JOHN FUND Exhibit 24 - Letter to Group Professionals

Harassing letter, another example of how Fund used attorneys to silence attempts to expose his ugly behavior. 

FUND JOBS PROGRAM Exhibit 6 - Christine Reis Hall and Jule Currie

Christine Hall Reis

Another of the many other women in Fund's life was Chrissy.  This media minx offered to 'get' us for John Fund.  She had not been married for long at the time and information about her lovely wedding, her delight in retro thirties dancing and obsession with shoes were readily available.  

She was working for Christian Broadcasting Network at the time.  In the email below she and her friend, Julie Currie, offer to help getting Morgan and Melinda.  Jule was working for Kroll Opposition Research. 

This is one of the email John left for Morgan to find. 

From:	Christine Hall Reis [SMTP:hallreis@yahoo.com]
To:	Fund, John
Cc:
Subject:	my friend Julie
Sent:	1/21/02 10:49 AM	Importance:	Normal

My friend Julie read about you in the NY Post. Remember Julie, the opposition researcher who works for Kroll?  I told her the bare bones basics of what happened, and that you're writing a book.  And she offers her help-- --- Julie Currie <curriedjulie@hotmail.com> wrote: > From: "Julie Currie" <curriedjulie@hotmail.com> > To: hallreis@yahoo.com > Subject: Re: fund > Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:40:15 +0000 > > Election fraud?  Yummy topic. > If you hear from him let him know I'm still > interested in helping him out.  > As far as the mother/daughter go we could run all > sorts of checks on them - > litigation, etc.... - to discount them.  As far as > election fraud goes, > well, you know. > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

Christine, a bride, sent this photo to Fund. 

FUND JOBS PROGRAM - Exhibit 5 - Email response from Alterman July 4, 2002

---

From: "AltercationMSNBC" (AltercationMSNBC@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Fund
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 09:57
To: "LittleLafayette@aol.com" (LittleLafayette@aol.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I think a retraction would only serve to bring more attention to what I said in the first place. I don't
 think you want to be associated with this for your entire life and it would probably be best to let it drop.
As for what I think of him, I have to say, it's entirely a disconnect. As I said, he has always been a 
perfect gentleman to me and behaved as such to my boss at MSNBC. Politically, however, his
 behavior is unconscionable even for someone who believes what he does. So there is a 
Jekyll/Hyde issue here, that is interesting, but fortunately, not my problem.
best,
Eric

FUND JOBS PROGRAM Exhibit 4 - Email exchange Alterman and Morgan, Mother's Day 2003

This is the email Alterman sent Morgan on Mother's Day morning, Sunday, May 11,  2003  The response was on its way within three hours.  

Why would he send it at a time when most people were likely to be off doing something family oriented?   Why had he not been in touch earlier? 

 Why did he ignore the content?  

Why did he not contact Melinda, Morgan's mother, who was a witness to the abuse?  

Why did he fail to request copies of the legal papers?  

Why did he fail to ask an attorney about the contract law issues raised? 

This is Eric Alterman.
Sorry to bother. I wonder if you could verify a few things for me.
First of all, are all the charges against John Fund dropped? 
Second, do you now deny that you and Fund were ever intended to be married? 
Do you deny that he ever physically abused you?
Did you admit to having ""trouble distinguishing between reality and fantasy."" 
Did you admit to bilking your stepfather out of $10,000 by inventing a false 
medical condition. 
Did you admit to having a ""borderline personality disorder. One of the 
symptoms of this condition is an inability to discriminate truth from 
fiction."" 
Right now, I am trying to write a column that does not include your name in 
it. I can't promise that it will end up that way but that is my intention. I 
would appreciate a response, however, and am sorry to bother you with 
unpleasant business.
best
Eric Alterman

