Digger's Doings

False Witness Analysis Part Two

     Apparently Steve Wetzel of MTTU liked my last post because he posted a link to it on his website.

     However, this means I need to hurry up and get through the rest of the Terry-festo analysis. Today's entry will focus on pages five through eight and might be shorter than the previous entry.

     Let's start with Terry's explanation of why he thinks it is okay to let the sarcasm fly while defending himself from the "attacks" of his enemies - a list of individuals that would put Nixon to shame: "In my treatise, Operation Rescue Identity Theft, I sought to leave a clear, convicing and unimpeachable history of the name Operation Rescue. I strove to write in a manner detached from heated passions and free of sarcasm, mockery or riducule.:

     Guess what Randall? You failed.

     He continues "I will give rein to wit and sarcasm. Hopefully, it wil make my response more entertaining and lighthearted for the reader" Considering that he is defending himself against accusations of deceit, adultery, financial mismanagement, fraud and having put on a little wegiht; is "wit and sarcasm" the way to go? Those of us who have read Terry's previous works and heard him talk know that the sarcasm will far outwiegh the wit and not be nearly as well done.

     He then gives us a taste of what is yet to come by making an implied joke about Newman's manhood (^wink, wink* Newman's got a small...you get the idea). Way to win grandmothers and nuns over to your position there Terry! 

     From there he begins to break down Newman's e.mail line by line. When he gets to the line where Newman says he is about to share some very heartbreaking news. Terry's response starts out by saying "Really Troy? Nothing?" followed by a litany of human tragedies meant to impress the reader with how au courant Terry is. He then says "wow...this must be really bad or you must be really shallow..." Terry wants us to get the impression that Newman is making a mountain out of a molehill or otherwise overreacting.

     Terry - the kettle called. He says "You're black too!". Despite the fact that the whole Terry/Newman disagreement is over a trademark, Terry has taken it upon himself to use the publicity he is stirring up to address every wrong, whether real or perceived, done to him. He has posted a website, written two lengthy diatribes (with a promised third to follow) against not only Newman but Jeff White and others and is holding press conferences in an effort to try this case in the media, 

     In response to Newman's claim, Terry states that he is not "suing" Troy Newman. I can understand Newman's confusion on this point what with having received all those legal documents with Terry vs. Newman written on them. Shame on  Newman for not having a more nuanced understanding of legal papers!

     On page seven, Terry starts to raise questions; some of which are legitimate. He starts out with one about Newman's claim that he (Newman) was named in a massive Janet Reno/F.A.C.E. lawsuit and goes on the assumption that Newman is talking about the big F.A.C.E. suit in which Terry was one of the  named parties. Since Newman is claiming to have been part of such a lawsuit, it is reasonable to ask if he was either a named defendednt in the abovementioned suit or if there was another Janet Reno/F.A.C.E. suit in which Newman was named. As Terry points out, documentation of a suit should be easy to provide. 

     Then Terry goes a little overboard: "The F.A.C.E. suit was never a threat. The pro-lifers won." Really, pony boy? If you;re referring to the massive N.O.W. v. Schiedler case and you didn't consider it a threat, why did you settle it out of court?

     "Moreover, even if they had lost, it would not have broken Troy or anyone else." Yet, according to some of the fundraising letters sent out on Terry's behalf and the repeated claims in the firrst diatribe, Terry "lost everything to the child-killers". Maybe Terry's spirit wasn't broken but his finances certainly were!

     Terry moves on to the claim that Planned Parenthood sued Newman. First he asks, as he did with the Reno suit, for evidence that Troy was sued by PP. Then he answers by saying that, back in San Diego, Newman was a defendent in a Planned Parenthood suit. He follows up this apparent contradiction by stating: "The deceitful implication here is that he (Newman) was in some massive lawsuit." That may be Terry's understanding of the subtext but the plain text of Newman's e.mail simply states he was "sued by Planned Parenthood". Newman said nothing to describe the size of the...lawsuit.

     Terry then gets back to raising other legitimate questions: Is Newman being sued by the IRS in conjunction with his pro-life work? A group of people who afford Newman legitimacy to the point of considering him a threat to "reproductive freedom", the Maggot Punks, report that he is currently under investigation by the IRS. Still, as Terry points out, neutral documentation of such a suit can be made available.

     Newman claims that he and Terry were arrested together. This may or may not be true. Both men went to Hawaii together and may have been arrested there. Again, easy to document if true

     Terry raise the issue of Newman's confession that he had never been arrested at an OR event. This may contradict Troys claim or it  may not. At the height of the movement, not every rescue was an OR-sponsored event. The Lambs of Christ held a series of rescues and many individuals also conducted small-scale events outside of OR. I speak from experience here having taken part in both kinds of rescues as well as OR-sanctioned events. It would be nice if  Newman would clarify his involvement in the rescue movement as a whole since he is claiming to have been arrested in his e.mail. Since Terry will, undoubtedly, ask for documentation of this, Newman should be able to provide it.

     I am saving the large portion in regards to what Terry did after the formation of Operation Rescue National for another blog post (or two!) since it really deserves a section of its own.

Terry's rant

{ 9:38 AM, Jun. 16, 2008 } { Posted by Anonymous }

You rally have to learn to not hold back so much. I think your analysis of RTs case is just too bland. :)

response to comment

{ 12:03 PM, Jun. 16, 2008 } { Posted by digger }

The intent was to use, to some extent, the style and wording of the original document to highlight the means by which Terry is presenting his case. Glad someone got the joke! :)