HOME  DISINFORMATION  CHRC  60 MINUTES  PEOPLE  ABELLA  COTLER  FARBER  MARTIN  MORGAN  RAMBAM  RONEN  KLAUSNER  DUNN  KUHL  DUKES  LA JUSTICE
Letter 01   13-Mar-2002   Steven Rambam (Rombom) shakedown for $25,000
"If Rombom were tried and convicted as an adult, he would be subject technically, but not realistically, to a maximum term of imprisonment well over a hundred years." — United States District Court, S. D. New York, 1976
  13 March 2002
Steven Rambam
Pallorium, Inc
PO Box 155 — Midwood Station
Brooklyn, New York
USA      11230


Steven Rambam:

Please Serve Me With a Complete Summons

On Saturday 09-Mar-2002, I was handed stapled papers which appear to be notification that you are suing me, together with an as-yet-unnamed one hundred others, for the sum of $25,000.00 plus costs.  As these sheets are paginated up to the final page 17, I can see that pages 1 and 3 are missing.  I cannot help wondering whether these two missing pages result from carelessness on the part of you or your representatives, or from your calculatedly denying me procedural instructions so as to hamper my ability to respond.

Accordingly, I do not consider myself to have been as yet served with the appropriate Summons, and await your further action.

I am also confused by the LA Superior Court web site listing the Filing Court as Van Nuys Courthouse West, but your Summons listing the court address as Van Nuys Courthouse East at 6230 Sylmar Avenue.

In the meantime, although I am prevented from fully comprehending the details of your action and from responding adequately, I clearly discern the cause of your discontent — it is my letter of 30-Apr-2000 located at www.ukar.org/abella05.html to York University history professor, and Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) war crimes chair, Irving Abella.  To prevent confusion as to which of several different Abella letters is intended, I will henceforth refer to this particular letter addressed to Irving Abella and dated 30-Apr-2000 as the "Fifty-Confessions-Abella-Letter"; reference to any other Abella letter will always have its own different date attached.

The Chief Accusation Against You

The most damaging accusation against you that appears in my Fifty-Confessions-Abella-Letter is that you participated in a deception which I have labelled the "Rambam-Abella Fifty Confessions Hoax."  My argument was that it seemed implausible that you had, as claimed by the Canadian Jewish Congress, tape-recorded fifty (with some reports inflating the figure to 60 or 150 or 161) confessions from suspected Nazi war criminals if in the following more than three years not a single one of those confessions had been relied upon in any prosecution, or had been published.

I find encouragement for my distrust of the claim of Fifty Confessions in the statement of Paul Vickery, director of the justice department's war crimes unit, that your information "was of very little, if any, assistance" (Vancouver Sun, 21-Apr-1997, p. A1) — in other words, that it contained not fifty confessions, but zero confessions.  And I find further encouragement for my distrust of the claim of Fifty Confessions in the following newspaper report:

60 Minutes ran a tape made by a private eye, Steve Rambam, who claimed to have tricked Kenstavicius and others into making confessions.

Rambam turned over six such "confessions" to the RCMP war crimes squad.  Whether they included the alleged Kenstavicius statement is not clear.  But the police were not impressed.

Sgt. Pierre Bisson has been quoted in the Western Jewish Bulletin as saying: "There was no admission from the interviewees, contrary to what Mr. Rambam said."  It was also stated that Rambam had "exaggerated the so-called confessions he had obtained."
Doug Collins, North Shore News, 17-Mar-1997, at www.nsnews.com/issue/w031797/doug.html

The appearance that these Fifty Confessions (or 60 or 150 or 161) present, then, is one of fraud perpetrated by yourself in collaboration with Irving Abella and with the Canadian Jewish Congress and with the Jerusalem Post which sponsored the project and with F. David Radler who runs Hollinger International which owns the Jerusalem Post.  The fraud was the not overly sophisticated one of presenting yourself under false credentials, along with two Israeli assistants, on the doorsteps of WW II survivors whose command of English was weak and who were teetering on the brink of senility, some over the brink, and then lying about what you heard them say.

