|
|
Dan Weisburd Demands Retraction and Apology from NAMI California Board Dan Weisburd released today that he is demanding a retraction from the NAMI California Board of Directors. Following is his letter and the demand to NAMI California: It is quite evident that a majority of the NAMI California membership does not know what is going on in their name. The NAMI California board continues to hold closed meetings so that their games are played out in secrecy. In the four years, when I served on the CAMI board, I cannot recall a closed meeting---but then we had nothing to hide, from our members or our Executive Director or our Office Manager. I have concluded that I must prepare to go to court against this board. Not so much as a whisper has been forthcoming from that secret society that has chosen to slander me. Therefore I am authorizing that the demand note which I sent and they received last Saturday now be distributed as widely as possible, especially to the NAMI local affiliates, but also to legislators who need to know the terrible descent this previously honorable advocacy organization has made. In a few days I will release my letter to the Secretary of State Bill Jones, and distribute it widely as well. DEMAND Notice DEMAND Notice is hereby given to the NAMI California Board. This is a demand for publication correction in accordance with California Civil Code 48a which essentially deals with retraction of statements that slander and libel. It is my contention that I have been materially damaged by false and unprivileged publication of distortions as regards my profession, my reputation and my health by your various pronouncements made in the name of the board, that subject me to ridicule and contempt. In a court of law I have reason to believe that I would be found eligible for "General damages" "Special damages" "Exemplary damages" and even the more difficult to prove "Actual malice." Dollars are not what I'm after. More damage to the organization, over which you temporarily have stewardship and whose honor you have blemished, is not what I seek. If you respond with some semblance of good faith and in accordance with the three week window that 48a specifies after you have been served notice, I will be willing to; 1. Accept an accurately worded retraction and appropriately contrite apology that sets forth; a) That I, Dan E. Weisburd, did not resign because of ill health, but rather that I gave fair and reasonable notice communicating, in a good faith manner, that after 2001 I would no longer be available to raise funds for, edit and publish The JOURNAL, and that I intended to pursue other ventures elsewhere, but would stay on through the year to phase in an appropriate successor and introduce him/her to our production processes and to our sources of capital---the underwriters whose generous contributions have made the highly subsidized publication financially possible over the previous 11 successful contiguous years; b) That JOURNAL finances were not creating a "financial drain" on NAMI-CA as erroneously stated by board attorney Mr. Ramseyer in Mental Health World, Monday February 19, 2001. But, rather, that the "prudent financial reserve," that as publisher I had set up, did what it was intended to do to preserve the viability of the publication in a year when NAMI-CA membership fell off precipitously, and JOURNAL subscriptions for non-members also were down. c) That neither the Publisher's Note in the Mental Illness and the Law issue nor in the Wellness issue were defamatory in any manner whatsoever, but were well within my First Amendment rights---and that you will forthwith cause the pages of those journals that you had glued to become unglued. d) That you acknowledge that I have been operating as an independent contractor (as per Internal Revenue Service definition) and that I am not directly supervised by you. Also, that I have operated under a carte blanch agreement in good faith since 1989, and have dutifully and single-handedly raised all finances for the publication and responsibly submitted a proposed annual budget for board approval 11 years in a row. In addition, you confirm that my management of The JOURNAL budget has successfully passed annual audit without exception while consistently producing a product that has brought respect and praise to the organization. That you acknowledge that there was never established any right to censor by the board, its chair or anyone else regarding any author's ability to express an opinion in either the NAMI-CA newsletter (The Statement) or in The JOURNAL, and that the censorship that has taken place, regarding my columns, was a mistake made by the board. e) That you will immediately send to all recipients of previous letters to subscribers and others a correction. That you will also print the correction in a conspicuous place in the next issue of the NAMI-CA newsletter and cause same to be printed in local affiliate newsletters, and on internet sites, carefully pointing out correction of previous slanderous and libelous communication that was published in your name. That you will change the nature of statements sent out to subscribers and recited to members who phone into the office asking what has become of The JOURNAL so that answers are consistent with the points made above. 