Response - 

 "
",,"eofaquitaine@earthlink.net","eofaquitaine@earthlink.net",,,,
"Re: FW: journalistic inquiry","Mr. Alterman:
> Regarding question 1.
       I have been unable to get a straight answer from the DA's office.   
Journalists inquiring have also been refused a statement.  Check this with:  
Gene Gaudette, Cynthia Cotts, and Mark Crispin Miller all called to ask and 
told me this.    Inquiries from the agencies set up to help victims of 
domestic violence indicate that the case has been grossly mishandled.   I 
have never been able to retrieve my possessions still in John's apartment.  
John stole thousands of dollars from me.  The coming court case is also about 
that.  
> 
> Second, do you now deny that you and Fund were ever intended to be married? 
> 
Of course we intended to marry.  I never denied that we are making plans.  I 
could have Mom send you the copies of the bills.  
> 
> Do you deny that he ever physically abused you?
John battered me over and over, inflicting bruises and contusions.  He than 
forced me to write and sign a paper denying this while he stood over me, fist 
at the ready.  Was I both afraid of him and still in love?  Yes.  At that 
point I had fled our apartment in Jersey City and was staying at an apartment 
in Manhattan.  He found me and insisted on moving in with me. I was in fear 
of my life. 
> 
> Did you admit to having ""trouble distinguishing between reality and 
> fantasy.""
Did you admit to bilking your stepfather out of $10,000 by inventing a false 
medical condition. 
 When John and I got together I told him I had had problems and was then 
coming out of a very traumatic period.  I had done something horribly ugly 
and was wracked with guilt.  I had no trouble knowing that what I had done 
was wrong.   I had accepted money from my stepfather to malign and slander my 
own mother.  Nothing I said was true.  I knew it and it nearly killed me - 
and her.  My step father, Craig Franklin, was attempting to defraud my mother 
of millions of dollars in stock options.  He, with the president of the 
corporation, falsified his stock option agreement in an attempt to 
characterize it as separate property.  This was admitted to in deposition by 
both of them.    I have tapes with Craig saying this to me, angry that it did 
not work.  
       The court papers relating to most of this are public documents, filed 
in Santa Barbara, CA.   The depositions are available if you want to see 
them.  
     How does this relate to my heart condition and the $10,000.00 Craig so 
willing gave me?  You need to know that he was paying me thousands of dollars 
a month to slander my mother.  Relatively small amounts of money (and this is 
small potatoes to Craig) do not matter when you intend to steal millions.  He 
did not give me the money out of the goodness of his heart.  After giving me 
the money he tried to force his  sexual attentions on me.  When I refused to 
have sex with him he forced me to sign loan papers.  You can look at the 
dates of the gifts and the date on the 'loan' papers.  Such papers are not 
signed after the money is long spent.  I wouldn't have signed in the first 
place if I had not been blind-sided and crassly manipulated.   
     I have a heart condition.  I had considerable bills when I went in for 
treatment.  Does the fact I am not yet dead make it a fraud?  
     My mother has had two heart attacks.  Both my aunts died of heart 
attacks.  My youngest uncle has had open heart surgery.  My cousin was born 
with a heart condition and had surgery immediately after birth.  
     Anne Gripp died at age 59.
     Carol Holbert died at age 36
     Mom had her first one in 1997, second in 1998.  
     Stephen M. Pillsbury had his surgery in 1994.  He is still living.  
     My little cousin, now 13, is still living.  
     It does not take a genius to see who is lying.  How much documentation 
did Fund offer you?  
     While I had emotional problems when I was younger those are past 
history.  Confronting what I did was sober medicine of the most effective 
kind.  I never lied to John.  

FUND JOBS PROGRAM Exhibit 3 - Letter regarding Elle Article from Jennifer Bambi, August 27, 2004

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

1107 Crestline Drive

Santa Barbara, CA 93105

BYMAIL

Jennifer Bambi

Hachette Filipacchi Media

1633 Broadway, New York, NY 10019

August 27, 2004

Dear Ms. Bambi,

In reference to your response to the letters sent to Carol Smith on June 11^th and 14^th of this year I would first like to thank you for responding at all. Since that courtesy is rare in my experience it is sincerely appreciated.

However, I must take issue with and enlarge our discussion on several points.

Contracts need not be written. A contract is composed of offer and acceptance and necessitates an exchange of values. If Ms. Rosman had not asked for and received an exclusive thus limiting our ability to give other interviews for what turned out to be nearly a year there would have been no exchange of values and you would be correct. However, this is not the case. Ms. Rosman did ask for such a consideration and it was granted.

The second point that we need to take up is the timing of your response. The initial letter was FedExed and the time of receipt is thus fixed and noted. One might wonder why two and a half months had been allowed to pass before a response could be sent. This becomes even more curious when since that time my daughter and I have filed a suit in New York for slander and libel that reserved the right to add defendants. That pleading has been widely circulated and we have received numerous inquiries on the suit. Your response clearly could have been responsive to that filing and thus your letter could be responsive not to the initial letter but in hopes of avoiding having your client named as a defendant in that suit.

When and if this matter was litigated the basis of proof necessary to prevail would be that pertaining to a civil action and the timing of your response would raise questions that would need to be answered.

You should also know, if you are not aware, that the journalist, Katy Rosman, was recently hired by the Wall Street Journal. This also goes to the issue of motive for deciding not to run the article as agreed. It may well be that other actions that imply trades of favors were made of which we are not yet aware. We are looking in to that.

Again, I want to thank you for your response. It was very much appreciated. I hope I spelled your name correctly. I tried to read it but may not have been accurate. Since my own signature is also scrawly I understand the problem. I type my name below it so as not to cause misunderstandings. 