If you contest my representation that these Fifty Confessions constitute a "hoax," then you have a simple remedy which you can effect immediately — you can submit the tape recordings with transcripts of the interviews which you think do constitute confessions to the Ukrainian Archive where they will receive immediate publication.

Your Discomfort

Of course when you collaborate in fraud and are exposed, you are likely to experience the sorts of negative emotions that you allege in your Summons: "As a further direct and proximate result of defendants' conduct, Rambam has been subjected to hatred, ridicule, scorn, embarrassment, humiliation, and hurt feelings and has sustained emotional trauma and distress, depression and anger."  However, the way to avoid such negative emotions, I would recommend, is not to perform dirty tricks and then attempt to silence commentary, but rather is to abstain from the dirty tricks in the first place.

In any case, your discomfort is not without its value, not if it persuades you to reflect that it is deserved discomfort, and that it is moral compensation for the undeserved pain that you helped inflict upon others — the underserved pain of aging WW II survivors whose lives were thrown into turmoil, and sometimes utterly ruined, as a result of the mass hysteria that you helped drum up:

"If you are a war criminal, Canada is your refuge of choice.  That is for sure."
"Canada is where the Nazis are," Rambam says.  "Canada is the unknown haven for Nazis.  Everybody knows about Argentina, but nobody knows about Canada."
"Canada is a place of refuge for the scum of the earth."
"Canada has become an old-age home for Nazi war criminals.  The lesson is that if you killed Jews, you have nothing to fear living here," Rambam said.  [...]  "The Canadian government is fooling you, lying to you, when it says it is zealously pursuing war criminals," he said.
"People who killed 850,000 Jews came to Canada, and were welcomed with open arms."
Montreal Gazette, 27-Nov-1996, Final Edition, p. A14; Ottawa Citizen, 15-Jan-1997, p. A13; Ottawa Citizen, 03-May-1997, p. A1; Canadian Jewish News Internet Edition, 31-May-2001, http://www.cjnews.com/pastissues/01/may31-01/front3.asp; Canadian Jewish News, 11-Oct-2001, p. 32.

Allegations Concerning Your Past

Your Summons states of my Fifty-Confessions-Abella-Letter that "Statements contained on the web page are false and defamatory, and they are malicious because at the time that they published the web page, defendants should have known or had actual knowledge of the false nature of the publication."  However, my Fifty-Confessions-Abella-Letter contains a number of statements, and your Summons fails to detail which of them you feel may be false.  Thus, perhaps it is possible that in addition to the negative emotions you experienced upon reading my depiction of the Fifty Confessions as a "hoax," you may also have felt that three blocks of biographical material which I quoted from the Internet also contained false statements that contributed to your injured feelings.

Let us begin our examination of this biographical material by distinguishing between the following statements which, as we move down the list, increasingly distance themselves from an initial allegation made by the Jewish Defense Organization (JDO):

ASSENT

  • Speaker A (JDO):  Rambam was sentenced to three years in prison.

  • Speaker B:  The JDO claims "Rambam was sentenced to three years in prison," and this claim is true.

  • Speaker C (California Court of Appeal):  The JDO claims "Rambam was sentenced to three years in prison."

  • Speaker D (Lubomyr Prytulak):  The JDO claims "Rambam was sentenced to three years in prison," but the claim is of uncertain credibility and far from proven.

  • Speaker E (Steven Rambam):  The JDO claims "Rambam was sentenced to three years in prison," but this claim is false.
DISSENT

Your grievance appears to lie with statements of the sort attributed above to Speaker A, which is representative of many statements made on the Internet, most particularly by the JDO.  These statements were in wide circulation at the time of my Fifty-Confessions-Abella-Letter, and although my first two block quotes are no longer available at their original URLs, similar material continues in circulation, with the third and largest of my block quotes currently finding replication at such Internet locations as the following:

My Fifty-Confessions-Abella-Letter statements concerning your biography were of the sort attributed to Speaker D above.  That is, I quote the words of others, and I do explicitly caution my reader against hasty belief by using the words of uncertain credibility and far from proven.  By inserting such caveats, I weaken the effect of the allegations against you — that is, I bring to attention that conclusive documentation is still pending, and present as a model for imitation a person whose total conviction remains to be won.

