actual malice "there must be
sufficent evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant
in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his
publication·: "But to insure the ascertainment and publication of
the truth about public affairs , it is essential that the First
Amendment protect some erroneous publications as well as true
ones."
31 . Original Complaint (dd): "Kennedy dug his own grave by
trying to stop the Howard Hunts of the CIA from killing Castro . "
Howard Hunt openly admits advocat ing the assassination of Fidel
Castrp . (see Defendant's Attachment K, page 38) The r e lationship
between the pos~ible assassination of Castro and th e Kennedy
assassination is throughly discussed in Book v, Fi n a l Re2ort of
th e Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with re-
spect to Intelligence Activities - United States Sen ate . To
. specu late on the possibility of Hunt being in volved i n a murder
is not in itself malicious, since the defendant reli ed on a
series of previous reports linking Hunt to political assassin-
ation: On June 18, 1973 Newsweek Magazine carried a story linking
Hunt to an assassination plot ag a inst Pre s ident Omar Torrijos
of Panama.(see Weberman Depos ition, July 9 , 1977) On June 2 1,
1973 the Was hington Post carrie d a story th a t lin ked Hunt t o the
attempted a ssass ination of George Wallace . Since 1975 numerou?
othe~ r e ports lin k ing Hunt to assassi n at i on have b een given
widespre ad di s semination by the med i a . Th ese in clude a Dec e mber
26 , 197 5 r eport in t h e New York Times that Hunt h ad know l edge of
r ··-- -_--·- -
~ ·- -·· ·--- · -- ~-..,....--
_ -------·· ·-~ - ---····· - - · --·--- - --· ···-- --· --- - ·-- ··-···- -·
~ l"'i'""'\tc!"fV--\ •..*':': ......- ..... ,,,.;.y.,w-·~ : · "-.O - .. • . ....:·· • '-' :.· ....
- 1..... ~'r :· . ... , . . . ) .. ...~;"· . :. . J · ;•
. '• ·.
a CIA a s sassination unit and a September 21 , 1975 Washington Post
r eport lin ked Hunt to an · a b ortive assassination attempt agains t
Jack Anderson. In his deposition that has yet to be t r anscribed,
Hunt associate G. Gordon Liddy co nfirmed that Hunt discussed the
as sas s ination of Ja ck And e r son with him.
32 . Orig inal Comp l aint (ee ): "Was (Nixon) afraid that if Hunt
was thro ughly investigated or even put in the limelight someo ne
might realize that Howard Hunt was t he key to the John F . Ke nnedy
assassination?" This speculation refers to the June 23 , 1972
conversation between Nixon and Haldemann which was recorded and
released as pa rt of the "White House t apes" . Defendant is wel l
wit h in his First a nd Fo urtee n t h Amendment rights in asking this
q uestion, since a n actu a l participant in the conversation in
q~estion , H.R . Haldema nn, be l ieves t he conversation concerned th e
Kenn edy assassination. (see Attachment W) In no sense is this
question " outrageously false" .
33 . Or i ginal Comp l aint ( ff): " The FB I found fingerprints in the
Texas School Book Depository which t o date have not been iden t-
ified . The most obvious t h i n g to do is to crosscheck them with
those of th e Waterga te burglars." Defendants Canfield and Weber-
man did in fact turn over copies of the unidentifi ed finge rprints
found in t he Texas School Book Depository to the IISCA and to the
FBI . Defendant h as · included FBI document which indicates that
defendants gave any evidence they had to the FBI. (see Attachment
X) Had defendants been motivated by malice , the last thing they
would have wanted was a governmenta l inve stigatory ag e ncy to
review their " fabricated story " since they would have known it
to be false. The FBI did in fact investigate the "tramp " p hoto-
graphs . A li s t o f th e documents compile d durin g this investigation
is attached and l abeled Atta c hme nt Y. This expe n d iture of time

and effort indicates th ere wa s some i ss u e as to th e identity of
the tramps . The fi nding s o f the FBI were sent to the Ro ckefellar
Commission which included an e nt ire c hapter o n t he "tramp " shots
in their Final Report . (s ee Defendant ' s At t achme nt Z) Desp i te the
~ --
---·-- ··--··---·~:-\-··---.- - -.-
... . ---,.--------- ·---- -- -- -
., ...;.·..
~_-
.·
findings of the Rockefell a r Commission the identity of th e
"tramps" was also studi~d by the HSCA. (see Attachment l\.A)
Defendant contends that there is nothing probative of "malice 11
in supplying the FBI or a Congressional Conunittee with inform-
ation for evaluation ; in fact, exactly the opposite is true.
Had defendant been disseminating information he believed was
untrue in order to willfully and wrongfully injure the plaintiff
as stipulated in his Original Complaint , the FBI and the HSCA
would have refused to evaluate the charge s, since , as the
plaintiff contends , they. were , prima facia, "sheer fabrication ."
The motivation of the defendant in submitting . this alleged
evidence to governmental bodies for furth e r evaluation and in
the writing of Co up D'Etat In l\me ric a was cle a rly not ma licious,
unless malic e is defined as love and conce rn f or one s co untry
and ·its constitution. Defendant continues to disseminate evidence
amassed duri ng the course of his research to interested govern-
ment agencies . (s e e Attachme nt BB)
34. Amended Complaint (Count I I ): In his Ame nded Compl a int, the
plaintiff alleges that the d e f e n d ant cons pired with Marita
Lorenz, a close friend and operative of Frank Sturgis, to defame
and slande r him. Defe ndant and Marita Lor e nz ( s ee Lorenz Deposit-
ion page 1 33) conte nd that they we re unaqua inte d with one another
prior to the time Ms . Lore nz stated that she saw Howard Hunt in
I
1
Dallas in November of 1963 etc. e tc. The only proo f of a relation-
ship between d e fendant and Ms . Lore nz cited by plaintiff are
"state ment s made to me by Mr . Vick Walter ." Th e se st a tements con-
cern the fact that Weberman gave Walters a t e lephon e numbe r for
Ms. Lorenz circa August 1977. De f e nd a nt admits giving Mr. Wa lters
this t e lephone numbe r - whi c h was di sconnec t ed at th at time .
De f e nda nt me nti o n e d Marita Lore nz in Co up D' Et at , a lthoug h not
by n a me , an d had un earth e d h e r te l eph o n e numb e r f r om old t e l e -

p~one direct o ri es . ( s e e Attachme nt CC ) Wa lte r s , in hi s depos ition
of Fe brua ry 3 , 1 9 78 admitt ed th a t d efend a nt was a re li a b le s o urce
for in f orn:iation on th e Kenn e dy assa s si n a t ion. ( s e e l\ tt ac hme nt DD)
r---·
It::::=·-
-·_
-----~~--:-::.--:--·~ - --- ·-:-.--·-'"'.'---·---·--------·· ·---~ --··-· -·· --··--· - - -- · - -·-- · - -·-··
:· -· ,... .i
:~:. -... ,..
~ -..
I
• •
35. Amended Complaint (Co unt III): This averment accused the
defendant of conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of a witness by
plotting the assassination of Frank Sturgis. Count III was
subsequently dismissed with prejud ice. No criminal charges were
ever filed against the defendant in relation to the above
allegation nor was the defendant ever questioned by a law
enforcement offical or by a Grand Jury r e garding this absurd
allegation.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
36 . The preceeding point-by-point response to plaintiff's
complaint, and the precedents of law cited therein, are intended
to move this Court to issue a Summary Judgment in favor of
the d efendant , Weberman. In Wa s hington Post vs . Keogh, 365 F 2d
965 (1966) the United States Court of Appeals , District of
coiumbia Circuit , stated: " In th e Firs t Amendment a rea, summary
proceedures are even more essential . For th e stake h e re , if
haras s ment succeeds , is free debate. One of the purposes of the
Times principle , in addition to protecting pe rsons from be ing
cast in damages in libe l suits filed by public officals, is to
prevent persons from being discouraged in the f ull and fr ee
exercise of their First Ame ndme nt ri g ht s with resp ec t to the
conduct of their government . The thre at of bei n g put to the
defense of a lawsuit brough t by a popular public offical ma y be
as chilling to the exercise of F irst Ame ndme nt fr eedoms as fe ar
of the outcome of the laws uit itself, espe cially to adv ocates of
unpopular causes ..• unless persons , including newspapers, desiring
to exercise their First Ame ndme nt right s are as sured free dom from
h a r assme nt of l awsuits, they will tend to become se lf-censors ••.
The most se rious charges, which if anyth in g we pave the most
reas on to a vo id deterring , may be made r esponsibly, with n o hint

of anything contrary to commen know l edge , while l e ss se rious
c h a r ges may be made rashly , with intern a l in consi s t e ncies , c iting
f acts contrary to comrnen knowledge .. . " In Buckley v s . Litte ll,
previously cited, the Court h e l d th at: "Our Con stitution con -
-- -- -- . - . -
- - ---- - - - -- - ------- -__ . .___ _____ ___ F_..__ -·- - . ... - --····-·- - --·0'0- 0- - --- \
.. \.. ...
-
e o ---
- -~~'~;·-~..,... . '~ 1 .... ·., ·. ,. ., ., ·. ~-- • ,,

. ·, ·..•..
• •• • ..J
·.~ - (
A •
"·
••
-templates a bias toward u n fettered speech at th e expens~ ,
perhaps , of c ompe nsation of harm to reputation, at least where a
public figure and a topic of enormous pub lic inte rest, going to
the heart of the po litical discourse, is concerned." Asswning ,
for the sake of argueme nt, that the text of Coup D'Etat conveyed,
inter alia , the impression that Howard Hunt was involved in the
Ke nnedy assassination. This is a serious charge yet as we have
seen , that in itself is not indicative of malice since the charge
concerns an ex-public offical and current public figure and a
topic of enormous public interes t and impli ca tion; in th e words
of Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel of the HSCA - "The implications
of the se questions is enormous." This was why th e HSCA, despite
the findings of the Rockefellar Commission, assembled a panel of

experts to e valua t e the "tramp " s hot s . (sec Attachment EE) In
th e pre-Times vs S ulliva n case titled Stromberg vs . Ca li fornia ,
283 US 359 , 369, it was h e ld that: "The maintence of th e opport-
unity for free political discussion to the end that gove rnment
may be res pons ive to the will of the people and that changes may
be obtained by lawful mean s , an opportunity essenti a l to the
security of the Republic, is a f undamental p rin cip l e of our
cons titutional s y stem."
37 . .Plaintiff conte nds t hat h e s uff ered a loss of income as
a result of ·t he publication of Coup D' Etat In Ame ri ca yet his

. .
income tax returns tell another s tory~ In 1975, the year of
publication of Coup D'Etat, Hunt was incarcerated and earned
approximatly twenty-nine ·thou sa n d dollars. In 1 9 76 h e earned
app~oximatly thirty-one thou san d dollars . In 1977 he earned
seventy two thousand do llars. In 197 8 , six years after the
Watergate scandal erupted, Hunt's in come declined to approx .
forty-nine thou sand dol l ars and i n 1979 it fe ll to appro x. twenty
- o n e thousand dollars.
38 . P l ai n tiff , , E . Howard Hunt has accused defendant of bei n g ·
an irresponsible , ma li cious journa l ist who de liberat l y . concocted
lies to mali g n him. Defe nd a nt ha s attached thr ee letter s of
r efe r e n ce to s h ow this allegation is totally false and without
r :· -- ·-· -·-·---- ------

~E::::=:=::.:_-:: : =:--:-:---;·.·:::-~.--·-
...
-- -·-·-· - ..:·.--. ···-- ~-- - -- - - - ----- --- - ----· - ---·-· - -· --·· - - - ··- - ---- - -
.. ........,
~
~
• •
. .
"1"
-... ··. - .,
--'-'-·
..
-~·-. ··'(_·~·
,,_.,
.
....
'
merit.· '.rhese·have been attached and labeled l\ttachll1ent FF,
i Attachment GG and Attacnment FF.

I
PRAYER
I~
...-.I
39. WHEREFORE," plaintiff prays this Honorable Court (1) grant
him relief under Rule 56, F.R.C.P. and dismiss this frivolous
J
'
and groundless suit, filed by a convicted felon who has also
been convicted of libel, Carrillo vs. Hunt , Law Case 40172,
I Circuit Court for Montgomery ·county, Maryland, and spare him
and his co-de·fendants the expe.nse and embarrassment of a public
trial thousands of miles from their homes, (2) provide for
expeditious proceedings in the Weberman vs. Hunt countersuit,
(3) award defendant any and ~11 dosts incurred as a result of
this matter (4) grant him such other and proper relief as the
Court may deem just and proper ..
DAT.ED: 1980
NE\'7 YORK , NE\·I YORK respectfully submitted
l\Ll\N JULES \·/EBER.MAN pro se

SIX BLEECKER STREET
NEW YORK, NE\'/ YORK
TEL: ( 212) 4 7 7-6
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT a true and correct copy of the

preceeding MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMEN'.r was mailed to Ellis
Rubin I 265 NE 26th Terrace / Miami / Florida 33137 this the
day of 1980.
ALl\N JULES WEBERHl\N
. -·-- - · - - . . , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - · - ....
'•,
~--·- -:::::-..:-::.~--:----------~---- - ----·--- ___ .._~~ --· -- . -· -·.

.. ·-: ·1 .... . ,.· . :........ -. -- -·--·· --- -- - -
·-.
di 2: .J_.. ...... ~ r
unr~rrD 1IAITIJ Diuifi~vi l OURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
FLORIDA

Plaintiff an·a··-
Counterdefendant, CIVIL ACTION No. 76-1252EBD
vs.
A.J. WEBERMA.N,
Defendant and
Counterplaintif f
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANT/COUNTERPLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
COMES NOW the Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, E. HOWARD

HUNT, JR., by and through his undersigned attorney and submits
this Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant/Counterplaintiff's
Motion for Summary Judgment to show that genuine i ssues · of
material fact exist in this case and , therefore, that Summary
Judgment should not be granted .
Motions for summary judgment in federal court are

governed by Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P., which provides that a
motion for sunnnary judgment should be granted only where there
is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law . The party moving for sununary
judgment has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine
issue as to any mater~al fact . Reasonable inferences to be
drawn from the evidence containeJ in affidavits, exhibits and
depositions must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
party opposing the motion. Wright an<l Miller, Federal Practice
and Procedure §2727, p. 526. Further, if the evidence on the
motion is subject to conflicting interpretations or reasonable
men might differ as to its sir,nificance, summary judgment is
improper : id, §2725, p . 515.
Arguement One
There exists genuine issues of material fact as
to whether plaintiff is a "public figure" .
{,, In New York v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct.
CO, (1964), the Supreme Court held that the First and Fourteenth
.
A endments to the United States Constitution prohibit a public
official from obtaining damages for defamatory statements made
in reference to the conduct of his or her official duties without
proof that the statement was made with ''actual malice'--that is,
with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not", 376 U.S. 254, 280, 84 S.Ct. 710,
726. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975
(1967) , extended this standard to those persons classified as
'public figures'.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc,418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct.2997
(1974), concerned the issue of whether a publisher of a defamatory
falsehood a.bout an individual who is neither a public official
nor a public figure ma.y claim a constitutional privilege against
liability for those statements. The Court of: Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit in its ruling below had found Rosenbloom v.
Metromedia, Inc. ,403 U.S. 29, 91 S.Ct. 1811 (1971), to require
application of the New York Times 'v. Sullivan standard to any
publication or broadcast about an issue of significant public
interest, \vithout regard to the position, fame, or anonymity of
the person defamed. The Supreme Court overturned that decision.
Noting that Rosenbloom had been u plurality decision commanding
five separate opinions, the Court found the "public or p,cncral
interest" test adviinced in that cc1se d:i.d not adequately protect
the lug:i.t1.m1.1.tc s ta tu :i.n.tercs t .i.n co1upenna1· i.rt)'. i.nj u1:y LtJ tho
reputation of private individuals_, Lil8 U.S. at 343, 911 S.Cta:l-3009.
The underlying rationale of New 'fo1·k T:i.mes ancl Butts was that
those_ persons who advance themselves into the public arena either
by virtue of their holding public office or by becoming "intimate-
ly involved in the resolution of important public questions~',
Curtis Publishing v. Butts 388 U.S. 130, 164,

87 S.Ct. 1975, 1996 (Warren, C.J., concurring in result), are in
a superior ~os:i.tion to adequately respond to alleged libelous
statements and First Amendment protections afforded the press
against self-censorship require the application of the "actual
malice" test in the context of persons so situated.
-2-
,
'' '
see: Walston v. Reader's Digest Association, Inc. 1 ~~U.S.

99 S.Ct. 2701, 2706. The "general or public interest" test,
by focusing solely on society's interest in learning about 'certain
issues, ignored the legitimate state interest in protect'ing indiv-
iduals from injuries, occassioned by defamatory falsehoods:
In an effort to balance these competing interests, the
Gertz Court formed a rule applying the New York Times "actual
malice" standard to public officials and public figures while
leaving states free (within limits) to set their own standards in
the context of libel actions brought by private individuals. The
Court:,. therefore, was required to distinguish the criteria ear-
marking public figures.

The Court found two categories of public figures:
"For the most part those who attain this

status have prominence in the affairs of
society. Some occupy positions of such
persuasive power and influence that they
are deemed public figures for all purposes.
More commonly, those classed as public
figures have thrust themselves to the
forefront of. particular public controver-
sies in order to influence the resolution
of the issues involved.'" 418 U.S. at 345,
94 S.Ct. at 3009.
Further in its opinion, the C~urt elaborated on how a public
figure determination was to be made: .
"Absent clear evidence of general fume o·i:

notoriety in the co~nunity, and perHuasivc
involvement in the affairs of society, an
individual should not be deemed a public
personality for all aspects of his life.
It is preferable to reduce the public
figure question to a more meaningful con-
text by looking to the nature and extent of
an individual's participation in the partic-
ular controversey giving rise to the def-
amation." 418 U.S. at 352, 9Lf S.Ct. at 3013.
The libelous statement in Gertz concerned an attorney
who represented a family in a civil action against a police officer
convicted of murdering another family member. The defendant had
published a magazine article discribing the plaintiff as a

"Communist-fronter", "Leninist" and participant in various
"Marxist" and."Red" activities. While it was true that the

I
plaintiff/attorney had long been active in community and pro-

fessional affairs, serving as an off.icer of local civic groups and
professional organizations and having published several articles
and books on legal subjects, the Court found that he was not a
-3-
l
'
public figure for all purposes: "We would not lightly assume
that a citizen's participation in community and professional
affairs rendered him a public figure for all purposes" 418 U.S.
at 352, 94 S.Ct. at 3013. Neither was he a limited public figure.
·, ......
Although the plaintiff had voluntarily associated himself with a
case that was certain to receive extensive media exposure, he
confined his activities to representing his clients in a court
of law and refrained from discussing the case with the press.
Under those circumstances, he plainly did not thrust himself
into the "r•Jrtex" of this public issue, nor did he engage the
public's attention in an attempt to influence its outcome. id.
Two years later in Time In~ v. Firestone,424 U.S.
488, 96 S.Ct 958 (1976), the Court was asked to determine whether
the wife of "the scion of one of America's wealthier families"
should be considered a public figure for the purposes of a def-
amation action stemming from a published report of a dissolution
of marriage proceeding. The Court answered in the negative.
Time had argued that because the Supreme Court of Florida had·
categorized the Firestone diyorce as a "cause celebre", the pro-
ceeding must have been a public controversey and Mrs. Firestone,

therefore, a public figure. The United States Supreme Court
rejected this arguement on the strenBth of the Gertz discreditu-
tion of the "general or pub lie in Ceres t" test. Al thoui~h some
individuals might have an inter.est in the maritul aff:air.s of
wealthier Americans, "(r)espon<lent did not assume any role of
especial prominence in the affairs of society, other than perhaps
Palm Beach Society", 424 U.S. 448, Li53, 96 S.Ct. 958, 965.
The Co.urt further pointed out that the respondent had

not "thrust (herself) to the forefront of particular public con-
troversies in order to influence the resolution of the issue.s

involved," Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345, 9!+ S.Ct at 3009, noting that
"(r) esort to. the judicial process ... is no more voluntary in a
realistic sense than that of the defendant called upon to defend
his interest in court", 424 U.S. at 45Li, 96 S.Ct .. at 965, citing
Bodie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376-377, 91 S.Ct. 780, 785.
Because Mrs. Firestone was compelled to enter court by the state
-4-
·,
in order to have her. legal rights adjudicated, it could not be
said that she became involve_d in a public controversey in order
to influence the resolution of the issues involved. 421'.i- U.S. at
454-455, 96 S.Ct. 965-966.

So too, the fact that the substance of the Time report
was obtained from transcripts of judicial proceedings did not require
automatic First Amendment protection. Such a rule would demand
a return of the general or public interest test rejected in Gertz.
Use of a subject-matter classification to determine the extent of
constitutional protection afforded defamatory falsehoods would
upset the careful balance between'
press and the equally compelling need for judicial redress for
libelous publications. Imposing the "actual malice" standard of
New York Tj.mes upon private individuals could not be supported by

.·--
the generalized public interest in reports of judicial proceed-
ings, as this\Jould "add almost nothing toward advancing the unin-
hibited debate on public issues thought to provide principal
support for the decision in New York Times", 424 U.S. at 456,
96 S.Ct. at 455. Rather, the focus properly should be directed

.
toward the status of the plaintiff. "Thct:e appears little reason
why (private persons) should sub:; 1'.an ti.ally .Eo1:fei t that degree of
pro tee ti.on which the law 6£ defamation would o thm:wisc afford
them simply by virtue of their being drawn into a courti:oom. '.'
424 U.S. at 457, 96 S.Ct. at 967.

Moi:e i:ecently the Supi:eme Court was again asked to
delineate the boundries of the public figure cuta~oi:y for the
pui:poses of defamation litigation in Walston v. Reader's Digest
Association, Inc., U. S. , 9 9 S . Ct . 2701 ( 19 7 9) . That
case involved a naturalized Amei:ican citizen who had been
subpoenaed by various grand juries investigating Soviet espionage
in the United States dui:ing 1957 and 1958. On July 1, 1958,

0
Walston failed to respond to a grand jury subpoena direc ting him
to appear. on that date. He subsequently was charged with contempt
and received a one-year suspended sentence with thi:ee (3) years
probation on the condition that he cooperate with any further
grand jury inquiries regarding Soviet espionage. In 1974
-5-
Reader's Digest Association published a book entitled KGB, The
Secret Work of Soviet Agents (~), in which it was alleged that
Ilya Walston was an undercover agent of the Soviet Union, identi-
fied as such in the United States.

Walston filed suit in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia, claiming that the references
to his being a Soviet Agent contained in KGB were false and
defamatory. The District Court granted Reader's Digest's Motion
for summary judgment, holding that Walston was a "public figure",
therefore requiring proof that the defendant had published a
defamatory statement with "actual malice" under the New York Times
rule, a requirement which Walston had not met. 429 F. Supp. 167
(1977). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit aftirmed. 578 F. 2d 427 (1978).

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court decisions,
holding that plaintiff was not a public figure within the meaning
of Gertzland Walston, therefore, was not required to meet the

· test
"actual malice'Y of New York Times v. Sullivan. The Court first
noted that it had at no time been claimed that Walston "occupied
a position of such 'persuasive power and influence' that 11e could
be deemed one of that small eroup 0£ in di vidcw ls who' ure public
f:Lgm:e:; fur all purposes", _ _ U.S. - - ' - - ' 99 S.CL. 2701, 2706.
Rather, tht.! lower court,; had accepted Rcude·i:' s Digcs t' s
arguemcnt thut Walston fell within Gertz's second cucagory of

public figures, those who "thruHt themsclve>; to the foi:efront a.I:
particular public controversies in order to in.l:luence the resolu-'
tion 0£ the issues involved", 418 U.S. 323,345, 94 S.Ct.2997,
3009. The lower courts had reasoned that because of Wolston's
failure to appear before the grand jury and the contempt citation
that resulted therefrom he had voluntarily involved himself in the
center of the public controversey surrounding the investigation
of Soviet esp~onage.
The Supreme Court rejected this arguement for two
reasons. First, the Court found that the facts did not justify the
conclusion that Walston "voluntarily thrust" or "injected" him-

self into the center of a public controversey. Instead, it was
-6-
·,
the government whi.ch pursued \~olston in its investigation of
Soviet espi.onage. The fact that Wolston chose not: to testify
before the grand jury did not change this. Wolston's involvement
in the case, like that of Mrs. Firestone in her divorce proceeding,
was only with the judi.cial system and not the mcd:i.n. The Court,
citing Gertz, "emphasized that a court must focus on the 'nature
and extent of an individual's participation in the pllrticular
controversey giving rise to the defamation'," and noted that
Wolston "limited his involvement to that necessary to defend
himself of the contempt charge." __U.S. __ ,_·__ , 99 S.Ct. 2701,
2707. Mere association with a matter of public interest does
not transform a private individual into a public figure, the
court stated, rather the manner and extent of a person's involve-
ment in that controversey are the determinative criteria, U.S.

,· 94 S.Ct. 2701, 2708. See also Time Inc. v. Firestone,
424 U.S. 448, 94 S.Ct. 958, and Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., L1J.8 U.S.
323, 94 S.Ct. 2997.
Secondly, the Court pointed out that Walston had not
!>engaged the attention of the public in an attempt to influence
the resolution of the issues 'involved.'' U.S. at ' 99

S.Ct. at 2708. His failure to respond to the p.;rnnd jury subpoena
was not shown to have been done in an attempt to place..bimse.lf
in a position to .influe.nce public opinion nor draw atte.ntion to
h:Lmse.LE. Inde.e.d, the Cour.t s tate.d that .i.t bud ilppc11rcc\ thu t:
Woloton's failure. to te.stify was ~re.dicate.d upon an illness.
Thus Wolston affirms the holdings of Ge.rt~ und
Firestone that one does not become a public figure. by mere
involvement in a judicial proceeding, however interested in that
proceeding the public mighc be. The subject-matter test and
public interest test were specifically rejected in the above-
cited cases. A court's attention should properly be placed upon

the plaintiff's activity to determine whether he (1) willfully
and intentionally became engaged in an issue of public controver-
sey, (2) with an eye towards influencing the resolution of the
issues involved.
Additilionally, it must be established at what point
in time the public figure determination is to be made. Gertz
-7-
would suggest that the plaintiff,in order to be subjected to
the actual malice standard, must be a public figure at the time
of the controversey to which the libelous statement refers:
"It is preferable to reduce the public figure question to a more
meaningful context by looking to the nature and extent of an

individual's participation in the particular controversey giving
rise to the defamation", 418 U.S. at 352, 94 S.Ct. at 3013.
Walston supports this position as well. Both the District of

Columbia Circuit Court and the Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit
found Walston to be a public figure at the time of his contempt
citation in 1958. Walston had argued that
because of the passage of time, even if he had once been.'a
public figure, he had reverted to a private individual by the
time KGB was published. The lower Courts both rejected this
argument without deciding Wolston's current status, thereby
necessarily implying that a ·defamation
plaintiff must be a public figure at the time of the occurance
which spawned the libelous statement. The Supreme Court
supported this position without deciding the exact point by
finding Walston was not a public figure in 1958,the time of the
con troi1e.r s e.y , U.S. at 99 S.Ct. at 2207, f.n.7.
In the instant case defendant We.be.rman's Amended
Motion for ·Summary Judgment assumes ·without argue.ment that E.
Howard Hunt is a public figure stating: "This fact is not in

dispute." (at page 2). However, under the holdings of Gertz,
.Firestone and Woleton it can not Ile said that this issue is not
mate.rial as it directly bears on the issue of whether. 'actual
malice' must be proven, and for the reasons set for.th below,
it will be shown that this issue is in dispute.
At the time of President Kennedy's assassination in
1963, the subject of· defendant's book and this lawsuit, it can
not be maintained that plaintiff, who was employed by the
Central Intelligence. Agency was a public figure. His obvious

inability to effectively per.form C.I.A. functions, as chief of
covert action for the Domestic Ope.rations Division, necessarily

pre.eluded his obtaining any public notoriety. (see: Hunt,
Undercover, Memoirs of an American Secret Agent, Berkley Pub-
lishing Co., 1974, pp. l32-133). Plaintiff's first notoriety
in the public eye came as a result of his involvement in the
-8-
Watergate burglary in 1972 and his subsequent indictment as a
Watergate co-conspirator, approximately a decade after President

I Kennedy's death. Under these circumstances there certainly
I 1\C
is1ground to support an allegation that E. Howard Hunt meets the
r criteria of Gertz, Firestone and Walston as being a public
i figure at the time of the Kennedy assassination.
1·
! Even if it is argued that plaintiff later became a
public figure as a result of Watergate and that tl1is classifi-
cation would act retrospectively to the date of the Kennedy
assassination, plaintiff would still not meet the public figure
criteria established by Gertz and its progeny. First, as shown
above, plaintiff's activities with the C.I.A. and his later
Watergate-related involvement with the White House "Plumbers
Unit~' precl'ude the possibiiit)I that he had "assumed (a) role of
especial prominence in the affairs of Society", Gertz, 418 U.S.
at 345, 94 S.Ct. at 3009, as his clandestine activities necessar~
ily demanded that he maintain as high a degree of anonymity as
possible. By the very nature of Mr. Hunt's employment, .it was
imperative that he not be in Fl position of ''persuasive power and
influence over. society." ibid. Thus Mr. Hunt was not a public
'
I.
' .figure for all purposes.
I
The second category of public figure as defined
under Gertz -- that of those who "t:hru:;t themselves to the fm:e-

front of particular public controversies in order to influence the
resolution·· of the issues involved" -- .is equally unnvailing to
defendant. It can readily be seen that, given Mr. Hunt's
notoriety being a direct result of his Watergate involvement, it

would be incongruous to assert that he voluntarily thrust himself
into the forefront of a public controversey. One who conspires

to burgle the offices of the Democratic National Committee is
not one who} by those actions,., seeks to come to the forefront of
the public mipd regarding issues of public controversey. His
main objective was to maintain the utmost secrecy in these
matters.
Plaintiff's national exposure suffered as a result
of the Watergate trials and impeachment hearings are not.suff-
-9-
icient to bring about a metamorphosis from private citizen
to public figure either. As Firestone and Walston make clear,
resort to the judicial process is not a voluntary "th.rusting"
of oneself into the forefront of a particular public contro-
versey "even though (the controversey) may be of interest to some
portion of the reading public', Fires tone, 424 U.S. at 454, 96
S.Ct. at 965, particularly where, as here, the plaintiff
''was dragged unwillingly into the controversey; the sovernment
pursued him in its investigation." Holston, u. S. at ' 99

S.Ct. at 2707.
Further, there is no evidence that plaintiff thrust
himself into the forefront of either the assassination or Water-
gate controversies in order to influence their resolutions.
Indeed, plaintiff's supposed connection with the Presidential
assassination came about as a res.ult of the efforts of the
defendants and the allegations contained in their book. (see:
Canfield and Weberman, Coup d' etat in America, The Third Press,
\fl
1975, Chapter 1, Weberman deposition, July 8, 1977, pp. 18-2]).
As stated by the Cburt in Hutchinson v. Proxmire, U.S.
99 S. Ct. 2695, (1975): "Clearly those charged with defamation
cannot, by their own conduct, create their own defen:;e by making

the clairnant a public fi[\ure." id at 2688. AH regards Water-
gate, plaintiff's in'rolvernent as a alleged conspi·i:ato·i: and Judge
John Sirica's order enjoining everyone connected with ~he c11se
from commenting publicly on it, Undercover, sup-1:a, p. 273, made it
irn1>ossiblc for plaintiff to be in a position to inEludnce the

resolution of that affair.
From the above, it is clear that plaintiff was not
a public figure at the time to which the libelous statements
refer, that the nature of plaintiff's employment would not

allow him to be a public figure for all purposes, and because
he made no effort to thrust himself into any public controver-

sies but rather was drawn in by defendant's statements and the
judicial process, he can not be considered a limited public

figure. Therefore, plainti.ff should be considered a private
person for the purposes of this law suit and the "actual malice"
standar~ should not apply.

-10-
ARGUMENT TWO
EVEN IF PLAINTIJ<"F IS TO BE CONSIDERED .A PUBLIC

FIGURE, ACTUAL MALICE CAN BE DEMONSTRATED.
Assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff can properly be
catagorized as a public figure and the New York Times "actual
malice" standard applies, it can nevertheless be shown that Defendants
published defamatm:y statements concerning Plaintiff "with know-
ledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it
was false or not". New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254,
279-280, 84 S. Ct. 710, 726.

While the term "reckless disregard .. cannot be fully
encompassed in one infallible defini.tion'~ St .. Amant v. Thomp,.;on

-
390 U.S. 727, 730, 88 S. Ct. 1323, 1325 (1968), specific examples
of that term have been provided by the Supreme Court of the United
States and its perimeters deliniated.
The fundamental burden of the public figure plaintiff
is to show with clear evidence that Defendant published (l) false
and (2) defamatory material with (3) actual knowledge of its falsity
or reckless disregard as to its trut,h or falsity. New York Times

v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710.
The g~st of Defendant's statementH which are the subject
of this suit (see: complaint) in~ute to tl1e Plaintiff culpability

for and direct participation in the assassination of President
John F. Kennedy. The falsity of these statements is beyond dispute.

'J.'he Rockerfeller Commission investigation on domestic C.I.A.
activities was presented with Defendant's evidence as to any supposed
involvement of Plaintiff with the assassination of the President.
By Defendant Weberman's own admission the Rockerfeller conunission,
after thorough investigation, found no credence in his allegations.

(Weberman deposition of July 8, 197 7, page 2 7) The House Select
Committee on.Assassinations .similarly concluded that Defendant's
-11-
claims were without merit (see: Report of the Select Committee
on Assassinations, U.S. House of Reps, March,29, 1979, Findings
and Recommendations.) Further, the attached affidavit:s of an
employee of Plaintiff and a neighbor and co-employee are sworn
testimony that Plaintiff was in Washington, D.C. on November 22,
1963, and could not therefore have been a party to an assassination
taking place in Dallas, Texas, on that same date. (Exhibits· "A"
and "B ") Finally, Plaintiff, under sworn oath, has testified
that he had absolutely no involvement in the assassination and that
he was in Washington, D.C. at the time.it: occurred. (Hunt''s
affidavit, Exhibit "C"), With two "blue-ribbon" panels comprised
of a number of this country's most esteemed and distinguished citizens
and public servants having specifically investigated Defendant's
allegations only to find them without merit and affidavits of
Plain ti.ff and others swearing to. Plaintiff's being in Washing.ten,
D.C. at the time of the fatal shots, the falsity of Defendant's
allegations is readily apparant.
The defamatory quality of this allegation is clear on

its face. It is common knowLedge that the entire country and indeed
the world went through great shock, outrage and distress as a
result of that most heinous crime and continues to do so today.
To claim that Plaintiff was responsible for such a tragedy is
about the most defam0< cory s ta ternen t imar,inable, one sU'l:ely to h'1unt
Plaintiff his entire life.
The 'actual malice' harbored by Defendent:s in publishing

their st:atement:s concerning Plaintiff, while perhaps less obvious
than the defamatory nature of those statements, is nonetheless
demonstrable. Defendants attempt to evade responsibility for their
libels by publishing them under a chapter of their book labelled
"Theory". (Coup d'etat in America, supra, Ch. 2). While a plaintiff

must generally show a communication to be a statement of fact rather
than an expre~sion of opinion in order to defeat a motion for Summary
Judgment, Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 (1964), Gregory v.
-12-
McDonnell Douglas Corp., 552 F. 2d 425 (1976), it has been recognized
that the opinion must have a basis in fact in order to be protected.
Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 42 N.Y. 2d 369,
cert. den, 43L1 U.S. 969 (1977).

