Kevin Langdon, [old address omitted]; January 27, 1994
To the TNS Executive Committee:
I have been preoccupied with a number of other matters recently and have taken a long time
getting this memo together. This is unfortunate, as there are a number of matters that
badly need this Committee's attention.
Please note my temporary address above. Mail sent to P.O. Box 795, Berkeley, CA 94701 will
still reach me, but there is a delay in forwarding. I expect to be at the above address
for the next few weeks or months and will notify the Committee of any change.
The first thing I want to address is the Clint Williams/Kent Shultz/John Kormes matter.
In Clint Williams' memo of January 3, 1993, included in the January 30 ExCom memo, he
wrote:
If I do anything editorially with Vidya, it won't be a radical departure from prior format. As I mentioned in my earlier letters, I'm involved in ``complexity,'' and that's been consuming my creative energies such that I wouldn't be a contentious editor of Vidya.
Unfortunately, Williams has gotten the rest of us involved in a considerable amount of
unnecessary and counterproductive complexity.
Kent Shultz' complaint to Ombudsman Larry Jess, dated August 13, 1993, cites two acts by
Clint Williams, but Kent has agreed that his essay was not edited severely, as he believed
at that time, so it basically boils down to Clint's use of an altered picture of Kent on
the front cover of the issue in which his essay appeared, with the caption ``Molester
Jive,'' and accompanying personal remarks about Shultz. Clint has admitted that this was
intended as a commentary on the essay in question and that he digitally altered a photo
from Kent's prision ID which he uses on his stationery, but does not seem to understand
that his action steps beyond commentary on ideas to the level of personal vilification of
a member. This kind of ad hominem attack is antithetical to the principles on which TNS
was founded.
Lest it be thought that Clint merely made an error and is not likely to repeat it, please
note that Clint has refused to apologize for his characterization of Kent Shultz and has
even created (and circulated in selected preprints) another cover design containing a
cruel reference to Laura Lansberry's suggested ``remedy'' for Shultz' condiditon. (Pat
Thomas assures me that this cover was intended for issue #134, to illustrate Laura
Lansberry's letter therein, despite the number 135 which actually appears on the dummy
circulated by Clint; I don't know about that, but to circulate this cover at all bespeaks
a monumental failure of judgement.)
Clint has drastically edited an official TNS announcement (the Annual Meeting notice) and
has refused to publish the writings of a TNS officer, John Kormes, on the grounds that
there is an expulsion motion--which Clint made and which is out of order--pending against
John. The particular essay which John has been trying to get published in Vidya
for the past few months, even going so far as to offer to pay for its publication as an
ad, is a reply to an attack on John in the pages of Vidya by Betty Hansen.
Once again, the right to reply to accusations calling into question one's actions and
character is one of the fundamental principles on which TNS was founded. Clint Williams
obviously has no respect for these principles.
In case anyone is inclined to question Clint's intent to personally attack Kent Shultz, I
cite Clint's memo of August 25, addressed to Larry Jess in his capacity as Ombudsman,
Clint wrote:
Any contrition for the crimes of which he [Kent Shultz] was convicted is, if it at all exists, imperceptible. His remorseless arrogance, however, appears irrepressible.
And in a postscript he added:
It is clear from the enclosed communication from Mr. Shultz to Mr. Jess, that Mr. Shultz's self-delusion is complete. It is a paranoid's precipitate response to imagined insults. (I wonder, parenthetically, how it is possible to ``defame'' a convicted child molester? It is clearly not possible to ``humiliate'' the one enjoying TNS membership.)
The second word in quotation marks above clearly indicates what Clint was trying to do
through his remarks about Kent. (This is a behavioral observation and not an imputation of
motives from knowledge of Clint's character.)
In the second of three paragraphs headed ``For the record'' after the postscript, Clint
wrote:
If Mr. Shultz considers the cover of Vidya #132/133 unflattering, he will be less captivated by the cover of Vidya #135: ``Molester II: What me sorry?'', with mirror images of the same altered photo.
The third paragraph reads:
``Molester Jive'' was the second-choice photo caption. ``Finding and [bleep]ing your inner child'' was first choice.
It should be clear that we're not talking about a one-time comment here; Clint has a
vendetta going against Kent Shultz.
In the preprint of Vidya #135 in which Clint Williams printed John Kormes'
``There She Goes Again'' (his reply to Betty Hansen, mentioned above), Clint appended the
folowing editorial note:
The Editor intitially rejected the preceding letter. He finds the references to himself ludicrous, and Vidya an unsuitable venue for one man's tendentious diatribes against a parallel peer group. Mr. Kormes resubmitted the letter unchanged. I.S.P.E. President Hansen intends no further response to Mr. Kormes. This correspondence is closed.
It is a fundamental right of those subjected to criticism in print to reply to that
criticism in the forum in which they have been attacked. Clint Williams persistently
refuses to recognize that the Triple Nine Society was founded as a society where criticism
of the leadership--whether of the ISPE or of TNS itself--is permitted and even encouraged.