My purpose in presenting these statements of others in direct quotation was not to recommend their truth, but rather to support my claim that you have a bad reputation.  That I am affirming merely your bad reputation, and not the truth of the allegations against you which constitute your bad reputation, is evidenced also in the bold heading of that section in my Fifty-Confessions-Abella-Letter which proclaims

Private Investigator Steven Rambam
has a bad reputation


Notice that the above heading does not proclaim that "Private Investigator Steven Rambam is a bad person," and who but a child is unaware of the possibility that a good person can suffer from a bad reputation?  But whether a bad reputation is deserved or undeserved, it is justifiably a universal precaution to greet those laden with a bad reputation with an initial coolness, which was all that I was recommending to Irving Abella.

Furthermore, in a later letter (02-May-2000) to Irving Abella, you can see me again relying not on the veracity of the allegations against you, but rather on their mere existence necessitating caution in dealing with you: "In my letter to you of 30Apr2000, I cautioned that in view of Steven Rambam's bad reputation, it was indiscreet to form a close association with him, and unwise to depend on his information without verifying it first."

To make credible my assertion that you had a bad reputation, it was necessary to cite instances of what was being said about you on the Internet.  I trust that you will not adopt the untenable position that the evaluation of anyone's reputation must be suppressed because there is danger that some will misinterpret it as an evaluation of the person himself.  Furthermore, if my correspondence had been private, it would have been totally without effect — the only hope that the public has for redressing wrongs and correcting disinformation is to bring its complaints to public attention.

It would appear, then, that your dissatisfaction with your Internet biography lies not with the single instance of the Speaker D variety (my Fifty-Confessions-Abella-Letter), but rather with the multiple instances of the Speaker A variety (the original accusations of the JDO and others).  Gagging the one Speaker D while leaving the many Speaker As chattering on will do little to redeem your reputation.  In fact, gagging Speaker D may only enhance the power of the ungagged Speaker As, as Speaker D's lack of enthusiasm for Speaker-A allegations serves to undermine their persuasiveness.

The irrefutable demonstration that the mere repetition of the biographical allegations is not objectionable to you, but rather that it is the repetition along with the truth value assigned that may occasionally be objectionable, is provided by you yourself publicly repeating those same biographical allegations in the role of a Speaker E, as is documented below in the case of your earlier law suit against Mordechai Levy of the JDO, first in the image available on the Internet, and immediately below that in more legible text:

www.jdo.org/bam5.htm

  1. In and during 1997, and continuing to the present time defendants posted an WORLD WIDE WEB page, which contained defamatory statements about plaintiff, Steven Rambam.  A true and correct copy of this "Activist" alert is attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and incorporated herein.

  2. Statements contained in the "WEB PAGE" are false and defamatory, and they are malicious because at the time that they published the "WEB PAGE", defendants should have known or had actual knowledge of the false nature of the publication.  The false statements include, but are not limited to the following:

    1. "Rombom was adopted at birth by Jewish parents.  His mother was not Jewish and he never converted to the Jewish religion.  He is not a Jew and know one knows what his ethnic background is!!  The names of his mother and father are missing from his original birth certificate.  Rumor has it that his birth mother was a prostitute who became pregnant by a man she could not even identify, and she gave birth to Steve then gave him up almost immediately."

    2. "Rombom spent most of his youth, from age 8 until he was 16, in mental institutions because he was a dangerous psychopath.  Rumor has it he tried to kill his mommy!!!"

    3. "... Rombom made a deal with local and federal law enforcement that if he agreed to become an informant he would be allowed to become a private eye."

    4. "STEVE ROMBOM (AKA STEVE RAMBAM) IS A HIGH LEVEL GOVERNMENT INFORMANT!!!"