Sincerely, 

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster 

JOHN FUND Exhibit 22 - Announcement wedding will not take place

Never was an announcement  made with such a sense of relief, of was the relief of such short duration. 

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster
regrets to announce that
the marriage of her daughter
Morgan Frances Pillsbury
and
John H. Fund
will not take place.

Having issued this terse pro forma announcement of a nonevent would in most circumstances be more than enough said. It is regrettable that these circumstances are not usual or normal or even civil in the accepted sense.
I had believed at some point late last summer that Morgan and John would marry. It seemed like a reasonable solution for each of them. I believed there were strong and enduring affections on both sides; that each cared about the other.
But the course of events has disabused me of these hopeful expectations.
I very reluctantly agreed to sponsor a small and very private wedding. I rescind that sponsorship now with a sense of relief.
But that leaves us with the question of what really happened.
If I could leave that question to the idle speculation of strangers I would be tempted to do so. But there are compelling reasons to speak out.
First, lying is wrong. Slander is wrong. And while I wish Morgan had never started a relationship with John that is, in fact, what happened. The relationship has never ended. The two are together as I write this.
It is a fact that Morgan became pregnant by John; true that he manipulated her into having an abortion; true that he then became emotionally abusive. That abusive behavior has continued to the present time, escalating to physical violence.
He has broken every promise he has made to change his behavior.
I do not expect to be believed solely on my word. Documentation is available.
I believed in good faith that John understood the need to do the right thing. The right thing in any situation where you know you have harmed another is to admit your fault, offer apology and appropriate restitution and learn to be a better person. Sometimes our actions make further relations impossible. But most people accept apologies and amends; these can make relationships stronger.
Who among us has not done wrong? Relationships, as well as individuals, can be healed.
Appropriate behavior is reinforced by the presence of those around us. Disapproval and condemnation are powerful tools that should never to be misused. But they are important because they help us understand when we do wrong.
John has used slander, lies, and the power of his position to hide his actions from friends and the public. He used emotional abuse and violence to control Morgan. This was very wrong.
His reasons for that are easy to understand. No public figure, even a small one like John, wants it known he is abusing and battering the woman with whom he is living. But the behavior of his various professional associates is harder to understand.
Why was John able to stop the publication of the original article in TALK Magazine? I urged Morgan not to talk to John Connelly, but agreed to confirm her story when she insisted. I have been told that John Fund has been very busy lying to various fellow journalists for months. I have been told, but do not know, that he has used threats to keep the story unpublished. But no media outlet has done any research to confirm or disprove the story. If I am to believe what I have been told, this is because John used his power as a respected pundit to deny the truth, slandering both Morgan and myself in the process.
This goes beyond sloppy journalism. Those responsible enabled and empowered John's abuse.
Journalists exercise enormous power. That power should never be misused. If they failed to act because John is useful to them and suppressing the story was in their interest then they acted in collusion and are party to the subsequent abuse and slander. What they condemn in politicians and in business must also be guarded against within their own ranks. The misuse of power is wrong no matter who or what is involved.
Doing the right thing applies to all parts of our lives. Doing the right thing in the private places of our lives most defines who and what we really are.
I have no explanation why John asked me to sponsor a wedding. I have urged for months that he get into therapy with Morgan if she would not leave him. When I learned of the abuse I begged her to leave and insisted she file a police report for her protection.
Treating domestic violence as a disease instead of as a very ugly way to get what you want must stop. Power should not immunize anyone to the consequences of their actions.
Not even very large pundits.

JOHN FUND Exhibit 21 - Open letter to Steven M. Craig

The letter below was sent to Steven M. Craig, who I believed was a friend of Morgan's when he contacted me, expressing concern for Morgan in 2002.  He put out, as I recall, some kind of faxed newsletter.  This is a response to an article he wrote which contained outrageous misstatements. 