Under the section of Defendant's book labelled "Theory",
the following statements may be found:
"By 1963 Kennedy's murder was being planned by

assassination experts within the Central
Intelligence Agency. Orders had come down
from upstairs that Kennedy must die and the then
recently formed Domestic Operations Division
was assigned the task. The leader of its covert
operations department had it in for Kennedy
even before the Bay of Pigs and he recruited some
of the Agency's most dangerous operatives who
would be part of an elaborate plot to assassinate
the President". at p. 14.
On the next page it continues: "Meanwhile, the killers,
disguised as tramps, hid in some nearby boxcars, which appeared
to be clocked from the outside". Later on in the book Defendants - ··''
identify Plaintiff as the leader of the Covert Operations Department

of the C.I.A. at the time referred to above and the entire book is
based on Defendant's supposed discovery that Plaintiff was·one of

t h e 11 ki• 11 er tramps.re
J/ f e~re
.. d to' above. (Weberman,deposition of July 9, 197i
pp. 29, 30, deposition of January 5, ·1978, p. L17).
Regardless of whether these statements were contained in

the "Theory" chapter of the book or not, the clear implication of
the work, taken as a whole, is that Plaintiff, in fact, conspired
and planned the assassination of the President and participated
in its effectuation disguised as a "tramp". Indeed on page 9 the
au thor.s write: "Chapter two is therefore the conclusion that we have
drawn from the arguments we shall present from chapters three to ten"
[emphasis added]. Also in his deposition of April 22, 1978, defendant

Canfield was asked in reference to the work as a whole:
"The Deponent·:. Therefore the process of the book .is to

inform the electorate as to what i·s really
going on.
Q: Are you giving factual disclosures. or your own
opinions?
A: The facts as we know them.
-13-
In his deposition of January 5, 1978 Defendant Weberman was read the
exchange quoted above and was asked:
"Q: Do you agree that your book told the facts

as you knov7 them?
A: Absolutely. " at pp. 56-57.
And the following discussion is recorded at page 14 of the Canfield
deposition dated April 22, 1978:
"Q: Were you intending to convey to the reader

that Mr. Hunt did in fact participate as
a conspirator or knew of the conspiracy to
kill President Kennedy?
A: Yes
11
Thus it is obvious that the statements linking Plaintiff with the
assassination of President Kennedy are not "theories" intended to
open debate and discussion in a matter of public concern but are
allegations of "fact", intended to be perceived as such by the reader.
Defendant's sham scheme of labelling their conclusions as "Theory"
is nothing more than a transparent attempt to evade the consequences
of their libelous statements '1-nd should be recognized as sucf: by the

Court.
In public figure cases where the actual malice standard
applies, the Court in determining whether this standard has been

met, should "ooncentr.::te on defendants attitude toward the truth
or falsity of the material published''. Carson v. Allied News Co.,

529 F. 2d 206, 209 (7 Cir. 1976). To exhibit actual malice it mL1st
be shown that a false publication was made with a "high degree of
awareness of ... probable falsity'', Garrison v. Louisiana, 376 U.S. 64,
74, 85 S. Ct. 209, 216 (1964), with evidence of either deliberate

falsification or despite awareness of probable falsity Curtis
./
Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 103, 153, 87 S. Ct. 1975, 1991,
or where "the Defendant entertained serious doubts as to the truth
ofhispublic~tion". St. Arnantv. Thompson, 390U.S. 727, 731, 88
S. Ct. 1323, 1325 (1968). A publisher's insistance that he published
a defamatory statement with a belief that it was true does not
-14-
automatically insure him a favorable verdict. "The finder of fact
must determine whether the publication was indeed made in good
faith. Professions of good faith will be unlikely to prove persua-

sive, for example, where a story is fabricated by the defendant , is
the product of his imagination" 1 id, 590 U.S. at 732, 8d S. Ct. at 1326,
or "where there are obvious -reasons to doubt the veracity of the
informant or the accuracy of his reports". Carson v. Allied News
Corp., 529 F. 2d 206, 209, citing St. Arnant v. Thompson, 390 U.S.
at 732, 88 S. Ct., at 1326.
Other indicia of actual malice may be supplied by circum-
s tan ti al evidence: "There is no doubt that evidence of negligence,
of motive and of intent may be adduced for the prupose of establishing
by cumulatron and appropriate iµferences, that fact of a Defendant's
recklessness or of his knowledge pf falsity". Goldwater v. Ginsberg ,
414 F. 2d 324, 331 (2d Cir., 1969), cert. den., 396 U.S. 1049 (1970).
For example,
"Where the defamatory statements made by the

Defendant do not involve an element of 'hot
news' and the nee~ for expeditious release is
not present, reckless disregard for the truth
may be evidenced in part by failure to investi-
gate thoroughly and verif.y the facts. This
is particularly true where the substance of
the defamatory statements ... were .such that
substantial danger to reputation wus appm:ent."
Widenar v. Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. 75
Cal.' App. -Jd Z1'.i.'S-,-Il+2 Cal. Rptr. 3021, ce'rt. den.,
436 U.S. 915
Also, it has been held that failure to speak to anyone directly
involved in the reported matter may be evidence of reckless disreg0rd

for the truth, particutarly if the original source is not clearly
authoritative. Adkins v. Altas Newspapers, Inc., 3 Med. L. Rptr.
1449 (Okla. Sup. Ct. 1977).
In the instant case, Plaintiff will show that the above-

mentioned criteria for establishing "actual malice" have been met. The
corner-stone of Defendant's supposed "Theory" is photoanalytic compari-·
son of pictures of three 'tramps' arrested near the scene of the
Kennedy assassination in 1963 with photographs of Plaintiff taken
approximately a decade later at the Watergate trials (see, Coup d'etat
-15.-
in America,. chapter 1 and p. 223, and Canfield, deposition p. 31).
· done to support
The only p h otoana 1 ysis . Defendant's conclusion were
performed by Defendant Canfield:
"Q: Do you have the name of the expert who

corroborated your findings on the photos,
that they are indeed Runt and Sturgis?
A:· No, there are no en [ s}_c J" Canfield, deposition

of April 22\ 1978, p. 18.
Indeed, Defendants attempted to obtain corroboration of their
analysis but were utterly unsuccessful. In fact, defendants were
informed that their allegations were groundless. On pages 5-6 of
their book defendants describe how they sought out the services of
photoanalysts to support their conclusions "but they all either
dismissed our theories on the photos on the basis of an alleged 'height
discrepancy.' or simply denied our suspicions." Defendants were also
well aware of the results obtained by the Rockerfeller Commissions'
inquiry into the alleged similarity between the "tramps" and Plaintiff,
but denied the validity of the Commission's finding that the "tramps"
were not Runt or Sturgis on the grounds that "The F.B.I. has covered
up the Kennedy assassination from the beginning". Canfield deposition

)
p. 18; see also: Weberman_, deposition of July 8, 1977, p. 27 and Coup

d'etat in America, p. 225. Consequently the only support defendants can
put forward to substantiate their charges in the photoanalytic area
is the work done oy defendcint Canfield himself, whose training in this

area was obtained on a learn-as-you-go basis. Canfield deposition, p. 5.
)
From the above, it is apparent that the defendants had good

reason to suspect the truthfulness of their photanalytic studies and
that there existed a "high degree of awareness of ... [the] probable
falsity" of their conclusions. Garrison v. Louisiana, 376 U.S. at 74,

85 S. Ct. at 216. Also, this situation is directly analogous to the
circumstances involved in Hutchinson v. Proxmire, U.S. , 99 S. Ct.
2675, where the Court stated: "Clearly those charged with defamation
cannot, by their own conduct, create their own defense by making
the claimant a public figure". U.S. at 99 S. Ct., at
-16-
'
2688. Employing the same logic here, defendants should n_ot be allowed
v
to ·.w'ade responsibility for their unfounded allegations by hiding
behind unprofessional research which defendant Canfield himself conducted.
Defendants can not even offer any outside support to bolst:er
their allegations. When asked on deposition if he had any CIA information
that would corroborate the book's allegations that Plaintiff organized
a plot to assassinate.,President Kennedy, Weberman responded "I' 11
try and corroborate it as best I can but I can't corroborate

it as well as the factual part of the book". Weberman deposition,
I
July 9, 1977, p. 22 Weberman was again asked on page 26 of that
deposition the same question, to which his response was: "No, I don't".
Similarly, when asked if he had the names of any witnesses or evidence
whatsoever 'linking Mr. Hunt with the assassination of the President,
defendant Canfield responded:

riA: No. Some of it is contained in the book
some is coming to light since then. We
have not put it in the book because it
came in after the bool): was published"
Canfield deposition_ ·
When asked how he corroborated the "evidence" contained in the book,
Canfield cited an alleged letter from .. Lee Harvey Oswald to Mr. Hunt.
When asked if he could establish that the Hunt referred to in the letter
was, i-n fact, the Plain ti.££, Canfteld r.e!:~.;>onrlcd: "Well no, not at
this point; but in the near future':'_ Canfield deposition, p. 14.
I
Taken together, it is abundantly clear that the only
ev:i.ucn.ce defendants can muster to suppurL L:hei1: clLLcp,lttion;; is t:hc .i

i
photoanalytic analysis" conducted by defendant Can£ield.11nd rejected
"
by every other person or body to have examined his materials. Def en- '
dants can offer no outside evidence corroborating their allegations eit:heri
Certainly defendants acted with a high degree of awareness of ... probable
falsity, Garrison v. Louisiana, 376 U.S. 64, 85 S. Ct. 209, with

awareness of probable falsity, Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S.
103, 87 S. ct: 1975, with obvious reasons to doubt the accuracy of
th~ir reports, Carson v. Allied News Corp., 529 F. 2d 206, and iri
fact, defendant's allegations are most probably a sheer fabrication and
-17-
product of their imaginations, specifically found to be actual malice
in St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S. Ct. 1323.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court

to deny defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and allow this case
to proceed to a jury trial on the issues outlined above.
Respectfully Submitted,

Miami, FL 33137 ·
Te~: ~·Zs -5~-
By. h ~ ~- ~
ELLIS S. UBIN
foregoing ·was mailed to A.J. WEBERMAN, pro se, 6 Bleeker Street,
New York, New York, this 19th day of January, 1981.
By: 5f:_, JJ.

ELLIS S. RUBI~
2/S ·
-18-
May 15, 1978
'l'O WHOM I'l' MAY CONCERN:
The following statement represents· the factual events of

November 22, 1963.
I was employed by the Central Intelligence .Agency from April
1961 through August 1964 as a clerk-typist. On November 22, 1963
I vias working for the Domestic Operations Division whose offices
were located at .1717 R Street in Washington, D. C. My supervisor
was E. Howard Hunt. On the morning of Friday, November 22, 19G3
I was at my desk doing routine office work. Mr. Hunt was in his
office until lunchtime at which time he left. His secretary, Ms.
Margaret Amesbury and I were in the office after lunch when a co-
V!orker came in and informed us that John F. Xennedy, President of
the United States had been shot. We were told that he was dead
shortly after the first announcement. Ms. Amesbury and I discussed
whether we si10uld leave as Mr. Hunt had not yet returned from
lunch. We decided ·that as soon as he heard the news he would
realize that most government workers had been dismissed, and we
both left our office. '
.l..
i
I
~"·'·'6~.ct:!.~2~~
..
670 Coral Avenue
Bartl.ett, Illinois G0103
( 312) 83'?-6027
NO'l'ARIZED on the .LL_tl-day of May 191'&

By C'D ti-1---LO- l. ~~l_,
:PL.A.I NT°l'l='"'F'.S E'l.i--\\Btl

". :tF l .- A
·'.'?";.....
. '··
.. · ..
·.,.
l
•
STATEVillNT BY
WALTER P. KUZMUK
Having become aware through the press of questions

raised concerning the wherenbouts of E. Howard Hunt on November
22, 1963, the clny on which President Kennedy w;:is assassinated,
I wish to make. the foll.owing voluy11;ciry stu.tcment:
On November 22, J.963, I wns in Washington, D.C. I
lunched that dny at Duke Zeibert's restaurant which is on L Street
just off Connecticut Avenue. My luncheon companion was Mr. John
Suca.rd.
When w0 left the restaurant we walked to Connecticut
Avenue, and while w;::ii ~:iJ1Cj il t: :. 11c• rc:(1. ligl.1.t :: l1t~ 1:ic0c1 :-=-. tlo\. .'Cll:-C.l
Flunt and his 'Nife, !.)oro·i.:r~Y, d.ri~ving in i:.heir C 1 1r:~vl.~ol0':. s":.a-tion
wagon_ It is my recoll0c'::ion th~':: their di rec t5.on of ':r:ivel was
northward.
I was fam~_lia.r with the Hunts' stat:. on wagon, having
ridden in i t from time to time with l':r. Hun':, to and from Central
Intelligence Agency offices. And as a near neighbor of the
Hunts I knew Mrs. Hunt, having been in their '10!!\C ').I' «;overal
occasions.
Shortly after seeing the Eunts on Connecticut Avenue
I became aware that President Kennec'y hu.d be0n sho 1; in Dallns,
and that most government offices were c:'..osinc~ ~·o .... -_he rest of
the day. However, I returned to my office before s·o;~ng home.
I
/
,.
; '
'
,I
. , r·t·
:(11',,' ' i:,1 · . .J iu.r../~,
February 6, l979 'tlALT!O:R P. KUZMUK
'' . 0. Sox 7 56
33001
,1 '· . . . . /'•·
' I
/,' llJ. . • •.
1,·, •,1.1
. ~'' o•( • '•' t.:'
I, ·~ \•. t . :I
"'' 1,v1. ' • ,,, •.••. , .• 1\' ..i \.• .i..:J\·,\/d'! ... :;
VU"llNTi~T'S E1<-+>.1t:s\\
" lt
13
.i. .
'1~---·- · · - - - ... +-::-.··- "- ···---·~· ,----· ~~-~-
....
... ---
ltobert fl. ~J.t HC11, C:~.crui r-...::

Senior Cc::>ll.llt;.i.:!l
COIT'Jnis;Ji011 on Clf, l'.. r; c.ivi ti<.:::.:.
'di thin th•) U - L: -
71:-! J'r.. ck.:~011 j>l.c,c~, l:i. L ..
Dear Mc. Olsen:
P0r our ·ct:Le;)l1011e co11ver.;:,,:.:j.on ye-o:;t0r\~f1'/ l (·1 :·\.·1L.!l.itLirl'J

l1ere~i tll c $\-.'Orn :;;-tc. t.e1nen t con~;::rnir~g rr.y --...1l1crc.:))OL!t:) tlt1 t!1e
day of: t.'1.E: J}'l-\: c•.ss~sHit)C tion, t.uv:::n!bar ~->2, 19( 3 ..
•ro,~n:/' ~:: 11ew Yor~: o t~ t)Ub tit;he,J ir. :· i::i1.1i,

Time!:: :-; tc)r.y·,
continueH the same tired old Gregory th0,:is "'ilh bul i• bciuf
.::ent:ence <-ccordecl my denial. \ihile I c<tn <'ppreci::: t:'" the
CorrJnifJsion''> clesira not to rele,,rio its tinc1ings !~ic=ce1:1<:P.l,
'?leasa beac in ruind that I aro Hlated to return to _)ri~on ;;nu
I greatly fear that the sinister allegations of u,y involve111cnt
in tho K-2>nnedy <!Ssassinution \.•ill have infla1ned i::!'h! •)rison
,,t.,-,oe phera to the point of ruenr. cing my life. For l:hi l! re;, ;;on,
I request thz:t the Corumission's verdict on the Dhol:ogTaphs
purporting to show Sturgis and myself as arrestc,;c:! tri'l\\[)S in
Dallas be made public as flOOn c.s. possible. J.Joreov,;r, I ciru
requ<:r. tin<J o·udge Siricfl to Bhortcn my 8'-'Ilt.enco, «lh! I f.our
l:hOI t n:y Jl'Otion in "lready 'H>r iou sly· 0re j ucliced b•; t.h'-' f'.<tl >'"'
: .. ;uer.t..ion'< curront in the fllce or ·of'ficii;l i;ilonf·i:.
CC! \·1.i.l.Lt:11n A. Snydor, Jr .. , i!:til..l.
' Q. '
1•. F P '' o F. _v I ·r
I, !.':. H0•:-1r,1m lf'JN'.P. i.!l.1.'irrn i:I"" £01.1.owin9 to be rny recoll.e:c-
l. On ·chat elate I "'"" an e111ploy.~e of thu Central. Inb"l.li9cnce
Agency 2n..:1iq1ncCT to the Do1nestic 01)aratior1!;: Divir1ior1 1 located in
a cmrnnorcia l building in ll'oshinq Lon, D. C.
radio. We had been purchasing Chinese groceries at a store name6,
as well as I can recall, it, "Vlc,1h Ling''. I do not know how long
after the. initial radio reports were made that rny wifl!j J'Ui<'I I firr.!:
heard the news. Brinkley was tl:ie commentnt:or I reJr1C!l\tber becc.U!;C
of h'is hoving theorized a "right wing plot": i.e., Dallas citizenn
had abused Adlai Steveneon·and the climate of Dall?s ex~rnism had
caused Kennedy's shooting.
3. F'rorn the Chinese grocery store we clrove out Wisconsin Avenue
to pick UC> our daughter; Kevon, frcirn Sidwell }'r.iund..i School. On
Joiniri(] nu toy <Jr.iughtur told. u~ wl1~1t. w•.J ;_,ti.~.:._,;,,{V k111h1: t.l111t: t'.t"(.l:1j,d,.i·r1t
l~onnc;dy' !.' children had bean tukun 1'rom Sidw<:Ll 1''riunrb :Ochool, pi:c:-
uu111~l.>ly l:ty Sacrttt Sarvico ZJgt.itnt1;1.
4. FcrnH Kevan's school w.a cJcovu directly to our home on B"l tan
Rond in Swuner, Maryland (off Mnssachusetts Avenue oxb::nded). At
home was rny newly-born son, David (DOB 9/l/63), ci rnc>id, Mary Traynor,
:·· ..
.. ,_ '.
..
,· ~
;.
' .
.' ·.,.·
. ; '.
.... ~
- 2 -
and my wife• s aunt, tl1t:! lote 'Leonel Dro)<lc;::r of Cl1icago. Our elder
son, St. John, a stud0nt at ne:n:-by Brookmont Elrnn8ntary School,
As I recall, our 0lJont child, Linn,
arrived soon (.}fterward 1;y })uA f·coni u·cst1lir10 Acnt..1eni~{ ~ r1(l joinel] us
1
at the tG+c'vision set in our b0sm11ent ·rccrctrtior1 roon.1 v1!1cro \·. U
stayed lung hours watching th2 unfoldirFJ 01: ovent:'.': tho swecring-in
of LDJ', the arrivt:!l ctt lU1<Jrcws Lo'iclc] o.f ·thd I?·ceui{.lcu1tinl coffin,
C l:C.
5. AfJ to v1hy I was not at rny office that: 0ntir8 ~1£ternoon, I c2n
only prosw11e that I had left early to help wy ,,.i f:2 fJhop for a
planned Chinese dinner, in tho prepar2tion of ''hich I nonn<1lly
assis·tcd.
6. I was never in Dallas, Texas, until lato 1971 v.'lrnn, i'lt the
request of Charles Colson I flew there to interview Gen. Paul
Harkins, fonner U.S. military commander in Vietnam.
7. I did not meet Frank Sturgis until the spring of 1972, the
'
'
introduction being perfonned by and at the office of Dar.nard L.
B<Jrker.
U_ I J'ti.JVC!:C at any tbuu rnut or knov1 Lou llfl i,~vu y O;:\vn l, l, J·~ ck lltdJ)',
01: nny otlic.r paroon involved in thd D<•llA:J nl.1yin\J"·
<) • I wn•> not in Mttxico in 1963. In fact, I wno t1ot: in Muxico
bc:l:wccn the yeurB 1961 and L970, and l18ve no\: bciOJ\ \:l'luru <lincw
:; ,/cukund pleasure trip to Acapulco in J·uly o.f 1970!·
... ---·--··-· ·-~"."·-·--
. :,".
,.
. ·~:
-: ·'::, _.., ;.
. : . . u.:
. •,'
,.
I
i
- 3 -
10. I h a ve no dia r i ~ s or otl L~r i .. cmo .t.· ,1bi lia p rior to 1969,
llaving du s troyed ac l\1uny outdi:l tud filu:; c:ind r~cordu at:t pousibla
to save weight in the move t o r11y Plorida home in July, 1974.
I rota inert o n ly such rE;jc o rd:; , l>c.n1~ st<-! ternont s , a ce. "'""
"' ' '
required b y the 5-ye '-tr In tern ~' l n.c vonue S ervice i o r i nc orna t: <'X
purpoeo n .
~. Howard llu1, t.:.
Notary
My Commission expireas
...
1-1-.

MIAMI DIVISION
·\ ,i.'
CIVIL ACTION FILE NO, 76...:1252-Civ-PF
E. HOWARD HUNT JR.

Plaintiff
v.
THE THIRD PRESS---

JOSEPH OKPAKU PUBLISHING CO. INC •. --
a New York corporation '
and. JOSEPH OKPAKU and
MICHEAL CANFIELD and
ALAN JULES WEBERMAN and
HARIA GRACIA FELICIA.NO
Defendants
·, -. j
AFFIDAVIT:
I, Alan' Jules 1·7eberman, hereby swear and affirm that the following
1
is true and correct:
l, I wrote COUP D'ETAT IN AMERICA'.,- The CIA and the Assassination
of John Kennedy (book complained of) in the State of New York of which
I am a resident. The publishing house, The Third Press, is located in
New York and the· book,:."COUP .D"ETAT.c~IN,AMERICAJ:';.. .The CIA and the Ass-
assination of John Kennedy, was published. in the State of New York.
2. The publisher did not intend nexus for which jurisdiction
should be established at Miami to ·exist in relationship to book complain-
ed of.
3, All persons involved .in publishing of book, COUP D'ETAT IN .
Ai-\ERICA· ·-The CIA and the l'.ssassination of John Kennedy, are or were
l) '
2-2
AFFIDAVIT re; 76-1252-Civ-PF

ALAN JULES WEBERMAN
'PAGE TWO
.,
- ..· ..
residing at time of publication in the State of New York •
: .
..:·. :_~dLIJLI~
../
'•.'' . -ALAN I JULES 1-mBERMAN
. ;:.; NOVljli1BER 2 2 , 19 7 6
/v f c-e-v pf) {I · ··
Y?ilWA.Jm llt.\ftli':ffi1!
'"'an r·ublk - of ~ '\f<>l'.'l
N•.41·!!>~70
Qucl"'..0 "'
eo..... i.m. ~-
°''""""'
""'"*~ .
39, 1~
. fo,Jto/"'G Pjl'_,
,;.•.
.'
'
·"· .
. ~
••• f
·..
MIAMI DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION FILE NO, 76-1252-Civ-PF
E. HOWARD HUNT JR.

Plaintiff ,
. v.
'.rHE THIRD PRESS---

JOSEPH OKPAKU PUBLISHING CO. INC.
a New York corporation
.. and JOSEPH OKPAKU and
ALAN JULES. WEBER11AN and
MARIA GRACIA FELICIANO
, ,Defendants
AFFIDAVIT:
I, ALAN JULES WEBER11AN, hereby swear and affirm that the following
is true and-correct:
1. I did not receive the complaint or summons pe~sohally.
2, I never authorized anyone as my agent to accept any paper,
documents or articles or any type.

er tJl <l '
J1 i 'J.J.lE llNI'IBD Sl':"\'T'FS Dff>'1'1UCI'
}:!\ ~ Jt, :m l\ND l"OR '11-IE srunIEI<i'1 OISTPfl.J' or~
PlainiLif f, FLOJtU'IA
vs. CIVTL. Cl\SE NO. 76·-1252-CIV-Pf'

JOSEFH C"<Pi\KU r>llBLIC!"\TIO',lS and
Till'RD pntc.cc;: i nr.:.
Defendants.
NCTI'lCB OP i\DOI"1'JCN M<1
NITTICE OF COUNSEL
C0~1ES LU,·] tbe dGfonn an ts, JOSEPH OKPAKU PUBLICATICNS and 'l'IIIRD P!lf:SS, T1-c . I
by ru1ri throngh their urn1ersigned atto:me y rind in answer to Plaintiff ' s c crnr •l <J iJ '._ ,
1. That the aefendunts, JQSEP.IT OI<Pi'\1QJ PURI.1Ci"\TIONS and TIIIrJ) PRP'.3S IMC., uCl< •ii':
th=- defendant, AI.t'"\N J. WEBEUM?\N' s Ansv..cr to the Pla.intiff' s ccrnplaint as v'.., ll ns :i.11
M:lt'-ions to Dis·niss by ,the de fe..Ddnnt , i\L.1\N J. WEBE~.
2. That the defend.:lnts, JOSEPH OKPZ\KU PUBLICATIONS and THIRD PRE~·s, n 1('. , iJC.l<} 'l:
the defendant, i\l..llli .J. WEJ3EnMA..i\l' s answer anrl P0tions To Dis miss and as rcas~s s l.:.1 t '•.;
that thtJ holding of the nbove titled caEe will r:?i~r stand or fall on the nr.r.i.l:s
given to the l\J.1st,-er by the defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMZ\N CJ s 7\IJ\N J. WEBEWW: I, 011'3
of the -a,u autlnrs in this cause of nction brou9hl: upon COUP. d ' ETl\'l' IN N-ll·:rffC1\: 'I'iiF.
CIA AND THE ASSASSThll\TIC\'1 OF JOilN F . KENNEDY is in posscsion of: much of tbr.! rcS~i.lt'CIJ
'which may prove the tnlth of tbe alleged libell..1 US 1to.10ras in the aboved n <mr..rJ b:YJJ"
3. '!'hat thG bel ow signing attorney he1:eby rescinds his pr ior rccpJcst und 11fll:i<~~~
of CCiUnsel's tennination of representat ion, hav.ing been granted the authority to
continue representation beyond th-:! pri or staqcs I'rcv.iously auL-horized , and by t.lle
tliroly filing of tl:ese pleadings by aaoption, hereby a.nounces vrillingncss m1cl
prepnration for an early trial on the :rrerits of Plaintiff's claim.
Respectfull y ffill::mitLed,
(' \ !\
1\\ \\
'\t ~·lli1 ~J'-: rL11',~~-
/ "\ \ \ 1' .I
JU,
\ I • \\-/\
U\W OFFI CES OP I1/I 'J~i J. 1 PIBL; li•11J

l\tt0.111e11 f o.r. t he lrJefendcints.
350 Ljncoln Road , 1 Suit~ ~22
Miami Deach, Florida 33139
'l'e l eJ:Jbone: 532- 5409
CERI'IFICATE OF SERVICE
r HEREBY CE.:RI'IFY that true and correct copy of the foregoing NarICE OP
ALOJ:'TICN Al1 rl Narra: OF couNSEL was mailed to ELLIS RUBIN: P . A., l\ttomey for
tile Plaintiff; at 265 North-East 26th 'l'errace , Miami, Florida\33137. this" 12t-h
day of .~y, 1977. /Jf' ! \
'7,J/ ,, .~~vAlft
I '
E . HOWARD HUNT, JN TH E UNTTED STl\TRS D1STRICT COURT
1N l\ND FOH THE SOU'l'llERN DISTRI CT OF'
Pl aintiff , FT.OH (()7\
c ·1 v Ir, C/\S I·: NO . 7 u- 1/. r; /.·-C l V-1 ' F
JOS EPH OKPJ\KU PUBLICATION ,

'r HIRD P RESS , INC . , and
A . J . WEBBE R~N , individu a lly,
Defendants. .)
··07:r:c~ or.- ,..,:r11·1r·:-...... i:n ! nr rn'r:;;.~r. • ~
r---:-n nr~ .,... ~-,.,, "'TfT 7 /""\ ;' (,-...,,.,, :, T; ; n-rFr:i'n:\~ ! m r
-- -- - --- - - ·--·- -· - - · -- -- - -- - - -- -
-
nnt:i. ·f fli'S the h01"1nr:l !"l l~ court of hiB t:•'?r.r: i nf' i: i.o;i ryF C("l\ lnf;f"I ) . cnr. t .hc (1 e '-en•!..::\ri7 ~
'T'h i r, i~ nnt t o i nfP.r thRt cnnr. f':c J~r '·' 71. W ,T . r rrt:rn·•J\?1 <>lu:l:!_ r1 i.scontir•1
is n"'"' th(> ~01..ln cu~ J.or () F r.eco:rd for .t h A cle 'f P.n rJ.an t:, .':l.T.l\~ 1 :r . • r-··~ : -...;. "-.~ · nril.t i 1
thn h:~rmj n ;:i t i rm o f thP- ?1how~ ti t.len c a~~ .
''.:\"!' T . r.n T. T"''H"'\" i · , . ,r· J" :

l\'f''T'0 P.t' F Y r. rnili·~'F: r .'"' ." .~:., r," •'
l 'l n l..i. n r.<b J n Rn <1 •1 ' ' 11 i t" .1 ' •'.1
,. ~· i. ;i r i :-'- ~ ~ c 11 , ;;- :!. er i 1l ,"\ 11 J ., •
Phf1 r.<"- 1) ?"' -'11 "n
.
n · ' rr,.. . . ;; . -:: r, ' !7'·
P l n r. i J ,1 ti1i h 1t h di1V o f M-'\V ] ')77.
- - -· --- -- -- - - --·· - - - - --- -- --
I HEREBY CERTIFY t h at a tnrn nnd correc.: t copy of t h u foregoing
wn r; mni l cd to Elli s nub i.n, B s ci. , .'?\ t.tor n 1~ y for P 1 i1 Ln t: if f , 2 GS t l. E . 2Gth

Mi .1 rni, F:l.or.ido 33 1. J 7 , t"11i :-;
'l'•• r- r i1<-: r• , tl<iy nf , l ') 7
:
. . .. ..
. . .. .
.. .. .
. . .. .
.. :
• •
foregoing Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was
mailed to the office of ELLIS RUBIN, P.A., Attorney for Plaintiff,

~ •7
at 265 N.E. 26th Terrace, Miami, Florida, this r 5 day of
December, 1977.
!;
\~
IN THE .ITED STATES DISTRICT COUR,

HOWARD HUNT .. CASE NO . 77-1252-CIV-SMA

E• I
.
Plaintiff, ...
-vs- ..
.
ALAN J. WEBERMAN, MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF 'S AMENDED
Defendant .. COMPL'AINT
• • • • • • • • • p • 0 • • • • .. .
COMES NOW the Defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, by and through
his undersigne d attorney and submits this Memorandum of Law
in Support of his Motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
and says:
1. Defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN MOVES THIS COURT TO DISMISS
Plaintiff's Ame nded Complaint, for failur e t o state a claim
upon which r e lief may be granted, on the grounds that the
Amended Complaint does not al l ege the time , place and in
what form a lleged slanders were published. In Pent- ?. , V. Downe y,
S.C ., 110 F . Supp. 642, it was de cided that althou spec ificity
was n ot required in setting forth a time a nd place of the publish-
ing of a slanderous statement, th e re was a requirement upon the
Plaintiff to make some attempt at ave rme nts of time and p lace as
it i s material. for the purpose of testing the sufficiency of a
complaint. The Court felt that any complaint which omits any
a llegatio n as to time and place is insufficient and subject to
dismissal unde r Fe deral Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 u.s.c.A.,
Rule 9 (f).
Wherefore, Defendant, Alan J. Weberman, respectfully moves
this court to dismiss Plaintiff's Proposed Amended Complaint.
'
Resp:~~~~~
l~\ ~::~,
I~" ~R ~MAN
n ey f r Defendan t
35 0 Lineal Road, Suite 422
Mia mi Beach , Florida 33139
Phone: 532-5409
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

Mo tio n to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amend e d Comp l aint wa s mailed t o the
office of ELLIS RUBIN , P.Ao, Attorney for Plaintiff, at 265 N.E. 26th
Terrace, Miami, Florida, this 23 day

• •
UN I TED STATES DISTRICT COU RT
SOUTHERN DI STRICT OF FLORIDA
c_n,sE NO . 76 - 1252 - Civ- SMA
E. HOWARD HUNT , JR .,
Plaintiff ,
vs .
AL..Z\N J . WEBERMAN I
Defendant .
OMNIBUS ORDER
THI S CAUSE was considered by the Court upon the following
ma tt er s and/or motions:
1. Defendant Alan J. Weberrnan's Motion for Discovery;
2. Plaintiff E . Howard Hunt 's Motion to Dismiss Defendant ' s
Second Countercla im;
3. Plaintiff ' s Motion to File Ame nded Complaint .
The Court has reviewed the applicable portions of the
record includin g the severa l motions , the responses thereto,
memoranda of law submitted by respective counsel and being
otherwise fully adv ised in the premises , i t is thereupo n -
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as fol lows :
1. Defendant Alan J. Weberman's Motion for Discovery
be and the same is hereby GRANTED and the Plaintiff shall
furnish such discovery to the Defendan t within twenty (20)
days herefrom . Her eafter Defendant shall observe the proper
rule of civil procedure in filing requests f or production and/o r
discovery and in the filing of motions to compel .
2. Plaintiff 's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Second
Counterclaim be and the same is hereby GRANTED with l eave to
amend wi t hin fift ee n (15) days herefrom .
3. Plaintiff's Motion to File an Amended Complaint be
and the same is hereby GRANTED. The Cour t treats the Motion
to Dismiss addressed there to by the Defendant after examining
same and studying the record wi t h regard thereto and thereupon
the said Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part . The
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Count II

•
of the Amended Complaint an d is GRANTED as to Count I I I of
the Amended Complaint without l eave to amend. Defendant
sha ll answer Coun t II of the Amended Complaint within fiftee n
( 1 5) days h e refrom .
DONE AND ORDERED at Miami , Florida this - -I -day of
!·~arch , 1978 .
ONI TED STATES DISTRICT JUDG~

:\-'
,_-'
cc : Mark J. Friedman , Es q.
Ellis Rubin , P . A .
.· -·,,- .... -· ------ -.
v·
1Ilnitrh ~tntrs 1lljstrirt filnurt

FOR THE
CASE NO. 76-125 2-ClV-EBD
E. HOWARD HUNT, JR. ,

Plaintiff,
-vs- ORDER FOR COMPLIANCE WITH

ALAN JULES WEBERMAN, et al. , PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURES AND
NOTICE OF TRIAL
Def end ants.
FI L E~ by ·o.c.
, ~r,.,D ~o ~~r- ·')
.I O:.it1 •t1 I b ( 1f' Ar.T
CLLHK. U. !i . 015 1. CT.
S . D. OF FLA. · lu lAl.11
"
TRIAL is · to be held at 9:30 a.m. during the Two-Week Period
of AUGUST 23, 1982 before the Honorable EDWARD B. DAVIS, UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT, 300 N.E. 1st Avenue, Courtroom V., Miami, Florida.
COUNSEL will be called and given a specific date and time
for t.rial.
IT IS ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1) No Pre-Trial Conference shall be held in this action,
unless the Court la~er determines, upon motion or sua sponte, that a
pre-trial conference is necessary. Should a pre-trial conference be
set, the compliance deadlines as set forth in the remainder of this
Order shall remain unaltered.
2) Cotmsel must meet at least 25 days prior to the beginning
of the trial calendar to confer on the preparation of a pre-trial stipu-
lation.
3) The original of the Pre-Trial Stipulation must be filed
at least 15 days prior to the beginning of the trial calendar. A copy
of the stipulation shall be delivered to chambers at the time of filing.
The Pre-Trial Stipulation shall conform to Lo.cal Rule 14 (c). If, for
any reason, the Pre-Trial Stipulation is not executed by counsel for all
parties, each counsel shall file and serve Unilateral Pre-Trial Stipula-
tions no later than 15 days before the beginning of the trial calendar.
The reason for failing to execute a joint stipulation shall be stated
therein.
4) In cases tried before a jury, each party ~hall file a
copy of proposed voir dire questions and proposed jury instructions at
~e~s prior to the beginning of the trial calendar. Each jury
~nstruction shall be typed on a separate sheet and must be supported
by citations of authority. Copies shall be delivered to chambers at
the time of filing.
- .... '
_:: . ~
5) In cases tried before the Court~ · each party shall file

proposed .E.indings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at -least two days
prior to the beginnin-gof the trial calendar. Froposed Findings _of
Fact shall be supportable by the evidenc~ which counsel reasonably
expects to develop at trial. Proposed Conclusions of Law shall be
supported by citations of authority. Copies shall be delivered to
chmabers at the time of filing.
6) A Motion for Continuance of trial shall not _s tay the
requirement for the "f iling of a Pre-Trial Stipulation. Unless an
eme rgency situation arises, a Motion for Continuance ~f trial will
not be considered unless it is filed at feast l.5 days prior to the
date on which the trial calendar is scheduled to commence.
·7) Noµ-eompliance with any provision of this Order may
subject the offending party to sanctions or dismissal. It is the
duty of all counsel to enforce the timetable set forth in this Order
in order to insµre an expeditious resolution of this cause.
"8) The following timetable shall govern the pre-trial
pro cedure in this c ase :
15 days prior to trial Pre-Trial Stipulation must be filed

with copy to chambers
All Pre-Trial motions must be filed
~11 Memoranda of Law must be filed
20 days prior to trial All discovery must be completed

22 days prior to trial All experts ~ resumes must be exchanged
25 days prior to trial Attorneys must meet •
R
DONE and ORDERED this "J~ day of JANUARY, 1982.
Copies Furnished To :
~!~~GE
Alan Jules Weberman
Ellis Rubin, Es q.
/
UNITED STATES D i~
SOUTHERN DISTRICT L
CASE NO. 76 - 1252-CIV-Et..

Plaintiff,
-- ·~-----
vs.
A.J. WEBERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
The Defendant A.J. Weberman seeks suDmlary judgment

in this libel and slander action. He contends that the Plain-
tiff, E. Howard Hunt, is a "public figure" and that no genuine
issue of material fact exists as to whether the Defendant's book,
Coup d'Etat in America (1975), was written with actual malice.
Procedurally, the status of a plaintiff as a "public
figure" is an issue which may be considered on motion for summary
judgment. Rebozo ~· Washington Post Co ., 637 F.2d 375,379
(5th Cir. 1981) . The public figure determination must be made
with reference to the time of publication. See id.
In New York Times~· Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964),
the Supreme Court held that damages for defamation cannot be
awarded to a public official absent a showing of "actual malice"
or reckless disre gard for truth. The New York Times rule was
subsequently extended to apply to "public figures" in Curtis
Publishing Co . ~- Butts, 338 U. S. 130 (1967). The Court further
defined the contours of the public figure doctrine in Gertz
v. Robert Welch, Inc . 418 U.S. 323 (1974), wherein it was noted that:
Those who, by reason of the notoriety of their
achievements or the vigor and success with which
they seek the public ' s attention, are properly
classed as public figures . .
Id. at 342. Public figures must prove ma l ice because they
u s ually enjoy greater access to the channel s of communication
•
and because they must accept the consequences of involvement
in public affairs, the risk of closer public scrutiny. Id at
344.
In 1972, E. Howard Hunt served as a consultant to
the Executive Office of the President. He achieved national
notoriety during that year as a result of his complicity in the
Watergate burglary and his exposure in the Watergate trials and
the N:Lxon impeachment hearings. There is evidence in the record
that the New York Times published a story regarding Hunt's
alleged involvement in the Kennedy assassination and that Hunt
was accorded a denial. He has been inte.rviewed on major telec- ..
vision network programs. Moreover, Mr. Hunt is an author, and
during the period in question he published two books, Give Us
This Day (1973) and Underco'ver (1974).
For purposes of this litigation, the Court holds,
as a matter of law, that E. Howard Hunt is a "public figure."
See Rebo'zo, supra. Hunt's public activities meet the two-prong
rationale of Gertz. First, the 'record evidences that Hunt en-

- --- - ---- ·- -- -- ----
joyed greater access to the media and to the press than would a
"non-public" individua·l; second, as a consultant to the Exe cu-
tive Office of the President and as a writer, Hunt voluntarily
e:i-,_"Posed himself to public comment.
The Court further finds that the record is not devoid
of genuine issues of material fact as to the question of malice.
For example, there is an issue of fact a·s to. whether the
Defendant could have obtained corroboration of the photoanalysis
used to support his theory in Coup d'Etat in America about Hunt's
collaboration in the Kennedy assassination. Taken in the light
-m;si::favora'b-re tothe Plaini:if1;-t:Ee-De::Eendant's failure to
obtain corroboration could be interpreted as evidence of his
reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the s.ugv=::stion:t.hat
E. Howard Hunt was disguised as a tramp on the scene of the
Kennedy assassination. See Bon Air Hotel, Inc., v. Time, Inc.,
426 F.2d 858,865 (5th Cir. 1970). Accordingly, summary judgment
-2-
...
on th e is s u e of ma l i ce i s ina ppropriate a t t h i s time. It is
the r e fore,
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Mo tion for Surrmary
Judgment is GRANTED in part, to the extent that the Plaintiff
is deemed to be a public figur e ; the motion is DENIED in every
other respect .
fl DONE~~~~ at Mi ami, Dade County, Florida, this
n-=:~/_,__ day of ~ , 1982.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to :
Ellis Rubin, Esq .
A. J . Weberman
II
-~·. :- ,,.. - 1-1-
UNITED STATES DIS~RICT COURT

MIAMI DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 76-1252-Civ-PF
E. HOWARD HUNT JR.

Plaintiff
v.
THE THIRD PRESS---

JOSEPH OKPAKU PUBLISHING CO. INC .. --
and JOSEPH OKPAKU and .,.
MARIA GRACIA FELICIA.NO
Defendants
AFFIDAVIT:
I, Alan Jules Weberman, hereby swear and af°firm that the following
is true and correct:
1. I wrote COUP DI ETAT IN AMERICA' .- The CIA and the Assassination

of John Kennedy {book complained of) in the State of New York of which
I am a resident. The publishing hou se , The Third Press, is located in
New York and the· book 1 : COUP D"' ETAT__IN AMERICAl · ~ . The CIA and the Ass-
assination of John Kennedy, was published. in the State of New York.