    5. "The Jewish Defense Organization has been saying that Rombom was a high level snitch for years."

    6. "Rombom visited Robert Manning in Israel and was going to be a witness at Manning's extradition hearing."

    7. "So Rombom visited Irv "the thug" Rubin wired, of course, as he is wired most of the time.  He got Irv to say something or other and suddenly the investigation was reopened."

And we shall see documented below in bold blue font another variation which demonstrates this same principle — it will be the California Court of Appeal repeating these same negative biographical allegations one more time.  The truth value that the Court affixed to the allegations? — Why none at all, which is why the California Court of Appeal is listed opposite Speaker C in the chart above.  The Court did not weight the truth of the allegations because it decided it did not have jurisdiction.  Thus, the Court had no justification for repeating the biographical allegations, but did so perhaps for their entertainment value, or perhaps to hold up to ridicule the childishness of people who litigate over their right to bandy insults.  Was the California Court of Appeal injuring your reputation by gratuitously repeating those allegations?  The rule protecting the Court from moral culpability might be that so long as the allegations are not held out as true, no fault may be ascribed.

It must be underlined that although you possibly regret any repetition of such biographical allegations no matter what truth value may be assigned to them, you at the same time recognize that in certain contexts and with certain truth values attached, such repetition may be a necessary evil.  You found yourself needing to repeat the biographical allegations in a public forum to document your law suit against Mordechai Levy, and you did so attaching a negative truth value; I found myself needing to repeat the biographical allegations in a public forum to document the argument that I was presenting to Irving Abella, and I did so emphasizing that I attached an indeterminate truth value.

Is it Evident that the Allegations Concerning Your Past Are False?

As already cited above, your Summons alleges that I, the defendant, "should have known or had actual knowledge of the false nature of the publication," but as discussed immediately above, the question of the truth of the biographical material is irrelevant.  However, if we do digress to examine whether this biographical material is true or not, and whether I knew or should have known that it is true or not, we get a picture not strongly supportive of your position.

Specifically, at the time that I wrote my Fifty-Confessions-Abella-Letter on 30-Apr-2000, and again over the past few days, I have scoured the Internet and discovered nothing to undermine the biographical allegations against you.  Rather, I find three pieces of evidence (two on the Internet and one in a legal publication) which support those allegations.  The bold heading for each of the three sections below is taken from the biographical material cited in my Fifty-Confessions-Abella-Letter.

  1. "Rambam spent most of his youth, from age 8 until he was 16, in mental institutions because he was a dangerous psychopath."

    Which allegation is somewhat supported by what appears to be a page from a court transcript concerning a "Mr. Rombom" (which I understand is the original spelling of your name); which alludes to psychiatric problems; which speaks of "removing him from the community" and "rehabilitation," and thus may have been part of a discussion concerning either sentencing or a release from institutionalization; and which describes "Mr. Rombom" as having been separated from home "almost half his life."  Strongly suggestive as this page is, of course if further exploration along these lines becomes necessary, its source will need to be nailed down and the entire document read.  The page is presented first as the image in which it has been posted on the Internet, and immediately below that in more legible text:


    www.jdo.org/bam1.htm

    36

    and as I recall his testimony, had no more than an hour and a half of contact with Mr. Rombom, that they were not, both Mr. Jaffe in his statement and the psychiatrists, satisfied with the environment at home.

    Because of my position here I cannot reiterate at great length.  Your Honor is, suffice it to say, familiar with Mr. Rombom's rehabilitation from his viewpoint, which is what is critical to his rehabilitation.  He is in a home of loving parents.  Whatever emotional difficulties psychiatrists reading reports, not interviewing the people directly, as Dr. Bryskin did not, feel exists at home, as Dr. Collins has pointed out, Mr. Rombom has been separated from his home too long and for too many years, almost half his life from his home.  And that from a psychiatrict point of view and from a humane point of view I don't believe that can be used as a basis for removing him from the community.