An Open Letter To Steven M. Craig

Dear Mr. Craig,

I received a copy of your faxed newsletter from a third party. Even though I am continuously mentioned, and I might add, libeled, you did not see fit to contact me in advance of publication. A curious omission.
You have violated the usual standards and practices for journalistic endeavors in so many particulars that I am somewhat at a loss to know where to start. But I will try to be as brief as possible given the obvious constraints.
First, I know you only from four or less phone conversations all of which took place last summer or autumn. I talked to you because you expressed concern for Morgan and positioned yourself as a friend of hers who wanted to protect her from behavior on John’s part that was inappropriate. You were never contacted as a journalist. I always believed you were Morgan’s friend, not a journalist looking for a quick sale.
In the last conversation we had you expressed concern that John was trying to create the appearance of fraud on Morgan’s part. You asserted this many times with great detail as to how it could be accomplished, why John was both capable and likely to do so.
Morgan was handling the house finances as John had asked and you warned both her and myself of the possibility that she was being set up by John Fund, who is frequently characterized as the individual most responsible for the various ‘dirty tricks’ that so exercised the liberal media during the Clinton Presidency. You forcefully urged me to make sure that Morgan documented every transaction. John Fund, you said, is a dangerous man who will stop at nothing. This chain of events, very clear in my mind, certainly, makes your ‘article’ even more outrageous.
You touched on one issue that strikes everyone. Why did John Fund allow Morgan to move in with him, remain, and continue to handle his affairs? Why did the doyen of devious devisings do what he did? All chains of causality link to the real nature of the participants. Through their actions people tell us who they are behind the smoke and mirrors, if we possess the insight to really see.
We will soon see, of that you can be sure.
Back to the subject.
I will itemize your specific untruths and misstatements so that you can recant and publish a retraction in an orderly fashion. This retraction should include a written apology to myself along with a list of those to whom this idiocy was faxed.
First page, second column, line 27 – 37. “When it was learned that he not only had an affair with Morgan’s Mother while he babysat for young Morgan but later impregnated her when she came to New York as an adult, it caused a shudder in the right wing community.”
John never babysat any of my children. He lived in Sacramento; I lived in the Los Angeles area. He was in their presence once or twice. I keep hearing this story and still wonder where it came from. As to the reaction of the ‘right wing community,’ I would not know. I know lots of right-wingers, but most of them are entirely oblivious to this drama. As I have frequently told John, he is not as important as he thinks he is. Most people neither know nor care who he is. But everyone who knows about it who is a friend of mine is just appalled. Are you intimating with your comment that somehow left-wingers believe it is open season on the children of their friends? What a curious world you inhabit.
First page; 3rd column ;line 8 – 18. “There was even the possibility expressed by Morgan herself that Fund was her Brother’s sire.”
First, you should not capitalize brother. You are not u sing it as a proper name. A simple glance at my youngest son leaves the viewer with no doubt as to his parentage. I was very sure of the matter and, in fact, knew that no other genetic combination could have been possible except that which is acknowledged. This may surprise you, so brace yourself. Women generally know these things. Certainly I did. Biology, unlike politics, has laws based on physical reality. If Morgan told you that was a possibility then she was mistaken. Morgan’s relationship with the truth used to be problematical. She is much improved in the last year, having had to deal with the continuous lies of Mr. Fund. Now she understands how totally aggravating it is to slog through unending mires of mendacity.
First page: 4th column; line 39 – 41 to Second page; 1st column; Lines 1 – 9 “Her Mother, Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, during this time was in the campaign and had sent off e-mails to executives of the Journal and even to Laura Bush, or so she claimed to me, disparaging Mr. Fund’s character. She oddly, however felt he should do the “right thing” and marry her daughter when he was her ex-lover, Family Values Libertarian Style. (She is a prominent and well known spokesperson for the cause.)”
Campaign? I write a letter asking people to let them alone to deal with their problems and I am interfering. But if I had done nothing I would have been neglectful. Rock and a hard place, don’t you think?
Morgan is my daughter. Parents don’t abandon their children even when those children do stupid things. I did not want them to marry. But I could not get Morgan to leave. I was hoping you were wrong about John and that these two troubled people could work things out. We all entertain hopes on the way to reality. Parts of the story were invisible to me, living as I do 3,000miles away.
When is a mother deemed to be absolved of the bindings of motherhood? Short answer: Never. Morgan is a woman grown and of mature years. I cannot order her. I can only attempt to persuade and to point out the inappropriateness of behavior revealed to me either by her or by others. I never stop hoping. Not an easy job, rest assured.
I have never sent a letter to Laura Bush regarding this matter nor did I tell you I intended to do so. I am sure the First Lady keeps accurate records so you could ask her office. I cannot imagine what writing to her would have accomplished. This is not a problem with literacy, presumably. However, I did go to tea at the White House last spring before this all happened. But the event, while not public, was on behalf of Federated Republican Women. I am a member of Federated Women. In fact, I am First Vice-President for Santa Barbara County this year. I am also a regent for Federated and attend lots of their events. This leads me to the next point.
I am not a spokesperson for the LP. I am sure they would reel with horror at the suggestion. I reregistered Republican in 1988, joining Federated soon afterwards. Surely 14 years is a long time, even to someone as inexact as you seem to be. I have donated to Libertarian candidates from time to time; helped out here and there when asked by a friend. I have occupied no office.
If you know many Libertarians you know that they harbor opinions on issues pertaining to “Family Values’ on pretty much the same range of outrageous and sublimely horrible as do individuals in other parties. Individuals within that party have also been known to act in ways that contradict their expressed opinions. That is one of the problems with all collectivism. It uses specifics to ignore ranges of behavior. As individuals, most Libertarians are as responsible as Reps. and Dems; or Greens, for that matter. You get stinkers in every bunch.
I did write a private letter to Paul Gigot asking him to intervene at one point. That was after Morgan was being battered. John’s behavior underwent a salutary change for the better immediately thereafter. Unfortunately, it did not stick.
Page 2; 1st column; lines 9 – 21 “It there fore came as no surprise when Page Six of The New York Post ran an item in January that they were engaged and that invitations were sent out. The very next day there was a retraction with a comment by Morgan that her mother should in effect mind her own business.”
I would be very interested to see any material that backs up any part of this assertion. First, I grudgingly agreed to host a small private wedding after a conversation with John and an e-mail that indicted to me his wish that they marry. I begin the very moderate and private arrangements for that wedding immediately since the date loomed. Even small weddings take time. I e-mailed updates and questions to John and Morgan regularly. I was especially worried about John’s family’s ability to eat the fish I planned for the reception, as I remember. John’s one comment was on the program I planned to give attendees. The twenty invitations to what I insisted must be a small and very private wedding are still sitting in a pile in my office. None were ever mailed. I e-mailed two people with the artwork for that invitation before retracting it. Those two people were, surprise, Morgan and John. One of them sent it onto various people, evidently. I did not. I sent an e-mailed copy to Lloyd Grove afterwards at his request. I didn’t consider the matter confidential. Just not interesting to non-family members.
Page 2;column 3; lines 26 – 34. “Her mother, coincidently happened to come to New York while all these recent activities were taking place and presumably is lending moral support to her abused daughter.
I made plans to come to NY when asked to attend the American Theatre Critics Conference by my friend Michael Grossberg. Michael and I have been friends for 25 years. He is a theatre critic for the Columbus Dispatch and active in the organization. He will confirm what I have said. I do not doubt that Morgan has been abused. She was shaky and distraught when I arrived. John Fund had decamped just minutes before I walked in. He is over six feet tall. Morgan is 5’1” in height. John denied being there. The security at the door later affirmed that he had been. I have and will testify that I believe Morgan was abused, then and earlier. I do not lightly commit myself on such matters.
Morgan has been known to lie. That is why she taped John in the first place. I still ask her for documentation when ever possible. She gives it to me. John never would.
You can send your retraction to me care of Morgan’s attorney, William Cobb.