2. The publisher did not intend nexus for which jurisdiction
should be established at Miami to exist in r elationship to book complai n •
ed of.
3. All persons involved in publishing of book, COUP D'ETAT IN .
AMERICA ·-The CIA and the Assassination of John Kennedy, are or were
l)
..
_,
......... ~
2-2
AFFIDAVIT re; 76-l252-Civ-PF

ALAN JULES WEBEfil!AN ·~ .....
·'PAGE TWO
.,
- ..•,,
residing at time of publication in the State of New York.
¥fflWA.iW ffi.ffiil'l'M
,ro\an f'u\,lk "'"""' of~ 'k\'3
N•. 41-!l>~46570
()ual"'..d loo.- Cb=W, ~
C:O.."'"""• lll<i>I- M<.'O!\ 39, !~
. )/,nJt~0 t:J;l__,
_;.•.
MIAMI DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 76-1252-Civ-PF
E. HOWARD HUNT JR .
Plaintiff
v.
THE THIRD PRESS---

JOSEPH OKPAKU PUBLISHING CO. INC.
and JOSEPH OKPAKU and
MARIA GRACIA FELICIANO
:Defendants
AFFIDAVIT:
I, ALAN JULES WEBERMAN, hereby swear and affirm that the following
is true and- correct:
1. I did not receive the complaint or summons personally .
2. I never authorized anyone as my agent to accept any paper,

documents or articles or any type.
llOWARD G.Uiiifft
aiotettTP~ ~ of .... Tori
Ne . .Cl-~O
Qo 'C-4 II 0 . - ~
r-:z;;:~C")~~
IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
E. HOWARD HUNT, JR. , CIVIL ACTION NO. 76-1252 EBD
Plaintiff/
Counterdefendant,
vs.
A. J. WEBERMAN, REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Defendant/
Counterplaintiff.
COMES NOW the Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, E. HOWARD

HUNT, JR., by and through his undersigned attorney and requests this
Court to allow approximately 30 minutes time for oral argument
of the issues framed by Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
and Plaintiff's response thereto.
Attorneys for Plaintiff/
Counterdefendant
Miani, FL 33137
Tel: (305.) 57 -56
~ · ~
By: - ---
ELLIS S. R BIN
fo regoing was mailed this 19th day of January, 1981 to A. J.
WEBERMAN, pro se, 6 Bleeker Street, New York, New Yod< .
By, ~-i. ~·
ELLIS S. RUBIN
foregoing was mailed to A. J. WEBERMAN, pro se , 6 Bleecker Street ,
New York, New York, and to MARK J. FRIEDMAN, ESQUIRE, 350 Lincoln
Ro ad, Suite 422, Miami Bench, Florida 33139, this 20th duy of .. ""
By:~·f. (2~
January , 1981 .
ELLIS S. RUBIN
•
-2-
--
SOUTHERN DISTIRCT OF FLORIDA
E . HOWARD HUNT, JR. ,
CASE NO. 76-1252-Civ-PF
Plaintiff,
v s.
THE THIP..D PRESS--JOSEPH
OKPAKU PUBLISHING CO.,
INC., a New York corporation;
and JOSEPH OKPAKU and MICHAEL:
CANFIELD and ALAN J. WEBERMAN MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
and MARIA GARCIA FELICIANO ,
Defendants.
THE PLAINTIFF, by and through his undersigned attorneys,

move this Court to enter a Default Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff
and against the Defendants THE THIRD PRESS, JOSEPH OKPAKU and MICHAEL
CANFIELD on the grounds that since these Defendants were lawfully
and legally served with Process of this Court and since an Attorney
of Record entered his appearance for each of these Defendants and
responded to the Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss for each
of these Defendants, which Motion was denied by the Court, which
also ordered these Defendants to file their responsive pleadings
to the Complaint, which was not done, and since the taking of the
depositions of Defendant CANFIELD by the Plainti(f, nothln~ appears
in this Court file to indicate any further activity by the named
Defendant s; and finally, because these Defendants did not appear,
by counsel or in person, at the Pre-Trial Conf erence previously
ordered and conducted by this Court.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff requests an Order of this coµrt
striking the pleadings of the Defendants THE THIRD PRESS, .JOSEPH
OKPAKU and MICHAEL CANFIELD and enter its Judgment of Default in
favor of the Plaintiff and against these Defendant s forthwith.
Miami, Floridaf.
TeL~ ~7 56 0
3(e •
By: . ~
ELLIS S. RUBIN
•
-1- .,
II -------------------------------xx
E. HOWARD HUNT, x
plaintiff, x
x 71-1252-Civ-EBD
x
vs. x
x
x
A. J. WEBERMAN et. al. x MOTION FOR DEFAULT
defendants. x JUDGMENT
x
~-----~------------------------x
COMES NOW, the defendant, Alan Jules Weberman, pro se,

and hereby moves this Court to issue a default judgment in the
matter of Hunt vs. Weberman.
FACTS
l. During the pre-trial con~erence of 7 January 1981 plaintiff's

attorney, Ellis Rubin, was given 10 days to answer defendant's
Motion For swmnary Judgment. Ten days have elapsed and he has
failed to do so. Defendant therefore moves for default judgment.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
,... DATED: 16 Jan. 81
'
J'
'. NYC ALAN JULES WEBERMAN pro se

'I SIX BLEECKER STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
TELi (212) 477-6243
CERTIFICATION BF SERVICE
I oo HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct oopy of the

above MOTION FOR DEFAULT DUDGEMENT was mailed . r~ ~LL IS RUBIN
265 NE 26th TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, this the t;:1 day of Jan-
uary, 1981.
ALAN JULES WBBiRMAN

,,.. I!
:-~
I
ii
11
d
-I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
"
11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
II
),·1 P l aintiff and
ii
I
Counterdefendant, Ci vi l Action Number
76-1252 - EDD
I
vs.
I
I
AMMENDED MOTION FOR
l!
;i
A.J. WEBERMAN et . al. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant and
ii Counterplaintiff.
'!
11
II' ----------------------------x
lii
NOW COMES the defendant and counterplaintiff, Alan Jules
1' Weberman , pro se, and prays this honorable Court grant him relief
i
under Rule 56 , Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure, predicated on
the fact that: " •.. the pleadings, depositions, and answers to
II
interrogatories , and admissions on file , together with the
I affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
I
'
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment
IIi as a matter of law." F . R. C . P. Rule 56 (c) .
ARGUEMENT ONE
I\
THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE AS 'l'O ANY
/1 'MATERIAL FiACT AND SUMMARY :JUDGMENT
ii
UNDER NEW YORK TIMES VS. SULLIVAN
IS APPROPRii\TE
II
•I
1'1 l. Plaintiff ' s Original Complaint a;.Jers that defendant's book,
I
ii Coup D' Etat In America (Third Press, 1995 Broadway, New York, New
I'
I York-1975) contained several passages that were "outrag eo usly
false and maliciously written." Among these passages were at
least four which accused Hunt of participation of a crime .fh . his

offical capacity. Th ese were: " By 1963 Kennedy ' s mur de r was being
I planned by assassination experts . within the CIA . . " ( Origi nal

I
complaint; " b " ); "But why, after all its painstaking precautions ,
11 wou l d the CIA l e t pictures of Howard Hunt, disguised as a tramp

I!
I'
on th e scene of the Kennedy as s assination, circulate? " (Original
I Complaint "j") ; "But perhaps the strangest thing about Oswa ld' s
l
I',J
I
:1
-~~
I!
~-~~--'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-· ·--- - ·-- ··· --- ·- -- - - - -·- -·---·- ·- - -- _,. ....... - -- --- ---- - . .. .. ·-· - --- - -·
. · ·:. ,.. . :.:- .... -
Fair Play for Cuba Committee was the fact that some of the
literature was stamped with the address '544 Camp Street' . As
mentioned earlier, this was the address of the Cuban Revolution-
ary Council, an alliance of . anti-Castro groups put together 'by
who worked closely with the Cuban Revolutionary Council'' (Original

11
Complaint 1 11 ) . The preceeding sentences were, in fact, printed
in Coup O'Etat In America and indicate that the author is discuss-
ing the possibility of Howard Hunt being involved in the Kennedy
assassination as an agent and offical of an agency of the United
States government: the Central Intelligence Agency. Because of
this, defendant's first defense to plaintiff's averments are
predicated on the assertion of the· New York Time s vs. S ulliva n
decision that public officals may sue for libel only when they
can demonstrate that statements were made with actual malice.
Although Howard Hunt was no longer a public offical when ins.t ant
matter was filed, Howard Hunt was an appointed of fical in Novem-
ber, 1963, the year author asks q uestions about Hunt's behavior
in an offical capacity, in the book that is the subject of this
lawsuit. In Rosenblatt vs. Ba er, 383 US 75, 15 L Ed 2d 597,
86 S.. Ct 669, Sullivan vs. New York Times was extended to include
appointed officals.
2. In 1976, when instant matter was filed, Howard Hunt was
a public figure. This fact is not in dispute . Curtis Publishing
Co. vs. Butts, 388US130, 154-55, l8L Ed2d 1094, 87 S Ct 1975
·(1967) extended _New York Times vs. Sullivan to include public
figures. In Church of Scientology vs. Lazares, 455 F. Supp. 420
(1978) Times vs. Sullivan was held to apply to defamatory actions
in the state of Florida.
3. If this matter is to be determined on the basis of New
York Times vs. Sullivan the next question is whether or not
actual malice motivated the defendant. "Malice" is the "material
fact" and if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
·-
fi ' .
:&-t:~-=--=--==·· -· --~---··-- · .. - · . . . .. . .
-. ___ _____ ____ -
., --- -·~ - ·· ..
- :..,. . .. - ;. • , ·- · · > • ~ • ·:· ~ r • . .- '· .···- :. , \ . : ·" -· .
~- . .· •
\
-u->-i,.r.
\
.
the moving part y is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Marsh vs. Commercial, 265 F. Supp. 614. The plaintiff, aside from
avowing it exists, has produced nothing to give the slightest
bit of support . to the allegation that there was actual malice.
In Reliance Insurance Co. vs. Barrens, 442 F. Supp. 1341 (1977),
United States District Judge Charles Brieant g ran ted the def-
'
endant's Motion For SunuuarY Judgment after defendant asserted his
good faith under oath, and no evidence whatever existed to contra
diet such assertion. Defendant in instant matter has asserted
his good faith under oath and will also produce numerous exhibits
which will prove that his state of mind in 1974-1975 was not in
anyway malicious. Plaintiff has produced no evidence of malice,
which, in the context of a li be l suit simply does not mean illwil 1
or spite. Rather, "malice" must be taken to mean fradulent,
knowing, publication of a f lasehood, or reck l es s disregard of
falsity. (ibi d .) In Brown vs. Skaggs , 563 F2 d 983 (1977), malice
was defined as " ••• intentionally doing an act the known and
I necessary consequences of which are injury to the person." Def-
i
I
endant has attached documents "A" and "B" to this motion in
I
-, accordance with Rule 9 (d), Federal Rul es of Civil Proceedure,
to show that defendant was not maliciously trying to injure
the plaintitf when he was writing and researching the book in
question. Attachme nt A shows that defendant's motivation in
researching this area was part of an ultirnatly successful attempt
to introduce a bill in the United States House of Representatives
to investigate tl:e Kennedy slaying . In conjunction with this
effort, defendant worked with Congressrnan~y B. Gonzal~
(Dern.-San Antonio, Texas). Congressman Gonz·alez, . who wou ld be-
come the temporary Chairman of the House Se lect Committee on
Assassinations (HSCA) stated that defendant Web e rman should be
given an opportunity to testify about Howard Hunt and Frank

Sturgis' connection to· the Kennedy assassination before the
==-----.-_- -------.:-·-:-:~----------.. ·-.-.·.~-~-.':'" .-. ··.- -------- - - - -·--- --· -- .
. :-;~ . '. .
• ' ,L o M - ...
,· ..
""
:.. •
!
I
.I
l aforementioned Committee . (se e Attachment B.) When the HSCA
came into exi s tence the defendan t furnished them with research
material, which included informa tion on Howard Hunt. (see
defendant ' s Att achment C); when the HSCA issued its Final Re port ,
i Co up D' Etat I n America was quoted as a s ource . (see Attachment D)
Coup D' Etat In America was a l so cited by James Ear l Ray during
his testimony before the HSCA. (see Attachment E) Defendant
has also attached portions of· a deposition given by Mr . Gaeton
Ponzi , a salari ed employee of the HSCA . (see Attachment F) Mr.
Fonzi was acknowledged as an expe rt in the field of th e Kennedy
---
assassination by the stipulation of the p l aintiff and defendant .
----
( see Fonzi Deposition page 5 ) In 1975 , shor tly after the public -
ation of Coup D' Et at I n Ame rica Mr . Fon zi contacted defendant i n
h is capacity ...as an investigator fo~t~Richard Schwe iker~

( Rep . -Penn . ) Mr. Fonzi observed defendant as his research con-
tinued after the publication of the first edition of Coup D' Etat
In America . When questioned as to possible malice on the defend-
ants part, Mr . Fonzi testified that h e "did not believe that Mr .
Weberman was deliberately making-up lies to specifically mali gn

11
Mr . Hunt. ( Fonzi Deposition page 37 ). Mr . Ponzi testified that
the defendant did not manifest " r e ckless d i sregard of the truth ":
When questio ned about the defendant ' s research and the adaquacy
thereof , not only did Mr . Fonzi state that defendant ' s research
was "competent" (Ponzi Deposition page 6), he stated-" I would
c h aracterize Mr. Weberman ' s ar chives and Mr . Weberman ' s know-
ledge of the Archives as probably one of the most competent in
the field." ( Ponzi Depos ition page 19) "Mr . Weberman (i s ) one of
the most pers i s t ant , thorough and produc t ive research e rs I know
-
of . " (Ponzi Deposition page 38). Mr. Fonzi indicated that the
book in ques tion was protected by the First Ame ndment when he
stated: " Prior to my work with the Committee , I considered the
~ possibility of Mr . Hunt ' s involvement ". (Pon zi Deposition page
33) "Prior to my joining the Conunittee , I beli e v e that th e r e was
--_.:.-:-.-_-_- _·77-·---.- ----- - - ·---·:--- -·--···- -- --- - - - -·-L·· - -··-------·

,,· . ·: ...·,
,.....
.-
. '. ,.- . ... :•- .·.,,, · · .: ~"··
'· -,, . ..
'i
'.
the possibility of his being involved in the Kennedy assassin-
ation." (Fonzi Deposition page 34) Mr. Fonzi was unable to com-
ment on how his work with the HSCA had influenced these beliefs
since he was, and still is, under a secrecy oath.
ARGUEMENT ONE-CONCLUSION
4. Defendant has demonstrated that Howard H.unt was an ap-
pointed offical in November, 1963, that' he was a public figure
when he filed this suit in 1976 and that defendant was not
motivated by malice when he authored Coup D'Etat in 1974 and
1975. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
Summary Judgement under New York Times vs. Sullivan is appro-
priate.
ARGUE!1ENT TWO
MATERIAL COMPLJ\INED OF BY THE PLJ\INTIFF

WAS OF SUFFICENT PUBLIC INTEREST TO Fl1LL
UNDER THE ·PROTECTION OF U.S.C.A. CONST.
AMENDMENT ONE AND FOURTEEN
5. In Davis vs. NBC, 320 F. Supp. 1070 (1970), Eugene C.
Davis, a former employee of reputed organized crime figure
Carlos Marcello sued NBC Incorporated for broadcasting a story
that alleged that Davis was "Clem Betram", the mysterious figure
who called Marcello attorney Dean Andrews shortly after the
Kennedy assassination and asked him to .go to Dallas to represent
!11 Lee Harvey Oswald on a .'.'pro-bona" basis. In granting. defendant's
l·lotion For Summary Judgment in this case the Court ruled that
publication of information of public interest is immunized from
damages unless there is proof that it was committed with knowledge
of its falsity or vii th serious doubt about its truth. Nine years
after this historic determination the HSCA named Carlos Marcello
as a possible co-conspirator with Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald
in the assassination of John Kennedy.
6. In Novel vs. Garrison, 338 ·F. Supp. 977 (1971), Gordon
Novel, another plaintiff with ti.es to Carlos Marcello, sued New
Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for alleging, in a
Playboy Magazine interview, that Novel was part of a conspiracy
---, ''---------------'--
---~-. ·~~·:::---------··---·--·-· ·--~··----·--- ·- ------------·----- ------·----------- --··
:~·~~~·.,':-·~: ··.. ~··:" ·."·:..···., ~- .·.
.. . ... '·· ·· .... - ....
;"
. ·-----------
to murder the President of the United States, John Kennedy. The
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. granted the
defendants Motion For Summary Judgment and rules that the plaintif'
in a libel action was an 11

individual involved in an event of
public or general interest" and thus could not prevail unless he '•'
'
showed by clear and convincing proof that the alleged libel was
.... ·'
published with 11
actual malice 11 , that is, with knowledge that it
was false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity, .

····,
'
where plaintiff was connected with an investigation into the .'
.: "..
assassination of the President. Garrison, an important elected ~~ :~/.
offical was held to be engage in controversy of international
''
significance involving alleged presidential assassination plot. ;~~::-~
Howard Hunt's background fits the criterion established by :i~~}~
Novel vs. Garrison since Hunt was also connected with an invest-
igation into the Kennedy assassination. During his deposition of
14 April 1978, page 8, Hunt admits being subpeoned by the HSCA.
Hunt also testifed before the Rockefellar Commission and the
Church Committee regarding the Kennedy assassination. In
LaBruzzo vs. Associated Press , 353 F. Supp. 979 (1973), it was
held that in a libel action involving publication of a matter of
public interest, showing of actual malice may not be presumed,
but is a matter for proof by plaintiff; moreover, a bare allega-
tion of malice, standing alone, is not sufficent to withstand a
motion for summary judgment. The Court held that 11

the character
and content of the publication is a constitutionally impermissible
evidentiary basis for the. finding of actual malice." (ibid.}
Throughout plaintiff's initial deposition he pointed to ''an
entire mis characterization 11 as ·evidence of malice. For example,
on page 43 plaintiff contends that the passage in Coup D'Etat
'In America reading-"Hunt arranged for troops to begin training
in Honduras and eventually Arbenz was deposed ... '' was libelous
and malicious-''Because it is part of an entire mischaracterization

11
of me ..
7. Aside from pointing to this "mischaracterization 11 as proof
·.. _
:.-=:-.::--::---:-- ---.-----~--:--- -:------·- -~·::::.'.'":--- - -.--~······ -·------·· .. -~· .: ~- ..

.. , .
.... .•. .. .., .
.... •':'\ .~ 4
.·.~
· ... ,, .··· . .~:.:~·"t~J.: :··.
·. •Ga c O SZil!ao:4 i
' . ·'
.11
II
I
of malice, plaintiff also poi11ts to the 11
seriousness of the
charges" as evidence of malice . During the status conference
regarding instant matter held on March 12 , 1980, Ellis Rubin
cited the gravity of the alleged charges that "Mr Hunt was in-
valved in the crime of the century" as proof of malice on the
part of the defendant. In Washington Post vs. Keogh, 125 U.S.
App. D.C. 32 , 365 F2nd 965 (1966), the ~ourt ruled that the
seriousness of a charge in a · publication in itself is not pro-
bative of recklessness with respect to truth for purpose of
1 libel.
1
ARGUEMENT TWO - CONCLUSION
rc
8. The assertion in Novel vs . Garrison and Davis vs NBC that
fl
if a plaintiff in a libel action was an "individual involved in
an event of public or general interest" he could not prevail

I
I
unless he showed by clear and convincing proof that alleged libel
was published with actual malice applies to hi s case s ince
several government CormnissiODS and Committees felt that Hunt ' s
testimony wo uld be relevant in the . matter of the Kennedy
assassination. Since the ma~erial complained of by the plaintiff
was incorporated into several of these off ical government in-
vestigations , the material complained of was of s uf f icent public
interest to fall under the protection of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S . Constitution. Plaintiff has failed to
prove malice apart from the text of the book in q uestion nor
does ) plaintiff's contention that the charges a r e "grave" prove
malice.
ARGUEMENT THREE
THE FACTS PRESENTED IN COUP D' ETAT IN

AMERICA REGARDING HOWARD HUN'r WE RE T RUE
AND CAME FROM RESPONSI BLE SOURCES . ANY
CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THE FACTS WERE
CLEARLY TIIEORETICAL: rHERE FORE DEFENDANT ' S 1
THI RD DEFENSE IS TRUTH.
9. Defendant will address each of th e averments as they appear
in plainti ff ' s original and anunended Complaints.
__· ___ i
.· ..
. · ·· - -. -- -- --···--------··--------·-----------------~~~-- ··- .....
··~ ":'. '•
•" ~
-. ,, ....,-,,.
..... ..· . ; . ,,... .. :.·· . ...- · • • . ' • ·: .•• • #•.: .. . ., . ·... . ,·
.. _, .
. :• • .-1....~ ... • •
'•
10. Original Complaint ( a) deals with Chapter Two of Coup
D'Etat In America which is ' clearly titled "The Theory". The
sentence "Chapter two is therefore the conclusion that we have
drawn from the arguements we shall present from chapters three to
ten." is a llegedly false and maliciously written. In Hotchner vs
Castil lo, 551 F2d 910 (1977), the United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit, ruled that a writer cannot be sued for simply

I
exp r ess i ng his opinion of another person. A "theory " on a part-
icular historical event, and the activities of participants
in that event, fall within the realm of clearly stated opinion r
I
I
and are not in themselves actionable. In Orr vs Argus Press,
586 F2d 1108, (1978) the United States Court of App e als, Sixth
Circuit, ruled that everyone, citizen or reporter, has the ri ght

I
I
r
I
to comment on matters of public importance, and expre ssions of
II
I, opinion and even misstatement of fact are not actionable in
tj
II
I libel suits unless made maliciously for the purpose of damaging
anothers r eputation : "It is now estab li shed as a matter of
constitutional . law that a statement of opinion about matters
wh ich are publically known is not defamatory . As the Supreme
Co urt said in Ge rtz vs. Welch- 'Under th e First Amendment there
is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicio u s an opinion
may seem, we depend for its corre ction not on the conscience of
judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas .' "
11. Ori.gina l Complaint (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) deal
with sentences clearly labeled "Theory" and are not actionable
for the same reasons as (a).

12. Original Complaint (h) deals with the sentence-"There is
overwhe lming evidence to sugg es t a link betwee n convicted Water-
gate burglary mas termind, E. Howard Hunt and Lee Harvey Oswa l d . "
'
I
Webster ' s dictionary defines the word "suggest " : "c . to mention
or app l y as a possibility ". The writer of the pas s age in para-

graph (h) of th e original Compaint is merely expressing his
op inion th at there is a strong possibility of a Hunt/Oswald link.
Th ere is evide nc e to support this possibility. One p i ece of this
e v idence was pre sented a s an Attachme nt to Howard Hunt' s
.. ...
~
·~
--
:~.-~~-===·-:-::--::-.::~:==-=-
.. .-, - - - -- - -.-- --:: -- .---.. ~--- - - - - - -- - . ···-
,... ,. ,. .... ..- .
' ··-· \ ~· . ·. ,\:· ...,·.: . .. ... ·-. ~ .. ·-,.~;~.·i""~-·~i,.; •r= "
·' : •' '
..
) -ition of June 3, 1977 - a le tter possib l y from Lee Harvey Oswald
1.
to a "Mr. Hunt". The HSCA examined this letter and determined
that - "It is impossible to determine positively whether the
l etter to Hunt is or is not in the handwriting of the same person
as the other writings purporting to be Oswald's." (H SCA Hearings,
Volume VIII page 246) The question still remains an open one .
The HSCA a ls o concluded that Oswald migh t have been associated
with members of the Cuban Demoncratic Revolutionary Front.
(see Defendant's Attachment G , page 133) On page 36 of Howard
Hunt's deposition of June 3, 1977 he states -"I worked only with
the Democratic Revolutionary Front." The HSCA also named David
Atlee Phi lips, a close associate of Howard Hunt's in t h e CIA, as

I
' a possible associate of Oswald. ( see HSCA Hearing Volume X pages
!J 37-53). Finally, in plaintiff's deposition of June 3, 1977 ,

Ii defendant submitted pages 788 and 789 of a deposition taken in
I the course of the trial of Orl ando Bosch (USDC-SDF-Miami-68-420-
Cr- WM) which allegedly linked a Mr. Hunt to Bosch. In Marita
Lorenz's deposition of 25 January 1 9 7 8 she confirms a Bosch-Hunt
lI link and links Bosch wi th Oswald. (Lorenz Deposition page 56 )

!I
1' 13. Original Complaint (i) deals with the "tramp photographs "
I - pictures of three "derelicts" who were picked-up . in the
I vicinity of the .Dallas Texas School Depository short l y after the
Kennedy assassination . Once again the writer is suggesting a
possibil.i ty rather than stating a fact . In th e Publishers Note
to Coup D' Etat In America , page xv , i t is stated: "I t is im-
portant to emphasize that the authors cannot state for sure that
thes e men (Hunt and Sturgis) are identical to the "tramps ".
14. Original Complaint ( j) : "But why , after al l his pains -
taking precautions , would the CIA let pictures of Howard Hunt ,
disg ui sed as a tramp on the scene of the Kennedy a ss a ss ination ,
circulate? " This question is offe red , arg ue ndo, and i s not a
statement of fact. It is not actionabl e p e r se , since i t asks a
question that is within the limits of fa i r corrunent on a public
figure as defined by New York Time s vs Sullivan .
15. Original Comp l aint (k) : "In 19 4 9 Howard Hunt wrote
--_- --. · _l·-----~

'I . -- -------- ______ .___
- . . .... .-. -. ··- ·....
- ..-.·-.-.-. ····--·-·-. \'\ -----·--------- - -. - ·--,.----- --- --- -· ·- - - . - .
~- _:-·~ · ...., .·' .· .. ~· _;...·· •, . .· . .... ... .
"".: ·.;v·:.,. ..
,
- ~·
..
II
)) Bimini Run, a spythriller s tarrin g an ex -Marine, gambler and
r soldie r- of-fortune named Hank Sturgis . It is obviou s that some-
I. wha way
e re a long the line, Hunt and Fiorini ' s paths had crossed ... In
Hunt is telling the truth; he d id not know Sturgi s then,
instead he knew Fiorini." There is strong evidence from the
depositions taken in this case, along with the d o cument s attached
to the se depositions, that Frank Sturgis and Howard Hun t were
aqua1nted prior to 1971; HSCA investi g ator Ga eton Fonz i testified:
"Que stion: Did y ou discover any evidence as to whether or n ot
Frank Sturgis knew E. Howard Hunt p rior to November, 1971?"
"Answer: Prior to my joining the Committee , yes." This evidence
was supplied by Marita Lorenz. In Ms. Lorenz's deposition , page
26, she confirme d thi s information under oath. Other depos itions
t aken in the course of discovery proceedin gs back-up her
assertion: Be rna rd Ba rk er testi f ied that h e knew Sturgis prior
to Watergate (Bark e r Deposition page 32) a n d th at he also knew
How ard Hunt prior to Watergate. (B a r ke r Deposition page 27 )
Sturgis testified that h e kn ew Barker p rior to Watergate (Stur g is
Deposition page 62) and that h e also knew Al e x Ro rke . Barker
tes ti f i ed tha t he knew Alex Rorke . (Ba r ke r Depos i t i o n page 33)
Hunt t es tifi ed that he knew Pedro Dia z -Lanz ( Hun t' s Initial
Deposition page 34) and S turg is t es tifi ed he knew Diaz-Lanz
(sturgis Depos ition page 62) and Diaz-Lanz testifi ed that he
knew bo th men. (L a n z -Depos i tion p age 5 ) Finally, Hunt testified
th at he knew Ma nue l Artime (Hunt Depos ition of June 3, 1977
page 58) and Barker t es tifi ed th a t Artirne knew Sturgis. (Barker
Deposition page 33). S turgis te s ti f ie d h e knew Artime . (Sturgis
Dep o si tion page 62) Defendant h as exhibited these relationships
graphica lly in Attachme nt H . The v a lidity of this sort of spec-
ulation was con f irmed in CIA docume n t 1 35 1-1059B , which was
attached to the d epos ition of A.J. Weberman taken on July 9 1
19 77; In the course of eva luating a possib l e Stur gis-CIA connect-

ion th e CIA e v a lua ted the possibi l ity of a Hunt/Sturgis re l ation-
ship in 1963 . Finally , i t shoul d be n oted h ereto , that docume nts
......
.....
_ _____ --· ----
....... • a
~- ..... .
- - -··· ·-·--- -------·-·- -- ---------······ ·---~ - --·--·- ··--------·
' . . .. . ~
.... ... ·. £_- ·
' . - ••• . . .... ,
~1- . ..
·-'·
., . . ........ ...~·~:...~ .., ·:..:•.r
I
11
!
I, obtained from the United States Secret Service (see Attachment I
j
I pages 2 and 3) indicate that Pedro Diaz-La nz and Brigade 2506,

I
which was headed by Man uel Artirne, were considered threats to
I President Kennedy in November, 1963 . Orlando Bosch is also men -
I
tioned in Attachment I on page 4.
16. Original Complaint ( 1) : "But the strangest thing about
I Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba Committee was the fact that some of
1'
its literature was stamped with the address "544 Camp Street".
11
As mentioned earlier this was the address of the Cuban Revolution
11
1 who worked closely with the Cu}?an Revolutionary Council." This
I contention is not libelous because:
11
I a) It is true: Marita Lorenz's address book for 1962 contained
the following notation-"E. Howard Hunt / 544 Camp Street". (see
Lorenz Deposition page 56 and Attachment J)
1 b) The connections between the Cuban Revolutionary Council, its

!.
predesessor, the Cuban Revolutionary Front and Lee Harvey Oswald
i
and 544 Camp Street are matters of public debate. In Volume Ten
I of the HSCA Hearings, Gaeton Fonzi discusses these relationships.
(see Attachment G) Defendant's pioneering work in this area help-
ed stimulate the IiSCA in this direction. Howard Hunt was conn-

I
ll ected with the Cuban Revolutionary Council despite his denials

I
I
j during his initial deposition. (s ee Hunt 's Initial Deposition,
pages 36 and 44) In support of thi s contention, defendant offers
reproductions of specific pages from Howard Hunt's book, Give Us
This Day , which contradict plaintiff's deposition . {see Attach-
ment K pages 182-184) Defendant has also attached copies o f page
3726 from Book Nine of the Hearings Before th e Select Committee
on Presidential Campaign Activities to show that Hunt was

connected with the Cuban Revolutionary Council in Miami (see
Attachment L) The FBI investigated the possi b ility that Oswa ld
I picketed the Miami off ice of the Cuban Revolutionary Council

II
II
l1
:-_----·· ·-- ·- -· --- - ----------- -· -~ · - - - · - ----- .. - - -·-----· ---- -·-- ..... ·- - -··--·-- -···· ·-·-· .
. . . .:-
-:. .
I
I
I (see Attachment M)so a connection between the two is not
!I "outrageously false".
II
17. Original Complaint (m): "In 1954 Bannister started the
Ii
Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean (ACLC) which helped over-
throw the leftist Arbenz regime in Guatemala. Howard Hunt was
in charge of this operation •.• " Guy Bannister's connection with

I
the ACLC first appeared in a book titl~d Power On Th e Right
1!
written by former FBI Agent William Turner. (Ramparts Press,
I Berkeley, Calif. 1971). The connection between the ACLC and the
overthrow of Arbenz has recently been declassified by the U.S.

I' Army in a document they sent to the FBI (FBI # 64-29230-341)
The fact that Hunt was in charge of part of the anti-Arbenz
effort was published in the New York Times Magazine on October

!lj! 20, 1974 in an article by Douglas Hallet, who had worked on
Charles Colson's staff in the Nixon White House. In Goldwater

I
vs. Ginsburg, 414 F2d 324 (1969), the United States Court of
I
Appeals, Second Circuit, held that reliance upon newspaper
articles, books etc. are factors which, with othe~ factors, are
11
Ii probative of wh·e ther a writer and publisher were motivated by
ii
actual malice. In Rosanova vs. Playboy, 580 F2 d 859 (1978), the
i United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Cicuit, hled that the
subjective awareness of probable falsity required in a public
II figure defamation action could not b e found where the p ublisher 1 s

I,
Ii allegations were supported by a multitude of previous reports on
which it reasonably relied; defendant was required to show that
allegation was made on the basis of sources which were not be-
lieved to be false.
18. Original Complaint (o): "When Hunt worked in the Office
of Policy co~ordination, the predecessor of the CIA, one of his
main interests was to 'reverse Italy's leftward political trend

and defeat the Communists at the polls." This stateme nt in no way
is actionable since it originates with Howard Hunt. (se e
Attachment N) In Novel vs. Garrison (previously cite d) it was
held that where it appeared that the substance of statements
'
I -- ··- -''--- - -- - -- -...,------ - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - ----

"
--- --- -- ·- - "'· - ------- - -- ~-- ·-·-
·..
------- ·· - -·· - - ....
I • •
- - - --- - --
- - - - .. .
·- -- - - -~· - -
- - - ····- ·-·- ··· ·
t.L-;"'"f~,.'(~..v~ j ··:: .)~ ·--·-·.:· -~~.. ~..... . ~:'~ .~ . · ·· ·. .
-. . ·-.
· "- •• , ·. · ... 1 "
•, • I
.. _.. .
- ' ,
,~
'r ·
"··~:
·"" ,.
I
/ claimed to be libelous orig.i.nated with the plaintiff, Swnmary
1
' Judgement should be granted.
19. Original Complaint (p): "After the Front f olded, Smith
became the New Orleans delegate to the Cuban Revolutionary Council
(CRC) which was also connected with Hunt." Hunt's connection to
the CRC was already discussed in paragraph 16, infra. Smith's
relevance to the JFK assassination is discussed in paragraph
1-3 of Attachment G, pages .127-128. Defendant is speculating
on connection between Mr . Smith, who was closely with the Cuban
Revolutionary Front and Council, and Howard Hunt, who was also
closely connected with both these CIA-sponsored organizations.
Mr. Smith refused to be deposed.

I
!I 20. Original Complaint (q): "During the planning of the Bay of

r,
// Pigs invasion, Howard Hunt also worked for Double- Che k , a d ummy
I electronics firm located just outside Miami." In this sentence
defendant is speculating on the possibility of a connection
existing between Gordon Novel and Howard Hunt since both men were
connected with the CRC and the propaganda ef f ort related to the
Bay of Pigs invasion. Defendant has attached Fill document which
indicates a possible connection between the CRC and Novel. This
has been included and labeled Attachment 0 . The possibility of
a Hunt/Novel relationship is not "outrageously false". Jack
Anderson reported on August 15, 1974 that Charles Colson, the

'I
\ former employer of Howard Hunt, had contacted Gordon Novel. The
I statement of a Hunt/Novel connection is therefore neither
I "outrageously false" or "maliciously written."
21. Original Complaint (r): "Hunt worked on domestic p ropa-
ganda for the Council and it is likely that he knew Gil." Hunt 's
connection with the CRC has been previously documented . Gil's
connection with the CRC has been documented in Defendant's
Attachment P, a United States Secret Service do~ument. Specu-

lation on a possible connected between Gil an d Hunt is therefore
not "outrageously false".

22. Original Complaint (s): "Jim Garrison discovered that in the
fall of 1963 Ferrie made quite a few calls to Mexico Ci ty . Howard
>- · -- - \
- --- ~ - .. - - -- -- - ......___. ·-~--\------

. ..:{'""'' r.,, . ._
....,._,:..._·,...;.~ -.,. ... -.
: I I ' • J
,,
•I
!
I Hunt was
I
station chief therA around this time . " The facts came
I
lj from two sources: The statement that Ferrie made calls t o Mexico
I City before the assassination came from the Honorable James
I
I
Garrison, during several private telephone conversations with
him in 1974. The second statement, regard~ng llunt ' s presence in

I
Mexico City came from Tad SzuJ.c's b0.ok, Compulsive Spy (Viking
I Press- New York-1974) . In Goldwater vs . Ginsburg, previously
I I cited, the United States Co_urt of Appe als, Second Circuit, held
that only if the repeater knows that the words are false or
inherently. improbable, or i f there are obvious reasons to doubt
the veracity of the person quoted or accuracy of his reports
then repetition constitutes libel. New York Times vs Conner,
365 F 2d 567 (1966), confirmed the principle that protection of

I
I
.
the First Amendment is not limited to statements whose validity
I
'1 is b eyond question or which re f lect an ob jective picture of
I
reported events;"While the verification of fac ts remains an
important reporting standard, a reporter without a high deg ree
of awareness of their probable falsity may rely -on statements
\ made by a single source, even though they reflect only one side
of the story .. " The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth

ii Circuit, reversed an Alabama District Court ruling against the
New York Times partially because- "Every challenged statemen t
has been traced to an identified source. There is no evidence tha

11 any of the sources have denied giving the questioned in f ormation
j1
i to Salisbury, that Salisbury twisted or misstate d the information
giveB to him , or that Salisbury either knew or had clear g rounds
to suspect that the statements might be false.'' (ibi d .) Defendant
had no reason in 1974, nor does he have any r eason at present,
to doubt the veracity of Tad Szulc's reportage. In Mr . Szulc's
deposition, pa~ 28, we were told that he was employed by the
New York Time s as a correspondent for t we nty years . In 1958
Mr . Szulc was awarded the Maria Mor ris Cabot Gold Medal by
Columbia University; in 1969 the Journalistic Professional

Fraternity Bronze Meda l for reporting on the invasion of Czecho-
slovakia. Mr. Szulc's allegation that Howard Hunt was in Mexico
:.:::- .- --- - --: -~ ·- ··-: ·- - -- -· - - -.- ---··-.-::- -· - ·;----.- - -.------- -·- ·- - ---- ·-- -·-- i_ __________ -- - . .
.. • • •~· ,;'I' ...·. .. ,•.
City in October of 1963 wa s studied by the House Select Committee
on Assassinations. (see Attachment P) Mr . Szulc was previously
called to testify before the Senate Select Conunittee on Intell-
igence Activities since he was a personal friend and confidant
of President John Kennedy. On page 50 of the Szulc Depostion ,
Mr. Sz ul c stated that he still be lieves the statement about
Howard Hurit and his presence is Mexico City in 1963 is still va l id .
The United States District Court , Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division ruled that Mr . Szulc was entitled to protect
the source of this information. ( 7 8- Ci vil - 616-A)

,,
1
23. Original Complaint (t) : "General Alexander Haig , another

I Watergat~ - linked figure , was probab l y involved with Hunt and
I Nixon because he was in the Caribbean Section of the Planning
Di vision of the Department of the Army at the time of Bay of Pig s ~·

I
;1
i Defendant does not make any assertions concerning General Haig
and the Kennedy assassination. Haig is cited as a possib le Nixon-

II
Hunt link dur ing the early 1960s . An assertion of an association
ii with General Haig, now Commander of the NATO forces in Europe is
II not libelous - despite Mr. Hunt ' s description of General Haig as
I
I "somewhat notorious . " (Ilunt Deposition of June 3, 1977 page 55)
24. Origi n a l Complaint (u ): " ~erry Buchanan was the ex - convict
brother of James Buchanan , a close friend of Sturgis and a

I
!I possible CIA agent, who, as we shall see later , may have worked
I with the omnipresent Howard Hunt." A connection between Buchar.an
I
and Hunt is not "outrageously false" - Hunt stated: "I talked
I
I with Frank Meyer over the phone" (Hunt Deposition of June 3 ,
1977 , page 56) Frank Meyer was a friend of Nathanial Weyl, ac-
cording t o an FBI document from the Nat i onal Archives which I
have inc l uded and labeled Attachment R . Another FBI documen t,
included and labeled Attachment S , indicates Mr . Weyl was a
friend of James Buchanan .

25. Original Complaint (r): "When James McCord was caught bug -
1 ging the Democratic Nat ional Committee office in the Watergate he
I was using the name Edward J. Martin . Hunt was using the codename
jl "Mr . White"" This statement is not " outrageously false. It is
-~~
~.'"
.. '--·- ·- --·-· ... ... -.
-~ -
-· ---: ·····-_ :-- ---------- --..·-- ·----- - ·-· ------··- ----- ..... . - - - · - - - - -
~~ ·':' .. ....... ...
II
HI
!/ based on information gathered by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein,
!' two award - winning journalists . See Attachment T page 22 .