    Your Honor, I would like to read to you three lines concerning a prognosis for rehabilitation of Mr. Rombom, and I quote: "As to extended extensive psychotherapy from which he can benefit does not require institutionalization, but he will need a plan for structure, social and academic experience concomittant with his treatment activity."



  2. "Rambam kidnapped people but was never charged by the police."

    Tricksters beaten;
    2 nabbed

    Two reputed Jewish Defense League members were arrested yesterday on charges of grabbing three teenage trick-or-treaters on a Brooklyn street, assaulting them with baseball bats and fists and imprisoning them in a car, police said.

    Ronald Kahn, 30, of E. 17th St., and Steven Rombom, 24, of E. 18th St. were charged with unlawful imprisonment and assault after they were identified by the trick-or-treaters as two of their four assailants, police said.  The other two are still being sought, police said.

    The teenagers were grabbed by a group of men near Congregation Beth Torah Synagogue, 1060 Ocean Parkway, about 10:30 p.m.  They were beaten and thrown from a car at E. Eighth St. and Avenue I, said police who took them to Kings County Hospital.  They were treated there for scrapes and bruises.

    Washington Cemetery, across the street from the synagogue has been a target of Halloween vandals in the past, according to area residents.
    www.jdo.org/bam2.htm
    Concerning the attached newspaper clipping, I have two reflections:  (1) It would have enhanced credibility to provide the name of the newspaper and the date.  My best guess as to date would be that if you were born on 27-Feb-1959, and were 24 on this Halloween which would be 31 October, then the date of the report might have been around 01-Nov-1983.  (2) The statement that you "kidnapped people" initially calls to mind a kidnapping and holding for ransom, which is far more culpable than what is described.  A more accurate depiction than "kidnapping" of what happened would be the depiction offered in the newspaper article — "unlawful imprisonment and assault."

    This newspaper report, it seems to me, can be read from either of two perspectives — a more indulgent perspective which sees you engaged in a strong-arm vigilante action motivated by a desire to protect property from vandalism, and a less indulgent perspective which diagnoses the wielding of baseball bats against trick-or-treaters as an outburst of psychopathic violence.

  3. "Rambam carried out acts of terrorism against the facilities of the USSR but was apprehended and sentenced to three years in prison."

    For which allegation the following information lends some support:

    The government filed an information on August 5, 1976, charging Rombom with fourteen acts of juvenile delinquency, including unlawful possession and interstate transportation of firearms and explosives, and assaulting foreign officials and guests of the United States.  Eleven of the acts charged would be felonies punishable by ten years imprisonment, or more, if committed by an adult.  The government was, therefore, entitled to move to transfer him to adult status.

    [...]

    At the time the information was filed, Rombom was approximately 17½ years old.  The maximum penalty he could receive as a juvenile would be 3½ years, or until he reaches the age of 21.  18 U.S.C. § 5037(c).  If, however, Rombom were tried and convicted as an adult, he would be subject technically, but not realistically, to a maximum term of imprisonment well over a hundred years.
    UNITED STATES of America v. Steven Paul ROMBOM, Defendant.  No. 76 Cr. 719-LFM.  United States District Court, S. D. New York.  Oct. 22, 1976, pp. 1295-1300, p. 1297.

From these three pieces of evidence, one might infer that some of those who write disparagingly about your past are deficient in scholarship and incautious in wording their conclusions, but it appears at the same time that they are not simply making things up.  Furthermore, the confirmed sighting of you applying a baseball bat to trick-or-treaters on behalf of the JDL, as well as the evidence of your transporting explosives and assaulting foreign officials, does little to define as out-of-character the allegation (quoted in my Fifty-Confessions-Abella-Letter) that you "began to plant bombs on behalf of the Jewish Defense League."  Rather, it strengthens the plausibility of that allegation, and invites the further question of whether your background in transporting explosives and assaulting foreign officials and planting bombs for the JDL might enable you to disclose more than is currently known about the JDL bombings of Soobzokov and Sprogis:

The controversy took a violent turn last year, with twin bomb attacks — one of them fatal — on two former Soviet refugees who had been cleared of war crimes charges.  A spokesman for the FBI in Washington, Lane Bonner, said the bureau is continuing an intensive investigation into the two bombings and believes that the militant Jewish Defense League may have been responsible.