JOHN FUND Exhibit 20 - Legal Correspondence and Expense, Talk Magazine

Cost of stopping the publication of article by John Connolly, "Sex, Lies, and the Tape," in Talk Magazine

JOHN FUND Exhibit 19 - John Fund Deposition Sidney Blumenthal Case

JOHN FUND Exhibit 18 Deposition by Manuel Klausner

FUND JOB PROGRAM Exhibit 2 - Lloyd Grove on misuse of photo

Morgan did not provide Lloyd Grove with a photo.  It was a blatant lie. 

Subj:	Re: Correction
Date:	1/30/02 12:20:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:    grovel@washpost.com (Lloyd Grove) To:    MPF1free@aol.com

actually morgan provided us with the same photo and we chose to credit her
since it was of her.

<>

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <grovel@washpost.com>
Received: from  rly-xg02.mx.aol.com (rly-xg02.mail.aol.com [172.20.115.199]) by air-xg01.mail.aol.com (v83.35) with ESMTP id MAILINXG16-0130152001; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:20:01 -0500
Received: from  inetmail1.washpost.com ([65.193.99.31]) by rly-xg02.mx.aol.com (v82.22) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXG28-0130152000; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:20:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Correction
To: MPF1free@aol.com
Message-ID: <OF528644C2.7FC49D11-ON85256B51.006FBE7B@washpost.com>
From: "Lloyd Grove" <grovel@washpost.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:21:00 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Subj:	Correction
Date:	1/30/02 12:08:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:	MPF1free
To:	grovel@washpost.com
BCC:	Mrsdewinter72, MPF1free

Dear Lloyd,

      I understand that the picture I sent you of Morgan ran captioned as having been provided by her.  As you know, this is not correct.  I sent the photo at your request and while Morgan did give it to me it was actually in a large box of family photos along with her baby pictures.  She had no idea I had sent it and did not even remember which picture I was referring to when I told her about it.
      I know that you will be concerned since you, as a responsible journalist, could not want to give the public impressions that are inaccurate.
      I have not seen the article you wrote but was informed on the content by several friends in Wshington.

Sincerely,

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

JOHN FUND Exhibit 17 - Letter from long time Libertarian

 Letter written to me by a long time Libertarian who knew Fund in Sacramento and in the LP.

Melinda,

I saw your post about the Raimondo article on Fund.

John Fund never has been a registered Libertarian. 
Not for a single day in his life.  What follows is in
thanks for your writing what you have written...I also
posted Raimondo.  I always like Raimondo's writing;
never liked the guy, what little I knew of him.