Other members are also entitled to express their opinions about a subject which continues
to kindle strong opinions and fierce debate; it is entirely inappropriate for the Editor
to delare any correspondence ``closed.''
In his letter to Larry Jess of August 30, Kent Shultz replied to some of Clint Williams'
remarks in response to Kent's complaint to Larry in his capacity as Ombudsman. Many of his
points are well taken, but I cannot agree that ``All of these questions lead to another
very important question: the disturbing issue of his motives.'' Shultz waded deeper into
this morass in the following passage:
On Point 7, Mr. Williams has betrayred his own personal problems and severe biases. It would appear that Mr. Williams has core issues of toxic shame in his own family background which issues have never been successfully resolved by way of professional and clinical help.
It is inappropriate in evaluating the Editor's conduct, which should stand or fall on
its good or bad judgement and consistency or inconsistency with TNS policy and tradition,
to speculate as to his motives. I think that society at large has gone way too far in this
direction. I don't give a damn why some hood stuck up a gas station; armed robbery is
illegal and armed robbers should be punished, psychiatric witchdoctory to the contrary
notwithstanding, for the protection of society and not as some kind of absolute moral
imperative.
The quoted passage above, which consists of insupportable speculation, is defamatory and
probably actionable. While I agree with Kent that Clint owes him an apology for his
editorial characterization of Kent's character, it is also apparent that Kent owes Clint
an apology for these remarks.
Clint's negative remarks about TNS in his ``Negative Identity'' on the Editor's Page of Vidya
#134, including his ``TNS mantra'' rap, are not helpful to the society and lend further
weight to the conclusion that he is not a suitable editor for TNS' journal.
In a letter to Kent Shultz dated September 9, Clint Williams wrote:
Another TNS member intends to place a motion for your expulsion from TNS before the Executive Committee. I will second his motion, if I am in a position to do so.
This provides additional evidence of Clint's vendetta against Kent.
Clint's ``motion'' to expel John Kormes from the Triple Nine Society, contained in his
memo of September 13, sends a chilling message to those who seek to make use of the
society's system of checks and balances to restrain excesses of officers in the
performance of their duties.
John was entirely correct in labeling Clint's characterization of Kent Shultz as
``libellous,'' and, indeed, had a duty, as TNS Legal Officer, to warn the Executive
Committee of the society's possible exposure to legal action.
The allegations contained in a complaint to the Ombudsman should be considered
``privileged,'' in the same way that the allegations contained in a lawsuit are privileged
and cannot form the basis of a separate lawsuit for libel or defamation.
As I wrote in my memo of September 21 (included in the ExCom memo of Sept. 26), nobody had
a gun to Clint Williams' head; he deleted certain material from Vidya #134 at the
request of the Ombudsman, but this cannot fairly be construed as ``prior restraint on
editorical content,'' as Clint attempted to do in his Sept. 13 memo.
The phrase ``prior restraint'' occurs in the legal literature in the context of the first
amendment and refers to the civil authorities' prevention of the publication of (usually)
written material, by a private party, in advance of procedures to adjudicate whether such
material is libelous, an incitement to riot, a breach of national security, etc.
Vidya is not Clint Williams' private magazine; it is the official journal of the
Triple Nine Society. This Executive Committee has been entrusted with day-to-day oversight
of the society's affairs, including the conduct of the officers it has appointed to carry
out various functions. The final authority in TNS is the membership. The Editor is a
public servant and not the boss and is subject to the orders of the elected
representatives of the membership--and to replacement by them, if necessary.
Clint's allegation of ``dishonorable acts'' on the part of the Ombudsman and the Regent
because they urged him to act with restraint is absurd and supports the argument that he
lacks the judgement needed in the Editor of Vidya--and is itself dishonorable,
because Clint knew it was a red herring.
I wish to note, at this point, that none of what I have written about Clint Williams can
properly be labeled as an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem argument in one in which
considerations regarding a speaker's, or a writer's, character are introduced to undercut
his position. When this Committee is facing the question of the suitability of an
appointive officer to continue in his position questions regarding his judgement and
conduct are relevant and appropriate.
The fact that Williams agreed to step down as Editor does not change this, as this
Committee will need to make a decision regarding appropriate action to repair the damage
he did while he was in office.
In the ExCom memo of Sept. 26, Pat Thomas wrote:
Try to imagine, if you will, that you are the editor and you recieve a piece which essentially says that each and every TNS member (indeed, every human) is a potential criminal. Keep in mind that we're not talking about killing in self-defense, or any action in gerneral the intent of which is to stop or prevent ongoing or imminent criminal behavior, but about instigating criminal behavior.