I
26. Original Complaint (w) and (x) . Both the statements in
Coup D'Etat quoted here are based on statements in Compulsive
~ . by Tad Szulc, pages '96 and 99 . See paragraph 22 infra .
27 . Origin a l Complaint (y): "Hunt's safe also contained mate ria
relating to an investigation of Chapp~quidick. He cultivated
informe rs within the Kennedy clan and may have forged document s
ii
I blaming the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion on a secret
11 agreement between Kennedy and Cast ro." The first assertion of
I
I
fact comes from All The President's Men by Woodward and Bernstien.
(see Attachment T pages 305-306) The second assertion of fact

I comes from Hunt' s book Undercover . (s ee Attachment N pages 147-
I
;1 148) The third allegation comes f rom Book Nine / Select Comm-
II ittee on Presidential Campaign Act ivities /He a rings / p 3879.
II
!j (see At tachment U) In this telephone transcript plaintiff
l confesses to accusation of forging documents which he claims

I in his lawsuit is libelous. lie explains this in his deposition
!'
ij of June 3, 1977 page 84 by alleging that when he said "Sure"
I~ he said it because- "I didn ' t know what he was talking about .
I
I I just said sure and let it go at that . " In Orr vs. Argus Press,
I previously cited , the.United States Court of Appeals, Sixth

I,. Circuit , ruled on libel and interpretation of offical documents :
"A subsidiary first amendment principle concerns statements

I
describing or summarizing offical documents. In cases where
I
I plaintiff is public figure for the purpose of the "malice"
standard, the Supreme Court has held in Time Inc . vs Pape ,
401 US 279 , 91 S Ct 633 , 28 c. Ed 2d 45 (1 9 71 ), that any ration-
al interpretation of a public document is a sufficent defense
as a matter of law to a suit for defamation . "

28 . Original Complaint (z): "The people connected with the
Bay of Pigs operation and Watergate certainly had a motive fo r
killing Kennedy; they felt he was standing in the way of the
"liberation of Cuba". This statement is based on defendant 's
·------·- -- -·-·."'..--. -- -·---· _.. --- - - -·- .. - .. -

-~-- - ·--- -
..J.-.r ....
._. I': c..
..: : . . . .. ..··. ..
....... \
, .... ·· .. "· -· - :::--
'",:·: ·--:~·:· . .· ,
-- - - ·-··--
1:
11
1·1,
I
/ interpretation of Give Us Th i s Day, plaintiff's book on the
I
,,
\J Bay of Pigs. (see Attachment K, page 13) It is neither out-
rageously false or maliciously written. In Buckley vs. Littell,
539 F 2d 882 (1976) the United States Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit; held that systems of government, democracy a nd
totalitarianism are matters where the widest latitude for debate
in the interest of th e First Amendment should be g iven: "')ur

'
Constitution thus contemplates a bias toward un fet tered speech
l at the expense, perhaps, of compensation for harm to r ep utation,

l at least where a public figure and a topic of enormous public
interest, . going to the heart of politic~l discourse is concerned.'
i 29. Original Complaint (aa): "Hunt laid the blame for the Bay
I of Pigs fiasco almost entirely on Kennedy an d there is reas o n

I!
to believe that h e suspected the ~resident of be ing pa rt of the
Ii11 "international communist cons pi r acy ". See paragraph 28 , i nfra
11
and Attachment K, page 178.
I
30. Original Complaint (bb) (cc): "Hunt as tramp "- on pag e xv
li of Coup D' Etat In America it is made clear that - "the authors
1· still cannot state for sure that these men are identical to the
11
ii tramps." On page · xx the p u b lisher states-"There is substantial
11
evidence to sug ge st that claims in the press which link Howa rd
11 Hunt to · the "tramps " ... have a strong basis in fact." Page 69
I of Coup D'Etat contains the following line: " ... th e oldman tramp
looks just like E. Howard Hunt." Nowhe r e in Co up D'Etat do the
authors say the tramp was definitly Howard Hw1t. Plaintiff avers
that assertions such as the foregoing are "shee r fabric at ion by
the defendants" when in fact the idea of a tramp/Wate rgate
connection did not originate with them. (see Attachment V page
4) Defendant Weberrnan has stated.: "The pictures were first
brought to my attention my Steve Sotor, ~rofessor of Astronomy
at Cornell University ... " Mr. Sotor is h ow head of r esearc h f or

the National Education Tele v ision Ne twork' s "Cosmos" series with
Carl Sagan. Plaintiff cites the availability o f the FBI's
photoreport on the tramps via the Rocke fellar Commission Repo rt
.,
. . -··- ·- --·-- --------- ---- - -·- --- - ------·------· --__:·~- - --- -- -·- ·-· -
. . ..... .
~.f' ..
·.·.:.;
,
..
as proof that the defendant knew the "tramps" were neither Hunt
ii
or Sturgis at the time of publication. Defendant did not believe
the Rockefellar Report and included a critique of it on page
I, 22 4 G f Coup D'Etat In America. Defendant a lso cited numero us

I
11 ins tan •.:eJ ;.:;;- " f:' BT co·: rr.-il ? " i n Cou 1> iJ ' l.:.t at !:1 /,mer i c a , in re-
lation to the FBI's work for the Warren Commission. Because of
this it is unlikely that defendant would regard the FBI's
determination in this matter as the "final

, word". In the case
St Amant vs Thompson, 390 U . S . at 731, 88 S Ct at 135, the
Sumpreme Court held that to find actual malice "there must be
sufficent e~idence to permit the conclusion that the defendant
in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his
publication ': "But to insure the ascertainment and publication of
the truth about public affa irs, i t is essen tial th at the First
Amendment protect some e rroneous publications as well as true
ones."
31. Original Complaint (dd): "Kennedy dug his own grave by
trying to stop the Howard Hunts of the CIA from killing Castro."
q
I\ Howard Hunt openly admits advocating the assas s inatio n of Fidel
11 Castro. (see De f e ndant's Attachment K, page 38) The relationship
• between the possible assassination of Castro and th e Kennedy

I assassination is throughly discussed in Book V, Fina l Re port of
the Select Committee to Study Gover nmen tal Operations with re-
spect to Intelligence Activiti e s - United S t ates Senate . To
. speculate on the possibility of Hunt being involve d in a murder
is not in itse lf malicious, since the defendant reli ed on a
series of previous reports linking Hunt to p o litical assassin-
ation: On June 1 8 , 1973 Newsweek Magazine carried a s tory linking
Hunt to an assass ination plot aga inst Pres ident Omar Torrij os
of Panama .( see We berman De position, July 9 , 1 9 77) On June 21 ,
1 9 7 3 the Was hing ton Post carrie d a story that linked Hunt to the
attempted assass in ation of Geo r ge Wallace . S inc e 1 9 7 5 nume rous
other r e ports linking Hunt to assass ination h a ve been gi ven
wide spread di s semination by the media . These include a December
II 26, 1 975 report in the New York Times that Hunt had know l edge of
::___ . -- ..- :---:-:-:-=-:=----.-:---- - -. --- - ·. ---~--- ·· · - - - - . . . .-·-------- -···- --- ·· ----- -··- ---
., . .~;"-~"'!_"-~ ·· ~ .~ -. ·,"· ..~~-~~~ ·--:,.- • .. --:· ··' ., . .:.·· .•. ,, . '·
•. ·. ·.
~ a CIA assassination unit and a September 21, 1975 Washinqtori Post
report linked Ilunt to an abortive assassination attempt against
Jack Anderson. In his deposition th.at has yet to be transcribed,
Hunt associate G. Gordon Liddy confirmed that Hunt discussed the
assassination of Jack Anderson with him.
32. Original Complaint (ee): "Has (Nixon) afraid that if Hunt
was throughly investigated or even put if1 the limelight someone
might realize that Howard Hun·t was the key to the John F. Kennedy
assassination?" This speculation refers to the June 23, 1972
conversation between Nixon and Haldemann which was recorded and
released as part of the ''Hhite House tapes''. Def~ndant is well
·within his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in asking this

• ,'"">
question, since an actual participant in the conversation in '·
question, H.R. Haldemann, believes the conversation concerned the

t '
lo··
Kennedy assassination. (see Attachment W) In no sense is this r..
[i :
question ''outrageously false''.
f.' ·,
3 3. Origi_nal Complaint (ff) : "The FBI found fingerprints in the (;'
Texas School Book Depository which to date have not been ident-
ified. The most obvious thing to do is to crosscheck them with '", '
those of the Watergate burglars." Defendants Canfield and Weber-
man did in fact turn over copies of the unidentified fingerprints ..

t;-
~: ~
found in the Texas School Book Depository to the HSCA and to the '
"
.r·
,..,
f, I
FBI. Defendant has· included FE.I document which indicates that '
defendants gave any evidence they had to the FBI. (see Attachment
~) Had defendants been motivated by malice, the last thing they
would have wanted was a governmental investigatory agency to
review their "fabricated story" since they would have known it
to be false. The FBI did.in fact investigate the "tramp" photo-
graphs. A li.st of the documents compiled during this investigation
is attached and labeled Attachment Y. This expenditure of time

\'
and effort indicates there was some issue as to the identity of, \!
the tramps. The findings of the FBI were sent to the Rockefellar
.\
Commission which included an entire chapter on the "tramp" shots
in their Final Report. (see Defendant's Attachment Z) Despite the
" '•
\
·.,·:-.-.: -=-=-=--~-..-....... -··:-~-:-~ --.- ····.,-·,--:o-;-:~ -.. .,-.-,,.. -.."'. ,-.-.
.,~.~-~-·
" ·.: "''·

I
I
1 findings of the Rockefellar Commission the identity o f the
1
1 "tramps" was also studied by the HSCA . (see Attachment l\A)
~ i
Defendant contends that there is nothing probative of "malice"
I
in supplying the FBI or a Congressional Committee with inform-
I ation for evalu ation; in fact , exactly the opposite is true.
Had defendant been disseminating information he believed was
untrue in order to willfully and wrongfully injure the plaintiff
as stipulated in h is Original Complaint, the FBI and the HSCA
would have refused to evaluate the charges , since, as the
plaintiff contends, they were, prima facia, " sheer fabrication."
The motivation of the defendant in submitting this alleged
evidence to governmental bodies for further evaluation and in
I the writing of Coup D' Etat In America was clearly not malicious ,
1'
unless malice is defined as love and concern for ones country
I and its constitution. Defendant continues to disseminate evidence
amassed during the course of his research to interested govern -
ment agencies. (s ee Attachment BB)

I
!1 34 . Amended Complaint (Count II) : In his Amended Complaint , the
11 plaintiff alleges that the defendant conspired with Mari ta

I,'I
'· Lorenz~ a close friend and operative of Frank Sturgis , to defame
'I
ii
and slander him . Defendant and Marita Lorenz (see Lorenz Deposit-
ion page 133) contend that they were unaquaint ed with one another
prior to the ti me Ms. Lorenz stated that she saw Howard Hunt in
Dallas in November of 1963 et c. etc. The only p roof of a r e lation-I
ship between defendant and Ms. Lorenz cited by plaintiff are
" statements made to me by Mr. Vick Walter ." These statements con-
!
II cern the fact th~t Weberman gave Walters a telephone number for
Ms . Lorenz circa August 1977. Defendant admits giving Mr . Walter s
this telephone number - which was disconnected at th at time .
Defendant mentioned Marita Lore nz in Coup D' Etat , a lthoug h not
by name , and had une ar th e d h er tel e phone number fro m old tele-
I
'1 p~one dire ctories . (see ~ttachme nt CC ) Walters , in his deposition
1 of February 3, 1978 admitted th a t defendant was a reliable source
I for information on the Kennedy assassination. ( see Attachment DD)
I
I
,.....
===..-:·-.- - -- - _. ____ .... _ . - - ·- --.. -.--- - - --.. -··-:- ---·- -- - -· ----~ - -- --·- --· --- ------
-•• •:-:. - -- :.-"to • •
·~ ". >-
•"
..
.·
35. Amended Complaint (Count III) : This averment accused the
defendant Of conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of a witness by
plotting the assassination of Frank Sturgis. Count III was
I subsequently dismissed with prejudice. No criminal charges were

ever filed against the defendant in relation to the above
allegation nor was the defendant ever questioned by a law·

I
Ii :::::::::: '. offioni oo by o Cnna Oucy regording C»i> ob>uoa
!
I' SUMHARY l\ND CONCLUSION
,,i,1 36. The preceeding point-by-point response to plaintiff's

'
complaint, and the precedents of law cited therein, are intended
to move this Court to issue a Summary Judgment in favor of

I
1. the defendant, \•/eberman. In \•/ashing ton Post vs. Keogh, 365 F 2d
the united States Court of Appeals, District of

iI 965 ( 19 6 6)
Columbia Circuit,· stated.: " In the First Amendment area, summary
proceedures are even more essential. For the stake here, if
1 harassment succeeds, is free debate. One of the purposes of the

:I
!I Times principle, in addition to protecting persons from being
,,
cast in damages in libel suits filed by public officals, is to
i prevent persons from being discouraged in the full and free
exercise of their First Amendment rights with respect to the
I conduct of their government. The threat of being put to the
I defense of a lawsuit brought by a popular public offical may be
as chilling to the exercise of First Amendment freedoms as fear

I of the outcome of the lawsuit itself, especially to advocates of
I unpopular causes ... unless persons, including newspapers, desiring
I to exercise their First Amendment rights are assured freedom from
harassment of lawsuits, they will tend to become self-censors.
The most serious charges, which if anything we [lave the most
reason to avoid deterring, may be made responsibly, with no hint
of anything contrary to commen knowledge, while less serious
charges may be made rashly, with internal inconsistencies, citing
facts contrary to commen knowledge ... " In Buckley vs. Littell,
previously cited, the Court held that: ''Our Constitution con-
·r-- ----~--------------~~------
,-------·· ··--·-------- --·-·---·- ---------- __ ______ ·-- - -· ·-·--- -- ---------- ·-- \

~.
., ,,_
.·...\.. : -
.·.
;':. ,, .. ·. . ...,... .....
~· .. .. ., ,·· . '·.
:...·~
··:.··~:~~i:~_-: ...
.• ! . ~.. .
' .:'t .
-.·"
--~-------·------------·-
ii
_-.;,-.- . ' ' '-""
\
·1
-templates a bias toward unfettered speech at the expense,
perhaps, of compensation of harm to reputation, at least where a
public figure and a topic of enormous public interest, going to
the heart of the .political discourse ,G is concerned." Assuming,
for the sake of arguement, that the text of Coup D'Etat conveyed,
inter alia , the impression that Howard Hunt was involved in the
Kennedy assassination. This is a serious charge yet as we have
seen, that in itself is not indicative of malice since the charge

I
concerns an ex-public offical and current public figure and a
I'
Ii topic of enormous public interest and implication; in the words
.I of Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel of the HSCl'. - "The implications
i of these questions is enormous." This was why the HSCA, despite
II the findings of the Rockefellar Commission, assembled a panel of
I.'I
:!
experts to evaluate the "tramp" shots. (sec Attachment EE) In
11 the pre-Times vs Sullivan case titled Stromberg vs. California ,
I
I
283 US 359, 369, it was held that: ''The maintence of the opport-
I
unity for free political discussion to the end that government
I may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may
Ij be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the
security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our

I constitutional system."
I
37. Plaintiff contends that he suffered a loss of income as
Ii11 a result of the publication of Coup D'Etat In America yet his
income tax returns tell another story~ In 1975, the year of

i
publication of Coup D'Etat, Hunt was incarcerated and earned
I
I
I
approximatly twenty-nine thousand dollars. In 1976 he earned
approximatly thirty-one thousand dollars. In 1977 he earned
·seventy two thousand dollars. In 1978, six years after the
Watergate scandal erupted, Hunt's income declined to approx.
forty-nine thousand dollars and in 1979 it fell to approx. twenty
-one thousand dollars.
38. Plaintiff,, E·. Howard Hunt has accused defendant of being
an irresponsible, malicious journalist who dellberatly concocted
lies to malign him. Defendant has attached three letters of
1 reference to show this allegation is totally false and without
-- 1
11
.. . .
· - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - - - - · - - - - ·---·
----·-- - -----·-·--- ---····~~ --·· ·- ··- ·-·· -· .. --· ·--- -- --- -- - - ------·
. ·..
----··---·-··-~--.-.----··- ··----- ----
----"--
...
..--..... .
·~,
·.
-~
Ii
I
merit. These have been attached and l abe l ed Attachment FF,
Attachment GG and Attachment FF.

I
I PRAYER
I
I 39. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays this Honorable Court ( 1) grant
II him relief under Rule 56 , F.R .C.P. and dismiss this frivolous
and groundless suit, filed by a conv ict ~d fe l on who has a l so

I
\j been convicted of libel, Carrillo vs. Hunt , Law Case 40172,
Circuit Court for Montgomery County , Maryland, and spare him
and his co-defendants the expense a nd embarrassment of a pub lic
trial thous·ands of miles from their homes, ( 2) provide fo r
.i ·\ expeditious proceedings in the Webe rma n vs . Ilun t countersuit ,
(3) award defendant any and al l costs incurred as a r es ult of

I!
II this matter (4) grant him such other and proper r e lief as the
Court may d eem just and proper.

I' I
I DATED: 19 80
'.1
11 NEW YORK , NEW YORK respectfully submitted
ii
I
:i
ii
ALAN JULES WE BERMAN pro se
ii SIX BLEECKER STRE ET
!! NEW YORK, Nm•7 YORK
TEL: (212) 477-6
TH IS IS TO CERTIFY THAT a true and correct copy of th e

preceeding MOT ION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT was mailed to E ll is
Rubin / 265 NE 26th T e rrace / Mia mi / Florida 33137 this t h e
day of 1980 .
ALAN JULES WEBE RMAJ."l

I,,
'I
'1
Iij !
11
___ II _ _ __ _
r•- - -
·,
· -·· ' - · ·· · · - - · ··-· ··-
:- ·-·-- :-· ··-:- - - ----·- - -- --·------ - ---·-- -- -~--- --~·
~ ... . - ~· '.· . " I
..
.. "' ... ;.•'•T.:.!\. ...,.. •
., ·"'
..

FOR THE
E. HOWARD HUNT, JR., x

Plaintiff and x
Counterdefendant, x
x
x Civil Action Number
vs. X 76-1252-EBD
x
x RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
A.J. WEBERMAN et. al. x MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSI'r I ON
Defendant and X TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
Counterplaintiff. x SUMi'1ARY JUDGMENT
x
-------------------------------x
COMES NOW the defendant, A.J. Weberman, pro se, and submits
this response to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law dated 19 January
1981 to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists in

this case and therefore, Summary Judgment should be granted.
ARGUEMENT ONE
1. There exists no genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the plaintiff is a former public official or a public
figure.
2. Plaintiff admits that he was a public official at the time
the Kennedy assassination took place. On page eight of plaintiff'
Memorandum of Law In Opposition to Defendant's Motion For
Summary Judgment he states: "At the time of President Kennedy's
assassination in 1963, the subject of defendant's book and this
lawsuit, it can not be maintained that plaintiff, who was
employed by the CIA was a public figure." New York Times vs.
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 s. Ct. 710, (1964) originally concern-
ed eublic officials: therefore by making this admission plaintiff

is acknowledging that the standard _of malice applicable to this
case must be delineated by New York Times vs. Sullivan.
3. Additionally it can be argued that plaintiff was a public
figure in 1963 by virtue of his literary career. The 1944 edition
of Who's Who corroborates: "E. Howard Hunt - Movie script writer,
-·- - ·····---. -
I
editor, March of Time (1942-43), war corr. Life Mag. 1942" In
1943 Random House published plaintiff's first book, East Of
Farewell. In 1944 they published Limit of Darkness and in 1947
they published Stranger In Town - both by Howard Hunt. In 1948
Farrar, Straus and Giroux published Maelstrom and in 1949 they
published Bimini Run which was later made into a motion picture.
Both of these books were written· by Howard Hunt. After Hunt
joined the CIA he continued to write using pseudonyms. Between
1954 and 1963 he published five more books. In 1967 plaintiff
wrote Give Us This Day, a book about the Bay of Pigs which was
not published until 1973. In this book Hunt wrote-"Still, and
let this not be forgotten, Lee Harvey Oswald was a partisan of
Fidel Castro, and an admitted Marxist who made desperate efforts
to join the Red Revolution in Havana. ( page 15) By making this
statement public, plaintiff, "thrust (himself) to the forefront
of particular public contraversies in order to influence the
resolution of the issues involved" as specified by Gertz vs.
Welch, 418 US 345, 94 S. Ct. 3009 (1974). Plaintiff is therefore
a public figure by the strictest of definitions.
4. Hunt had also assumed a "role of especial prominence in the
affairs of society", Gertz, 418 US 345, 94 s. Ct. at 3009, during
his career as a CIA Agent and member of the White House Special
Operations Squad. While employed by the CIA plaintiff served as
laison to the Cuban exile community in relation to the attempted
Bay Of Pigs invasion. In this capacity he was mentioned, although
not by name, in books such as The Cuban Invasion by Tad Szulc,
(Praeger -1962), The Bay of Pigs by Haynes Johnson and the
Invisible Government by Ross and Wise (Random House - 1963) as
"Frank Bender's" assistant. Plaintiff played an important role

'
in the formulation of policy at this critical time and therefore
"assmned prominence in the affairs of society." During the

Watergate episode plaintiff voluntarily risked ~'thrusting" him-
self to the forefront of a particular public contraversey by
- ~- -
conspiring to burglarize the De mocratic National Committee's
headquarters. To argue that because plaintiff did not wish to
get caught committing an illegal act precludes plaintiff from
becoming a public figure after apprehension or conviction is
prima facia absurd. The logical consequence of such a proposition
is that no criminal is a public figure unless it can be proven
that he wanted to get caught.
5. In Gertz the Supreme Court ruled that, "Absent clear
evidence of general fame or notoriety in the community ••• an
individual should not be deemed a public personality." Plaintiff
has attained some degree of fame in the Miami community as an
artist. Plaintiff has attained notoriety as a Watergate burglar.
6. From the foregoing it is clear that plaintiff was a public
official at the time to which the alleged libelous statements
refer and that plaintiff later became a public figure as a
result of Watergate and that this classification would act
retroactively to the date of the Kennedy assassination. Therefore
plaintiff should be considered a limited public figure for the
purposes of this lawsuit and the "actual malice" standard should
apply.
ARGUEMENT TWO
1. "Actual malice" cannot be demonstrated.
2. The fundamental burden of the public figure plaintiff is
to show with clear evidence that defendant published false and
defamatory materi a l with a ctual knowle d ge of its f a lsity or with
reckless d i sre g a rd a s ta its truth or fal s ity. Plaintiff cites
the "Rocke feller Commission Report" as evide nce tha t d e f e nd a nts
knew for c e rtain that the tra mp s we r e not Hunt and S tur~ is . Had
defendan.t ' s belie ved the findings of gove rnment a g encies, comm-
issions etc. they would not have que stioned the · findings of th e
warre n Commi s sion. Othe r e vi dence th at d e f e n dant rejecte d the
findings of the Rock e fell e r includ e (a) a chapter in the book

in question devote d to refuting the conclusions of this Commis s -
____ ..... ... .,.., .

j •
'\
ion (b) an article by AJ Weberrnan for ·Third Press Review re-
futing the findings of the Rockefeller Commission. Finally,

despite the finding·s of the Rockefeller Commission in 19 7 5, the
House Select Committee On Assassinations investigated these
same allegations in 1978.
3. The motivation and the state of mind of the defendant
while writing the book in question has been documented in
defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment and is clearly not

malicious.
4. Theoretical parts of the book in question are clearly
delineated as such by internal wording and chapter headings.
A plaintiff must generally show a communication to be a state-
ment of fact rather than an expression of opinion in order to

defeat a motion for Summary Judgment. Letter Carriers vs. Austin,
418 us 264 (1964).
5. The theoretical parts of the book in question have a

strong basis in fact in the other ten chapters of the book in
question. These chapters are based on government documents,
newspaper articles, interviews etc. Coup D'Etat In America is
footnoted. Plaintiff failed to cite any errors in this footnoting

of a factual nature. Instead he simply alleges that defendant's
work is " a product of his imagination". Since the theoretical
section is based on footnoted facts it should be protected by
Rinaldi vs. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 42 NY 2d 369, cert.
denied 434 US 969 (1977).
6. Plaintiff alleges ·that defendant mislabeled "Theory" chap-
ter in a "transparent attempt to evade the consequences of their

libelous statements". From the text of this chapter it is
obvious that it is an historical overview of alleged CIA domestic
and foreign activities from 1950 to 1972. The purpose of this
chapter was to place the Kennedy assassination in a historical
context of "anti-communism". In no way is this chapter a "sham
scheme" as alleged by plaintiff.
7. To exhibit "actual malice" is must be shown that a false
publication was made with a "high degree of awareness of •••
probable falsity." Garrison vs. Louisiana, 376 U.S. 64, 74
(1964). Defendant's believed then and still believe now that
the "tramps" may very well be Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis.
In 1975 defendant's spoke with Victor Marchetti, a former CIA
photoanalyist who told us that the "tramp shots" merited further
study. Marchetti refered us to a photoanalyist. In 1978 Mr.
Marchetti filed for his CIA files under FOI/PA and received a
document which stated that the photoanalyist he had reccornmended
in 1975 had called the CIA and had been told not to do the
analy~is. We tried other photoanalyists only to find that they
all had some connection to the intelligence community. No
photoanalyist we dealt with was willing to put his report in
writing so that we could examine the details of his scientific
research. In 1975 we did not have access to S.A. Shaneyfelt's
work upon which the Rockefeller Commission based its findings.
Since arguement by expertise is a logical fallacy we rejected
the unsupported findings in favor of our own. In 1979 we dis-
covered, in the course of instant matter, that S.A. Shaneyfeldt
was not a photoan.a list and had no more formal training in the
area than did Micheal CAnfield since he did not have a degree in
this or a related area but had obtained his training on a learn-
as-you-go basis as had Canfield. (Shaneyfeldt deposition 5-10)
We also found that Shaneyfeldt failed to produce acetate over-
lays, a traditional form of photocomparison. (Shaneyfeldt depo-
sition p 29) Defendant's produced overlays, measured features,
traveled to Miami and Washington to get a look at Hunt and Sturgi ,
traveled to Dallas to do a height study etc. etc. Defendant's
have yet to see a photoreport on the "doctoring" of the tramp

shots, as alleged in Coup D'Etat In America nor have any real
--- -·---------· -·
derelicts come foward and revealed themselves to be the tramps
who were picked-up as suspects in the Kennedy slaying, despite
the wide dissemination given to the tramp shots . Additionally
defendant's received many positive responses regarding the tramp
shots from people such as Congressman Henry Gonzalez, Judge Jim
Garrison, Professors Steven Sotor and Ralph Shoenman, AUSA Dave
Marston, Gaeton Fonzi and social satirist Dick Gregory. The
foregoing are some of the reasons defendant's entertained no
serious doubts as to the validity of the tramp shot comparisons.
At this point it should be noted that the book in question
merely suggests that the tramps may very well be Hunt and Stu~gis
rather than stating it as unequivocal fact. Finally, the HSCA
reported that there was a 40% chance that one of the tramps was
Frank _Sturgis and a 10% chance that one of the tramps was E.
Howard Hunt. It is the opinion of the defendant that the chances
of one tramp looking like Hunt and the other looking like Sturgis
is far less likely than only one of the men looking like one of
the tramps. Rather than calculating the chances of both men being
the tramps by an arithmetic progression (40% + 10%= - 50%) a
geometric pregression is applicable (40 % X 10% = 400%).
8. Plaintiff argues: "the only evidence defendants can muster
to support their allegations is .the "photoanalytic analysis"
conducted by defendant Canfield". Defendant has submitted hund-
red~ of pages of corroberating evidence in his motion for Summary
Judgment, Motions for Admi ssions and Pre-trial Stipulation which
indicate that Hunt had the motive, means and background to part-
icipate in the Kennedy assassin a tion. Depositions taken in in-
stant matter contain sworn statements linking plaintiff with
political assassination and during the discovery stages of in-
stant matter plaintiff changed his alibi for November 22 , 1963

after he was tra nsmitt e d "disinformation" to the effect that I
had reached Mr . Me Wah Ling and he did not remember Hunt being
in his store on the day in question. From this defendant could
only conclude that for some reason plaintiff was untruthful! as
to his whereabouts.
t., '•: __._..._ .... ~...,,...~............ ,,, __ L..,,•~~---~'
_.,_.,..1.~.:0.-:''';...it.l,l.t"...<.'"""1'1'""
_,,._....,,_'-•-'" ·' -· ...
r···-·· - .
'
I·
8. Defendant's allegations are in no ~ay ''sheer fabrication and
a product of imagination'' as alleged by plaintiff. If they were
it is unlikely they would have been examined by the Ervin
corrmittee, the Church Committee, the HSCA, the Rockefeller
commission and the CIA and F33I. Instead they would have been
dismissed preemptorally as many bizzre theories which are sub-
mi tted to government agencies are .. Defendant's allegations have
support from documents found in the Library of Congress and the
National Archives. The senior rese~rcher for the HSCA has test-
ified that defendants did not manifest "reckless disregard for
the truth." Plaintiff offers no independent evidence to corrob-
orate his allegation of "actual malice" based on "reckless dis-
regard for the truth."
CONCLUSION
9. WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully requests that this
Court grant defendant's motion for Summary Judgment, as has been
granted in an identical case of Hunt vs. Marchetti et. al. and
(1) provide for expeditious proceedings in the Weberman vs Hunt
countersuit, (2) award defendant any and all costs incurred as
a result of this matter as specified by Rule 54, FRCP (3) grant
him such other and proper relief as the Court may deen just and
proper.
DATED: 3 Feb. 1981 respectfully submitted

N.Y., N.Y.
Alan Jules Weberman, pro se

Six Bleecker Street
New York, New York
Tel: ( 212) 477- 6243
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the

above was· mailed to Ellis Rubin, 265 NE 26th Terrace, Miami,
Florida on this the third day of February, 1981.
Alan Jl.'lles Weberman
~-,
FOR THE
E . HOWARD HUNT, JR. , x

Plaintiff and x
Counterdefendant, x
x
x Civil Action Number
vs. x 76-1252-EBD
x
x RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
A.J. WEBERMAL'! et. al. x MEMORANDUM OF LAI'/ IN OPPOSITION
Defendant and x TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
Counterplaintiff. x SUMMARY JUDGMENT
x
-------------------------------x
COMES NOW the defendant, A.J. Weberman, pro se, and submits
this response to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law dated 19 January
1981 to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists in
this case and therefore, Summary Judgment should be granted.
ARGUEMENT ONE
1. There exists no genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the plaintiff is a former public official or a public
figure.
2. Plaintiff admits that he was a public official at the time
the Kennedy assassination took place. On page eight of plaintiff'
Memorandum of Law In Opposition to Defendant's Motion For
Summary Judgment he states: "At the time of President Kennedy's
assassination in 1963, the subject of defendant's book and this
lawsuit, it can not be maintained that plaintiff, who was
employed by the CIA was a public figure." New York Times vs.
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, (1964) originally concern-
ed public officials: therefore by making this admission plaintiff

is acknowledging that the standard.of malice applicable to this
case must be delineated by New York Times vs. Sullivan.
3. Additionally it can be argued that plaintiff was a public
figure iri 1963 by virtue of his literary career. The 1944 edition
of Who's Who corroborates: "E. Howard Hunt - Movie script writer,
.-·-----,---~~-~~·- n
t!
"
~.
v,...~
.__
... . ,. ..,.:.. c..•-·-·
~.,.. . . . . . -.. . . IT ...-:-·: -;-··· ;·. . . .
~- ill 'fo{P ........... -
.' .
'
editor, March of Time (1942-43), war corr. Life Mag. 1942" In
1943 Random House published plaintiff's first book, East Of
Farewell. In 1944 they published Limit of Darkness and in 1947
they published Stranger In Town - both by Howard Hunt. In 1948
Farrar, Straus and Giroux published Maelstrom and in 1949 they
published Bimini Run which was later made into a motion picture.
Both of these books were written· by Howard Hunt. After Hunt
joined the CIA he continued to write using pseudonyms. Between.
1954 and 1963 he published five more books. In 1967 plaintiff
wrote Give Us This Day, a book about the Bay of Pigs which was
not published until 1973. In this book Hunt wrote-"Still, and
let this not be forgotten, Lee Harvey Oswald was a partisan of
Fidel Castro, and an admitted Marxist who made desperate efforts
to join the Red Revolution in Havana. ( page 15) By making this
statement public, plaintiff, "thrust (himself) to the forefront
of particular public contraversies in order to influence the
resolution of the issues involved" as specified by Gertz vs..
Welch, 418 US 345, 94 S. Ct. 3009 (1974). Plaintiff is therefore
a public figure by the strictest of definitions.
4. Hunt had also assumed a "role of especial prominence in the
affairs of society", Gertz, 418 US 345, 94 S. Ct. at 3009, during
his career as a CIA Agent and member of the White House Special
Operations Squad. While employed by the CIA plaintiff served as
laison to the Cuban exile community in relation to the attempted
Bay Of Pigs invasion. In this capacity he was mentioned, although
not by name, in books such as The Cuban Invasion by Tad Szulc,
(Praeger -1962) , The Bay of Pigs by Haynes Johnson and the
Invisible Government by _Ross and Wise (Random House - 1963) as
"Frank Bender's" assistant. Plaintiff played an important role
in the formulation of policy at this critical time and therefore

"assumed prominence in the affairs of society." During the
Watergate episode plaintiff. voluntarily risked '.'thrusting" him-
self to the forefront of a particular public contraversey by
-~------·
'
I.
conspiring to bm:glarize the Democratic National Committee's
headquarters. To argue that because plaintiff did not wish to
get caught committing an illegal act precludes pla~ntiff from
becoming a public figure a£ter apprehension or conviction is
prima facia absurd. The logical consequence of such a proposition
is that no criminal is a public figure unless it can be proven
that he wanted to get caught.
5. In Gertz the Supreme Court ruled that, "Absent clear
evidence of general fame or notoriety in the community ... an
individual should not be deemed a publ"ic personality." Plaintiff
has attained some degree of fame in the Hiami community as an
artist. Plaintiff has attained notoriety as a Watergate burglar.
6. From the foregoing it is clear that plaintiff was a public
official at the time to which the alleged libelous statements
refer and that plaintiff later became a public figure as a
result of Watergate and that this classification would act
retroactively to the date of the Kennedy assassination. Therefore
plaintiff should be considered a limited public figure for the
purposes of this lawsuit and the "actual malice" standard should

apply.
ARGUEMENT TWO
1. "Actual malice" cannot be demonstrated.
2. The fundamental burden of the public figure plaintiff is
to show with clear evidence that defendant published false and
defamatory material with actual knowledge of its falsity or with

reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity. Plaintiff cites
the "Rockefeller Commission Report" as evidence that defendants
knew for certain that the tramps were not Hunt and Stur,gis. Had
defendant's believed the findings of government agencies, comm-
issions etc. they would not-have questioned the· findings of the
Warren Commission. Other evidence that defendant rejected the
findings of the Rockefeller include (a) a chapter in the book
in question devoted to refuting the conclusions of this Commiss-
. -----··--- --·--- -.-----··---·-.· ··- --·~ ·- -

....... ________
ion (b) an article by AJ Weberrnan for ·Third Press Review re-
futing the findings of the Rockefeller Commission. Finally,

despite the findings of the Rockefeller Conunission in 1975, the
House Select Committee On Assassinations investigated these
same allegations in 1978.

3. ~he motivation and the state of mind of the defendant
while writing the book in question has been documented in
defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment and is clearly not

I
malicious.
4. Theoretical parts of the book in question are clearly
delineated as such by internal wording and chapter headings.
A plaintiff must generally show a communication to be a state-
ment of fact rather than an expression of opinion in order to
defeat a motion for Summary Judgment. Letter Carriers vs. Austin,
418 us 264 (1964).
5. The theoretical parts of the book in question have a
strong basis in fact in the other ten chapters of the book in
question. These chapters are based on government documents,
newspaper articles, interviews etc. Coup D'Etat In America is
footnoted. Plaintiff failed to cite any errors in this footnoting
of a factual nature. Instead he simply alleges that defendant's
work is " a product of his imagination". Since the theoretical
section is based on footnoted facts it sbould be protected by

Rinaldi vs. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 42 NY 2d 369, cert.
denied 434 us 969 (1977).
6. Plaintiff alleges ·that defendant mislabeled "Theory" chap-
ter in a "transparent attempt to evade the consequences of their

libelous statements". From the text of this chapter it is
obvious that it is an historical overview of alleged CIA domestic

and foreign activities from 1950 to 1972. The purpose of this
chapter was to place the Kennedy assassination in a historical
-· -· ----.... .,. __
context of "anti-communism". In no way is this chapter a "sham
scheme" as alleged by plaintiff.
7. To exhibit "actual malice" is must be shown that a false
publication was made with a "high degree of awareness of ...
probable falsity." Garrison vs. Louisiana, 376 U.S. 64, 74
(1964). Defendant's believed then and still believe now that
the "tramps" may very well be Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis.
In 1975 defendant's spoke with Victor Marchetti, a former CIA
photoanalyist who told us that the "tramp shots" merited further
study. Marchetti refered us to a photoanalyist. In 1978 Hr.
Marchetti filed for his CIA files under FOI/PA and received a
document which stated that the photoanalyist he had reccommended
in 1975 had called the CIA and had been told not to do the
analy~is. We tried other photoanalyists only to find that they
all had some connection to the intelligence community. No
photoanalyist we dealt with was willing to put his report in
writing so that we could examine the details of his scientific
research. In 1975 we did not have access to S.A. Shaneyfelt's
work upon which the Rockefeller Commission based its findings.
Since arguement by expertise is a logical fallacy we rejected
the unsupported findings in favor of our own. In 1979 we dis-
covered, in the course of instant matter, that S.A. Shaneyfeldt
was not a photoan.alist and had no more formal training in the
area than did Micheal CAnfield since he did not have a degree in
this or a related area but had obtained his training on a learn-
as-you-go basis as had Canfield. (Shaneyfeldt deposition 5-10)
We also found that Shaneyfeldt failed to produce acetate over-
lays, a traditional form of photocomparison. (Shaneyfeldt depo-
sition p 29) Defendant's produced overlays, measured features,

traveled to Miami and Washington to get a look at Hunt and sturgL
traveled to Dallas to do a height study etc. etc. Defendant's
have yet to see a photoreoort on the "doctoring" of the tramp
shots, as alleged in Coup D'Etat In America nor have any real
. - ,. - - ·-··· -·--· - ·-·--- ·-- .. -·- ------.......----- ~-------......---. - ~

,...,, .Fi1.t1r;:,.-.;'2;~':;:.;~.,..-...:;:":'"""..,.._~,-~---."' •· .. ,_.,,.,,...",_,.,.,~- '~"'" ''·• '"'"''~ ,..,..,,,~~"" "·:';'~~;~:. -~~~)~~-,.,,_~;t~:~-"·'E~•,'i!
. .
derelicts come foward and revealed themselves to be the tramps
who were picked-up as suspects in the Kennedy slaying, despite
the wide dissemination given to the tramp shots. Additionally
defendant's received many positive responses regarding the tramp
shots from people such as Congressman Henry Gonzalez, Judge Jim
Garrison, Professors Steven Sotor and Ralph Shoenman, AUSA Dave
Marston, Gaeton Ponzi and social satirist Dick Gregory. The
foregoing are some of the reasons defendant's entertained no
serious doubts as to the validity of the tramp shot comparisons.
At this point it should be noted that the book in question
merely suggests that the tramps may very well be Hunt and Stui!:'gis
rather than stating it as unequivocal fact. Finally, the HSCA
reported that there was a 40% chance that one of the tramps was
Frank.Sturgis and a 10% chance that one of the tramps was E.
Howard Hunt. It is the opinion of the defendant that the chances
of one tramp looking like Hunt and the other looking like Sturgis
is far less likely than only one of the men looking like one of
the tramps. Rather than calculating the chances of both men being
the tramps by an arithmetic progression (40% + 10%=~50%) a
geometric pregression is applicable ( 40% X 10% = 400%) .

8. Plaintiff argues: "the only evidence defendants can muster
to support their allegations is -the "photoanalytic analysis"
conducted by defendant Canfield". Defendant has submitted hund-
reds of pages of corroberating evidence in his motion for Summary
Judgment, Motions for Admissions and Pre-trial Stipulation which
indicate that Hunt had the motive, means and background to part-
icipate in the Kennedy assassination. Depositions taken in in-
stant matter contain sworn statements linking plaintiff with
political assassination and during the discovery stages of in-
stant matter plaintiff changed his alibi for November 22, 1963
after he was transmitted "disinformation" to the effect that I
had reached Mr. Me Wah Ling and he did not remember Hunt eeing·
in his store on the day in question. From this defendant could
only conclude that for some reason plaintiff was untruthfull as
to his whereabouts.
-~-----~---
• I
a. Defendant's allegations are in no way "sheer fabrication and

a product of imagination" as alleged by plaintiff. If they were
it is unlikely they would have been examined by the Ervin

Committee, the Church Committee, the HSCA, the Rockefeller
Commission and the CIA and PEI. Instead they would have been
dismissed preemptorally as many bizzre theories which are sub-
mitted to government agencies are. Defendant's allegations have
support from documents found in the Library of Congress and the

National Archives. The senior researcher for the HSCA has test-
ified that defendants did not manifest "reckless disregard for
the truth." Plaintiff offers no independent evidence to corrob-
orate his allegation of "actual malice" based on "reckless dis-

regard for the truth."
CONCLUSION
9. WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully requests that this
Court grant defendant's motion for Summary Judgment, as has been

granted in an identical case of Hunt vs. Marchetti et. al. and
(1) provide for expeditious proceedings in the Weberman vs Hunt
countersuit, (2) award defendant any and all costs incurred as
a result of this matter as specified by Rule 54, FRCP (3) grant
him such other and proper relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
DATED: 3 Feb. 1981 respectfully submitted

N.Y., N.Y.
Alan Jules Weberman, pro se

Six Bleecker Street
New York, New York
Tel: (212) 477- 6243
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a true and correct co Of th

abov~ was mai~ed to Ellis Rubin, 265 NE 26th Terra~~ Miarn~,
Florida on this the third day of Fefiruary, 1981. '
-- r~
UNITE D STATES DISTRICT COURT
- . . ._
FOR THE
E. HOWARD HUNT, Jr.
Plaintiff
Civil Action
vs. File # 76-1252-EBD
A.J. WEBERMAN, et. al.