I never was a fan of your activism either; but I like
what you've written over the years.  And, I can't say
I took sides in the troubles regarding your
daughter...though I knew John Fund very well, and
though we had mutual friends, and spent alot of time
together socially, I never was on his side.  I believe
he as wrong in that matter involving your daughter and
I believe many people you know helped him get away
with it.

Just cause I knew John.  

Good thoughts in your article today; there is one part
of your theme on which I would like to suggest some
more information so you will have that to consider. 
And that very simply is that you and others holding
title in the LP gave us Fund, and he was not then and
is not now part of some giant capable and culpable
organization.

There are twits.  There are no Neo-Cons, at least not
in the sense of intelligent, capable activists.  These
Neo-Cons, my good lady, simply are twits, and hired
twits at that.

I agree with your view of Koch et al. 

Most people wouldn't hire Fund except as an automaton.
He was sponsored in by a Sabre grant, given a short
paying gig by Novak, and rose, basically by writing
scurilous garbage about good people...well, about
people, whom he made look really bad.  

His first score was something Reader's Digest paid him
$3,000.00 for,and which blew the reputation and career
of a lady then working in the Reagan White House.  I
know the amount and the details because he was feted,
at the same home I describe below at an earlier time,
and I asked him how he could write something like he'd
written.  It was a story the poor lady told him when
she was half in the bag. It made her look crazy and
she lost her job with the Reagan Administration.  In
the perversion of upper crust society, it raised
John's reputation and pay rate.

Fund, at that time and lasting till today, has been
feted at many libertarian and Libertarian events; paid
far more than he's worth to spin fantasies.  Like the
fantasies he told the LPC Exec Comm, like he told
about his candidacy in Sacramento...I worked with
those local candidates...Fund NEVER did.

I didn't know, like you, that he'd lied about running
himself, until the Raimondo article came out.  I knew,
at a distance, both Garris and Raimondo.  I regarded
each like Fund, and kept my distance from all. 
However, you and yours hired him, embraced his
bullshit and rewarded him for it.

I don't knock you for that; except if the LPC of that
time had anything to be proud of, it would at least
have had one member who'd spotted the biggest and most
obvious lie, as I tell you about below.

Fund was hired on by the LPC precisely because he was
full of shit.  That's the reason the same organization
had hired Garris before him.  The organization quite
frankly was dominated by people who had no people
skills...and, as a collective, certainly was full of
itself and full of shit.

Fund never was registered to vote as a Libertarian. 
Not for a day.  At the time he was scheming (along
with Crane) to cut Garris out of the job as Director
of the California LP, I asked him why he was
registered as a Republican.

We were having dinner and drinks at a friends' house;
there were, as I recall, three other people present,
in addition to Fund and I. Fund considered the removal
of Garris at that time to be a done deal, though not
finalized.  Crane was his mentor in that.  

John was surprised I knew he wasn't registered to vote
as a Libertarian.  The only reason I asked him the
question was because he had been enthralling the
assembled with more of his insider wisdom regarding
the LP.

He told me his party affiliation would not hinder his
getting the job of Director, since "they'll never find
out" or something like that. Probably he was playing
to  me, as he knew I held the LP in very low regard,
especially the LPC.  I was then as now a registered
Libertarian. 

We then discussed the lackadaisical nature of the LP
committees, including the LPC Exec Comm.  I remember
in this conversation also Fund first explaining to me
his theory that "the higher you go in the Libertarian
Party the more socialistic it is".  He was right about
the fact that his bona fides never were checked.  The
LPC was not noted actually for doing any politics, and
although the State of California at that time provided
your Exec. Comm. with free lists of registered party
members, apparently no one ever checked.  The fact of
alternate registrations could be true, if he had
bothered to falsely register elsewhere using a
completely bogus name, and for whatever screwy reason.

Likely, his insistence to you that he lived this
alternate life as intrepid activist is more Fund
bullshit.  His name, John Fund, was on the registered
list, as a Republican (along with his sister and mom,
all of whom resided at the one address in Fair Oaks,
CA).

It was easy to check.  No one did. Frankly, I think
someone should have checked.  I knew he was a
registered Republican both because I worked campaigns
then, and I had voter lists and I had noticed.  And,
as said, I'd asked him about it.

He told me he didn't want to be registered as a
Libertarian because it was a red flag to the
IRS---and, yes, this was when he still was living at
home, going to school sporadically and part-time and
before he became an official Star Trek promoter.  He
also told me that registration as a Libertarian would
hinder his career path, whatever those may have been
at that time...he hadn't yet applied for the Sabre
Foundation grant which sent him to DC. 

No one on the Exec Com ever bothered because none of
those on that board, at that time, ever actually ran
proper campaigns.  If you remember, it was alot about
bullshit posturing and little about any actual
personal track record of accomplishment by those
holding titles.

I knew him then, and quite well.  He had absolutely no
political skills.  He was a very intelligent guy.  He
could be very charming.  He also could not be
believed.  Some people spot that very easily.  Some,
like those who sit on large committees, white table
cloths and water glasses (LPC EXEC COMM, or US SENATE,
take your pick) don't know much.  Fund was just the
kind of guy one would expect the LPC of that time to
hire.

I would urge you to look beyond your own experiences
in the LPC before declaring it dead.  It's been a job
for many to bring it back from what was done to it,
but it hasn't died and has been revived.  There still
is some of that same problem, title holders doing
nothing but causing problems...but, that's party
politics.  It's much less these days then before, from
what I can tell.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

JOHN FUND Exhibit 16 - Letter from Office of the DA, NY September 30, 2009

JOHN FUND Exhibit 15 - Deposition, NY

FUND JOBS PROJECT Exhibit 1 - Letter to Elle Magazine, June 11, 2004

Carol Smith
Senior Vice President/ELLE Group Publishing Director
1633 Broadway, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10019

212-767-5800

June 11, 2004

Dear Ms. Smith,

We have been reliably informed through Ms. Katy Rosman that you are not going to run the article for which my daughter and I were interviewed and for which we provided interviews and complete and conclusive documentation and declarations of the various abuses and crimes my daughter suffered at the hands of her former boy friend, John Fund.

We understand through the same source that you decision was predicated on the assertion that the proofs we provided were not sufficient. However, you have failed to contact us or our attorney with questions although each of us has been available to you during the entirely of the past year both by phone, in person, and via e-mail.

A threat to sue over the publication of information that is provably true constitutes criminal behavior both in California and New York under statutes in each of those states. Those statutes are:

New York: KIDNAPPING, COERCION AND RELATED OFFENSES S 135.60 Coercion in the second degree;

California: PENAL CODE SECTION 422.6-422.95 and SECTION 422-422.1

Further, the use of such threats constitutes a Federal crime under United States Code No. 28

Therefore you have relief for threats made against you to prevent publication and can prevail over those threats.

An objective third party recently did a survey of the material publicly available on the web. This individual was not familiar with the case and got in touch on an entirely different matter. He expressed the opinion that there can be no doubt as to the truth of our assertions given the blatant and continuing barrage of lies from Mr. Fund and his attorney. Therefore we must also consider the possibility that you are withdrawing this article for other reasons than those stated.

During the last year we have been approached by other journalists interested in pursuing such an article and refused to cooperate with those efforts because we promised Elle Magazine an exclusive. Because of this material consideration and because of the timing of your notification to us we face real and profound potential losses among which is the appearance that you are substantiating the slanders and libels asserted without evidence by Mr. Fund.

I include here a copy of the documentation provided to you which represents a tremendous amount of work on our parts. While this is all of the documentation supplied to you it is naturally not all of the more that 50,000 pieces of evidence in the hands of our attorney who is presently pursuing a law suit in New York. The name of our attorney is Gary Fish, esq. and you are free to contact him to substantiate these claims.

If you yield to these threats you will have damaged the legal principle, originally established in 1735 in New York in the case of Zenger that the truth is its own defense and that in itself is news worthy.

Therefore, if you do not publish the article as promised you leave us no choice but to seek legal remedies against you. Since I participated in the interviews I will take those actions in California while my daughter follows through in New York. We will simultaneously file in Federal Court since they will eventually hear the case.

While I am sincerely sorry to write this letter you have left me no choice.

In hopes that these contemplated actions will prove unnecessary I sign myself,

Sincerely,

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

27 W. Anapamu No. 255

Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Cc: Gary Fish, Esq, Board of Directors and others

JOHN FUND - Exhibit 23 - Charges of domestic violence, NY

JOHN FUND - Exhibit 14 Email to Morgan documenting gift of checks January 19, 2002

-----------------
Forwarded Message:

Subj:	RE: (no subject)
Date:	1/19/02 1:19:32 AM Pacific Standard Time

From:    John.Fund@dowjones.com
To:    Mrsdewinter72@aol.com


I am sorry for the pain I have caused,I don't know what came over me.John
-----Original Message-----
From: Mrsdewinter72@aol.com
To: Fund, John
Sent: 1/19/02 4:14 AM
Subject: (no subject)

Thank you for the checks,It was very sweet.C

GAIL HERIOT Exhibit 4 - Letter from Heriot to Gene Gaudette

To: gene@gaudette.infoFrom: Gail Heriot <gheriot@sandiego.edu>Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 19:11:27 -0700Subject: CONFIDENTIAL: John Fund