Pat seems to have difficulty grasping this point. Perhaps his recollections of
childhood are not as clear as mine. Kids of a certain age are little savages; they have to
learn not to express the less fortunate aspects of our common human nature. In rough
neighborhoods and other places less subject to the rule of law than the places where most
TNS members live, a larger proportion of them fail to learn this lesson and violence,
criminality, and antisocial behavior are more common.
You don't have to object to the idea that ``there but for the grace of God go all of us''
to find it inappropriate to emphasize society's responsibility for criminals' conduct at
the expense of holding the perpetrators of violent acts personally accountable for their
actions.
In his next paragraph, Pat wrote:
. . . the editor's attack was hardly unprovoked. His claim that Kent is not remorseful is unsupported (though hardly proven wrong), but his claim that Kent is not rehabilitated is unfailingly accurate. I would not parole someone who has been led to believe that everyone is a potential criminal.
Mere belief in an unpopular idea is not an attack on anyone, including Clint Williams,
and certainly does not justify the sort of campaign of vilification launched by the former
Editor of Vidya. An unsupported defamatory claim is bad enough, even when it
isn't proven wrong. That's the idea behind ``innocent until proven guilty.'' In defending
against libel, the burden of proof is on the defamer to establish the truth of his
assertions.
In replying to my remarks in my memo of Sept. 21, Clint Williams wrote:
``Sarcastic potshots'' are otherwise known as ``free expression.''
That's one term for it. They're also known as ad hominem attacks.
Clint also wrote:
``[T]reacherous'' presumably means I violated my sacred oath of allegiance to Triple Nine Society? And here I thought donating portions of one's disposable income to non-profit groups was ``free choice.''
The treachery I had in mind was not against the Triple Nine Society. TNS wasn't
involved in the matter of John Kormes' expulsion from the ISPE. Since John was standing up
to the tyrannical actions of the ISPE leadership in filing the suit seeking to overturn
his expulsion, and thus supporting the whole class of people who have been persecuted for
speaking their minds in the ISPE, contributing to the ISPE's defense against Kormes' suit
strikes me as treachery against the human race.
I agree with Paul Maxim's remarks in his November 1 memo regarding Vidya
editorial policy. There is no justification for Clint Williams' refusal to publish TNS
members' remarks critical of the ISPE.
In the ExCom memo of November 1, Pat Thomas wrote:
A pair of recent publications in Vidya (in 132/3 and 134) have caused . . . concern [ellipsis Pat's]. One member of the Society, who wishes to remain anonymous, sees that ``potential in this situation for a lawsuit against TNS, if (Kent Shultz) commits another crime, and if TNS is in any way instrumental in his early release (from prison).''
Of course, anyone knowledgeable about the law knows that TNS could not be held liable
for Shultz' actions if he committed a crime after being released from prison, but there's
another point that needs to be made here. I believe that it is inappropriate for the
Regent to shield moral cowards who want to stir up trouble without standing up and being
counted.
Kent Shultz' memo to Patrick Thomas of November 7 contains a personal attack disturbingly
similar to the job Clint Williams did on Shultz, in the words, ``I can't help but suspect
that the `anonymous' member may have been Laura `Look-Ma-No-Penis' Lansberry.'' This kind
of irresponsible personal vilification weakens Shultz' claim to the moral high ground in
this matter, though it certainly does not excuse Williams' behavior.
To resolve this matter, I offer the following motions:
1. The following statement shall be printed in the earliest available issue of Vidya:
The Executive Committee of the Triple Nine Society regrets the personal attacks on member Kent Shultz published in Vidya by former Editor Clinton C. Williams and extends the Society's apologies to Mr. Shultz.
2. The following statement shall be printed in the earliest available issue of Vidya:
The Executive Commiteee of the Triple Nine Society regrets the exclusion of material by former member John Kormes from publication in Vidya by former Editor Clinton C. Williams on the basis of Mr. Williams' quarrel with Mr. Kormes (as opposed to the content of Mr. Kormes' submissions), and Mr. Williams' denial to Mr. Kormes of the right to reply to criticism of him by Mrs. Betty Hansen, and extends the Society's apologies to Mr. Kormes.
Other matters:
I move that the Regent be directed to contact the FBI in the name of TNS regarding
Zaslove's apparent embezzlement of TNS funds.
Paula M. Klieves, [address omitted], a TNS member, has not been receiving Vidya
for some time. Perhaps the Membership Officer and the Financial Officer could look into
this.
What about arranging for bonding of the Financial Officer and the Regent? Could we have a
report from the Financial Officer on this question?
In his memo of August 18 (included in the ExCom memo of Sept. 26), Larry Jess commented on
the pros and cons of bulk mailing. I have two comments. Second-class mailing is out of the
question, as the post office is quite strict about regularity of schedule for this class
of mail and, in view of past experience, we cannot reasonably expect to be able to keep
Vidya to a regular schedule. Third-class mailing would permit larger issues but result in
long delays in delivery; I'd rather stick with first class.