Last Aug. 15, Tscherim Soobzokov, 67, whom the Office of Special Investigations had sought unsuccessfully to deport, was lured out of his home in Paterson, N.J., at 4:30 a.m. by a ruse — a fire set in his car — and suffered massive injuries to his lower body as a bomb exploded at his doorstep.  His wife, daughter, 4-year-old grandson and a neighbor were also injured.

Accused by the Office of Special Investigations of having served in the German Waffen SS, the combat arm of Hitler's elite security force, Soobzokov had been a target of protests by the Jewish Defense League after the Justice Department dropped its charges for lack of evidence.  Friends of the Soobzokov family have explained that he belonged to a small, persecuted ethnic minority and accepted a Waffen SS uniform as a ploy to escape the Soviet Union with retreating German forces.

Another Bomb Blast

Then on Sept. 6, the day Soobzokov died, a similar bomb detonated at 4:30 a.m. in the Long Island community of Brentwood, N.Y., damaged the home of Elmars Sprogis, 70, a retired construction worker exonerated by a federal appeals court in 1984 of persecuting Jews in his native Latvia.  Sprogis was not hurt, but a passer-by, who apparently was attracted by a fire set in Sprogis' car as a lure, was seriously injured.

Shortly after the explosion, the Long Island newspaper Newsday received a telephone call in which an apparently recorded voice reportedly said: "Listen carefully.  Jewish Defense League.  Nazi war criminal.  Bomb.  Never again."

The FBI has since warned defense attorneys involved in war crimes cases to be alert to the possibility of further violence and to urge their clients to take precautions against reprisals.
Robert Gillette, Los Angeles Times, 28-Apr-1986.


Your Law Suit is Vexatious

It does not pass without notice that you have already attempted to win removal of Speaker A type statements from the Internet by means of litigation in California courts, and have failed.  The California Court of Appeal ruling against you appears at several locations on the Internet, as at

Summaries of, and commentary on, this ruling are widespread, three instances (arranged from briefest to lengthiest) to be found at

One thing that strikes me as unaccountable about your current law suit against me is as follows — that you live in the United States in the State of New York, and I live in Canada in the Province of British Columbia, and yet you bring your law suit in California, which is a bit more than a stone's throw for either of us.  For this choice of venue I do not find a ready explanation.  Why California?

But stranger than that, when you sued Mordechai Levy who lived in New York along with you, you sued him not in New York, but also in California.

And here is where it gets really bizarre.  When you sued Mordechai Levy in California, the California court told you that it did not have jurisdiction, and now you bring an even weaker suit before the same court which it would be reasonable to expect will mete out the same reply — that California declines jurisdiction.  So, then, when California has given you one defeat and all but promises you a second — why California?

Quoting from the last of the URLs cited immediately above, the issue of jurisdiction is laid out as follows:

Since the lawsuit was in a California court but defendant Levy lived in New York at the time of the alleged libels, Rambam was forced to invoke this state's "long-arm" statute, under which its courts will entertain suits against those outside the state, providing the defendants have had sufficient business or other contacts in California to suggest that they were operating here to exploit local legal advantages and protections — thus making it reasonable to subject them to local court jurisdiction.

In this case the Second District panel, in an opinion by Justice Mildred Lille, concluded that the evidence was lacking to show that Levy had sufficient contacts with California in recent years, and thus either general or libel-specific jurisdiction could not be established.  Newspapers and other publications often, for example, sell at least a handful of copies in every state, but case law provides that the real test is not such minimal commerce but the foreseeability that the likely harm would occur in California.

And so any thoughtful person would have to wonder — If the California Court of Appeal ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over defendant Mordechai Levy, then what jurisdiction is any California court likely to claim over me when

I do not have dealings with California which could be construed as my availing myself of California legal advantages and protections, my Internet publications are not aimed at California, and they impact California only trivially and incidentally, and so the California courts can be expected to more forcefully decline jurisdiction in your current law suit against me than they did in your earlier law suit against Mordechai Levy.

It is one of the unfortunate characteristics of Western justice that suits lacking merit are still able to inflict costs on defendants, and that may be the misuse that you intend to put California's justice system to in the present instance.  On the other hand, it is one of the fortunate characteristics of Western justice that the costs of vexatious litigation are shifted to the shoulders of those who practice it, as they were shifted to your shoulders upon your defeat before the California Court of Appeal in the Levy case.

Maybe You Should be Suing Your Own Lawyer?

I am impressed by the slovenliness of your current suit.  The absence of effort in throwing together a Summons devoid of evidence or of particulars.  The bad spelling, grammar, punctuation.  The delay of more than two months between your filing the suit and my receiving my Summons.  The illegibility of parts of that Summons, and the missing pages.  And, most important, your doggedly following in the steps of your previous litigation against Mordechai Levy toward the same defeat.  Your endeavor is slovenly and it is slatternly, and this may be a symptom that your lawyer is providing sub-standard service.

But more importantly, focus your mind now on what was the purpose of your litigation against Levy — the answer must be, surely, to rid the Internet of the negative biographical material.  In view of that goal, run your mind now over what has been accomplished, and you will discover that it is exactly the opposite.  Searching for your name on the Internet turns up scores of references to exactly this one failed suit against Mordechai Levy.  These Internet references constitute scores of not only testimonials to your bad judgment in pursuing that suit, but more importantly they constitute scores of sign posts all pointing to the disparaging biographical material that you are attempting to suppress.  That is, as your law suit forced you to recite the negative biographical materials in your complaint (as I documented above), that recitation now finds itself being broadcast to the world over the Internet.  And as the California Court of Appeal decision echoes some of those same biographical allegations, and as copies of this decision are scattered across the Internet, they too are read by people the world over:

In October 1997, plaintiff Steven Rambam filed an unverified complaint against Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. (JDO) and Mordechai Levy (Levy) for defamation and related causes of action, alleging that in 1997 and continuing to the present time, JDO and Levy posted a world wide web page containing defamatory statements about Rambam, including the statements that Rambam is a government informant and a “snitch”; Rambam is a dangerous psychopath who tried to kill his mother; Rambam kidnapped people but was never charged by the police; Rambam secretly admires the Nazis and hates Jews; and Rambam is an anti-Semite who has been known to entrap Jews with no prior criminal record into committing crimes.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/b129319.pdf, blue emphasis added.

And so who is responsible for this biographical material being delivered to a much vaster audience than Mordechai Levy alone would have been able to deliver it to?  Why you are responsible!  Thus, the assumption that your goal is to remove this material from public view is shaken by the observation that your actions predictably accomplish the exact opposite.  Among the explanations of this incongruity that leap to mind are that you lack judgement, or that you are being given questionable counsel.

And the present litigation that you have initiated against me — can you not look forward to see its inevitable result?  In the unlikely event that it ever moves forward, then defeat in the courts and another payment of the legal costs of the defendant.  And whether it moves forward beyond the present stage or not, there will be the turning of an even brighter spotlight on the biographical material that you purport to be attempting to cloak in darkness, but this time with that glaring spotlight catching you red-handed, together with fellow hoaxers Irving Abella and F. David Radler, in that Fifty Confessions caper to boot.

In view of your ineptitude in reaching your own goals, I recommend reviewing the origins of your decisions.  If they stem from your own bad judgment, then you have little recourse.  If, however, it is your lawyer who has been egging you on to self-destruction, I would consider suing him.  At least consider switching lawyers.

Why Are All Three Co-Conspirators Paralyzed?

You collaborated with Irving Abella on the Fifty-Confessions project.  The two of you appeared together on the television shows 60 Minutes and The Editors, and also at various Jewish functions.  You presented the tape recordings of your Fifty Confessions to the RCMP jointly with Irving Abella.  Irving Abella thus appears to have been your collaborator and your friend.  Why, then, when Irving Abella received my Fifty-Confessions-Abella-Letter which was so damaging to your reputation did he not inform me that either the biographical material or the accusation of hoax were inaccurate and should be corrected or withdrawn?  Why, instead, has Irving Abella allowed this Fifty-Confessions-Abella-Letter, so damaging to you, to remain on public display for almost two years without uttering a word of protest?

The answer that suggests itself is that Irving Abella failed to object to any of the contents of the Fifty-Confessions-Abella-Letter because he thought that they were true.

We witness F. David Radler gripped by the same paralysis.  The Fifty-Confessions Hoax was sponsored by the Jerusalem Post, and F. David Radler runs Hollinger International which owns the Jerusalem Post.  As you are an employee or associate or collaborator — or whatever you might most accurately be called — of the Jerusalem Post, F. David Radler has a strong motive to protect you from calumny, as the worse you look, the worse the Jerusalem Post looks, and the worse F. David Radler himself looks.  So, here you are being vilified on the Internet, and there F. David Radler sits watching, head of the world's largest newspaper empire, easily able to publish accurate biographical information concerning you to correct any disinformation that happens to come to his attention.  He is easily able to proclaim to the world that your violent streaks did not lead to your being incarcerated in psychiatric institutions, and that your planting of bombs for the JDL did not lead to your being sentenced to three years in federal prison, and he is easily able to redeem your — and his too remember, and Irving Abella's as well — Fifty Confessions project by publishing the transcripts of the fifty confessions to demonstrate that they are not a hoax.  But F. David Radler doesn't come to your defense either!  Why not?

The same answer suggests itself.  F. David Radler found you useful to do the work that people of higher integrity refused to do, but found the upgrading of your biography a feat beyond even his awesome powers of mangling truth.

You charge (perhaps, although you haven't told me yet exactly what you charge) that I knew that the biographical allegations in circulation concerning you were false, or that I should have known they were false.  But I ask you — where was I to find the information that contradicts these allegations, and does not the failure of your best friends and closest associates to correct these allegations bolster their credibility?

Come to think of it, why have you never published a contradiction of these same allegations, whether the biographical ones, or the Fifty-Confessions Hoax one?  If you had, then you would at least be able to point to your publication and say, "Here's what you should have known!  Here's an image of my birth certificate, and you can see that the names of my parents are on it!  Here are the schools I attended throughout my youth, and you can see that there was no opportunity for prolonged institutionalization!  Here's my rap sheet, and it is evident that I never spent time in federal prison!  Here are the transcripts of the Fifty Confessions, so you should stop calling them a hoax!"  With such information published on the Internet, you could then well argue that anybody repeating the negative allegations could and should have known them to be untrue, but in the absence of any such publication, what substantiation can you adduce for your claim that people could have known and should have known?  With even you yourself failing to rise to your own defense, what is anybody to wonder except that there may not be much of a defense to rise to?

And if it were the case that Levy-supplied biographical material was false, then a single court in a single far-away state refusing to accept jurisdiction is no reason to stop suing Levy — you could still sue him in New York, where you both live, and so where a court is more likely to accept jurisdiction.  But you don't.  You seem to have been paralyzed into the same passivity as Irving Abella and F. David Radler.

You Are Not Without Recourse

In any case, if you can detail for me precisely where you think the record needs to be set straight in that Fifty-Confessions-Abella-Letter, then you can rely on my standing ready today, as I always have stood, to publish your statement on the Ukrainian Archive at www.ukar.org, and to make any changes called for by considerations of fairness and justice.





Lubomyr Prytulak

cc: Irving Abella, F. David Radler


HOME  DISINFORMATION  CHRC  60 MINUTES  PEOPLE  ABELLA  COTLER  FARBER  MARTIN  MORGAN  RAMBAM  RONEN  KLAUSNER  DUNN  KUHL  DUKES  LA JUSTICE