MOTION TO CONDUCT PRO SE
Defendants. PROCEEDINGS
----------------------------x
Now comes the Defendant, A.J. Weberman, and prays that
this Court grant him the right to temporarily defend himself
in the final discovery stage of this instant matter. It is
understood that in accordance with local rules of proceedure
the other defendants will still be represented by Mark Friedman.
It is also understood that A.J. Weberman, et. al. will still
be represented by Marvin Miller of Alexandria, Virginia and
by David Micheals of New York City and Jann Brown of New
York City.
DATED: 18 April 80 y submitted

N.Y. , N.Y.
copies sent to:

L--
MARK FRIEDMAN
ELLIS RUBIN NEW YORK, NEW YORK
(212) 477-6243
•
--
. UHI'rr.: o ~'l'!aTU.: D I S'i'P~I C'.i
COU RT
SOU'l't:!...:r. ~ D I B'l'; ~1c or rLORI D:.
I ------------------------------x
l1 L
' . DOKARD HUNT 1 J R ,
Plaintiff,
76-Civil-1252-EDD
vs.
UHILATERAL PRE-TRIAL
,' J':.LAH JULES i\'EBERM.h'f'( et. al. STIPULA.TION
•t x
I Defendants. x
! ------------------------------~
I
I
COHES NOW the defendant, A.J. Weberaan, pro ae, an

offers the following Unilateral Pre-Trial Stipulation in
accordance with order dated 7 October 1990.
NATURE OF ACTION
Instant matter is a libel •a't and •lander countersuit filed

I by~. Howard Hunt and A.J. Weberroan,reapectively.
I
BASIS OP FEDERAL JURISDICTION
E. Howard Runt, Jr. ia • reaident of the •tate of Florida

while A.J. Weberman is a reaident of New York State.
PLEADINGS
I
II Defendant A.J. Webennan pleads not 9uilty by reason of:
A. Tbe facts presented in Coup D'Etat In America, the book in

question in this matter, are true.
B. Rew York Times vs. Sullivan and all related cases mentioned
j in Defendant's Ammended Motion For Swmnary Juclqment.
c. Defendant•• riqht to Freeda~ of Speech and Freedom of the

Presn as expressed in the Bill Of Rights to the United States
C4ms ti tuti on.
UNDISP~SED OF MOTIONS
, A. AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

II
I
D. L. I.tiT.i:.Rr:OGJ!.TOI'.\" TO PARTY
I
I <"
....... MOl'IOi.\ FOR BI:DISCOVERY (re : p l a i n tif f p r evious libel con vict-
I
ion6 etc.
Ii
! o. Plaintiff. a RESUME OF E XPBRTS RESORT S
E . Plaintiff. s P RE -TRIAL UHilJ\TE RAL S'l' IPULATIQ!;
P. Defendant's MOTION FOR AD~ ISSION S (revised )
STIPULATED FACTS
A. All stipulated fact& found in MOTION FOR AOI-1ISSION dated

June, 1978 including those to which plaintiff fiiled to
respond to •• per order dated 12 Jan. 1979.
~. All facts stipulated in AMMENDED MOTION FOR ADMISSIONS
to which Defendant still has not received a response to.
c. Tilat the puaages quoted in !nit.al complaint were from the
book £oup D'Etat In AJatica.
D. That A.J. Weberman vaa an atithor of said book.
E. That •aid book waa distributed in Florida.
F. That ~. Howard Bunt was a 9overnment offical in 1963.
G. That E. Bovard Hunt vas a public fiqure at time of publication
of aa.b'! book.
H. That Micheal C&nfield turned over hie evidence to the FBI.
I. That A.J. Weberman turned over hi• evidence to Gaeton Fonzi,
Senator Schweiker'• apecial investigator regarding the
Kennedy ••••••inetion, upon request by Ponzi.
J. 'l'hat G. Fon•i is an expert on the Kannedy •laying.
That Wa.beraan and e&field tamed over their evidence t.o
Conqraeaman Gonsalez upon request from Congressman Gonzalez.
That weber.an turned over hi& evidence on the &annedy
-•usinationtto the Intelligence Division and the Legal
DiYision of the Bev York City Police Department upon request.
That Weberman apent bun.reds of hours in the National Arohivee
researchinq the Kennedy aeeaasination.
Tnat Webllrman found that a man fitting the description of
Boward Hunt had etayed at the eame hotel Oswald resided at
in Mexico City.
/ o. That Weberaan found that Oswald had the addrea& 544 CAmp St.
Ola one of bis Fair Play For Cuba leaflets.
That Weberman foand that many former members of the Cuban
Democratic Revolutionary Front had off ices et s•.& camp St.
That Weberman vent to the Library of Congress in the .venin9s
aftv the Archivea had closed to do research into the JFK
• 1.ay"l..nq •
R. That Weberma.n read all of Bovard Hunt's books at the Library

j
~. of Congrese , in c lud in g t hos e wr i t t e n un6e r p seudon yms .
'l·hat i n one:: of thes ;: book s, GI\7L t: S TF.I S DAY , r; . Ho ward

1-iunt e dr...i t teo a close connE ction with th e Cuban D~ mo
:1 cra tic Front.
I
"
I' T. That in the aar:-.ie book Hunt b lamecl Kennedy for the failure
I
I
of Bay of Pigs.
I u. That Webenr.an discovered in the National Archives that

the Cul>an Revolutionary Co~"'lcil had offices at 54( Camp
Street.
V. \ ·hat in GIVE US THIS DAY Hunt. said h e worked on propaganda
for the Cuban R.evoltl~Dnl!ry Council.
1.,:. That We.berm.an found a copy of COUPULSIVE SPY by Tad Szulc
in the Libary of congress in which the prize-wibtn9 former
New York Ti.mes report.er stated that Howard Bunt was in
Mexico City at the. same time Oswald visited there.
That Weberman located a 4/18/73 Nevsweek story that report-
ed that John Dean aaid BO\IArd HUnt had his own -aassinction
aqu~ poised to execu~ the leader of Panama.
Y. That Weberman vpsJ.d later discover in a Ne\of York Ti.mes

article dated 26 December 1975 that Hunt.bad contact with
an early CIA uaaaliaation aquad headed by .mori• Pash.
z. That Weberman read an interview with Frank Sturc;is in Troe
magazine which atated that li09ard Bunt bad killed people
durin; ?tls CIA caree~.
AA. That Weberman vu «Jiven the tramp shots by St.even &~
Profeeaor of Astronomy at COrnell University.
Bl-I. That the Atlanta corre~pondent for CBS had already informed
the FBI re9arding the tramp ahots and their aimil.arity to
Watergate figures.
cc. That Weberaan ahowed the tramp ahote to Dick Gregory.
L DD. Thet 5*eae SOtor ie now director of reeearoh for the
Cosmos aeries broadcast on educational teloviaion.
BE. 'l'hat Marita Lorens was a close uaociate of Frank Sturvi•
ia 1963.
P'F. That Marita Lorenz said •he saw Sturgie and Hant ~ether
in 1963.
GG. That ~1ta Lorena aaid ahe drove to Ballas with Oswald,
": Sturgis, the Movo brothers, Orlando aoaoh and the Lanz
brother• a week before the slaying.
' ...
I
That Marita LOrens aaid ane saw Howard Hunt with Frank
ii, •
l!H.
'
~
6tur9i• in Dallae.
II. That Marita LOrenz's address book for 1962 contained the
entry - E llowa.rd Bunt -s4• Camp Street.
JJ. That Howard Hunt claimed he was at WahpLin9'a Chinese

Grocery •tore on 22 llovember 1963 at Wuhington, DC.
EK. That' Howard Bunt chan9ed his alibi when he vas under the
lJPreaaion that Weberman had located Mr. Wah L6n9.
LL. That Hovard Bunt is currently friends with Frank Sturgis.
MM . That Frank Sturgis was close friends with Jerry 3 emming.
r
IDL That Weberman included a page from a transcript of a

:· Federal trial involving Orlando Bosch which he interpreted
as showing a Bosch-Hunt connsction.
I! oo. That Weberman was given a copy of a letter to a ·~tr Huntn

which the BSCA stated might have been in Oswald's hand-
Ii
I
writting.
PP. That in Volume Ten of the HSCA Report/ Appendix G. Fonzi
implies that Mr. Bisho9, a CIA case offieer who knew Lee
Har'W!y Oswald, was actually David Atlee Philips.
QQ. That Joe Trento, a reporter for the Wilmington Delaware
Sunday news authored an article which stated that Boward
Hunt was in 9allll2, Texas on 22 November 1963.
RR. Th&t Weberman had no contact with Joe Trento prior to the
publication of this article and that the eou.rce of tee Trento
sbory is unknown to him.
ES. That G. Gordon Liddy testified that he plotted the assassin- .
at.ion of Jack Anc!erson with Bunt.
TT. '.l'hat AJ Weberman continues bis research into the Kennedy
assaasinhtion to date and has several dozen FOI requests
pending.
uu. 'l'hat A:! Weberman ha• several Freedom Of Information lawsuits
pEnding regarding the Kennedy assassination.
w. That AJ Weberman baa apent hundreds of hours doing research
in the FBI/FOXA Reading room.
WW. Th.at AJ Weberman'• work in 9arbology has been published

in Glamour, Rollinq Stone, :Ingenue, Ba~uire and that he
has appeared as a guest on the Tom Sny er Show, m:al People
and David Swsskin4.
xx. That AJ Weberman ea.ms his lirilihood as a writerJresearchwr.
YY. That AJ Weberma.n baa not grown rich from the publication of
the book in question.
zz. That other books published by ~rd Press include books
written by David Ben Gourian and Sheik Yamani of Saudi
Arabia.
AAA. Th~t Coup D'Etat i• not written in a prima facia malicious
manner.
BBB. That Coup D'Etat. contl.&ias no obscenity.

CCC. That AJ Weberman was i.n touch with members of the Cuban
exile oommanity for aource information.
DOD. That Weberman visited several documents repositories to
research federal court cases.
EEE. That Weberman has never been previously convicted of libel.
ISSUES OF FACT AND ISSUES OF LAW TO BE LITIGATED
1. Defendant contends that there is no genuine issue of law

to be litiga t ed since t he p l a intiff has ~adE no c as~ againE ~
the d efendant, judging frorr d e pos itions , affidavits etc.
I;
I
I Standard. Of Malice
l. Plaintiff must prove that defendant t...new the •trainps" were

not Hunt and Sturgis yet published anyway in order to
urt Bunt and Sturgis ,na. ce~eJ, them erabarassment and pain.
cJR~ IC/wJ,ht1o1,,1 ~ {c"4.AI
e was not in Dallas on November 22,
1963 and \~
,.--.-..--..:v~~~.-.~~~~~~~~.-~~~--'-<----'-'~~
Pla ntit auat prove that even thoughtthe Kennedy assassinat.io
is a topic of vreat public interest and btportance defendant
is Weberman wa• not within his right of freedom of press and
apeech in publishing aaid work.
4. Any •tan<1ard of IDAJ.ioe eovar~ in defe~dont's ammended
utaan for aUJ!IPM'ry ju4qme.nt.
LIST OF WITNESSES AND £XHZaIT5
11. All attachment.a to Motion For Summary Judqment- Ammended.

2. All attachments ~o 0.epo£itions including overlays submitted
durin9 Shaneyfeldt deposition.
I. Marita Lorenz'• FBI file. 5~ \
4. All attachments aubmitt;ed with Motions for Mmiaaions
incladinq !,'BI 4ocumenta on •tramps•.
S. Co111es of Coup D'Etat for the jury.
6. Blow-up• of tramp-ahot d()c4)oring an~ ' varioltB photovomParieons
7. Hovard Bunt income tax rett.irn8, 1975 to pre•ent.
8. Ltr to AJ Weberaan frem CXA dated 25 Oct 1977.
9. The Third Pr••• Review Sept 1975 p 58-61
10. Newsweek Apr 11 19 7 S p 37
11.N•w York Po•t 24 March 1975 Carl Rowan
12. FBI t MM 87-8756 23-31
13, HJ.and Berald. 13 March 1975 page B-0
14. FBI 162-109060-4366

15, S£Otl.ight 14 A\lg'aat 1978 p S
16. oepo•tton of Thomas Holt peges 2-6
/
, 17. Xnquiry 5 March 1979 pages 15-22
,I
,,.f...
I 18. New York Time& 20 July 75- artil:h on Okpaku.
I
19. Review of Coup D'Etat from Publiehers Weekly
20 , Book6 ~est p r ogr a r
21 . Vario~ sarticlee r egar d ing Dick Gregory a nd the tramp

shots inc. NY Pos t 5 Feb ruary 1975.
Wil!liESSES
l. see Expert Resumes.
2 . Gail Beagle
3. Troy Gustavson
4. James Wilde
s. Mike Canfield
6. Joe Ok pat.u
AMMOUNT OF ATTORNIES FEES
1. Defe ndant possess 4oaene of reo6ipts for co3ts of liti9ation

which will be submitted at appropriate time.
EXAMINATION OF '!'RIAL EXHIBITS
1. Defendant will be meeting with Ellis Rubin on 6 Jan. 1980.
Datedi 5 Jan 1980

NYC -• respectfully abbmi~d
A!k"'q J
SIX BLEECKBR STREET
NEW YORK , NEW YORK
10012
212-477-6243
-' , CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

' .
I HEREBY c.ER1'IFY that a copy of the above UNILATERAL

/.
• I PRE-TRIAL STIPULA.TION was delivered to Ellie Rubin on this
.
!' 1'.
' the 6th day of January, 1981 by hand~
.. \
l
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRI CT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORI DA
..
Plaintiff,
Civil Action # 76-1252-EBD

vs.
ALAN JULES WEBERMAN et. al. INTERROGATORY TO PARTY
Defendants.
Defendant, Alan Jules Weberman, pro se, presents the follow-
ing questions to E. Howard Hunt, in accordance with Rule 33,
Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure:
1. What is your evidence that Coup D'Etat in America was written

with malice?
2. Did defendant manifest his malice against you prior to the

publication of book, hereon known as Coup D'Etat?
3. What is your evidence that Coup D'Etat was written with

reckless disregard for the truth?
4. What is your evidence that defendant believed the conclusions

of the Rockefeller Commission?
5. If defendant believed the conclusions of the Rockefeller

Cormnission, why did he include a critique of it in Coup D'Etat?
6. Which issue of Time Magazine was photo-report on ''tramp shots"

published?
7. What is your evidence that def~ was aware of this report?
8. What is your evidence that defendant would have believed·

Time Magazine, had he in fact seen such a photoreport?
9. Are you aware of passage on page 3 of Coup D'Etat where author

voices suspicion that Time Magazine reporter sent to interview
him may have been employed by the CIA?
10. What is your evidence that defendant harbored "serious doubts"

as to the veracity of Coup D'Etat?
11. Does defendant's efforts to promote a Congressional investi-

gation of the Kennedy assassination constitute malice?
12. Does defendants work for Congressman Gonzales or his associ-
ation with the office of Senator Schweiker constitute malice?
- - -- - - -
13. Are you a public figure ?
14. Were you a public offical in November, 1963?
15. What evidence exists that defendant fraudulently stated his

beliefs in coup D'Etat?
16. What evidence do you possess that defendant, knowing the

tramp story was false, intentionally attempted to injure
you?
17. How was defendants research deficient?
18. How did defendants manifest reckless disregard for the

truth?
19. Did the Ervin Committee ask you to testify about the JFK
assassination?
2.0. Did the Church, Rockefeller and/or House Select Committee

on Assassinations (HSCA) ask you about the Kennedy slaying?
21. Has the FBI or another government agency ever questioned

you about the Kennedy assassination?
22. Has the FBI or another government agency . ever questioned

you about a conspiracy to assassinate Omar ToDrijos?
23. Has the FBI or another gover~mental agency ever questioned

you about a planned assassination of Jack Anderson?
24. Has the FBI or any other government agency ever questioned
you about the shooting of George Wallace?
I
I
25. Has the FBI or any other government agency ever questioned
you about the incident at Chappaquidick? I
· 26. if the answer to any of questions 19-25 is yes, please
supply details of interogation .
27. How do you account for the fact that in 1963 Manuel Artime,
Bernard Barker and Pedro Diaz Lanz were all close friends
of yours and close friends of Frank Fiorini Sturgis, yet
you never met Sturgis? I
28. What evidence do you possess that indicates defendant did
not or does not trust the integrity of Tad Szulc?
I
I
29. Why did the FBI conduct a complex investigation of the tramp
shots if they were, in relation to a connection with you,
!
prima facia, false?
I
30. Does the short tramp look anything like you?
31. Why did you change your alibi for November 22, 1963 during
I
I
your last deposition? I
32. was it because you were under the impression that I had !l
33 . :::a:::r:r~a::i::h:::::g ever telephone me at your direct or

indirect instigation?
I,
l
I
!
i
I
!
-------~--- ---- - - ----· -

34. Were you ever made aware of the fact that I had told Jerry
Hemming that I had loca ted Mr. Wah-Ling and he did not
remember you being in his store that day?
35. Did Frank Sturgis, who is in contact with Jerry Hemming,

ever inform you about aforementioned telephone conversation?
36. Did he .give you a tape of this conversation?
37. Are you now aware that I have not as yet located Mr. Wah-Ling
but told Jerry Henuning this so that i t would be relayed back
to you and possibly shake-up your alibi?
38. What is the result of Ellis Rubin's investigation into the

alleged Marita Lorenz I A.J. Weberman conspiracy to murder
Frank Sturgis and defame plaintiff?
39. What witnesses do you intend to call if instant matter comes

to trial?
40. Why have you failed to depose Joesph Okpaku or Dick Gre_gory?
41. What have your legal fees been to date?
42 ~· Do you intend to sue any of my other witnesses, aside from

Victor Marchetti?
43. Describe your ulcer condition? What kind of food must you
eat as a result of it?
44. Is G. Gordon Liddy telling the truth in his book Will in

regard to your part in an a lleged plot to kill or discredit
Jack Anderson?
45. Did G. Gordon Liddy evidence any Nazi tendencies when you
knew him?
46. What was the precise date when you first met Frank Sturgis?
47. Why did you state that you won this lawsuit on national
television?
48. Didn't Mr. Rubin t e ll you that there was obviously no default
judgment since we were trying to depose you while you were
still in Eglin and Mr. Rubin had moved for a protective order?
I
49. By making this statement were you trying to injure my reputation
so that i t would be more di.fficult for me to earn a living as
a writer?
SO. What was your motivation in making the aforementioned state-

ment?
51. Did you ever "float false news stories" when you worked for
the CIA?
52. We re you tra ined in producing malicious s torie s to injure

th e r e putation of those opposed to Ame rica's national
i nterests while you were an official in the CIA?
53. Why did you c a ll Micheal Canfield a "car theif" ?
54 . Wha t was your evide n c e that Mr. Canfi e ld wa s a "ca r the if"?
-· .... -
55. Do you think that an allegation of this nature might injure
his reputation as a fundamentalist Christian Minister?
56. Are you willing to sign a Privacy Waiver so that I can find
.out which U.S. Marshalls you.had contact with at Eglin?
57. When did you first meet David Atlee Philips?
58. How.closely were you associated with him in the CIA?
59. How long did or do you know Mr. Philips?
60. Did you know Antonio Veciana of Alpha-667
61. Have you ever admitted to being a perjurer?
62. Did you ever bear false witness?
63. Were you ever involved in burglary?
64. Were you ever involved in the illegal iRterception of

communications?
65. Were you ever involved in bribery, specifically distribution

of "Watergate hush money"?
66. Were you ever involved in forgery?
67. Were you ever involved in an adulterous affair?
68. Were yo.u ever involved in political espionage?
69. Were you ever involved in a coup D'Etat against a foreign

government?
70. Were you ever involved in a Coup E'Etat against the govern-
ment of the United States of America?
71. What are your criminal convictions?
72. What was the nature of the Judgement that was entered in
Hunt vs. National Tattler?
73. When did you first meet your attorney, Ellis Rubin?
74. Has the mass media ever associate'd you with assassination?
75. Are there any articles associating you with the Kennedy
assassination that the defendant is not ''behind''?
76. Please provide as much information as you can regarding

''Hank Sturgis'' of 'the OSS?
IN ACCORDANCE WITH Rule 33 .(a), Federal Rules of Civil
P.roceedure, plaintiff has thirty (30), days in which to answer this
interrogatory, or to lodge object·ions to the questions contained
herein.
Dated 14 July 1980
New York, New York A WEBJ¥RMAN pro se
6 Bleecker st.
N.Y .C. 10012
Tel: 212-477-6243
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE: I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct
copy of the above interrogatory was mailed to Ellis Rubin, 265 NE
26th Terr., Miami, Fla., this the 14th day of July l~O
{l!z__.~li 'L~
IAWRENCE FRIECMAN
Attorney at Law
1875 N. E. 163rd Street
Miami , Florida
July 28 , 1982
'lhe Honorable Edward B. Davis

United States District Court
Southern District of Florida
300 N. E. 1st Avenue
Miami, Florida
Re: E. Howard Hunt, Jr.
Vs : A.J . WP-l::.erman, et al
76-1252-EBD
Honorable Sir:
I, Lawrence Friedman, am duly licensed and admitted to practice law
in the State of Florida for the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida . I have an office located at 1875 N.E . 163rd Street ,
Miami , Florida, Telephone {305) 945-7696.
This is to acknowledge my consent to being the named designee for
Bruce E. Stahl for his limited appearance as counsel for the defendants in the
above captioned matter.
Very truly yours,
LAWRENCE FRIEJ:MAN
LF :aa
cc : Mr . Ellis Rubin
265 N. E. 26th Terrace
Miami , Florida 33137
..
.'f:-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURI'

for the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FIDRIDA, MIAMI DIVISION
E. J-ICWARD HUNT , JR . ,
Civil Action Fil e No.:
Plaintiff , 7 6-12 52-<::IV- EBD
- against -
THE THIRD PRES5--00SEPH OKPAKU
PUBLISHING CO. , INC . , a New York APPLICATION PURSUANI'
Coqx:>ration , JOSEPH OKPAKKU , 'IO CX>URI' RULE 1 6 ( D)
MICHAEL CANFIELD, and ALAN J.
WEBERMAN,
Defendants •.
S I RS
PLEASE TAKE NOl'ICE, that upon the annexed affirmation of BRU::E E.

STAHL, dated the 4th day of August , 1982 , and UJ.X)n the annexed exhibi ts , and
upon all of the prior ·proceedings heretofore had herein , the undersigned will
move this Cburt for the Southern District of Fl orida , 300 N. E. First Avenue ,
Miami, Fl orida, for an order, pursuant to Court Rule 16(D), granting my

application for limited appearance , and for such other and f urther relief as
to the Court may seem just and proper .
Dated : August 4, 1 982

Yours , etc .
KAT'Z , KAT'l & ERASMOOS

Attorneys for D:!fendant ,
WEBERMAN
Offi ce & P . O. Address
130 William Str eet
New York, New York 10038
'IO : ELLIS S. RUBIN (212) 227-0001
265 N. E. 26 Terrace
• .•
.t::-
UNITED srATES DISTRICT COURI'
for the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA , MIAMI DIVISION
E • HCMARD HUNT I JR . I
Civil Action File No .:

Plaintiff , 76-1252-CIV-EBD
- against -
THE THIRD PRES8-JOSEPH OKPAKU

PUBLISHING co. , INC . I a New York
Corporation , JOSEPH OKPAKKU ,
MICHAEL CANFIELD, and ALAN J .
WIBERMAN
~fendants .
BRUCE E. srAHL, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the
Courts of the State of New York , affirms the following under the penalties of
perjury:
'Ihat I am counsel to the firm of KATZ , KATZ & ERA~OUS , and submit
the within application pursuant to Court Rulel6(D) for an order granting me
limi ted appearance .

I have been requested by Mr . Weberman and the other defendants , to
r epresent them in the above captioned matter, which has been scheduled to be
tried before the Honorable Edward B. Davis , some time during the tv.o week
period cormnencing on August 23 , 1982.

,
I am currently admitted to practice law in the Conmonwealth of
Massacchusetts, the State of New York , the United States District Court for
' , the United States District court , Southern
the Corrrnonwealth of Massachusetts
District of New York and the United States District Court, Pastern District of
New York.
I would most respectfully request that I be granted license to make
a limited appearance for the trial of the above captioned matter .
I wish to designate ' a member of the bar of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida by the name of Lawrence
Friedman, who maintains an office at 1875 N.E. 163rd Street , Miami , Florida
(Telephone Number 305-945-7696).

Upon information and belief , attached as an exhibit is a copy of a
letter already sent by Lawrence Friedman , Esq., to the Court consenting to his
being the named designee for myself for a limited appearance as counsel for
the defendants in the above captioned matter.
WHEREFORE , it is respectfully requested that the within application
for limited appearance pursuant to Court Rule 16(D) be granted, and for such
other and further relief as to this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated : August 4, 1982
BRUCE E. STAHL
KATZ , KATZ & ERASMOUS

Attorneys for D:?fendants
Office & P.O. Address
130 William Street
(212) 227-0001
- 2-
KATZ, KATZ 8 E RASMOUS
AITORNEYS AT LAW
130 WI LLIAM STREET
MA.NU.EL L . KATZ N EW YORK, N. Y. 10038

HAROLD M. FISH MAN, P. C.
H.ER..B.ERT W. KATZ
l2121 227-0001 MARK J. GOLD
SAMUEL ER.ASMOUS U980·1982l
12121 233-8 110 CA ROL HECHT KATZ
STEPHANI E C. BR.AN D BR UCE EVAN STAH L
ELIZABETH D . .SCHRERO ST.EVEN ). M INES
GERALD INE ). COULD COUNSEL
JUDY L. GOODSTE IN
August 4 , 1982
Honorable &!ward B . Davis

United States District Court for
the &'.)uthern Distric t of Florida
300 N. E. First Avenue , Courtrocm #5
Miami , Florida
Re : E. Ibward Hunt , Jr.
Vs : Alan Jules Weberman , et al
Court Fil e No. : 76-1252-CIV-EBD
Honorable Sir:
Enclosed is my application pursuant to Rule 16(D) to make a limited
ap.PE=arance in the abJve captioned matter in the capacity of counsel for the
defendants .
'lbanking you in advance for your kind consideration of my
application .
Very t r uly yours ,
BRUCE E. STAFIT...
BES :aa
En~losure
I
\
UNI~E D STATES DISTRICT COURT
\
FOR THE
E. HOWARD HUNT, Jr.

Plaintiff
Civil Action
vs. File # 76-1252-EBD
A.J. WEBERMAN, et. al.

MOTION TO CONDUCT PRO SE
Defendants. PROCEEDINGS
----------------------------x
Now comes the Defendant, A.J. Weberman, and prays that
this Court grant him the right to temporarily defend himself
in the final discovery stage of this instant matter. It is
understood that in accordance with local rules of proceedure
the other defendants will still be represented by Mark Friedman.
It is also understood that A.J. Weberman, et. al. will still
be represented by Marvin Miller of Alexandria, Virginia and
by David Micheals of New York City and Jann Brown of New
York City.
DATED: 18 April 80 y submitted

N.Y. , N.Y.
?____
copies sent to:
MARK FRIEDMAN
ELLIS RUBIN NEW YORK, NEW YORK
(212) 477-6243
'
11f1 l'l'l:ill Wl'l\'1'l:i!i 111ti'i'I•I1"1' 1'111111•1·
FOR THE
E. HOWARD HUNT, Jr.
Plaintiff
Civil Action File
#76-1252-EBD
vs.
A.J. WEBERMAN, et. al. MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
CONDUCT PRO SE PROCEEDINGS
Defendants.
COMES NOW the Defendant, A.J. l'/eberman, and submits this
memorandum of law in support of Defendant's motion to conduct
pro se proceedings.
In Weberman vs. National Security Agency (USDC-SDNY-77-
Civil -5058-CLB) Plaintiff, prose, Alan Weberman, was.granted
an order to compell the NSA to release a requested document
denied Plaintiff under the Freedom Of Information Act.
In Gideon vs. State of Florida (US Supreme Court) a pro
se Plaintiff, Clarence Gideon, established the right.of criminal
Defendants to have a lawyer of their choice present at certain
stages of criminal proceedings.
In USA vs J'erry Patrick Hemming (USDC-SDF- 7 6-3 71-CrCA)
Defendant, Jerry Hemming, was granted the right to defend himself
in a serious criminal case.
Wherefore, upori the foregoing principles as applied to the
facts herein, Defendant, A.J. Weberman, respectfully prays that
this honorable Court grant him.the right to temporarily
defend himself until instant matter comes to trial.
DATED: 6 MAY 1980

N .Y. , N. Y.
~
""'""".,-~T'i<,,,..._7,W~E~BYE""'R!n'1A""N.,-
S IX BL• ·CKER STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-EBD
E. HOWARD HUNT, Jr.

1.
I ~ . -- ....
Plaintiff, I
I
0 R D E Ri
-- _--------·
(
~-~ ·.
-v- -. - -
A.J. WEBERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER has come before the Court on the motion of

the defendant, A.J. WEBER11AN, to conduct discovery on a pro~
basis. The Court has reviewed the motion and finds it to be in

Order. Therefore, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED.
1980.
")11
DONE AND ORDERED this /;:, day of
) JL;
!-~~~~··~--
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
CC: A.J. Weberman

Ellis Rubin Esq .
--
E. HOWARD HUNT, FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-SMA
vs .
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
ALAN J. WEBERMAN, REQUESTING SANCTIONS
Defendant.
COMES NOW, the Defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN and submits this

affidavit to this honorable Court in support of Defendant's
Motion Requesting Sanctions.
STATE OF FLORIDA )
) SS
COUNTY OF DADE )
1) I, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, hereby swear and affirm that

as a direct and proximate result of the Plaintiff's noncompliance
with this honorable Court's Order dated March l, 1978, I have
incurred legal expenses for research, advice and work in the
amount of eight hundred ($800.00) dollars. Further, I have
incurred expenses in travel as I flew to Miami from New York
on April 11, 1978 expecting my discovery request to have been
supplied by the Plaintiff so I may further prepare my case
for trial. I will now be forced to travel from New York to
Miami in the future to review the requested discovery materials
if they ar·e ever supplied so I may prepare a proper defense
in Case No. 76-1252-CIV-SMA.
2) I, ALAN J. WEBERMAN further swear and affirm that
these delays in the supplying of the requested materials
in the Discovery Order have caused my reputation as an author
and researcher to be injured, my earning capacity to be
diminished and have caused me pain and suffering of the mind
as I am unable to disprove the charges alleged against me by
the Plaintiff unless I am supplied the said discovery materials.
Before me personally appeared ALAN J. WEBERMAN, who, being duly

sworn, deposes that the foregoing affidavit is true and correct
to the best of his ability and knowledge.
ALAN J. WEBERMAN
Sworn and subscribed before me this ~~~-
day of April, 1978.
My Commission expires: Notary Public

State of Florida at Large
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 76- 1252-CIV-SMA
E. HOWARD HUNT,
Plaint iff,
MOTION REQUESTING SAN CTIO NS
vs..
ALAN J. WEBERMAN,
Defendaot.

his undersigned attorney and requests this ho norab l e Court to
grant sanctions and as grounds states as follows:
1) Th at on September 9, 197 7, sev e n (7) months ago,
the Defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, in accordance wit h local
rule 10 (I) ( 2) of the U. S. Di stri ct Court for the Southern
District of Florid a, request~d Plaintiff, E. HOWARD HUNT
to supply Defendant with documents and items and specifically
requested Plaintiff's income tax returns for the years, 1973
through 1977 as well as other pertinent documents so Defendant
could dete rm ine whether or not Plaintiff had ac tu a l ly s uff ered
a loss of in come, as claimerl in Plaintiff's Complaint due to
the Defendant' s actions stated in Plainti ff ' s Complaint .
2) Defendan t WEBERMAN made said request so as to
also determine whether or not Plaintiff HUNT had a frivo lo us
case without merits.
3) Plaintiff, E. HOWARD HUNT decided not to grant
Defendant's reques t for discovery or even in form Defendant
WEBERMAN of Pl a in tiff's intenti on t o not pe r mi t discov e ry.
Defendant WEBERMAN, on October 12, 1977 fi l ed with this
honorable court a Motion to Campe ll Discovery, Memorandum
of Law in support of said motion and an affidavit in support
of said motion as grounds for this Court to issue an Order
compelling Discovery.
4) On March 1, 1978, This honorable Court issued an
Omnibus Order, ordering the Plaintiff to furnish di sco very
to the defendant within twenty (20) days therefrom.
E. HOvJARD HUNT, CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-SMA

Plaintiff,
-VS-
ALAN J. WEBERMAN, ..MEMORANDUM

-- -·· ··--·--···-- OF LAW
Defendant.
COMES NOW the Defendant, ALAN J, WEBERMAN, by and

through his undersigned attorney, and submits this Memorandum of
Law in support of his Motion Requesting Sanctions and states as
follows:
(l) Under the federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
RUle 37 (b)(2), the District Court Judge is specifically provided
fails to obey a discovery Order. These sanctions may include an
Order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, dismissing the action
or any part thereof, rendering a default judgment against the dis-
obedient party, prohibiting the disobedient party from introducing
designated 111atters into evidenci or other sanctions as the Court may
deem proper or necessary. Said Federal Rule 37(b)(2) further states
that the Court may require the party "fuiling to obey the Order or
the attorney advising him or both to pay reasonable expenses, in-
cluding attorneys fees, caused by the failure, unless the Court
finds that the failure was substantially justified."
WHEREFORE, Defendant ALAN J. WEBERMAN, respectfully
prays that this Court grant a default in the Defendant's favor or
other sanctions as this Honorable Court deem necessary and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
MARK J. FRIEDMAN
Attorney for Defendant
Miami llr.;ic.h, Florida 33139
r h n 11 <! : · !i :1 ?. - !i 4 o9
71
-- Ai /y .1#
VQ
•'
~-/).,
,.

vJ-o 0
t--1'''
'M l

~
MIAMI DIVISION y 0-
y_~-V '
E. HOWARD HUNT, CASE NO.
~v
76-1252-CIV-SMA
Plaintiff, ~ p~rt
'' rrJP )
-VS- ~~ ·
ALAN J. WEBERMAN, ~
Defen dant.
.. .. . . . ...
COMES NOW the Defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, by
imposed by this Court upon the Plaintiff for the following reasons:
(l) Plaintiff has failed to have the admissions
not authorized to practice law, therefore, a ll matters requested
Paragraphs 7b, 7d, 7e, 7f, 7h, 7j, 7n, 7r and 7t.
including plane fares to New York and Washington and the cost of
Reporters.
(4) Specifically, Paragraph 7b and Paragraph l
of the answers to admissions relating to Paragraph 4g(b) · through
6d of Defendants request for admissions, Defendant is hard pressed
(5) At trial, Defendant would be required to produce
as many as fifty (50) witnesses, merely to establish custodian of
Government Agency.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT IN AND FOR THE SOUTHERN
E. HOWARD HUNT JR~, DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, MIAMI
DIVISION
Plai nitiff,
vs.
CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-SA
THE THIRD PRESS .
JOSEPH OKPAKU PUBLISHING
co ., a New York corporation
and JOSEPH OKPAKU and MICHEAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON
CANFIELD and ALAN J. WEBERMAN DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
and MARIA GARCIA FELICIANO, A PROTECTIVE ORDER
De fendants.
COMES NOW defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, by and through his
undersign e d attorney and states the following reasons and laws
on why the requested Protective Order should be issued.
1. That Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states
that production of documents shall be "data compilations from which
information can be obtained, translated, if necessary, . .. through
detection devices into reasonable usable form" and shal l constitute

" designated documents (including writings, drawings, graphs , charts,
photographs , phono-records. Yet in the Plaintiff ' s NOTICE OF TAKING
DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF TANGABLE THINGS, the Plaintiff requests ,
the d efendant produce:

"File cabinets" as well as all materials
use d in the assimilation of COUP D'ETAT IN AMERICA : THE CIA AND THE
ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY .
2. That nowhere in the Federal Rules of Civil Proce dure does
the law allow a party requesting production of documents to also
be allowe d to document a file cabinet.
3. Also , we request the court to note the case of Lever Bros .
Co. v . Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co. (1941 DC Md) 38 F. Supp 688.
where the cour t stated that to request "all written reports, memorandum,
or other records" is too general and comprehensive .