2. In the event that such action occurs in compliance with California Civil Code 48a, I will be willing to accept that as your apology and to let the matter drop. Period. If, on the other hand, you choose not to respond (as your attorney Mr. Ramseyer did previously when asked to explain a legal basis on which he determined that my writings were defamatory), I reserve the right to pursue any and all legal remedies available to me. Please Note: Back up data exist on all the above cited points. I'm sure the publishers of Mental Health Weekly would provide you with copies of the story they did after interviewing Rev. Van Horn, Brian Jacobs, William Ramseyer and me. All you'd have to do would be to ask. As for my health, which you have absolutely no right to disclose publicly in the manner which you did, I am neither in ill health nor did I resign because of illness. Both the surgeon who recently did emergency surgery to eliminate a migrating clot caused by a 1957 crash when I served as an officer in the USAF, and my personal physician who, in December 2000 performed a complete physical and pronounced me in "excellent health" for my age with the blood pressure of a young athlete (120 over 60), have stated their willingness to testify on my behalf. In addition, over a dozen journalistic and legal authorities, who are intimately conversant with First Amendment issues, have reviewed the Publisher's Note(s) in question and found them well within limits. The matter has also been submitted, by my erstwhile colleague Mr. Mracky, to the organization Editor and Publisher for their review. Worthy of special note is Brian Jacobs argument to Richard Van Horn in his failed attempt to get Van Horn to write a letter of protest about my Wellness article. Van Horn tells me that Jacobs stated I was advocating bad medical protocol by suggesting that an individual who is taking atypical antipsychotic medication and has a lipid panel with exceedingly high cholesterol and triglycerides be immediately put on Lipitor, as my son was. Jacobs added, according to Van Horn, that it was more customary and better practice for a doctor to wait three months and then retest to see if heart medication was necessary. Both my son's psychiatrist and the physician who prescribed Lipitor for him have stated that Jacobs' argument is "simply wrong" and that it is "unworthy of comment." I have no idea what else comprised the so-called "factual inquiry" submitted to Mr. Ramseyer for his "opinion" but the whole thing sounds suspect. It is, after all, the same Mr. Ramseyer who speaks freely to the press about a "financial drain" purportedly caused by The JOURNAL, while he adds, according to Mental Health Weekly, that he has not seen any figures. We would all be well served if we put this matter behind us. This demand is submitted in the hope that we will. Dan E. Weisburd 10260 Moorpark Street Toluca Lake, CA 91602
Click here for the original story on NAMI California censorship. Click here for the National Stigma Clearinghouse news item from February 18, 2001. Click here for the original "NAMI unglued" alert from Support Coalition International. Click here for the text of the censored articles. Additional Footnote: The gluing and censorship of the NAMI journal was the work of the newly-elected NAMI California board of directors, not any local chapter, not the national group. In fact, to clear up a mystery, the NAMI California board itself chose the glue. (And while sometimes the pages can be easily pulled apart, sometimes peeling does destroy patches of print on the censored pages.) The director of the vocational rehabilitation program, Turning Point, which did the gluing says they feel tricked by NAMI. When Turning Point agreed to the job, they had no idea it involved a controversial censorship. The director said they would have refused if they'd been fully informed. You can e-mail NAMI California and ask that they share your comments with their board of directors, including Mr. Jacobs at: namica@pacbell.net Click here for the Update: Dan Weisburd DEMAND Notice released March 8, 2001. Dan Weisburd demands a retraction and apology from the NAMI California Board of Directors. Click here for the "IT IS CENSORSHIP! I WILL NEVER KOWTOW TO A DICTATORSHIP!" article by Dan E. Weisburd Editor of The JOURNAL (March, 2001)
|
|
Opinions expressed in this web site do not necessarily reflect the views of NAMI Santa Cruz County, NAMI California or any affiliated organizations. We attempt to present a balanced perspective on issues by presenting multiple viewpoints. Copyright 2005 National Alliance for the Mentally Ill Santa Cruz County, All Rights Reserved. FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |
