Harassing letter, another example of how Fund used attorneys to silence attempts to expose his ugly behavior.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
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.
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 |
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 11th and 14th
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
Sunday, January 20, 2013
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.
regrets to announce that
the marriage of her daughter
Morgan Frances Pillsbury
and
John H. Fund
will not take place.
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)