4. It should also be noted that the location designate d for taking
deposition is solely within the discretion of the court. Tomingas v .
Douglas Aircraft Co., D.C . N. Y. 196 8 , 45 F.R . D. 94.
5. That und er the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Rule 34
(b) , the court is given the power to extend the time to comply with
the requested Productions of Documents . See Warner Brothers Picture
Distributi ng Corp . v . Monroe, (1955, DC Neb) 18 FRD 71 .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN
AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
FLORIDA, MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 76-1252-Civ -PF
Plaintiff,
-vs -
ALAN J. WEBERMAN et al., MOTION FOR PROTECTI ON ORDER
De fendant.
COMES NOW Defendant, A. J. WEBERMAN, and moves pursuant
to the rules for Protection Order from the onerous elements of the
Notice of Takin g Deposition for the fo llowing reasons:
1. Said Notice dated June 10, 1977, does not allow
MR . T'VEBERMAN the opportunity of using the excursion fare airline
ticket which would save him approximately $89 , as no reservations
We re available for the July Fourth weekend on the excursion fare .
Mr. Rubin indicated vacation problems until July 26 , and we hereby
r equest a date of July 26, rather than Ju l y 8 , to take advantage of
the reduced fare and further, to not conflict with Mr. Rubin's
vacation schedu l e .
2. As to the production under this Notice, it is over
broad in that it inc luedes file cabinets which will require a large
van to bring to Dade County. MR. WEBERMAN has research that takes up
rooms and n o t just a fi le cabinet or two. We offer Mr. Rubin the
opportunity to view said files at his convenience as he was to be
in New York in the immediate future. MR. WEBERMAN will bring materials
that directly effect the allegations al l eged to be libe lous, however,
the general discovery required is too e xtensive and is not under
the direc t control of MR. WEBERMAN as far as Se nate Hearings and
file cabinets that may belong in part or whole to othe r p e rsons who
have an interest in the assassination of John F. Kenn edy , a nd other
material from other sources may not be in MR. WEBERMANS'S possess ion.
WHEREFORE, De fendant requests an extention of time and a
specificity of documents du e to extendants cooperation and la ck of
funds.
.-
._, ··- .~··

IN AND FOR THE
)
E. HOWARD HUNT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-SMA
vs. )
)
ALAN J . WEBERMAN, ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
) MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO
Defendant. ) MOTION REQUESTING SANCTIONS
)
)
COMES NOW the Defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, by and through his under-
signed attorney and submits this memorandum of law in support of
Defendant's MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION REQUESTING
SANCTIONS and states as follows:
1) The Defendant WEBERMAN respectfully requests this court to

take into consideration Fed. Rules of Civ. Proc. 26, 37 and local
rule 10 when considering Defendants aforementioned Motion. Defendant
WEBERMAN feels that a review of these said rules would show this
honorable Court of Plaintiff's disregard for the Federal Rules in
this case.
2) -Plaintiff HUNT has fiJiled to comply with Rule 37(d) paragraph
2 which states in its entirety:
"The failure to act described in this subdivision may not
be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is
objectionable unless the party failing to act has applied
for a protective order as provided by Rule 26(c)."
This subdivision specifically applies to requests for inspection
and discovery.
3) In the case of Maldonado v. International Business Machines
Corp., (1973, D.C. Puerto Rico) 62 FRD 203, the District found that
severity of sanction of Court's dismissing plaintiff's Complaint with
prejudice is justified where plaintiffs have failed to comply with
Defendants request for discovery over p_eriod of five (5) months.
WHEREFORE, Defendant WEBERMAN respectfully submits this Memo-

randum of Law in support of his Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response
to Motion Requesting Sanctions.
Re pe~tfu.} ly;ubmi tted,
MA . FRIEDMAN
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
at. "'*''' ,,._.'-"''~ .'
,
,.

foregoing MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE
f .., _.:,..-
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION REQUESTING SANCTIONS has been
I duly served by mail this 15th day of May upon ELLIS RUBIN at
265 Northeast 1 'Z.6th Terrace, Miami Florida.
,,~~-.
-• t•;SM'!liiltS'"-~""-
. . . .O i l . ... --· -- -- _ _ - - ~-
..
·'
-._~ _ _........
_.-=· ----=·__,-=-'-----
IN THC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR
THE 50UTll[RN DISTRICT or FLORIDA
)
E. HOWARD MUNT, )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S
) RESPONSE TO
/\LA N J . ~~EBERMAN, ) MOTION Rf QUESTING SANCTIONS
)
Defendant. )
COMES NOW the Defendant, /\L/\N J. WEBFRMAN, by and throuqh his

undersigned attorney and moves this honorable Court to strike
Plaintiff's Response to Motion RPqucsting Sanctions and for grounds
states as follows:
1) In accordance with Fed. Rulrs of Civil Procedure 37 and
26, Plaintiff, [. HOWARD HUNT, wa s undnr an obligation to either
comply with t he Order within t he specified time or apply for a

protecti ve Order as provided by Rule ?.6(c) . Plaintiff has fai l ed
to act accord ingly by not complying with Rule 26(c) . If Plaintiff
would have informed Defendant ~JEBCRM/\N of his nPed for additional
time to comply with Defend ant's Discovery Reque st eight (8) months
ago, Defendant would not have had to file Motions for Discovery and
Sa nctio ns thereafter. Fu rth0rmorP, Plaintiff did not even bother
to comply with Local Rule 10 which calls for a ll Motions to be
responded to within five (5) days. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant's
Motion Requesting Sanctions for thirty (30) days. Th i s is clearly
in violation of the lo cal rules of the Souther n District of Florida and
further shows this Court of Plaintiff's intent to disregard not only
this Honorable Judge' s Order but also the rules of Procedure, as well.
2) Defendant would further state that Plaintiff's a ll egation,in
Plaintiff's Re sponse to Motion Requesting Sanctions, stat ing that
Plaintiff is not attempting to thwart justice in this cause and i s
attempt ing to obtain said docum0.nts requested,is a <;ham. Under the
Freedom of Information Act, Plaintiff could have obtained his in come
tax returns from the Internal Revenue Ser vic e upon request, within
te~0)~2..· It is important to note that DefcndcJnt ~JEBERMAN
has been waiti ng mor e tha n eight (8) month s for these income tax
r <' Lu r n s t111 d pro o f o F r. a r n i n CJ c; for th 0. fl r r. s r.111 y <'a r . [)cf c 11 d ,rn I.
needs these said records as the said records are the solQ basis
of Plainti ff ' s damage s . Has the Plaintiff HUNT suffered a lo ss
of ear nings as alleged in hi s Complaint or not?
It is the Defendant's contention that Defendant's book has not
injured HUNT's earning capacity but helped it. Without thrsc
said docume nts Defendant is in an unfair position to defend
himself.
3) Plaintiff HUNT ha~ not attach~d any affidavits or letters
showing his having dilliqcntly attempted to obtain these do cu ments .
4) Plaintiff HUNT has failed to answer the discovery request
& Order requesting:
"All ordinances, regulations, rules, stat utes,
customs and practices, and publications upon
which your claim and counterdefenses herein
are made."
5) r l a i nt i f f HUNT d i d n o t s pe c i f y \-J h 0 t h e r o r no 1. o t h e r
docu ments exist upon whi ch Plaintiff's claim and Counterdefcnses
rely up on in accordance with Defendant's request as outlined in
paragraph 3 of Defendant' s Motion for Di sc overy.
WHEREFORE, Defendant WEBCRMAN, requests this Court to

strike Plaintiff HUNT's Respon se to Motion Requesting Sanctions
dnd levy sanctions as this Court sees fit.
R~sprct u l l y subm i tted,
I\ RK J . \JF RI EDMAN
ttorney for the Defendant,
Phone: (305) 532-5409
I HEREBY CERTI FY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

has been dul y served by mail upo11 the Plaintiff's dttorney, EL LIS RUBIN,
at 265 North East 26th Terrace in Miami Florida this 15th day of
May, 1978 .
IN AND FOR Tim SOUTIIBHN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVI SION

Plaintiff,
,.
V ". RESPONSE 'l'O
MOTION REQUESTING SANCTIONS
ALAN J. WEBERMAN,
Defendant.
The Plaintiff, by and through h i s undersigned attorney,

in response to the Motion Requesting Sanctions served on the
Plaintiff's counsel on Ap ri.l l?. , 1978, states as follows:
1. That the items requcr,tcd of the Plaintiff, inclu<ling
Plaintiff's income tax returns for the years 1973 thro ugh 1977,
as well as other documents, are not in the actual possession
of the Plaintiff; however, the items requested by Defendant
are in existence and copies thereof are in the actual possession
of other attorneys r epresenting Plaintiff in the State of Mary-
~~~~--~~~~~~~~~---------------
-·
I and ancl in several Reder.al Court actions in the Di~· t.r.ict of
----
Columbia courts.
2. Plain tiff has requf"nted these other attorneys t o s upply
him with cop i es of the requc>sted items. When they are received
by Plaintiff, they will be immediately sup plied to counsel for
the De fendant herein.
3. Plaintiff woul<l show that he. is not acting in a willful
and deliberate disrc!gard of. rt D.incovery Ortler or even a r e quest
for prod uction of documents by th~ opposing party; nor is the
delay in transmitting the documen t s to opposing counsel an
at t e mpt to thwart justice in this cause.
WHEREFORE, h aving responded to the Request for Sanctions,
Plaintiff would move this Court to deny same.
ELLIS RUBIN LAW OFVICES, P.A .
Telephon~ 5 76-5~
By'J!.l.LI~?R~~N
(,,.t':- .
( i 1. .
'
T m:mrnY CEHTTFY thn t: n true an<l corn·l: t copy of llw Con~ -

r-oinp, wac mailed to MAIU<. J. Ji'ltIJmMAN, F.SQ., 350 Linroln Road,
Suite 4.22 , Miami Beach , Florida 33139, this 12th day of May,
1978.
2 .t.L.
---P,Y:-LIS S. RUBlN ,_____ _
-2-
E. HOWARD HUNT I
.. CASE NO. 76 -12 52-CIV-SMA
Plaintiff, :
.
-vs-
..
ALAN J. WEBERMAN, :
AFFIDAVIT
Defendant. .
.. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . ....
COMES NOW, the Attorney, MARK J. FRIEDMAN, f or
defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, and swears t o the foll owing facts :
1. That on September 9, 1977, MARK J. FRIEDMAN, served
by mail, a request upon ELLIS RUBIN, attorney for the Plaintiff, E. HOWARD
HUNT, requesting that he produce certain documents and materials for
purposes of discovery within thirt¥ (30) days, and said requ est was
neither granted or even answered.
2. Because of the bad faith on the part o f Att orney,
ELLIS RUBIN for Plaintiff E. HOWARD HUNT, MARK J. FRIEDMAN herein requests
an Order permitting discovery upon the requested documents and materials.
/sf /Y)
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Florida MARK J. FRIEDMAN
Atto rney f o r Defendant
Sworn t o and subscribed before me Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Pho ne: 532-5409
this £3_ day of _ o_c.._7_._____ ,.1977.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct c opy o f the
foregoing Affidavit was delivered by mail to the Office of ELLIS RUBIN,

Attorney for the Plaintiff, this /~ day of ocr~1 I 1977.
Is/
Defe~danta. .· '
~lt~ . ff> ••
. ../.:;' '.~.,·I. ;~. .·_.'.,.,..

,·
. ~..
,,
. . ,.
-~ . . . l
COMBS NOW ~. . ' . .. :: -; "~~I f')d tb"toµp hi• und•~•igm~d

-.. , .., • kt,,. · ; ~· · r ·r ~ ''" ·
attorney•• and mo\'••:t:i.jild; '. · · ~ ·" ' ~t·, Purff\Wlt , t() Pa~al Rule
", : .~.·"·": ~~~ ft, 'J~·I,,~ ·~1,, '. .:..,r .,,' h ' • ,
of Civil Pro.c edure· ~~~). .(~~/~i,41~. and l.ule 26(c) for protecti-.e
order and/ or in the ~·e4'~'~ . .. .. .,t·_., I '" ( '.: f
"9r quaehing . .cha '
Dafan~ta'
I !, . : -· ,._. ,. • '• " .
Notice for Taking . riq~!1~·...~~~ . ~l~tn'tift arid/or an Order post-

poning the time f~,,,.t,k1"'!~,.
._..,.. ..
:.,•tlt ·~oeitlon, and a1 reuona there-
fore, state• a• foliotra:. ._..,:.,.. ii, :
·1
1. That t~ ~ll·~~f~~~-~ J;ttlf~ BUNT, 11 ·.pret1etltl7 an I
•.~
inmate at the BgU.a ~~~" ~~:~•ft11':f•t1eWI -t•~ ' Cdp locateCI ·in
~t.
~, • -:·
~
I , .J j
~)
l(, ~ .:.;
t
_,.,)". f
..
~ I • ... , , ~
I
II
. /·•.
'~ ~.-t:t•
.. " .... ... .t' '. '
E lin Florida · ·:i...,4' · , .. )~: 1""', .·~f( 1·
g , • ' ·· ! ·~ ~\··· \•. .··~ '·· .... '
2. \'hat ~'!l'.'1i!ii;.t~ ~~t ~~jiao;1:ei'h1m. .u eo th• I
jurisdicti9n of thl~ ~~ ·~~· ~Jci . . ·.:~-~' .~~· l~led, a Limited 4PP.earanae I

• ·~ · .~ ~ . ~':.. . . ,"" ~ ~(' ~ \ .... u . : ..
herein. The DafendaDt.t·. f»J;,.. ~J·~OQH
!;''.:..,.,. '( '• . ~!
'£
hi~ -d~a~d. atto'rney, i•
o I • .... • •.;-- '
fully aware of the ~P.l-61~t~it'1~'1·· ·~~·~·· U,\ · -ciiif~" ··s.n the abow-mentioned
· ' ·-.-.. .... '. " • ' : 7. .. ,~,.. ' ' J. • .,.. I . : · ~.
correctional inatttu~ton,. {t;Jl'•~·~·~··t•r•l~~- -in d...ding the Plaintiff'•

deposition, . . .. to
.
r~:. ·~..~1t;,,i~~I
. .. . . tb• Mnef~t. of Thirty
~ •;
(lO) day•
I . "<• ' • ' ');4 I • '
.notice in the office .Qt' ·u~ !·t~~-~· f"- tbe n.l.ndot located J.n Miami 1
·• :,' P ;f.1."·~· )· · . ~~~· . ' ''~ '
' "~··\• ,· :~, ~--/ ';1' . . . '• ' .,
. Dade County, Florida .•,,. ; · . ,:·'.'~'II''•· .·.,:.'::
,, ; . ':
., ' .
J. Th• faQt . t~.~~J1~~ ·~
. ··. eu..-
....
. t,
• ~~~, ,J . ~1 ,. ¥ A
t;.t . ny. of Lind.te~ Appearance.
expresses a d~air• t~ ~~Jt.;.~J:~tltf , on~teauea other tha the
jurisdictional laaua "1it~,:·;9~.1~a'te tll~~ ~t. ·~ ·:!.:< ' :.;· ...
0
• f" :j 4), ~ f J. ... "~ ,, )'
requa•ted without ~•'.1~v·~~~ ~~· ,ll~abl• :~ C~t1.

.. .. .. ·i'·,.,.....
.• --, • f' ,... !·' ' , ..... 6 •• •
WHEIEP'OU, Pl.a,~ .PfiJ't!' ' thta ~1• Court •• follow• 1

t ' . ... 11,• • • !-..... ;~ f • • ~ '
l> .,· ." . \ • "it • 1 ·" •
a. To l.imtt -. 9r ~ ~,i:.: ~0etudante dt••qvery until the merit•

•
c ... '" "'.. • \, ·',1, • .J
~,<f\ • • •
.
of this cause are at i'.I,~,:· 'Ii~~.~".:' tq Federal ltule of Civil Procedure
30(d); or. in the a1tefuia~~~ ~~·~· '._': ;·.-:
. . ..
·~ :~ . _ ,~ • ~~ ..f ' 1, '
'" .. v .~I,~ ,\o : \ • .;

•
.. ".
, •• , . ·'
~. ; ,. .. ~
........ , 1> ; , '
. '·
. • .\ ,
..,
,.. .
' f r ' '
: ., .. • •t ~· f..I ·.-:
•· I ,f '
,. ~yt;
<I
... :.,a •• 1: ~ .
""ti' ~:;.f·.·
• '
....• ,..\ ~.
:~- · -~·11 .,. .... , , , ., r , 6
t , •· ~,,,
. . - ~:.:. :.: - .
.,J -
E • .HOWARD llUN'!,.
vs.
MEJioRANDDM .;O'fLAW OH PLAINTIFF'S
MO:r}ON ro,~ ·~llOTICTIVE ORDER
...
·i·
.
! •'
··,·
, I
i
i
!
'..
,
E. HOWARD HUNT, ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
Plaintiff, ) FLORIDA
vs. ) CIVIL CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-PF
JOSEPH OKPAKU PUBLICATION, )

THIRD PRESS, INC., and . MOTTON TO STRIKE,
A. J. WEBBER.MAN, individually, ) MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE" ORDER and
MOTION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF
Defendants. )
4•. ~·~ •• ... . • •.
COMES NOW Defendant and moves as a bove and as grounds and argu-
ments thereon states as follows:
1. That Plaintiff HUNT may be incarcerated for a period ~4~~
ing beyond the term of normal litigation in this matter.

2~ Defendant is not responsible for his incarceration
3. Defendant~s argument as to jurisdiction includ8s an argument
that insufficient nexus with Florida exists to obtain jurisdiction and
these questions can be asked at deposition.
4. Defendant has certain matters signed by or printed under the
name of Plaintiff that would indicate sham or fraud ~n this Court, to wit:
Plaintiff Hill-JTts autobi ~grap~y and quotations therein, where Hunt claims .
said quotes made by him or under his authority, to be the basi s for
libel or slander on his reputation.

5. Defendant would re-notice Hunt for deposition Hithin the rules
and waive costs of the prior deposition ' yet would still face the ques t ion
of who has the burden . of obtaining a Court Order necessary for Hunt to
be in Miami for deposition under F e deral Rules of Civil Procedure 30(A)2
and further, should the Court feel a different place where deposition is
proper (EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE), then who would bear tl·e burden of travel
and costs.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests an Order of this
determining whose responsibility and whose burden it is to obtain a
Special Court Order of the Plaintiff in a Federal Prison when the Plaintiff
instituted the action and the Plaintiff is responsible for a Speedy res-
--
Honnrnbl~ -Court
---
olution to Trial without qelay and Lhe Defendant~ a 1:''. e w York r esident,
must bear not only the burden of a Miami forum in a niatter effecting his
amendme nt rights but must also face the 2~ded burden of an incarc e~~~~ ~
plaintiff .
~espectfu lly s ubmit t ed ,
MARK J. FRIEDMAN
Attorn ey for Defendant
35 0 Lincoln Road Suite 422
T HEREBY' CERTI"FY' that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
:MOTTON · TO STRIKE, MOTIO~ FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER and MOTION FOR DECLATORY
RELTEF, was· mail~d ~o Craig G~ Goodman, Esq ... , El~is.Rub in ~aw Off~ces,
attorney for Pla1nt~ff , 265 N .. E. 26th Te rrace , Miami, Florida, thi s
1 st day of December, 1976 ..
,, ... :-,~ , , ~ , .... ..... .
..;
E . HOWARD HUNT , ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN Ai.~D FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
Plaintiff~ ) FLORIDA
vs. ) CIVIL CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV~PF
JOSEPH. OKPAKU PUBLICATION, )

THIRD PRESS, INC., and
A. J. WEBBERMAN, individually, MEMO;RA.NDU:M- ·OF LAW on DEFENDANT'"S
' 'MOTION'. TO' STRTKE ,
Defendants. ) ' MOTTON' 'FOR PROTECTIVE. ORDER and
. MOTTON FOR'
~ '
DECLARATORY RELIEF
-·
DEFENDANT, as grounds fo~ his Mot~~ns, states that a question that

this Court must resolve at some time exists and defendant adopts the
cases cited by Plaintiff in hi.s rnernoranqum as cent~al to the issue,
Defendant would .add the fact that Discovery is essential and the
obligations of the Plaintiff to attend depositions for this discovery
are also essential~
In cases effecting certain rights, such as divorce, the Court may

bend the rules since it is the Court that is taking the responsibility
for · the family situation that carries on during th~ term of incarceration.
In a libel suit among strangers no parens patria exists of a similar
nature.. Defendants in this cause are in a verge of bankruptcy and with-:.
out the funds to pursue this case or create and carry special hearings
to allow plaintiff to meet his burden of discovery. B~yond this it is
the plaintiff's and not defendant•s burden. To be blunt, Mr Hunt shoul.d
have thought of this before he burdened the Court with his ·law suit in
the first place.
Further, the discovery that the law suit may be ~ sham based on
Hunt's own biography should warn the Court not to be put in a position
of allowing a sham ·P.leading to survive the motion to dismiss and cause
unnecessary expense as well as the chilling ef feet on the .firs!- Amend-
ment rights of the Defendants. I-f Mr. · Justice Do~glas was with us today
he would clearly support the New York Times vs. Sullivan rule that the
Plaintiffs rest their case upon.
•
rn Hannah vs·.. u ..s . . 410 F2D 1049 (1969 D.C . . CIR.), a mental patient
prisioner pursuing a Tort action in Washington, · D.. C .. was unabl.e to attend
t:r;ial,_ Disrnissa,l was vacated because of his financial inabilities st.a ting
that he the plaintiff in the action could make arrangements as .,an indigent.
However, the Court clearly showed that it was the Plaintiff ~ s burden and no
Defendant's to be present for depositions and trial.
Respectfully submitte
MARK J. FRIEDMAN
Attorney for Defendan
350 Lincoln Road
Miami Beach, Fla.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that ~ tru~ ~~d 3or~ect cony of_thP fnr.eu.o.i..n.a~
tHm2~RHMM8~Ib~wF81l B~c~~~<5RY m1t!~t' T ::>'l'KiKE,. MoTJ:ON 7 cm !'RU'r.t;CTJ.--V.t;
wa s mailed to Ellis Rubin, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiff, 265 N.E. 26th
T 2 :;:-:::.::c 2 , Mi a~i ., Flori·::!·a 33137, this 1st . uo.y of December . , . ··1 9;6 ·
•
E. HOWARD HUNT I
CASE NO . 77-1252-CIV-SMA
Plaintiff,
-vs-
ALAN J. WEBERMAN, :
Defendant. MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S

. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. AMENDED COMPLAINT
his undersigned attorney and moves this Court t o dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint filed against him by the Plaintiff, E. HOWARD HUNT,

on the grounds that :
1. The Amended Complaint fails to state a cause o f action

upon which relief can be granted.
2. Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges
that false and malicious charges against the Plaintiff, E . HOWARD HUNT,
were publicized a nd circulated by Marita Lorenz and Defendant, ALA~ J.
WEBERMAN . Paragraph 9 fails to state the time, place of the publica-
tio n that had allegedly occurred as well, in what form t he publication
took shape .
3. Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of Plain tiff's Amend ed ~om -
plaint failed to state a cause of actio n as Plaintiff, E . HOWARD HUN'r
fai ls to once again, specify the time and place when alleged slander ous
and fa lse "matters" were authored and published by the Defendant, ALAN
J o WEBERMAN and Marita Lorenz.

4. In Count three, paragraph 14 of Plaintiff's Amended
complaint, Plaintiff fails to specify when the alleged conspiracy to
deprive Plaintiff of a witness took place.

WHEREFORE , Based on the f oregoing, the Defendant/ Counter-
Plaintiff moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint .

submitted,
_/
!EDMAN
ttorne y for Defe ndant
350 Linco ln Road, Suite 422
Phone : 532- 5409
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct c opy of the
foregoing Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was
mailed to the office of ELLIS RUBIN, P.A., Attorney for Plaintiff,
at 265 N.E. 26th Terrace, Miami, Florida, this -~_3 day of
December, 1977.
' ..


Plaintiff,
-VS-
ALAN J. WEBERMAN, MJ)'10_~_1\_ND_UM OF LAW

Defendant.
COMES NOW the Defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, by and

through his undersigned attorney, and submits this Memorandum of
Law in support of his Motion Requesting Sanctions and states as
follows:
(l) Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rule 37 (b)(2), the District Court Judge is specifically provided
fails to obey a discovery Order. These sanctions may include an
Order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, dismissing the action
or any part thereof, rendering a default judgment against the dis-
obedient party, prohibiting the disobedient party from introducing
des·ignatcd 111ntters into evidence. or other sanctions as the Court may
deem proper or necessary. Said Federal Rule 37(b)(2) further states
that the Court may require the party "failing to obey the Order or
the attorney advising him or both to pay reasonable expenses, in-
cluding attorneys fees, caused by the failure, unless the Court
finds that the failure was substantially justified."
WHEREFORE, Defendant ALAN J. WEBERMAN, respectfully
prays that this Court grant a default in the Defendant's favor or
other sanctions as this Honorable Court deem necessary and proper.
MARK J. FRIEDMAN
Miami llr.nr.11, Floridil 33139
rho 11 r~ : · !i :1 %- G4 0 0
CERTIFICATE\ OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of

the foregoing Memorandum of Law was mailed to the office of ELLIS
RUBIN, Attorney for Plaintiff, at 265 N.E. 26th Terrace, Miami.
Florida 3JJ:l7 , this ').'j____day of -Y!· .. , 19 78.
I ''.;.:,,
•tI
" ' ..
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN
AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
FLORIDA, MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 76-1252-Civ-PF
E _ HOWARD HUNT, JR. ,
Plaintiff,
/-VS-
ALAN J. WEBERMAN et al., MOTION FOR PROTECTION ORDER
Defendant.
COMES NOW Defendant, A. J. WEBERMAN, and moves pursuant
to the rules for Protection Order from the onerous elements of the
Notice of Taking Deposition for the following reasons:
1. Said Notice dated June 10, 1977, does not allow
MR. l'iTEBERMAN the opportunity of using the excursion fare airline
ticket which would save him approximately $80, as no reservations
Were available for the July Fourth weekend on the excursion fare.
Mr. Rubin indicated vacation problems until July 26, and we hereby
request a date of July 26, rather than July 8, to take advantage of
the reduced fare and further, to not conflict with Mr. Rubin's
vacation schedule.
2. As to the production under this Notice, it is over
broad in that it incluedes file cabinets which will require a large
van to bring to Dade County. MR. WEBERMAN has research that takes up
rooms and not just a file cabinet or two.· We offer Mr. Rubin the
opportunity to view said files at his convenience as he was to be
in New York in the immediate ·future. MR. l'iTEBERMAN will bring materials
that directly effect the allegations alleged to be libelous, however,
the general discovery required is too extensive and is not under
the direct control of MR. WEBERMAN as far as Senate Hearings and
file cabinets that may belong in part or whole to other persons who
have an interest in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and other
material from other sources may not be in MR. WEBER11ANS'S possession.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests an extention of time and a

specificity of documents due to extendants cooperation and lack of
funds.
' .
IN AND FOR THE
)
E. HOWARD HUNT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CASE NO. 7 6-12 5 2-C IV -S MA
vs. )
)
ALAN J. WEBERMAN, ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
) MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO
Defendant. ) MOTION REQUESTING SANCTIONS
)
)
,,
,.;,
COMES NOW the Defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, by and through hi s under-

signed attorney and submits this memorandum of law in support of
Defendant's MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION REQUESTING
SANCTIONS and states as follows:
1) The Defendant WEBERMAN respectfully requests this court to

take into consideration Fed. Rules of Civ. Proc. 26, 37 and local
rule 10 when considering Defendants aforementioned Motion. Defendant
WEBERMAN feels that a review of these said rules would show this
honorable Court of Plaintiff's disregard for the Federal Rules in
this case.
2) ~Plaintiff HUNT has failed to comply with Rule 37(d) paragraph
2 which states in its entirety:
''The failure to act described in this subdivision may not
be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is
objectionable unless the party failing to act has applied
for a protective order as provided by Rule 26(c).''
This subdivision specifically applies to requests for inspection
and discovery.
3) In the case of Maldonado v. International Business Machines
Corp., (1973, D.C. Puerto Rico) 62 FRO 203, the District found that
severity of sanction of Court's dismissing plaintiff's Complaint with
prejudice is justified where plaintiffs have failed to comply with
Defendants request for discovery over Reriod of five (5) months.
WHEREFORE, Defendant WEBERMAN respectfully submits this Memo-

randum of Law in support of his Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response
to Motion Requesting Sanctions.
MA . FRIEDMAN
CERTIFICATE Of SER VICE
T HERFBY CER TIFY that il true and correct copy of tl1c

foregoing MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE
PLAI NTI FF' S RE SPONS[ TO MOTION REQUESTING SA NCTIONS has been
duly ser ved by mail this 15th day of May upon ELLIS RUBIN at
265 Nort heast 26th Te rr ace, Miami Fl orida.
.'•
,~~
- -. ' .. -
' ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR
)
E. HOWARD HUNT, )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S
) RESPONSE TO
) MOTION REQUESTING SANCTIONS
ALAN J. WEBERMAN,
)
Defendant. )
COMES NOW the Defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, by and through his
undersigned attorney and moves this honorable Court to strike
Plaintiff's Response to Motion Requesting Sanctions and for grounds
states as follows:
1) In accordance with Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and
26, Plaintiff, E. HOWARD HUNT, was under an obligation to either
comply with the Order within the specified time or apply for a
protective Order as provided by Rule 26(c). Plaintiff has failed
to act accordingly by not complying with Rule 26(c). If Plaintiff
would have informed Defendant WEBERMAN of his need for additional
time to comply with Defendant's Discovery Request eight (8) months
ago, Defendant would not have had to file Motions for Discovery and
Sanction~ thereafter. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not even bother
to comply with Local Rule 10 wh.ich calls for all Motions to be
responded to within five (5) days. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant's
Motion Requesting Sanctions for thirty (30) days. This is clearly
in violation of the local rules of the Southern District of Florida and
further shows this Court of Plaintiff's intent to disregard not only
this Honorable Judge's Order but also the rules of Procedure, as well.
2) Defendant would further state that Plaintiff's allegation,in
Plaintiff's Response to Motion Requesting Sanctions, stating that
Plaintiff is not attempting to thwart justice in this cause and is
attempting to obtain said documents requested,is a sham. Under the
Freedom of Information Act, Plaintiff could have obtained his income
tax returns from the Intern~l Revenue Service upon request, within
ten (10) days. It is important to note that Defendant WEBERMAN
has been waiting more than eight (8) months for these income tax
returns and proof of earnings for the present year. Defendant
needs these said records as the said records are the sole basis
of Plaintiff's damages. Has the Plaintiff HUNT suffered a loss
of earnings as alleged in his Complaint or not?
It is the Defendant's contention that Defendant's book has not
injured HUNT's earning capacity but helped it. Without these
said documents Defendant is in an unfair position to defend
himself.
3) Plaintiff HUNT has not attached any affidavits or letters
showing his having dilligently attempted to obtain these documents.
4) Plaintiff HUNT has failed to answer the discovery request
& Order requesting:
''All ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes,
customs and practices, and publications upon
which your claim and counterdefenses herein
are made."
5) Plaintiff HUNT did not specify whether or not other

documents exist upon which Plaintiff's claim and Counterdefenses
rely upon in accordance with Defendant's request as outlined in
paragraph 3 of Defendant's Motion for Discovery.
WHEREFORE, Defendant WEBERMAN, requests this Court to

strike Plaintiff HUNT's Response to Motion Requesting Sanctions
and levy sanctions as this Court sees fit.
Respect·ully submitted,
ARK J. FRIEDMAN
ttorney for the Defendant,
Phone: (305) 532-5409

has been duly served by mail upon the Plaintiff's attorney, ELLIS RUBIN,
at 265 North East 26th Terrace in Miami Florida this 15th day of
May, 1978.
.
.• I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT I N AND FOR THE SOUTHERN
DI STRICT OF FLORIDA , MIAMI
E . HOWARD HUNT JR . , DIV I SION
Plaini ti f f ,
vs . CASE NO . 76 - 1252 - CIV- SA

THE TH IRD PRESS.
JOSEPH OKP AKU PU BLISHING
co . , a New Yor k co r po r ation MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON
and JOSEPH OKP AKU a nd MI CHEAL DEFENDANT ' S MOTI ON FOR
CANFIELD a n d ALAN J . WEBERMAN A PROTECTIVE ORDER
and MARI A GARCIA FELICI ANO,
Defendants .
COMES NOW defen dant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN , by and through his
undersigned a t torn ey a nd stat es t he fo llo wing r easons a n d l aws
on why the requ ested Pro t ective Orde r s h o uld be i ssu ed .
1. Th at Ru l e 3 4 of t h e Federal Rules of Civil Procedur e states
that produ ction of documen ts s h a ll be " data compilations from whi ch
information can be obtained , t ranslated , if necessary, ... thr ough
d etection dev i ces i n to r eason a b le usable form " and shall con s titute
" d es ignated documents (i nc l uding writin gs , drawings, graphs , charts ,
photographs , phone - recor ds . Yet i n the P l aintiff ' s NOTICE OF TAKING
DEPOSI~ION AND PRODUCTION OF TANGABLE THINGS , the Plaintiff requests -
the defendant produce:

" F i le cabin e t s " as we l l as a ll mater i als
used in the assimilat i on of COUP D' ETAT IN AMERICA : THE CIA AND THE
ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F . KENNEDY .

2. Th at nowhere in t h e Federa l Ru l es of Civil Proce dure does
the l aw a llow a party requ esting production of d ocuments to also
be allowed to document a fi l e cabi n et .
3. Al so , we requ est the cou rt to note the case of Lever Bros .
Co . v . Proctor & Gamb l e Mfg. Co . ( 194 1 DC Md) 38 F . Supp 688 .
where the court stated t h at to requ est " a ll written r eport s , me morandu m ,
or other r ecords " is too gen eral a n d comprehensive .
4. It s hould a lso b e note d that the l ocation d esign a t e d for takin•
deposition is so lely within the discretion of the court . Tomingas v.
Douglas Aircraft Co ., D. C.N . Y. 1 968 , 4 5 F . R . D. 94.
5. That und er t h e Federal Ru les of Civil Procedur e in Rule 34
(b) , the court is given t h e power to extend the t 1me

• to comply with
the requested Production s of Documents . See Warner Brothers Picture
Distributing Corp . v . Monroe , (19 55 , DC Neb) 18 FRO 71 .

•
.
.
WHEREFORE, upon the foregoing legal principles as applied to the
facts herein, counse l for the defendant respectfully prays this
honor ab l e court that the Notice of Taking Deposition of the defendant
in Dade County , Florida be quashed and that this court prescribe the
terms , conditions, time and place for the taking of said d e fendant's
deposition in the future.
Respectfully submitted ,
MARK J. FRIEDMAN
attorney for the defendant
350 Lincoln Road , Suite 422
MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
to ELLIS RUBIN, P.A. Attorney for the Plaintiff, at 265 North East
26th Terrace, Miami Florida 33137
/~l'
MARK J . ' FRIEDMAN
!"""--..-----:,,~··r....,;.,...--------,--~~~··'"'' _,..,......,.,,.~I"'·-··' ..
,.

MIAMI DIVISION
E. HOWARD HUNT, CASE NO.

Plaintiff,
-VS-
ALAN J. WEBERMAN,
Defendant.
COMES NOW the Defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, by

imposed by this Court upon the Plaintiff for the following reasons:
(1) Plaintiff has failed to have the admissions
not authorized to practice law, therefore, all matters requested
Paragraphs
.~
7b, 7d, 7e, 7f, 7h, 7j, 7n, 7r and 7t.
- ,~-

including plane fares to New York and. Washington and the cost of
Reporters.
(4) Specifically, Paragraph 7b and Paragraph 1
of the answers to admissions relating to Paragraph 4g(b) through
6d of Defendants request for admissions, Defendant is hard pressed
(5) At trial, Defendant would be required to produce
as many as fifty (50) witnesses, merely to establish custodian of
Government Agency.
- ...... -
(6) With plane fares nnd witness fees and lodging

fees, this would amount to at least $300.00 per witness for fifty (50)
witnesses. Defendant's resources are limited in that Defendant
hedges on being an indigent, while Plaintiff thorugh his bad faith
in failing to admit or deny these matters, has forced Defendant
into being unable to prove the truth of his claim in a manner ad-
missable in a Court of Law. Plaintiff should be required to
admit or deny official government materinls without delay. Tliis
Court has allowed him delay in producing his financial background
and continued delay in producing the materials above and beyond his
actual tax returns in a prior Order on a Motion to Compel same.
(7) This matter should proceed to a rapid trial
and Defendant should be paid by Plaintiff for the cost of proving
these documents, either pretrial or at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests a pretrial Order that
would allow him costs per Federal Rules for all 111atters, either
admitted nor denied, or unrecollected; or in the alternative,
Plaintiff shall have ten (10) days to either admit or deny those
matters and failure within the ten (10) days would allow costs
if this Court so Orders to be imposed.
FR I EDMAN
~M~A~R-K-J.
Miami ,Beach, Florida 33139
Phone: 532-5409 I
i
I
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of th

I
foregoing Motion for Sanctions was mailed to the office of ELLIS
RUBIN, Attorney for Plaintiff, at 265 N.E. 26th Terrace, Miami,
Fl or i d a 3 31 3 7 , th i s -Z..1>- day of -~u-~-+-----· lg 7s _.
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-SMA
E. HOWARD HUNT,
Plaintiff,
MOTION REQUESTING SANCTIONS·
vs ..
ALAN J. WEBERMAN,
Defendant.

his undersigned attorney and requests this honorable Court to
grant sanctions and as grounds states as follows:
1) That on September 9, 1977, seven (7) months ago,
the Defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, in accordance with local
rule 10 (I) (2) of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, request~d Plaintiff, E. HOWARD HUNT
to supply Defendant with documents and items and specifically
requested Plaintiff's income tax returns for the years, 1973
through 1977 as well as other per ti ne.nt documents so Defe~danf·
could determine whether or not Plaintiff had actually suffered
a loss of income, as claimed in Plaintiff's Complaint due to
the Defendant's actions stated in Plaintiff's Complaint.
2) Defendant WEBERMAN made said request so as to
also determine whether or not Plaintiff HUNT had a frivolous
case without merits.
3) Plaintiff, E. HOWARD HUNT decided not to grant
Defendant's request for discovery or even inform Defendant
WEBERMAN of Plaintiff's intention to not permit discovery.
Defendant WEBERMAN, on October 12, 1977 filed with this
honorable court a Motion to Campell Discovery, Memorandum
of Law in support of said motion and an affidavit in support
of said motion as grounds for this Court to issue an Order
compelling Discovery.
4) On March l, 1978, This honorable Court issued an
Omnibus Order, ordering the Plaintiff to furnish discovery
to the defendant within twenty (20) days therefrom.
1
5) That more than forty (40) days have passed since
th is honorable Court' s Order was i ssued on March 1, 197 8 and
Defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN has not been furnished di sco very
as requested. Defendant further wou ld state that Defendant has
not even been requested, by the Plaintiff, to g rant a continuance
to f u r t he r s upp l y s a i d d i s co v e r y .
6) In accordanc e with the Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rule 37 (b) (2), Defendant requests this honorable Cour t to
grant a default in the Defend ant 's favor or other sanctions as
the Court may deem necessary an d prope r. This Defe nd ant also
requests this Court, re s pectively, to tax the Plaintiff costs
and reasonable expenses that defendant has incurred in these
discovery requests.
7) Defendant also prays this honora ble Court to take
notice to the fact that Plaintiff, E. HOWARD HUNT has shown
bad faith during discovery proceedings in this case at other
times as well. Plaintiff HUNT was properly noticed for depo-
sition for February 3, 1978 and did not notify the defendant
of his inte ntion not to a ppear until that same morning . Thus,
causing the defendent to incur the high expenses of flying
from New York to Miami for a deposit ion that did not occur.
8) Defendant would further s how th i s Court that
Plaintiff's disregard of the reasonable Court Order shows
bad faith and a willingness to deliberatly prevent this
Defendant from obtaining discovery in this case.
9) Du e to the Plaintiff's said d i sregard, Defendant
has incurred hign attorney's fees and le ga l resear c h costs .
WHEREFORE, Defenda nt, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, prays this

honorable court to grant a default in the defe nd ant's favor or
other sancti ons as this Court may deem nece ssary .
Re sp ectful l y submitted,
MARK J . FRIEDMAN,
Attorney for t he Defendant,
Ph one : (305) 532-0253
. ..
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and c orrect copy of the fore going
MOTION REQUESTING SANCTIONS has been duly ser ved by mai l upon
the Plaintiff, through his a t torney , ELLIS RUBIN, 265 N.E. 26th
Terrace, Miami Florida 331 37 thi s - -- day of April, 1978.
MARK J . FRIEDMAN
FOR THE
E. HOWARD HUNT Jr.,

Plaintiff and
Counterdefendant,
76-Civil-1252-EBD
vs.
ALAN JULES WEBERMAN, MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF

Defendant and DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
Counterplaintiff. JUDGMENT
-----------------------------x
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This is an action brought by E. Howard Hunt pursuant to 28 u.s.c.

1332 to obtain a · 2.5 million dollar libel judgment against defendants.
This memorandum of law is respectfully submitted by the defendant in
support of his motion for summary judgment.
ARGUEMENT
'
ONE
.ww...
Arguement One is based on New York Times vs Sullivan, 376 US 254,
270, llL Ed2d 686, 84 s. Ct. 710 (1964). It is supplemented by
Time Inc. v Pape, 401 US 279, 28 L .Ed 2d 45, 91 s. Ct. 633 (1971) which
extends Times vs. Sullivan to appointed public off ica.l s. The applicable
law of Florida in regard to defamation is codified in Palm Beach News-
Eaper Inc vs. Early, 334 s. 2d 50 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1976) cert den. and
in Early vs. Palm Beach Newspaper Inc , 354 So 2d 351 (1977) in which
the Fourth Di strict Court of Appeals held that the principle of Times vs.
Sullivan applies to defamatory actions in Florida. Other applicable cases
include. Gertz vs. Welch, 418 US 323, 342-43, 94 s. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed
2d 789.
ARGUEMENT TWO
t
Davis vs NBC and Novel vs. Garrison are supported by Bon Air Motel
vs. Time Inc., 426 F2d 858 in which the Court re-affirmed the position
taken in Ti.me Inc. vs. McLane:it, 5 Cir 1969, 406 F2d 565 a nd held that
"publications cqncerning matte~s of public interes·t are protected by
the first amendment absent proof of actual malice." Also see Wasserman**
vs Time Inc., D.C. Cir 1970, 424 F2d 920.
ARGUE.MENT THREE
Original Complaint (s): Other relevant case law regarding stories
based on previous stories include Mistrot vs. True Detective Publishin~,
467 F2d 124.
Original Complaint (bb) and (cc): Other decisions regarding the
"doctrine of serious doubt" include Oliver vs. Village Voice, 417 F. Supp.
235 (1976), Hensley vs. Life Inc, 336 F2d 54 ( 1971) and Adey vs. United
Action for Animals, 361 F Supp 457 (1973) all of which resulted in
summary judgment in favor of defendant.
SUMMARY At~D CONCLUSION
.
,.
Other decisions that support Buckley vs. Little include Ocala Star
Banner Co. vs. Damron, 401 U.S. 295, 300-01, 91 s. Ct 628, 28 L Ed. 2d
5·7 (1977); Time Inc vs. Pa~e, 401 US at 290-92, 91 s. Ct 633; Monitor
Patriot vs. Roy, 401 us 265, 274-77, 91 s. Ct 621, 28 L Ed. 2d 35 (1971);
*Micheal McLaney is a casino operator and close friend of Jack Ruby's

close associate, Lewis J. McWillie.
** Jack Wasserman is Carlos Marcello's former attorney.
Greenbelt Cooperaive Pub. v Bresler, 398 US 6 11-12, 90 s. Ct 1537,
26 L Ed 2d 6 (1970); Beckley Newspaper Corp. vs. Hanks, 389 US 81, 82-85,
885 Ct 197, 19 L. ~Ed 2d 248 (1967); Garrison vs. Louisiana 379 US 64, 74,
85 S. Ct 209, 216, 3 L Ed 2d 125 (1964); Henry vs. Collins, 380 US 356,
357, 85 S. Ct 992, 13L Ed 2d 892 (1965).
In each of the following cases, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
entry of summary judgment against a public figure libel plaintiff:
Martin Marietta Corp. vs. The Evening Star, 417 F. Supp. 947 (DC-1976);
Rev. A.C. Spern vs. Time Inc, 324 F. Supp 1201 (W.D. Pa. 1972);
Hutchinson vs. Proxmire, 4 Media L. Rptr. 1016 (7th Cir., June 30, 1978),
aff'g 431 F. Supp. 1131 (W.D. Wisc. 1977); Wolston vs. Reader Digest,
578 F. 2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1978), aff'g 429 F. Supp. 167 (D.D.C. 1977);
Meeropol vs. Nizer, 560 F. 2d 1061 (2d Cir. 1977), aff'g 381 F. Supp
29 (S.D.N.Y. 1974).
The principles relied on by the defendant in its Motion for Summary
Judgment have found expression in several additional cases. In three
cases, £ederal courts have granted, or affirmed the granting of, summary
..
judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff was a pub.lie figure who had
not come foward with clear and convincing proof o f "actual malice".
Arnheiter vs. Random House, 578 F. 2d 804 (9th Cir. 1978) (Navy captain
challenging publication of a book concluding that his removal from com-
mand by superior officers was proper); Vitale vs. National Lampoon,

449 F. Supp. 442 (E.D. Pa. 1978) (woman whose nude photgraph was featured
.... in Playboy Magazine complained of use of her photograph, together with
accompanying comment, in defendant's parody of Playboy; Logan vs. District
of1Columbia, 447 F. Supp. 1328 (D.D.C. 1978) (criminal defendant arrest-
ed in undercover fencing operation challenged newspaper report that he
was one of several arrested person who were using illicit drugs.)
The constitutional privilege of neutral reportage, outlined by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Edwards vs. National
\
Audubon Society , 556 F. 2d 113 (2d Ci r. 1977), was the basis for the
affirmance of the dismissal of a libel claim in Krauss vs. The Champaign
News Gazette Inc., 3 Media L. Rptr. 2507 (Ill. App. Ct . 1978).
Finally, in Karp vs. The Miami Herald, 3 Media L. Rptr . 2581
(Fla. D. Ct. App. 1978) the Florida District Court of Appeals affirmed
the granting of sununary judgment to a libel defendant on the ground
that there was no genuine use of material fact concerning the absence
of negligence.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons defendant's motion for summary judgment
should be granted.
DATED: New York, New York

1980
Respectfully submitted
ALAN JULES WEBERMAN pro se

SIX BLEECKER STREET
NEW YORK , NEW YORK
TEL: (212) 477-6243
.
.,
''.......
~
\
I ,.._..
,,/ s
UNITED STATES DIS T RICT CO URT
SOUTllERN DT S'l'RJC T OF FLORI DA
CASE NO. 76-1 252-Civ-SMA
E. HOWARD HUNT,
Pluintiff ,
vs . Ell!ED
JOSEPH OKPAKU PUBLICATION,
THIR D PRESS, INC., and
A. J. WEBBERMAN , individually,
Defe ndants.
ORDER
'I'HIS MATTER was considered by the Court upon Defendant 's
(A. J. WEBBERMAN) Motion to Dismiss fo r Ins uffici e ncy of
Service of Process, the Limited Appearance an d Denial i n behalf
of the other defendants, JOSEPH OKPAKU PUBLICATION a nd THIRD
PRESS, INC ., which the Court construes as a Motion to Dismiss,
and Plaintiff's Motion for Prq_t ective Order; an d the Court
having examined the memoranda of law and all matters re l ating
t hereto in the Court record, it js th e reupon -
0 1m 1·:1mn · AND ADJUDGED as fo ll ows :
1. De fenda nt's (A. J. WEBBEID1AN) Motion to Quash Se rvice
o f Pr o c c' :-;s be a nd the same is . h crcuy DE N r ED o.nd Defe nd a nt,
A. J. WEBJ3E RMAN, shall file his answer to the compl a int within
'
fifteen (15) days herefrom.
2. The Limited Appearanc e and Denial fil ed herei n by
JOSEPH OKPAK U PUBLICATION and TH! RD PRESS, INC., De fendants,
whi c h t h e Co urt construes as a Moti o n to O i s mis s is here by
Df;:NTED ;1s in sufficien t as a matter o f li1w Dnd Lhc soid Def e nd a nts
s hall fj J e the ir answer to the comp lajnt wi t h i n f iftee n (15)
rl<Jys h c r c fro rn.
3. Plaintiff's Motion for Protec tive Order is h e r e by
DENIED inasmuch as the Court takes jud i cia l notice that th e
Plaintiff is no longer an inmate in prison. Defendants may
notice the Plaintiff for the taking of hi s deposition at
-
••-
-
. . .'-:! ._-
-,~
__. - _,__~r
I
.-
I
- r--
~.·r- ~-___!.~ - - - - ......, .. - - ·--
any time upon not less than ten (10) workin g d a ys re - notice .
DONE AND ORDERED at Miami , Florida this ; ) day of ~pril ,
1977.
~ .Jf. . \ - n
UNI TED STA'I'ES--DIS'I'RICT JUDGE
!) 1t ,. I .~
\ ,:
~\ ~
cc: Mark J. Friedman, Esq .
Craig G. Goodman, Esq .
,.
....- -
-~'f;.11
~1
• I
II !1J
E . HOWARD HUNT , IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Pl.ointiff , PLOT<TDl\
v.
7\T ,l\N ,T. WE!lfo:RMJ\N, CIVIL CASE NO. 76 - 12 52 - CIV - Pf
Defendant.
MEMORl\NDUM OP Ll\W ON DEFENDANT ' S
MOTION TO DIS~ISS
---
COMES NOW the de f endant , ALAN J . WEBERMAN, by and through his
undersigned attorney and s u bmits the fol l owing MEMORANDUM OF LAW on
r-hc ~ defendant ' s MOT I ON TO DISMISS.
1. By the use of Plaintiff ' s, J·:. llOWARD HUNT ' s , quot;::i t ion in
the defendant, ALAN J . WEBER.MAN ' S book , COUP d ' ETAT IN AMERICA: THE CIA
AND THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY , it shows the court that a high
degree of care and research as required by law, was exercised by the
defendant in authoring and publishing the quotation and in fn c t shows
that the defendant did not write the said allegation 4(o) of Plaintiff's
complaint with malice and was not known to be false as the Plaintiff
a lleged. See ~ayne v . Tr i bune Co . 108 Fla . 177 , 146 So.2d 234 (1933),
Miami Herald Publ ishing Co. v . Brautigan , 1 27 So . 2d 718 (Fla . App.) 1961.,
Florida Constitution, Dec l aration of Riqhts, § 1 3.
2. That under the Florida Constitution , Decl aration of Right s ,
~13 provides th a t the fact tha t it was puh l ishrcl for q nn<l mn liv• · .-i ncl
. . \ 1
l >< · I l• 'VC'cl r·o I H' I r\ll' l R i.ln tlhsnlut.r ! ( l'fl~ n:; c •.
WHEREFORE, this defendant moves t l1 is honorabl e court to dismiss
Pl11intiff ' s claim for comp e nsatory , ~xamµlary and punitive damaqcs as
thn Pl a intiff ' s c l aim is a c l aim.
T./\W < >l"l" -1<'l•'. S CW Mf\JJV ."1. l"H I l·: l lM/\N

/\ t Lc>r111•y rn1 · tliL· cl r: f1:11d,llll
3 5 0 Lin co ln Rood , Suti c 42 2
Mi a mi Beach , Florida , 33139
~el ephon e : 53 2- ~ 40 0
·;>/;'/ ',.,
- - -_ (
,·
.
I ~~ , I
/ ._ .,.4 -
/ .
I
I
MARK ,T . 1~ FRIEDMl\N
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a tru e i'lnd corrc c L cop~r of t he• fort•q o i nq
for the Plnintiff at 265 North-East 26t h Te rrace , Mjnmi, r l nr id n 33 1 3 7

I I
,' /
I
- -- T
J. FRIEDMAN
i
M7\RK
--
·•
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURI'
for the
SOUlliERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, MIAMI DIVISION
E . HC::WARD HUNT I JR . ,
Civil Action File No .:
Plaintiff , 7 6-1252-CIV- EBD
- against -
THE THIRD PRESS--JOSEPH OKPAKU
PUBLISHING CO. , INC . , a New York APPLICATION PURSUANI'
Coq:oration , JOSEPH OKPAKKU, 'IO COURI' RULE 16 ( D)
MICHAEL CANFIELD, and ALAN J .
WEBERMAN,
Defendant s .
-- --------- - - -- --- --
SIRS
PLEASE TAKE NCYI'ICE , that upon the annexed affirmation of BRtx:E E.
srAHL, dated the 4th day of August, 1982 , and upon the annexed exhibits , and
upon all . of the prior proceedings heretofore had herein , the undersigned will
· move this G:>urt for the Southern District of Florida, 300 N. E. First Avenue,
Miami , Flori da , for an order , pursuant to Court Rule 1 6(D), granti ng my
application for limited appearance , and for such other and further relief as
to the Court may seem just and proper .
rated : August 4, 1982

Yours , etc.
RATZ , KATZ & ERASMOUS
Attorneys for D:fendant ,
WEBERMAN
130 William Street
'IO: ELLIS S. RUBIN (212) 227- 0001
265 N.E. 26 Terrace
Miami , Fl orida 33137
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURr
for the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FIDRIDA, MIAMI DIVISION
E. HCWARD HUNT, JR. ,

Civil Action File No.:
Plaintiff, 7 6-1252--CIV-EBD
- against -
THE THIRD PRESS-JOSEPH OKPAKU

PUBLISHING CO., Il'lC., a New York
Corp:iration, JOSEPH OKPAKKU,
MICHAEL CANFIELD, and ALAN J.
WEBERMAN
Dafendants.
BRUCE E. STAHL, an attorney duly admitted to practice ·law in the
Courts of the State of New York, affirms the following under the penalties of
perjury:
'Ihat I am counsel to the firm of YillTZ, KATZ & ERAfMOUS, and subrni t
the within application pursuant to Court Rulel6(D) for an order granting me
limited appearance.
I have been requested by Mr. Weberman and the other defendants, to
represent them in the above captioned matter, which has been scheduled to be
tried before the Honorable Edward B. Davis, some time during the two week
period oommencing on August 23, 1982.
I am currently admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Massacchusetts, the State of New York, the United States District Court for
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the United States District Court, S::mthern
District of New York and the United States District Court, Eastern District of
New York.
.. I w:::iuld most respectfully. request that I be granted license to make
a limit~d appearance for the trial of the above captioned matter.

I wish to designate a member of the bar of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida by the name of Lawrence
Friedman, who maintains an office at 1875 N.E . 163rd Street, Miami, Florida
(Telephone Number 305-945-7696).

Upon information and belief, attached as an exhibit is a copy of a
letter already sent by Lawrence Friedman, Esq., to the Court consenting to his
being the named designee for myself for a limited appearance as counsel for
the defendants in the above captioned matter.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the within application
for limited appearance pursuant to Court Rule 16(D) be granted , and for such
other and further relief as to this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated : August 4, 1982

BRUCE E. STAHL
KATZ , KATZ & ERASMOUS

Attorneys for ~fendants
130 William Street
(212) 227-0001
- 2-
- ·- )
)
E. HOWARD HUNT, ) UNI TED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
) THE SO UTHE RN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Pl a intiff, ) MIAMI DIVI SI ON
vs. ~ Cas e No . 76 - 1252 - CIV - SMA
)
ALAN J . WEBERMAN, ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
) MOT I ON REQ UESTING SANCTIONS
Def en da nt . )
)
~~~~~~~~~~~)
COMES NOW the Defendant, ALAN J . WEBER MAN, by and through

his undersigned attorney, and sub mits this Memorand um of Law
in s up port of hi s Motion Reque s ti ng Sanctio ns anf states as
f o ll ows:
1) In General Dynamic s Corp. v. Selb Mfg . Co . ( 1973 ,
CAB Mo) 48 1 F 2d 1204 , cert den. 414 US 1162, 39 L. Ed 116,
94 s . Ct . 92 6 , t he Cour t of App ea ls state d that a party who
does not attempt to exp l ain to the trial c ourt hi s reasons
for non compliance to a n Order within the specified amount
of time to co mply with order, can be deemed to have bad
11
f aith, willfuln ess, 11 or "fault 11 justifying dismissal or
ot her sa nction s as the honorable Court may deem necessary.
2) Under the Federal Rules p f Civil Procedur e, Rule
37 (b ) ( 2 ) , t he Di strict Court Judge i s spec ifica ll y provided
t he pow er to issue Orders dec l a ring sanctions upon a party
t hat fails to obey a discovery Order. The s e sanctions may
includ e an Order str iking out pl eadings or parts thereof,
dismissing the action or any part thereof, re nd e ring a default
judgm ent against the diso be di ent party , Prohibiting the di sobedient
party from introdu cing designated ma tters i nto evidence or
oth er sanctions as t he cour t may deem proper or neces sary . Sa id
Federa l Rul e 37 (b) (2) f ur ther st ates that the Court may re q ui re
11
t he part.v fai lin g to ob ey th e Order or the attorney advi s ing him
or both to pay reaso na ble expe nses, includin g attorneys f ees,
ca used by the failure, unl ess t he Court finds that the failure
was s ubstantially justified. 11
3) ~Jhere a party
has act e d in wi l l ful and deliberate
disregard of a reasonable and ne cessary Cour t Or der and ef f icient
ad min istrat ion of justice, the applicat ion of even so str i ng e nt
-;.i 11 ,· t inn·' .1 s a default are f ull .y s a nct ioned a nd perm i tted. As
s ee n in Trans World Airlines V. Hugh es , ( 1964 , CA2 NY) 332 F2d
602
, -
cert dismd 380 US 248, 13 L. Ed. 2d 817, 85 S . Ct. 934 and cert
dismd 380 US 249, 13 L. Ed. 2d 818, 85 S. Ct. 934.
4) One District Court has a l so suggested that a Court,
while exercising it 1s discretion as to t he va riety of sanctions
avialable for t he failure of a party to comply with an Ord er
compelling di sco very, should take into consideration and
account the f ull record of th e case. See Kri e ger V. Texaco, Inc .
(197 2, DC NY) 373 F. Supp. 108.
5) It was stated in Harrin_gJ:on V. Texaco,~ . (1 964 , CA5
Te x) 339 F2d 814, cert den. 381 US 915, 14 L. Ed . 435, 85 S . Ct .
15 38, that Tri al Judge may tax as costs nece s sary a nd reasonable
expenses in discovery procedures.
WHEREFORE , Defend a nt, ALAN J. WE BERMAN, respectfu l ly prays
that this Court grant a default in the defendant 1s favor or
other sanctions as this honorabl e Court deem necessary and prop er.
MARK J. FR IEDMAN,
Attorn ey for the Defend a nt,
Mi ami 8eac h, Florida 33139
Phon e : (305) 532-5409
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of t he foregoing

MEMORANDUM IF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REQUESTING SANCTIONS was
duly served by mail upon the Plaintiff 1s Attorney, ELLIS RUBIN,
at 265 N.E. 26th Terra ce, Miami, Florid a 33137 t hi s - - -day of
Apri 1, 1978 .
MARK J. FRIEDMAN
,
E . HOWARD HUNT, ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, ) FLORIDA
vs. ) CIVIL CASE NO. 76 - 1252-CIV-PF
JOSEPH OKPAKU PUBLICATION, )

THIRD PRESS, INC., and . . MOTION TO" STRIKE,
A. J. WEBBERMAN, individually, ) . MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE" ORDER and
MOTION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF
Defendants • )
. ..
CQMES 'NOW Defendant and moves as above and as grounds and argu-
ments thereon states as follows:
1. That Plaintiff HUNT may be incarcerated for a period ~~~~
ing beyond the term of normal litigation in this matter.
l~ Defendant is not responsible for his incarceration
3. Defendant•s argument as to jurisdiction includ~s an argument
that insufficient nexus with Florida exists to obtain jurisdiction and
these questions can be asked at deposition.
4. Defendant has certain matters signed by or printed under the
name of Plaintiff that would indicate sham or fraud ~n this Court , to wit:
Plaintiff HUNTts autobi ~gr a?tY and quotations thereir., where Hunt claims .
said quo tes made by him or under his authority, to be the basis for
libel or slander on his reputation.

5. Defendant woul d re-notice Hunt for deposition Hithin the rules
and waive costs of the prior deposition ': yet would still face th~ ques tion
of who has the burden of obtaining a Court Order necessary for Hunt to
be in Miami for deposition under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(A)2
and further, should the Court feel a different place where deposition . is
proper (EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE}, then who would bear tr·e. burden of travel
and costs •.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests an Order of this
determining whose responsibility and whose burden i t is to obtain a
Special Court Order of the Plaintiff in a Federal Prison when the Plaintiff
instituted the action and the Plaintiff is responsible for a Speedy res-
-----
Honc:-irri~ +-~-Court
olution to Trial without d,elay and Lhe Defendant,. a Kew York re·si.dent,
must bear not only the burden of a Miami forum in a n~tter effecting his
amendment rights but must also face the c.1ded burden of an incarce.,...-_""".~"'
plaintiff.
R,espectfully submitted,
MARK J. FRI'EDMAN
350 Lincoln Road Suite 422
r HEREBY' CER.TI·py· that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
MOTI'ON · TO STRr~<E r MOTTON ::fOR PROTECTIVE ORDER and .,MOTIO!;i FOR DEC~TORY
RELI'EF, .w as· mail~d t-o Cr-aJ:.g G, Goodman, Esq._, El~is.Rubin ~aw Off=!-ces,
attorney for Plaint~ff ! 265 N._E. 26th Terrace, Miami, Florida, this
1st day of December, 1~76 ._
' ' ·.. ' :- '
~ ~ ' :. ... . . ' .
).. ~ ~
E - HOWARD HUNT,
Plaintiff, IN ili~D FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
) FLORIDA
VS.
CIVIL CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-PF
JOSEPH. OKPAKU PUBLICATION, )
THIRD PRESS, INC., and
A. J_ WEBBERMAN, individually, l'1EM0Pl\NDUH. OF LAW on DE~,ENDANT 'S
' MOTTON'. TO' STRTKE
Defendants. ) 'M;:;;:;;O'°'TT"'""o""N'
· ""'P"'o"'R"''"'.P=-R=o::::T:;;ECTIVE' ORDER and
. MOTTON FOR' DECLARATORY RELIEF
DEFENDANT r as grounds fo;i; his Moti.ons, states that a question that

this Court must resolve at some time exists and defendant adopts the
cases cited by Plaintiff in his memoranqum as central to the issue,
Defendant would .add the fact that Discovery is essential and the
obligations of the Plaintj,ff to attend depositions for this dj_scovery
are also essential.
In cases effecting certain rights, such as divorce, the Court may

bend the rules since i t is the.Court that is taking the responsibility
for the family situation that carries on during the term of incarceration.
In a libel suit among strangers no parens patria exists of a similar
nature. Defendants in this cause are in a verge of bankruptcy and with-;::·
out the funds to pursue this case.or create and carry special hearings
to allow plaintiff to meet his burden of discovery. Beyond this it is
the plaintiff's and not defendant' s burden. To be blunt, Mr Hunt shoul.d
have thought of this before he burdened the Court with his law suit in
the first place.
Further, the discovery that the law suit may be a sham based on
Hunt •·s own biography should warn the Court not to be put in a .position
of allowing a sham P.leading to survive the motion to dismiss and cause
unnecessary expense as well as the chilling effect on the .firs~ Amend-
' the De f en d an t s.
ment rights of I·f '-lr.
c · Justice Do"uglas was with us today
he would clearly support the New York Times vs. Su-llivan rule· that the
Plaintiffs rest their case upon.
Tn Hannah vs .. u .. S •. 410 F2D 1049 (1969 D.C,CIR .. ) 1 a mental patient
pri sioner pursuing a Tort action in Washington,· D ., C .. wa~ un~b~e. to attend
t ria· 1 Di.. smissal was vacated because of his financial inab:Llities stating
. ' . . d. t
. h. th laintiff in the action could make arrangements as.an in igen -
that .e e P . .- d A t
However, the Court clearly showed that it was_ the Plainti:r:f "s bur en an_ no
Defendant"s to be present for depositions and trial. Respectfully submitted
E . HOWARD HUN'r , JN 'rJIE l.INI'l'ED S'T"l\TES DIS'l'RICT COURT
IN l\ND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
Plaintiff, FLORIDA
vs :
ALAN J. WEBERMAN, CIVIL Cl\SE NO. 7G - 1252 - CIV-P F
Defendant ,
MO'l 'TON '1'0 D TSM 1SS
CO MI·: ~; NOW the d c ff~ n<l tin t , l\Ll\N ,J. \\TEBEl{Ml\N, by <1 nd throuqh his
undersigned attorney and moves this honorable court t o dismiss the
plaintiff ' s claim for compensatory, examplary and punitive damage s and
as grounds therefore states the following:
1. That the Plaintiff ~s complaint is a sham and should not
he~ L<.1k c n ;;r~ r. i o usl y as allegation 4 (o) of the p l a. in ti f E ' s comp la int
;i 11 c ~ q e:-; :
"Whc ~ n l!unt work f~ ct in t h e offic: c of Polir y Coordi nati on ,
t h e predecessors of the C.I.A., one of hi s ma i n inter -
ests was to reverse Italy's l e ftward politica.l tr e nd and
defe at the communists at:· the polls ". (Page 36)
"Again referring to the plaintiff, whi c h is o utrag eo usl y
false and maliciously writte n".
and was t aken fro m from, by the de f e nd ant , l\Ll\N .T. vTF.nERMl\N , th e p 1.1 i n t i f F ,
E. HOWARD HUNT's autobiography entitled " Underscover , the me moirs of an
l\ mr!d can Sr,cro t 1\gent" , paqc 67, paruqraph 3 which is publi s hed by
11
/\top pr io rity was qc ttin ~ 1 on OPC c hi ef to l~omc , where
Il ls i nitial mission was to ,.revers e Italy's leftward po l-
i L icn l trend and d e feat the communists ot t1w po l ls in
I . he~ i. mmi n e nt Italian cl0ct ions."
2. That by the plaintiff's allegation of libe l in the use o f
the above quote from the claim tak en from the Plaintiff ' s own a ut o -
biography clearly s~ows that the Plainti f f' s complaint is a s h am and
s hould be dismissed from this honorabl e c o u rt .
3. '!'h ut by the Plaintiff' s own t1! ;1· or tlw ;ihovt! quo l l', i t-
s h ows t h e c o urt t hat his claim fails to scl for t h ,, c a u se o f action
upon which a ny sort of relief may be qranted.
WHEREFORE this defendant moves this honorabl e co urt to dismi ss
Plaintiff's claim for compensatory, examp l ary and punitive damag es herein.
l, /\W OF' F'T CF. S ()fo' Ml\IU\ :T. Frn r.nM ,\N
I\ t I O l"lll ' Y 1 0 1· th e tl1 ' r ( '!Hl.-1 11 t
\ 'iO I. i rwol n Ho . cl, ~ ll i h' · 1 2:~
111 ~~1 ~/'.I ~~\\I1
\'I
MARK J 1~ IEDMAN
'I
Defendanta.
·1
l
j
lI·
. ,,.' '
. ' : ~~
...
!:-:••
...
• •• J.'
, I
'•
' 1
..
j•
~
.·
'~ ..
,,...
· , 1, . .,
1_;-·
• STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLA
NO 7,!).-1252-CIV-PF
. ) '
.~ . ,·
'
I
'
r l:Jy and through their undersigned
reasons:
,·
·'·
,..
.'
·"./
···-· .·,' ~ ·. ,.
::..- '
,, . '
-~------- _ ~·1 I
'·. . ".•I. ~ ·
...
:·• ~
.
;t t
:.. .
~
.. '
.. ···~ . : ·r' )
E. HOWARD HUNT, ~ .' ·~· · . I'
IN TijE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN .Ai~D FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
Plaintiff, . FLORIDA
vs.
,. )· CIVIL CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-PF
J.4t ' ' '
JOSEPH OKP~.KU PUBLICAT.ION1~! . )

THIRD PRESS, INC., apd ·
A. J. WEBBER.111AN, ihaividua;t:lY, ) MOTION TO DISMISS
ON THE GROUNDS OF INSUFFICIENCY
OF SERVICK · OF PROCESS.
Defendants. • )
I ••
.f.. , ;;,..
I COMES NOW the Detendant, · Al;AN J. WEBBERMAN, by and through his

• •
~
undersigned attorney,.~ 'anc:f·moveg
. to · strike the complaint as. in accordance
. . . '
with FEDERAL RULES OF : C1'.v.IL PROC$)URE 12B(S) (insufficiency of Service

r1r; ' ~ ' .' i .
...·: •;- . .
of Proce ss) the defendant states Summons .and Complaint were not properly
.'
served as he never arltl'i9rize~ any~ne to accept any papers, mail,
. . ' ,_ . . .. ~ ~
documents, valuables · o~...'a~ticlelJ

• ,......
of
·r .
any type as his agent •
we note the star~ 4eci~is

• . J •• •
ot; • .
Sunbe~m Co~. - v',.' Payless Drug Stor~s

1 (1953, .· D ~ c. · Cal.) 113 F. Supp. 31
·: · ' . "en13.
Bucholz ·y. Hutton
'(1957i' b ; c ·. ;Mont.) 153 F. Supp. 62
• 2'; .~· \ ~~- ' 'I I
where in both cases de~~~lfrft ·had . not been properly served with Summons
and Complaint and

.
p~t,lcti!~~1y
. •
f~
... 1 .. ,
Sunbeam v. Payless Drug _Stores where
l j I.. ~ •• ,, •' •I ' ~\ :
defendant stated in.·:.~n · ~f:!id~vi ~ ·:.that·· the person served was pot an agent
1 l , O I :, ., J o -, O I ' •
of the defendant " and ~~Atxldt7.~.di'r;~ctiy

~
I ' 'I ~11 •.~
~ontroverted. •s.' • i' u":.
There was no issue
. l~"}' .. 1• , .,,.., 11 .. .- . '
of fact before the cou:t~·: ~nd : ·ae_t~ridant '.s Motion to Quash Service of .
., . • l
a~~";:·~o '.~·~ · ?i~issed ~rom

Summons and ComplaiI}.t
"\-' \ ' . . . " .
Find enclosed Ex~i~lt,~"f'-· ·: -:- c;~py of U.S. Mars.hal' s SERVI~- PROCESS
. act.ion was granted.
-:~ I '..
.. ~
'° '\, -~·

,
... ...
.•
·/
RECEIPT and RETURN. , . :,•,_j , ,. • -" . . ' ' ·,

' ! '• ; ••; ...,
.> • t'-. ..
~~·'' ~
f • ~
l'
.•
_!
'
'I •
The affidavit of . ALAN J~ WEBBERMAN is · attaehed in support of the

.= \•• .. . ~·,. ··'..) •
• t I t • •
Motion. ', , :~·,·< -~ ~ . • .. ~\·

~ '"' " .•, • . r ·1·
· .·-~·:."·..,' .,.. . ,...
~ ·J.. · ~~.;( · · . .. Respectfully submitted,
' . ~: ':; ~... : .. ~ ·. ; '
':.'.;,
' .' •"
~·
I~ f. J. FRIEDMAN
MARK •
Attorney for De f e ndant •
AL.AN J. WEBBERMAN
· 350 Lincoln Road Suite 422
·, Miami B~ach, ·Florida 33139
" Phone: 532-5409
. ; r ~ '• . fl .7
' • • • • ~-:. , . . I • t.. •
:· . '£,:' : ,.. .
• ' • •
0
.., t f .. o I "II v "~lo .":, "•~ • •
I HEREBY. CE~T.IF'f,.tha.t\1 ~.'"1:rt4e a nd correct copy of the foregoing

MOTION. TO DISMISS. ON TH~·~:G~Op~~~: ·oF INSUFFICI~NCY S~RVICE OF PROCESS ·
was ma iled to Ellis Rub~l\, . ~sq. 1.• Attorney for Plaintiff , 265 N.E. 26th
o:
Ter..cac e , M:.arri , Ploriefu 4 . j '3137, ' this · day of Nov emb ~r , 1976.
' .
"" ..
f •,• I
i I
IN THE UNITED S'I'A'l'ES DISTRICT

DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
E. HOWARD HUNT,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-PF
vs.
1\. ;J. Wl'lBP.HMl\N I
'\
Defendant. /\ND MO'l'ION 'l'O
/\NS\~8R
~~-DISMISS__ ·-~-
COMES NOW the defendant, /\LAN J. W8BERMAN, by and through his
undersigned attorney and in answer to the plaintiff's complaint, says:
1. with respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of
Plaintiff's complaint, defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN admits that he is
one of the authors of the book entitled COUP d'ETAT IN /\MERICA: THE
CIA AND THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY and that he is a citizen
of the state of New York but the defendant is without the knowledge of
the plaintiff's allegation of the citizenship of the plaintiff.
2. " .
That alleg9tion 2 of the plaintiff's complaint alleging
jurisdiction of the above titled action is denied as the defendant is
with out the kn°~wledge ~f \'/hether or riO't E .. HOWARD HUNT i's ·a cl tizen• of·· · ·.
I
3. That allegations 3 through 7 inclusive of plaintiff's complaint
are denied.
\
' . 4, All allegations not heretofore specifically admitted are
hereby specifically aenied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEPF.lN§_ES
5. fJlhG Clefonc1arit, ALAN lT: WEDERf\11\N ulloqcs that the plaint~_f.f-. 1
E. HOWARD HUNT is barred from recovery as all statements made in COUP
d'ETAT IN AMERICA: THE CIA' AND TH)') ASSASSINATION OP JOHN F. KENNEDY are
the truth and that alJ'. sta'·fements''o'f'·"fac t."i:n C8UP "d' ETl\T IN A~\E'RICA': 'THE .
CIA AND THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN P. KENN~DY have been thoroughly re-
searched as to the valic1ity of the s·aiq statements of fact.
G. MUCh Of the informqtion gatl!ercd in COT!P d'ETAT IN J\MERICI\;
'1'1111 CTI\ AND 'l'Jl r-: /\SSASSINJ\TIOH OP ,JOHN I". 1\I,Nt1RPY were gn the reel from
autobiographiee and books written by tne plaintiff, E. HOWARD HUNT and
that allegation 4 (o) of the plaintiff·s complaint which in it's entirety
1
S'T'l\TED:
"Wh(~ n Hunt worked in t h e o f f ic e of Po li cy Coo rdinat io n , th e

pr e d e c es sors of the C . I .A., on e o f his ma in intere st s was
t o reve rse Italy ' s leftward pol it ical tre nd and d efea t the
communists at the polls". (Page 36)
" Aga in , referring to the plaintiff , whi c h i s outra qeou s l y
false a nd mali c iou sly writte n".
was take n from the plai n tiff 's, E. HOWARD HUNT' s autobiog ra p h y , par a -
g raph 3, p aqe 67 of the book entitled ''Und e rcover , The me mo ir s o f a n
s t a t e d:
" A t o p priority was getting an OPC chief t o Rome , whe r e h is

initial mission was to reve rse Ital y 's l e ftwar d p o li ti ca l
tre nd and d e feat t h e communis t s at the po lls in the immi ne nt
I talian el e ctions ."
The pla intiff ' s attempt to su e for libe l for the a b o v e q u o t e
u sed in COUP d ' ETAT IN AMERICA : THE CIA AND THE ASSASSI NAT ION OF
JOHN F . KENNEDY is absurd and shows the c ourt tha t the p l a in t i ff ' s
complaint i s a sham and should not b e t oke n seriou s l y .
7. We also pray this honora bl e cour t t o ta k e no t ic e of th e
f act that t h e plaintiff, E . HOWARD HUNT i s a publ ic figu re d u e t o h i s
i n vo lvemen t with the shameful " Wate rgate '' c o nspiracy as we ll as du e to
the fact that HUNT has written many novels and boo ks and appea r e d on
assorted television and radio tal k shows. We r e qu e st the c ourt t o
asse rt the Ne w Yor k Times v . SulUvon, 17() r1.s. ;.r; 4 , 11 r. .l ~C!.? d (iR(i ,
11 '1 S . <' t. 7 10, 'Vi /\ I.I{ 2 ct 11\2, .ind Curl i ~; l'uh l i!; h i nq Cn. v. l l u l.Ls (] 11(,7 ),
388 U. S . 1 3 0 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 10 9 4, 87 S.Ct. 197 5 r ul e wh ic h sai d th a t a
c ivil action b y a public figure for criticisms of his c o n d u c t or action s
ar e limite d to th e point of awardin g dama ges ~~lX if comme n t s o r c r it i -
cisms we r e ma d e with actual malice . We a lso re q u es t the ho n o r a bl e court
to take notice of the defe ndant's, ALAN J . WE BERMAN ' S b oo k COUP d ' ETAT
IN AMERICA: THE CIA AND THE ASSASSINATION OF .TOHN F. KENNE DY ' s ind e x .:rn d
u nd a n alyziJ ti o n which ca u s e d the <'lt~ fe nc'i.::in t to r c<1c h the p res um p t ion th a t
E . HOWARD HUNT may have b ee n in volve d in th e Ke n ne dy a s s a sin a t io n . The
d e f e ndant ' s s t a t e me nts in COUP d ' ETAT I N A~ERI C A: THE CIA AND THE AS SASS -
!NATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY were on e rma d e af t e r ca r ef ul , e mpirica l r e s e a rch
whi c h did not prove to the defendant, ALAN J . ~'IBBERMAN, tha t E. HOWARD
HUNT was no t involve d i n the Kenn e dy assass in~t i on.
R. 'l'lw p li1in t ilf ;1!; ,., pub l i c· I i crnn • :;l\c i uld :1\ :;n I H• n 1•1•11 l n 1· .1 i 1·
comme nt as f or t h e p o ss i ble actions he may h ilv~ ta k e n d urin~ hi s C I A ycdrs
durin q and a round the time of the Ke nn e dy assass in at i o n e sp e cia l ly af t e r
whilt.. o c curre ct whil e E . HONARD HUNT was 0 rnp l o ye d b y th e Comm ittee to Re -

..
''· ...
E. HOWARD HUNT, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP
Plaintiff, FLORJ. DA
vs:
ALAN J. WEBERMAN, CIVIL CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-PF
Defendant,
11.(l'l'I.Q~I_ T{)__D_TSMISS
COMES NOW the defendant, /\LAN J. WEBEJIMAN, by and through his

undersigned attorney and moves this honorable court to dismiss the
plaintiff's claim for compensatory, examplary and punitive damages and
as grouqds therefore states the fo.llowing:
1. That the Plaintiff's complaint is a sham and should not
bo taken seriously as allegation 4 (o) of tho plaintiff's complaint
.1] l.oqes:
''Wl1on liun~ worked in tho office of Policy Coordination,
tl10 predecessors of the C,I.A., one of his main inter-
.. ests was to reverse Italy's leftward political trend and
defeat the communists at:· the polls'!, (Page 36)
''Again referring to the plaintiff, whiph is outrageously
false and maliciously written".
and was taken from from·; ·by th,;, a.;,:E~;;d~nt, Ar.,l\N ·.~."~7E!1ER"IAN, tho pli1intiff,
E. HOWARD HU!'!T's autobiography entitled "Underscover, the memoirs of an
llmorioan fioorot Agent" 1 pa;1e 67, pnra~]r/''f'.lh 3 which is published by
lli!rkn"/y 1'1.1/1! ishlncr Corp,, 11ncl s\:at:or"\:

71 top priority was g,cttinci qn OPC cJ1i.of to RornG, wJ1ere
11
his initial mission was torrevarse Italy's leftward pol-

iti.001 trend aqd defeat the oomn1uni13ts at the polls in
tho i.rnmlnent Itoiliun oloot:lons."
2. That by the plaiptiff 's allegation of libel in the use of
the above quote from the claim taken from the Pla"inti:f;f's own auto-
biography olear.ly s~ows that the Plaintiff's complaint is a sham and
should be dismissed' from this honorabl~ court.
3. 'Phat by the Plaintiff's own uso of tho abovo quota, lt

shows tho court that his ol.uim fails' to sot forth a cause of action
upon which any sort of ~elief m~y b~ crrantod.·
WHE:f.EFORE this defendant moves t)lis hoporaple court to dismiss
Plaintiff's claim for compensatory, examplary and punitive damages herein.
T,/\\1 CWJ"TCES ClF' M/\11.K ,1, f'RH:DMi\N

/\tLocnoy [01· the dn[ond<1nt
350 Ll11c0Jn Ro.a, suito ~22
Mii111~ no;wh, lj'oricL1 lll:l'l
t1l(HJj '~~ .
T lfERElBY Cl'!R'rIFY that a trµe and correct copy of the Eoreqoinci was
mailed to: ELI:iIS RUBI!'l 1 P,A, 1

Attorneys for the Plaintiff at 265 North-
East 26th Terrace, Miami, Florida 33137 this 9th day of May, 1977
,~'11~~-~L-
' '
i
r
COURT I N AND FOR THE SOUT HE RN
DIS TRI CT OP PLORI DA
E . HOWARD HUNT ,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL Cl\SE NO . 76 -1 252 - CIV -PF
vs .
A. .r. wv.rmnMl\N,
Def e ndn n t . ANSWER /\ND MOTION 'T' O