Letter sent by Professor Gail Heriot

School of Law, San Diego

Dear Mr. Gaudette--

  I am a friend of John Fund,

…. not his lawyer, but I think it’s important to send you this letter.  Sometime ago, you posted an unflattering stories about him on your American Politics web site.  I’ve no reason to doubt that you considered it both accurate and newsworthy at the time.  I’m certainly not writing to quarrel with that judgment.  If the allegations against John were true, then they would have merited publication.  Indeed, they would have merited ridicule (and your web site clearly good at it).  But the evidence is overwhelming that those allegations are not true.  John maybe a less-than-perfect person, but he is not guilty of the offenses of which he has been accused.  John’s greatest sin was that he became briefly romantically involved 1999)

… When he realized that Ms. Pillsbury was unstable, he broke the relationship (in early to mid-1999).  That started a firestorm that has not yet subsided.  John and many of his female friends and acquaintances have been the victims of an apparently jealous rage ever since. I would not blame you a bit for refusing to take my word for it.
….Fortunately, Ms. Pillsbury left a trail of documents (some of them under oath) that demonstrate his innocence quite convincingly, including a notarized affidavit in which she admits that John did not abuse her and that there had never been wedding plans between the two of them. 

…..Many of these documents are available at John’s special web site

….at www.johnfund.com.  They convinced even Eric Alterman, whose article Who Framed John Fund appears in this week’s The Nation, hardly a nest of right-wing apologists.  The articles web address is www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml alterman.

….Those two web sites are just the tip of the iceberg.  The full story Ms. Pillsbury’s strange crusade against John would fill several file cabinets and include check forgery, credit card fraud, witness harassment and endless suicide threats. 

….and, while she claims that she was 23 years old

….when she and John had their romantic relationship in 1999, in fact she was born on July 5, 1967, making her almost 36 years old today.  We may never know for sure, but her claim that she was pregnant made shortly after their 1999 break-up is dubious at best. 

….Only a person with a reckless disregard for the truth would publish it.  Indeed, a lie about a pregnancy would have been easy compared to the lies Ms. Pillsbury admits to under oath.  A few months before her initial involvement with John, she bilked her step father out of $10,000 by falsely telling him that she had a heart condition that required a medical procedure to correct. 

….Again, you need not take my word for it; she herself described this incident in the deposition transcript (in an unrelated case) on John’s web site. 

….I know of other spectacular examples of her fabrications. 

….When asked during her deposition “What lies have you told in the past?”, she replied, Too many to name. 

…Moreover, Ms. Pillsbury has refused to produce the proof one would ordinarily expect. John reports that after the alleged abortion, she claimed that the procedure had been performed negligently and that she would never been able to have a child.  He offered to get her an attorney to handle any medical malpractice claim if she would produce her medical records.  After much prodding, she never did.  

…Under the circumstances, it’s time to take down the John Fund story from your web site.  Those who are familiar with the story from Alterman’s article will know that it is false and your credibility will be hurt. But for those who aren’t familiar with his article (and there are many), it is defamatory.  No one is asking for a retraction; just take the story down.
It’s time to go on to the next conservative pundit.  (I suggest William Bennett and his conservative apologists.)  This time, however, please double check your facts.  It’s not just your intended target that end up getting hurt.  You'd be surprised at the number of people who get hurt on both sides of the politcal (sic) spectrum when false stories are spread.

Thanks for your attention.

Sincerely yours,

Gail Heriot
Professor of Law

JOHN FUND - Exhibit 13 - Wedding arrangements

I was not thrilled to the idea of these two of people marrying at any point.  I could so no change for happiness for either of them - but tried to do the right thing while not wasting money on what appeared to be a march toward disaster.   I sent Morgan twenty invitation I made and printed myself.  I put nothing on the Internet since the entire thing was nothing but an embarrassment. 

JOHN FUND - Exhibit 12 - Email exchange with Gail Heriot January 18, 2002

Gail Heriot [SMTP:gheriot@acusd.edu]
John.Fund@dowjones.com
Re:
1/18/02 12:31 PM	Importance:	Normal

Yes, please give me a call.  I will be at a school choice conference at the
other end of campus all afternoon, and I think I'm supposed to have dinner
with Clint Bolick tonight.  But I will be in my office (619 260 2331) at
11:15 my time if you could call me then.  I'm not sure what other times
I'll be there if that doesn't work.  I'll figure that out if I don't hear
from you at 11:15.

   At 07:32 AM 1/18/02 -0500, you wrote: >  Thank you. I will call you today. I appreciate your giving a fair hearing. >-----Original Message----- >From: Gail Heriot >To: John.Fund@dowjones.com >Sent: 1/17/02 7:52 PM > > >I hope you get some sleep.  I saw the retraction in the NY Post and a >few >of the other recent things on the net. You were right.  Mother >Pillsbury-Foster really is crazy.