DISMISS
COMES NOW the defendant, ALJ\N J. WEBERM7\N, by a nd through hi s
undersigned attorney and in answer to th e plaintiff ' s compl a int, says :
1. With respect to the allegations con tain e d in paraqraph 1 of
P lc:i intiff ' s compla int, d e fendant , l\LJ\N J. WEBERM7\N a dmits t hat h e is
o n e of th e a uthors of the book entitle d COUP d'ETAT IN l\MERIC ~ : THE
CIA AND THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F . KENNEDY and that he is a ci tizen
of the state of New York but the def e ndant is without the knowledge of
the p laintiff' s allegation of the citizenship of the plaintiff.
2. That allegation 2 of the plaintiff ' s complaint allegin g
jurisdiction of the above titled action is d e ni ed as the d efe nd a nt is
without the knowledge of whether or not E . HOWARD HUNT is a citi z e n of
3. That a llegations 3 through 7 inclu s ive of p l aintiff ' s complaint
are denied.
4. Al l allegations not heretofore speci f ically admit ted a r e
hereby specifically denied.
AFFIRMATIVE
5. 'T'h c defendant , ALAN ,J ~ WEDERMl\N t:1Jl c."'Qt'~ that t he p l i1i n tjff ,
E. HOWARD IiUNT is barred from recove r y as a ll stateme nts made in COUP
d'ETl\T IN AMERICA: THE CIA AND THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F . KENNEDY are
t h e truth and that all statements of fact in COUP d'ETAT IN AMERICA : THE
Cil\ 7\ND THE ASSASS INATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY h ave bee n thorouqhly re-
sea rched as to the validity of the sai d statement s of fact.
f). Muc h of the in formation q<l the r e d in ClWP d 'ETAT IN AMERICA:
'I'll!·: C Jl\ 7\ND 'l'llfo: f\SSl\SSJNJ\TIOH OF .TOHN r. l\F.NNF.IW wer e q ;1Lhen-' d from
a utobi ographi e s and books written by tne p l aint i tf , E. HOWARD HUNT a nd
t h a t allegation 4 (o) of the plaintiff ·s comp~aint whi c n in it's e n t ir e t y
1
<
~·
STl\TED:
" Whe n Hunt worked in the office of Pol j cy Coordination, the

pre d e c es sors of the C.I.A., on e of his ma in interests was
to reverse Italy's l e ftward poli t ical tr e nd and defeat the
conunun ists a t the polls". (Page 36)
"Aqa in, r e f e rring to the p lain tiff, which is o ut r aqe ousl y
false and maliciously writte n".
was taken from the plaintiff's, E. HOWARD HUNT's autobiog r ap h y , para-
gra ph 3, page 67 of the book e ntitled " Under co ver, Th e me moirs of a n
stuted :
"A top priority was getting an OPC chief to Rome , where his
initial mission was to reve rse Ital y ' s l eftward pol iti ca l
trend and defeat the communists at the polls in the imminent
Italia n elections ."
The plaintiff ' s attempt to sue for libe l for the above q u ote
us e d in COUP d'ETAT IN AMERICA: THE CIA AND THE ASSASSINATION OF
JOHN F. KENNEDY is absurd and shows the court tha t the pl ainti ff' s
compl a int is a sham and should not be tok0.n seriously .
7. We a lso pray this honor a ble court to t ake notjce of the
fact that the plaintiff, E. HOWARD HUNT is a p ubl ic figure due to hi s
involvement with the shameful "Watergate '' conspiracy as well as due to
the fact that HUNT has written many nove ls and book s and a p peared on
assorted television and radio talk shows. We r e qu es t the court t o
assert the Ne w York Time s v . Sullivon, 17() rt . ~ . 7.'i 4 , 11 r..ECl . 2cl !iR(, ,
fl'1 ~ ;.c •t. 7 10, 'Vi /\J.ll 2 d ll\2, and C 11rt· i! ; l'uhl i !.; hin q Co . v . Hu t.I ~ ( 1 '1h7),
38 8 U. S. 130, 18 L . Ed. 2d 1094, 87 S.Ct. 197 5 r ul e whi c h said th a t a
civi l a c tion by a public figure for criti cisms of his cond u c t or actions
are limited to the point of awardin g damaqes ~~ l y if comments o r cr it i -
cisms we r e made with actual malice. We a l so r equ e st the ho nor a ble court
to take noti ce of the defendant's, ALAN J . WEBERMAN 'S book COUP d 'ETAT
IN AMERICA: THE CIA AND THE ASSASSINATION OF .TOHN F. KENNEDY ' s ind0x .:rnCI
ron l 111>1 r·:: ; 1 ~; Ir > ~:llow th<il". t hc• Roi icl hnnk w.i:; Wl iI I 1·11 wi 1 11 I !in1 · n 11qli 1·1•:; 1'. \l "('h
a nd <l n a l yza tion which cause d the d cfe nd <:r n t to r eac h the p r es ump ti on that
E . HOWARD HUN'I' ma y have p e en involve d in the Kenn e d y assasi n u t io n. The
defend ant ' s sta t e me nts in COUP d ' ETAT IN A ~ERIC A: THE CIA l\ND THE ASSASS -
!NATION OF J OHN F. KENNEDY were one rmad e af t er careful, empirica l research
which did not prove to the defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN , that E . HrnvARD
HUN~ was not involve d in the Ke nn e d y assnssiniltion.
comme nt us for th e rossible actio n s he may h i1v ~ tllkc n dur:i n q his CTI\ yea r s
during and around t he time of the Ke nn e d y assassi n at i o n e specia ll y a ft e r
whilt occurre<l while E. HOl'JARD HUNT was e mpl oyed by the Committee to Ho-
L . .a-- - ii~lll---• •- : -
I •,
' I
I -- ----- --·. I
E. HOWARD HUN'1', IN ·r1m UNITE D S'l'l\TES DISTRICT COUR'l'
IN 7\ND FOR THE SOUTHE RN DI STRICT or
Plaintiff, FLORIDA
vs .
ALAN J . WEBERMAN , CIVIL CA S E NO. 7 G-12 5 2 - CIV-PF
Detendant,
M()'l'TON 'l'O fH S MT SS
COMJ·:s NOW the d e fend.ant, l\Ll\N ,J. \VEBEH.Ml\N, by .ind through h is
undersigned attorne y and moves this honor able court to dismiss the
plaintiff ' s claim for compensatory, examplary and punitive dama g es and
as grounds therefore states the following:
1. That the Plaintiff ~s complaint is a sham and should not
hn tu.k e n ;;c.! ri o usly as allegation 4 (o) o f th e pl.iinti f f ' s c omp l et int
.i ll<' CJC·! S :
"Wh< ~ n llunt work e d in. the offi ce o f Polle y Coo n l i n<1 ti o n ,
tl1 e pre decessors of the C . I. A ., one of his mn.i n inte r-
e sts was to reverse Italy's leftward political tr e nd and
defeat the communists at:- the p o lls". (Pa ge 3 6 )
"Again referring to the plaintiff, which is outraqeousl y
false and maliciously writ ten".
and was taken from from , by the defe ndant, l\Ll\N .T. v!EnE RMJ\N, Lhc pL1in L i ff,
E. HOWARD HUNT's autobiography entitled " Underscover , the me moirs of an
l\ m r ~ ri can r.<• c r 0 t l\gent" , pn90 67, p ;ir,1 rr rC1rh 3 which is pu b li s h e d by
"/\ Lop priority was ~cttlnq <rn OPC c hi e f. to Home , wh ~ r c

h .is initial mission was to rrevc rsc Italy' s l e ftward p ol-
i ti c nl trend and d e f e a t the comniunii;t s .it the po 1 l s in
th<' immin e nt Ital inn c l0ct ions."
2. That by the plaintiff's allegation of libe l in t h e use of
the above quote from the claim taken from the Pl a intiff's own a uto -
biography clearly s~ows that the Plaintiff ' s complaint is a sham and
s ho uld b e dismissed from this honorabl e c ourl .
3. 'l'lw L by the PlainUff' s own 11 ~; (' o f t il e' ;-1hnvc q un tc•, it-
n h ows t he c our t thnt his cl <"dm fni 1 s to s e l f o rlh <1 ca u se or uc ti o n
u pon whi c h any sort of relief may be qra n ted.
WHEREFORE this defendant moves this honorabl e court t o dismiss
Plaintiff ' s c laim for compensatory, e x a mplary and punitive damages here i n.
1.1\ W <WFH'l•:s ( )(-' Mf\l\K :1. r nl l·:n M/\N

/\ll<>nll ' Y fn1 - !Ill' cl1 ' f" t• tHL111l
IJ! ;;
Vd) J.ir wo ln Hn . <1,
i.,
Sui h'
,' · 1~~ 1 111"

01 2~~
- - MA RK S~
1
I_E_D_M-AN _ _ _ _ __
1·.. .. ' \,,
~•· >- ._.,
"~ .. • I
.•
::-r
• ••
I
-··
·i
i
L II
:'I

--------------------------------x
x
E . HOWARD HUNT, JR., x
plaintiff, x ',
x )
x 76-12~2-CIVIL-EBD
vs. x
x
x
A. J. WEBERMAN, et. al. x QUALIFICATIONS OF
defendants. x EXPERT WITNE SSES
x
--------------------------------x
GAETON PONZI - 1963 - Contributing editor, Philadelphia

Magazine ; 1975 - Investigator for Senate Select Committee
to Stuay Intelligence Acti~ities / Subcommittee .on the
John F. Kennedy Assassination / 1978 - Investigator f or
House Select Committee on Assassinations - area of interest:
the Cuban exile communi t 'y and their CIA laisons. Present:
Vice President of Go ld Coast Mag azine •
I
.
I
VIC',I'Q~ MA{tCH ~T\["I
~ forrt)e;r , CI~ offical who began his work
wit~ ~ !A ~n
}955 a~ a S~viet rn ll f ta~ y s p~ci~list and lafer
work ed f or Richard Helms. in the Plans Directorate. Author
o f The CIA and the Cult of Int e lligence , Alfred Knopf, N . Y.
3. Congressman Henry Gonzal e z . (Dem: San Antonio, Texas )Forme r

.. head of Hous~ Selec t Committee on Assassinations .
4. David Marston - fo rmer aid.e to Sena'tor Schweiker ( Rep . - Penn.)

and former USA for the District of Penn .
DATED: 29 December 1980 respectfully submitted

New York, New York
• ,J%,fj!~
fuN-Jif.JiJES WEBERMAN pro se
6. BleeJ<.er _s txe et
NYC 10012
212-477 - 6243
CER~IFICATION OF SERVI CE
:•
I\
I
!; I CERTIFY above was
!. mailed to Ellis
I
"
I
, i,
,.
II
I!
•1
J-~ ·
'.- .";:.
: .:: :
..
.... .. ·. ...' .·
--
. .,....
'
sup It sbplc
httC --:~
G "
l. Pf.act cavtr th is sidt up on top of fi rst
P•Or of docu mrnl. St•plt 11 indicottd.
Lift boltom of tO>t < up • nd ••tr
top, foldina on top "ttorr lint .
rold COWH down bthind
on rtrnainino start lint.
P~P"' Hole: Atdrus uu. on bHt
i:niddlt pand appurs in window
in a No. 10 tnnlopt.
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF

I, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State,
D Culifioation ~erti fy that the within
> Attorney has been compared by me with thr. original and found to be a true and complete copy.
9
:
'!
-:
D Attornry's
Atfirmition
slate that .I am
the attorney (s) of record for
:: Ill the within acti on; I ha\·e read the foregoing
...<~ an d know the contents thereof; the same is
.z=
u true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein slated to be allec;ed on information and belief and as
to those matters I believe it to be true. The reason thi'S \·erification is made by me and not by '
The grounds of my belief as to all ma tters not stated upon my own kno .... ledge are as follo ws :
.. I
... .
I affirm th at the' foregoing sta tements aTe true; under the penalties of perjury.
. ·. .
Dated: .. - - !
......·--· .-:.... th;·~;·~ ~·;i;~~·,j·~·~;t·b;-;;i~i;;1i,·;~;;;;,··:.. ::~: ·-;:-,:.:::".:_·?~ .:·
.·' ~ - - . . . . ·- ..., . .
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF . ....... . : ~
I, ........ ..
·- -,, , " - ..
duly
. ·! ..
.a nd b~ing sw~~. dep~s~ ~~y:. {:·~ ~/
:: D
c:>
the
Individua l
Ver ification
...-·: · - in the within action; I have read :-_. -
:;; th e foregoing . · ... . . .. . · .... and kn ow Lhe co ntents thereof; the same is true to -.
..
~ my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein .stated to be alleged on information a nd bel~ef. and ~ to those -
matters I believe it to be true.
·.·· .· . • .... .. · ·. ."'·~~
] o·
<
Corporitt the •. of ,
,,• :
·. :.~\' ···· · : :__:-. .
u Vrrificalion a --~\.. Y. . .... · ; .. ~~ip~ra~i~~ ~nd .a party in' the within action;· I. h:a~e rea~' th~ · £ofegou{g':~.·
_. .· . . - . :.-:·- .· . ·. and know the contents thereof;_and the same is true to.my ~wn knowledge, :
except as to the matters therein stated to .he alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe .
it to be true". This verifica.tiori. is made by me because the above party is a ccnporation and Lam an officer thereof:.-:..
The grounds of my belief"as. to all matters ~at. stated upc;n my
.ow.n kn"owledge are as follows: ... ·:__.:... : .. - :-. . . .: ._f.:·,~~:·.... ·. :~~ .
......· . .•. . . .:· - ·.- \;:~·.,:~·.£}·\ilti:.IiJ~K~~.·-·-~}0~>-.i): / - .-·. · <: ·-· . . : ,'. ~ : ,,: :,u;,~··
$Worn to h< m< on. '; ,.' . , .. . · ...., ..,. ,,, ·>,.,,.19 <r••.. ,.,,, ., . . .. "·-•.::.'.: ~.~i_y _- Th;·;;;;'.;}~;~;' ;;~..~~;;~'i··.:..
~ :.'·~.-;r~-:~.~.i-.~--·.i:.·_~;:..
.. '· ..; .· > -.. - -
fo.e
' . , " ... >}·::;,:;~;-'..~_'.:~;3;•::.:. . . ~·
;·~·~·.
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK .. ss.: 0
Cltbolh boXU&ttchockod- IDdlC&tcaflern.:..;.:lJ"Pe0{1mlotu...i.. 1
I, ANNE ASTARITA . being' sworn , say; I am not a party to the action, am over 18. years
of age and r eside at . Lynbrook, New York. ·. - . · . . _ . . __
On August · 4, 1982 ..I .served the. ~i,thi~ : ,Ai;5p1ication · Pursuant to. C~ur-t ·k ul e-· lE)°: (O) .~ -
:: 18} 81 Smic• by depositing a true copy the~eof enclosed in a post·paid wrapper, in an offi~ial d.epo~ilor.y under the excl~sive care
m Mail and custody of the U.S. Postal Ser-vice ·within Ne\\"York State, addressed to each of the fo lJowing persons at the Jasf :-
~ known add_ress set for~ after each name: .· . . :. . .· _ . . , · : . : . ,. ·-,. '. ·: -,~.:, . '.'. -.-.~~ :-, ._ ;
:;,; D
G
Pmonal by deliveri ng a true copy thereof personally i:o each ~rson named below ai the address indica~ed .. l kne~· each person···..;_
~~~;~~:u:~ - served to b.e the person ~entio~!!d and described in said papers as a pa:tY. therein: ..·- · · ,. -:·:·::- · ~ · : .".-:<: .__,.;:~;·-:I.;:·-
. . ·· . . ·. ·:-. ·.;..: · ·:.. · ~ . ...... . .. ... · ·. :·;.~~- ' ;~. ----:· ·. ·· ·- ..;_:-.;~~·
•. .. .. . .... -::·-:_.• r: ·.:·· . .. . .• . ·. ;\ .~ :,, • .. .. ... ..... -.. ~~.. ·· -
:- ELLlS S.:. · . RUB.IN:,·· .. E SQ •· '.'·-) .·. .. ··· · ·:: ":.· ~~::·/:~.::. · ::~,· ~-~; : ..
·. 26'-s:· N.E.- 2·6: Terrace ·... ·· · ·. ·.:; .. - . ·::·~
M:L~i; : ~ lo~i. aa·;".·..331~ 7 ... ·_::::·: -_:··- · ,,-.. _··:,:::~.. ~-.-' -.·~.:._:- ~: ..-:::·-·
.... ·'. '• -:· ..
I"'' . .
.
\,
...
~ : -:-·.
. . ·,.. •. ·.
' . . ·- ·. -. ... . . ..
. ·. .-
~. '"' ' .,.. I '• • '
·. ·-: ' ' ·.. ·

..
-·...,, .-· .. _:
: -
._....... ...
.. .
-.
Sworn to before me on Augu s t 4,
... . •.' :.......... . ·.. ···

. . ·._.. .. .. .
~
..·;. -i.i~.: -
LAWRENCE FRIEI::MAN
Attorney at Law
1875 N.E. 163rd Street
Miami, Florida
July 28, 1982
'Ihe Honorable .Edward B. Davis

United States District Court
Southern District of Florida
300 N. E. 1st Avenue
Miami , Florida
Re : E. Howard Hunt, Jr.
Vs : A.J . WP.bermcm, et al
76-12::52-EBD
Honorable Sir:
I , Lawrence Friedman, am duly licensed and admitted to practice law
in the State of Florida for the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. I have an office located at 1875 N.E. 163rd Street ,
Miami, Florida , Telephone (305) 945-7696.
This is to acknowledge my consent to being the named designee for
Bruce E. Stahl for his limited appearance as counsel for the defendants in the
above captioned matter.
Very truly yours,
LAWRENCE FRIEJ:MAN
LF:aa
cc: Mr. Ellis Rubin
265 N.E . 26th Terrace
,'! ,¥1.
vs.
MEJi:>RANDlrn.dJ' LAW ON PLAINTIFF'S
MOtJON . FQJ.: ~llOTICnVE ORDER
..
'
'j,"
I. ·
. ·~ .
',
' -\I
'•
I
I
I
I
,w .
.,;..~
\.' .•.: ..
~tr ,<,' ~l ...:. •
•. . , f
.t ~: '·: r7:~ } 'i-

~ ' ~ " • 4
. .: • ·,_,
• • •
.I~. - . .. ..),'
;:_..l., J:' .. :"
. . ..
J '. • ,
t
WHEREFoRS .. . w:~1' ' 't ,.

fO~··~~g lagal p:oinclples as applied I I ~· •l . • .
to the facts herein·~ . ~~.~ ·~~ .:~~. 1 ~laintiff respectfully prays

t his Honor ab la Court rib;,":'·~ 'l tii'-il• of Taking Deposition of the
• ,• "' \Ji • ., ' •
~ .. l) ~.~•r1, 't;.,,· .• ~ , '
Plaintiff in Dade Coia~~: • d~~~;.:1'• ~uaahed and that this Court
.. r 1t'" t (' • ' •
prescribe the terms, · COiulS.,~~· i" time and place for the taking of
said Plaintiff' 8 depo•i.tiaft 1
~n the .f uture .
... ·, ' ::Of •• ~ ~ 1'~>~ :~ ,.: . . ·~ . .
' .. .
., · '~
·~'-- ~ '!I:·~,
I '2.. • • •
·· ..I·.
,
• J •
~.. •:ie."-c..11".. "11.l.y
• T t •. •· t ,. ,.· ·
1ubmitted, ~ .
• • .. ... • • • •.-;-• ... • • .. ·.1 •
..' " ELLIS llUBIN LAW OFFICES. P.A.

, ,. • • •11 • Attox:n~ya for Plaintiff
:' ·· i.· . l 26!$ Nottheaat 26th Terrace
l ·< l' .. . ,-... ·:
t: · ' <
' lti.&mi, •
Flori4 33137
t ·. .. ' ' Phone: .576-5~00 .
·:.
·, ..
·'
... ,.... :
"lo.,.,·. JSY:
... \ ".' · :· .. ,CRl'IC:: G. GOODMAN
1
f ~~ t~ I~~ • ~J ; ; ,, •-. 1;'
•"'.\'~ ..·~· ' ...... f ·,.., !. l';. ., . . ' :
. I HEREBY c!RTt~ ·~\1i ~tua

..;:: ". . ,,. . . ,1 ~-'-
and correct copy of the fore-
.lo ·~ •J .~· r • 4 f &
going was mailed to _.,.,, ~·'frl•c:bUh·, !•q., Attorney for Defendants,

., .. ~ "~· .. :t ... ,."' .7. ,,
350 L:i.n~oln Road, . S~~ .i422·,. )U.udJ B.• ach, Flort~a 33139, this 17th
• ,! :." • •i' V"•1
.. . ' ~
day of November, 1976. I ., I '";
".
~..
. Jo
... ~
'r
I !
'•
,.
.... ' ..: .i .." :
'.
·.. :1
... .
·-.~
,,.
; ;'
'•
.. .~
.'
. . .." I
.. • ~ • 'I~ ,.. ; ; ~J f ,' l)
. '
:.
.
·;-;
r
~
•
"" '
;
I
. '. .
• ' ,.,,. .... , "
' '., •
~
'•.
'• ·: ·
: ~:: " :J.:: ~ I • ~ i,, ~ :

~-: \',• •• t
,.
•~ : 'i&. • • ., ......
.. ·· ~.
''r.1 ,
•
••
•..,
~
•.•
• •,
,f'
.. '
I
'; • ( i . !·
·~ I
• • ,• •
.'
• ... • .. 'J{
,.:
'".. .'
j
1.

DISTRICT OF FLORI DA
E . HOWARD HUNT,
Plaintiff ,
CIVIL Cl\SE NO . 76 -1 2 52-CI V-P F
vs .
" . . 1. wrrn rmMAN ,

De f e nd<rn t-. . ANSWER f\ND MO'l'I ON 'l'O
DISMISS
COMES NOW the defendant , ALAN J . WEBERM7\N , by and through his
undersigned attorney and in answer to the p l ai n t iff' s compla i nt , sa y s :
1. With respect to the a llegations contained in p araqraph 1 of
Plaintiff ' s co mpl aint , defendant, 7\Ll\N J . WEBERMl\N admits that he i s
on e o f the authors of the book entitled COUP d ' ETAT IN AMERIC~: THE
CIA AND THE ASSASS INATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY a n d that h e i s a citi ze n
of the state of New York but the def e ndant is without the knowled ge of
the plaint i ff' s a ll e ga tio n of the citizenship of the pl a inti ff .
2. That allegation 2 of the plaintiff ' s complaint a lleqin g
jurisdiction of the a bove titled action is denied as th e def e ndant is
without the knowledge of whether or not E. HOWA RD HUNT i s a c itiz e n of
1 I 1• · !: I . 1 11 • c> I I" I ' 1ri1 l ; 1.
3. That al l egations 3 through 7 i n c l u s i vr o f plaintif f ' s c omp l ain t
are d e nied.
4. Al l a llegations not heretofore specifica ll y admitted are
here by specifically denied.
AFFIRMATIVE
·- - - --- - - ---··
DEFENSES
5. 'T'h e d e f e ndant , ALAN ,J~ WEI3ERM7\N <1lle qt' S tha t t he p l a in t ] f f ,
E . HOWARD HUNT i s barred from recove ry a s u 11 s tate me nt s made in COUP
d ' ETJ\T IN AMERICA: THE CIA AND THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F' . KENNEDY ar e
the t ruth a nd that a ll state me nt s of fa c t in COUP d ' ETAT IN AME RI CA : THE
CIA 7\ND THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F'. KENNEDY h a v e b ee n tho r o u q hly re-
s ea r c hed as t o the v a lidity of the s aid s tat e me nt s of fa c t .
f) . Mu c h o f the information qilther c d in COI 1 f' d I ETJ\T IN AMERICA:
1' 111~ C fl\ 7\NI) 'I'l l!·: /\SS7\SSJNJ\TIOH OF ,JOHN F'. 1\ENNf:DY wer e C'F1Lhe r<"ti fr o m
a utobiograph ie s and books writte n by tn e p l a inti tf , E. HOWA RD HUNT a nd
t hat a ll egation 4 (o ) of t he plaintiff ·s compl a i n t wh i c n in it ' s e n t i rety
1
,-~~~
I ~~--u~
'
S'rl\TED:
"Wh<~ nHunt worked in the office o f Policy Coordination, the

predecesso rs of the C.I.A., on e of his main interests was
to reverse Italy ' s leftward political trend and def ea t the
conununists at the polls " . (Page 36)
"Again , r efe rri n g to the plaintiff, which is outraqeously
fa lse and maliciously writte n" .
was taken from the plaintiff ' s , E. HOWARD HUNT ' s autobiography, para -
graph 3 , paqe 67 of the book e ntitled " Undercove r, 'l'he memoirs of a n
/\nu•ric;<rn S<'cr<• t. /\<Jent, pub l islwil hy 1\c>r k<' 'ly 1'11hl ishi nq Co rp., which
stated :
"A top priority was getting an OPC chief to Rome, whe re his
initial mission was to reverse Italy ' s leftward politica l
trend and defeat the communists at the polls in the imminent
Italian elections ."
The plaintiff ' s attempt to sue for libe l for the above quote
u sed in COUP d'ETAT IN AMERICA : THE CIA AND THE ASSASSINATION OF
JOHN F. KENNEDY is absurd and shows the court that the plaintiff ' s
comp laint is a sham and should not be tnk c n seriou sly .
7. We also pray this honor a ble court to take notice of the
fact that the plaintiff, E . HOWARD HUNT is a public figur e due to his
involvement with the shameful "Watergate " conspiracy as we ll as due to
the fact that HUNT has written many novels and books a nd a ppeared on
as sorted television and radio talk shows. We r equest the court to
ass(~ rt the Nr.w York Times v. Sullivun, 376 U.S. 7. 'i'1,
!1'1 ~;.ct . 7 10 , <J r; /\ 1 ,1~ 2<'1 1'12 , <11Hl Curli: ; l'11 ldi:.;hi11q Cn . v . l\ut. t· s {1'lh7),
388 U.S . 130, 18 L . Ed. 2d 1094, 87 S.Ct. 1975 rul e whi c h said th a t a
civi l action by a public figure for criticisms of his conduct or actions
are limited to the point of awarding damaqes ~~~y if comments or crit i-
cisms were made with actual malice. We also reque st the honorabl e court
to take notice of the defendant ' s , ALAN J. WEBER111AN ' S book COUP d ' ETAT
IN AMERICA: THE CI A AND THE ASSASSINA'l'ION OP ,TOHN P. KENNEDY ' s i.ndex .:lnd
CJnrl CJ no.1. yza ti on which ca use d the dcfenc1un t t o n .:? .tch the presumption that
E . HOWARD HUNT may have b een involved in the Kenn e d y assa sination. The
d efendant's statements in COUP d ' ETAT IN AMERICA: THE CIA AND THE ASSASS-
INATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY were one r made after care ful, emp iri ca l research
which did not prove to the defendant , ALAN J . WEBER.MAN, that E. HO\\IARD
HUN'T' was not involved in th e Kennedy as sas sin~tion .
comme nt as for the possible actions he may hnvc taken durinq his CIA yea r s
durinq and around the time of the Ke nn e dy assassination espec i a ll y af t e r
whn L occurre<l while E. HrnvARD HUN'T' was rmploycd h y thr Commit t0e to l~c -
~ .. ~ I
'
El0ct: t: lw President (Riclrnnl M. Nixon) .
9. 'l'o s ub sta nti ,:-ite the def<•ncl trnt' s cl.:iim thC1t the book
COUP d ' ETAT IN AMERICA : THE CIA AND THE 7\SSl\SSINATION OF JOHN F .
KENNEDY is not written with malice toward the plaint iff , the de-
fendant asks the c ourt to notice that all refe rances to E. HOWl\RD
HUNT in the sa id book were done in conjecture fo rm as well as under
a c hapter tit l e in the book ca ll ed "THE THEORY" . We a l so note t hat
the plo i nti ff did not include the t j tJ c of th e chapter in his com-
plai nt, probably for the reason to µr cj udice the courl against the
the defendant.
10. We also suggest the court to tak e notice of the fact
that the topic of the book is o n e of social s ignifi cance and con -
troversy ; the murder of our l ate president John F. Kennedy. We hope
that this topic (the assassination) is one of such importance t h at
it is a s ubj ect in wh ic h different ideas may be thrown around , be -
fo r e the public, ( s uch as ALAN J . WEBERMAN , the defendant did) in
order to fina lly d ete rmine what really happened on that sad dav of
November 22, 1963 .
11 . That the c laim of libel by t he plai nti ff , E. HOWARD
HUNT is a frivolous one in that there can b e no damage to his rep-
utation or s t a nding in the community as h e had no reputation to
rl<•fC1me. W<' note that E . HOWARD HUN'r 1 s .i conv i ctc:d fc'lon who had
fLlcd th i ~; suit while serving 32 mo n ths in i.Jil, mu c h like the case
of James E . Ray v. Time Inc. , et . al ., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE , WESTERN DIVISION advance
sheet NO. C-76-274 (Sept. 1976) where the court decided that the
plaintiff, James E . Ray , who had sued for libe l wa s in fact " libe l-
proof " due to hi s incarceration in prison and for the fact that as
;1 co nvi ctc'cJ felon, he h nd no rcputnrion 1-0 l oso . (The' Rny cflsc was
di s mis su<l 11rtcr <l motion to dismj ss wa s 1- .ill:cl by l h e d cfc nd.'."lnt st.Jti ng
there wa s n o cause of action.)
MOTION TO DISMISS
COMES NOW the d efendant, ALAM J. WEBE RMAN , by and through
his undersigned attorney and moves thi s honorab l e cour t to dismiss
Pluintiff ' s c l ai m for compensatory , cx;1mp lnr y ond runitive d:rniaqes
.11 1cl ;1~; q rrn 11ic f 1; I ho rC'fo r c woul<l s how 11 n l o 1 ltv ·n u r t- t lt ,ll l'l.iin l i r r •s
cli) im fa i -, s to set forth a ca u se of act jun u pon wh.i.ch any sort of
r e li e f may he qrantcd.
'
.'
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
E. HOWARD HUNT, the plaintiff in the action s h ould be consid-
e r e d "libe l-pro of" using the definition as set d own by J ud9e Oak e s
u f the Cou r t o f Appe als for the Seco nd CircuiL in Cnrdill u v. Do uble-
day & Co., Inc., 518 F .2d 638, 639 (1975). Hunt like Cardillo and
Ray (James E. Ray v. Time Inc., et. al. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, WESTERN DIVISION, advance
sheet No. C-76-274, (1976,September ) is a convicted criminal and is
unlikely to recover damages to his reputation. The court should be
pur s uaded, in light of all the circumstances in thi s cause to warrant
dismissal of his libel claim in the light of fi rst amendment consider -
ations a ttendant to publication of material dealing with his back -
r ound and hi s possible criminal activities. See also Urbano v . Son-
dern, 370 Fa2d 13 (CA2, 1966), cert. den., 386 U.S. 1034 (1967), a ff'g .
4 1 FRD 355 (D o Conn.) and Urbano v . Fawcett Publications, 370 F.2d 14
(CA2, 1966). Accordingly, the court should grant this motion to
dismiss because the Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action.

WHEREFORE this defendant moves this honorable c ourt t o dismiss
Plaintiff's claim for compensatory, examplary and punitive damages
h erein .
LAW OFF ICE OF MARK J. FRIEDMAN
At t o rney for the de f endant
350 Linc o ln Road, Suite 422
Miami Beach , F l orida 331 39
Phone: (305) 532- 540 9
!s-J
MARJ< J. FRIEDMJ\N
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and c o rrect copy of the foregoing
was mailed this 6th day of May, 1 977 to: ELLIS RUBIN,P.A., Attorneys
f o r the Plaintiff, 265 North-E as t 26th Terrace, ~~lorida 33137.
MARKJ. 'FRIEDMAN
4
- ..
~.- r~- - ::.:· -,
- -. - 1..:: - - . .-;;;...__;;; =
E. HOWl\RD HUWr, TN ·rrrn UNI'T'ED S'T'l\TES D [S'T'RICT COURT

IN l\N[) FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT or
Plaintiff , FLORIDA
vs .
ALAN J . WEBERMAN, CIVIL Cl\SE NO . 7G -1 2 5 2-CIV-PF

Defendant ,
MO'l'TON TO DTSMT SS
COMES NOW the d e fencl<rnt , l\Ll\N ,J . \'JEBEHMAN , b y d n d throu9h his
undersigned attorney and moves this honorab l e court to dismiss the
p l aintiff 's claim for compensatory , examplary and punitive damage s and
as grounds therefore states the following :
1. That the Plaintiff ' s comp l aint is a sham and should not
hn f·<.lkcn r; c~ r i ous l y as allegation 4 (o) o f t lw pluintif [ ' s c omplC1.int
"W hc ~ n l!unt worked in t h e offi<X ' o f Po l.i c y Coo r d ination ,

t il e predecessors of the C. I. A. , one of his mn .i.n in t c r-
e sts was to reverse Italy ' s l e ftward political tr e nd and
defeat the communists at:· the p olls ". (Paqe 36)
" Again referring to the plaintiff , which is outraqe ously
false and maliciously written ".
an d was taken from from , by the defe ndant , l\Ll\N .T. v/P.11E RMJ\N, th e p l.1int.if r ,
E . HOWARD HUNT's a utobiography e ntitl ed " Unde r s c o v e r , the me moirs of an
l\mn r i can f><· CrC't Agent" , page 67 , p;ir<1<rr.C1ph 3 which is pub l i s h e d by
l\" r·k i·ly 1>11 l il i :; hi 11 q Co r.p ., n nn st ;'lt.t•<I:
" A top priority wa s ~ctti n < 1 1.rn OPC c hi. c f to Ro me, whe r e
his initial mi ssion was torre v c rsc Italy ' s leftward pol -
i ti c al trend and defeat t h e c omniuni~::.t s at th e p o ll s in
Lhe imm i ncnt Ital i;rn cl0c t ions."
2. That by the plaintiff ' s a ll egation of libe l in the use of
the above quote from the claim taken from the Pl a intiff ' s own a uto -
biog raphy clearly s~ows that the Plainti f f ' s complaint is a s h am Rnd
s ho uld be di s mis s ed from this honorab l e cou r l.
3. 'l'h n t by the Plaintjff' s own 11!·;1• of tilt' ; 1hov c ~ quolv, it·
s ho ws the co u r l t hat hi s c laim fails t o s cl f o rth <1 c n u sc o f o c ti o n
u po n which uny s ort of relief may b e qr a nt c d.

1~HEREFORE this defendant moves thi s honora b l e court t o di s mi s s
P l a intiff ' s claim for compens a tory , e x a mpla r y and p un i tive damages h e r ei n .
l./\ W <WF'T CF.S O F M/\ f{K ;1. FH 11·'. l)M,\ N

/\t l 1,1 ·1ll' Y f o 1· 1 110 cl1 ' t° r' 1HL1nl
1r; o I. i n co l n Ho. cl, ~.;u ill' ·12 :2
/}( l;·ll'~/ 1·1~~·111'1

MARK J ·7~ TEDMAN
.' .•
I ·, .. : ,'
' .. ' •/.
J HEREBY CF:RTIFY that a trq13 and oar.root copy of the forGqoing was
mailed to: ELljIS RUBI!'/, P,A,, AttornGys for thG Plaintiff at 265 North-
East 26th Terrace, Miami, Florida 33137 this 9th day .. of May, /)197,J
---;/
~/? /
~-c:t/f.--
/ .
MAKJ.~
\
(
,.
r
':·
"'
: ~·;
'
.~~-
'· . ..1....
-.·--:.'
.· ..
-~-.· .·
UNITED STATES DTSTRICT COURT

.SOUTHERN' DISTRICT OF. FLORIDA 76-1252.:.c:rv~EBD
E . HOWARD HUDT , JR. ,
Plaintiff·,_
··..
against
THE THIRD P.RESS--JOSEPH .. OKPAKU . ,_:
PUBLISHING co. INC.-'; a ·New_,Yq'.rk ·.corpora-bion,.

·_._·. _!:.
·"-:':
JOSEPH. OKPAKU, MICHAEL CANFIELD. and" ALAN J,' . . "
. \·'EBEm·lAN
~ .r\..l.' ,.: ... - ··· ·.·_.,_~;-_.'~....:;._ .... :. ._·_._-,·_,_·.·. .:'•.~_.·.·. ·.•.".-:::,;~:._~·
- , ~·~· ·..;:·...~·._.·,.·_.·.·.·..·....
·:·~,.
..'~..- ·-,.·...·. ...........
........ · .· .. ,~-. ;·. ·,f,-:T,'~:.-·.:
- -·-· • ,.-•_ ~-~:·,\_
··.•· ..;_- ·"~ ,.. .____
. " :_.·.·.•:· ·• ',"'..~_~i-_c>. -~ ._'"'"'·:·.·'.·.·.·:- _";. . -~--~
· · · <·.--:..;:;:.•;..,..:....
Def·e-ndantS:i.:. . ,-;:· ·-...,;-·.: ~- ·_ '..',:_~-~~!.~-·· ·t.1.·:.~..:.: .-·. •. _____ ·:/ ,_,-, -_.· ··'- ·-~'!;.:-;:..
--~-,_ . . . · :-:·;,_~-,.... - . . . ·· . .: .,.. ·--· -...::..:· :;;';_ : "•, ..... · :;t:;·;~~ ..:·· - .... -
.. ,.
,;·
--· -. ---··
· . .-;:·
-- ~... '··
,·
- .,.. ,;.•
·_. ~
-R
•.~ ....... .-.. ,_ ·-~~ ~ ~ ·''· .............. "':.
"
'i.T '\;~:~·'':'.~~:I S~,:1; ·,

0
Attorney, :' -'._':_,_
.- 265
•,
·•:•.. -·
. ~ .._. .·, . . ·-.·. :· ~
: -· :.·. :/.t' .. C· , _.__;{·
·-: _·,,
::. .:;
:
:'.··:·'
.. ·_, )\···Ax;;·-.. --~:.;. _;_.,• ..-.,.;:- ...__. .. . _
:<~
.-:·::. -- ~
:l
;
:t:~·-: ...·;---:----··--,--··:..._~-·_.-·--=---~~.:..:. ___~~

.'
Attom.ey(s) for ·. , _.. ~:.-·,_~·---1;:_::'.~r_~--~;~t~t~\~;~-~' ·,° ::'.·.~-~.:~'".--:: ~~~ :·..::"-:~~:~.::._:.{.:_~:: ~:· ._ ·,·"
. ·. _.-••-•~.--./~:t~;;:'
-•• •':" '•;t-:_...;
-·:
,·
-.··-·.. ~~~-~:;:' ·.:-·. ··.: -:. ·. .........

..·:·
-;
.··.:.; ...
.,. :-.:. :.
.· -.
~. /-·-.: -· ._· :::~-.--!-..
. -~
··-··· .- . ·'.•·_.,,. :~-~-. ·...~-.

_ . .•.i

Hunt V Weberman Motions

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Hunt V Weberman Motions

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SUPPLEMENTATION OF RESPONSE UNDER

il 29 of defendants deposition of 12 March 19 80 regarding a possible

!1 The Center for National Security Studies is now repre-

i1 senting the defendant in a Freedom of Information case, 77-Civ-

!!that Jack Ruby's brother sent to Havana, Cuba on l April 1963

j' Arnerican Civil Liberties Union are handling this appeal on a

, pro bono basis.

1! DATED: NEW YORK, NEW YORK

!i THIS IS TO CERTIFY th a t a true an d correct copy of · the

CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-EBD

E . HOWARD HU1\1T, JR. ,

PRE-TRlAL CO:\FERENCE i5 to be held before the HONORABLE EDWARD B. DAVIS

CALENDARCALLwillbeheldatl:30p.m.on Thursday, January 15. 1981.

the Judge's Chambers at the above address.

TEN days prior to Pre-Trial Conference - Attorney' must meet /

Fl\'_E days prior to Pre-Trial Conference - Any Memorandum of Law to be fil~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ·

COPIES FURNISH.ED TO:

Ellis Rubin, Esq.

SfATEME!\I OF PROCEDURES TO BE ANNOUNCED AT PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

E. HOWARD HUNT, CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-SMAr:-iu::o ,~di"-

Plaintiff, E. HOWARD HUNT, by and through his undersigned

1972 . Howeve r, Pl a i n t if f a dmits hav ing obtaine d d is gu i s e

The Plaintiff, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO

E. HOWARD HUNT, CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-SMA

COMES NOW the Defendan!, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, by

actual tax r etur ns i'n a prior Order on a Motion to Co mpe l same .

Respe ctf ully submitted ,

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of th

E. HOWARD HUNT, CASE NO. 76-1252 -CIV- SMA

ALAN J. WEB ERMAN, MEMORANDU M OF LAW

COMES NOW the Defendant, ALAN J. WEBERMAN, by and

Respectfully s ubmi tted ,

E. HOWARD HUNT, CASE NO. 76-1252-CIV-SMA

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS,

Plaintiff will gladly admit genuineness, but cannot do so at

Defendant relies on Rule 37(b)(2) in asking this

mailed to MARK J. FRIEDMAN, ESQ., 350 Lincoln Road, Miami

Beach, Florida 33139, this 1st day of August, 1978.

UNITED DISTRICT COURT

RULE 36 (a), F . R. C.P . states that a party may serve

upon any other party a written request for admissions .

respec t fully submitted

DATED: 11 DEC . 80 ALAN JU~ES WEBERMAN pro se

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a true and correct copy o f the

above was mailed to ELLIS RUBIN / 265 NE 26th Terr. / Miami /

Flor ida, this the 11th day of Decembe r, 1980.

E . HOWARD HUNT, FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTI ON NO . 76- 1252 - EBD

A. J. WEBERMAN, ANSWERS TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, E . HO WARD HUNT, by and through

1. That as to Requests l(A) - l(C) , 1(E) , l(G) 1 (X) ,

2. As to Requests l(D)" and 1 (F), Plai ntiff admits the

Plaintiff has no knowledge and, therefor e , can neither admit nor

·7 the truth of the state~ents .

4. As to Requests 2(DD-1), 2(FF- 1) , 2( HH- 2) , 2 (VV),

7, As to request 2(BBB ), Plaintiff would admit that a

I HEREBY CERTIFY t hat a t r ue anc correct copy of the

Ut/ITED STATES DISTRICT COUR1'