FIRM Discussions

May 19, 1998 - May 30, 1998

Victims of Hollywood
Joe Goldenberg
9:07 pm Tuesday May 19, 1998

I like the new compilation regarding victims of Hollywood and
the quotes from various people down through the years you posted

Seems like the industry just chews people up and spits them out
and doesn't give hoot about writers, directors or actors unless
it can milk them for anything it can get.

Joe Goldenberg

New Discussion Fora
James Jaeger
6:23 pm Wednesday May 20, 1998

If you have any "Film Industry Horror Stories" there is a new
FORUM for discussing these. Feel free to tell us about that $1.2
million dollars you raised from all your friends and family
members and then had it gobbled up by the film industry (or
perhaps as a result of your miscalculation of the Biz or the

Then, there is another new FORUM for proposing "Remedies" you
might wish to apply, or see applied, to the Film Industry. Why
sit around and talk about how bad it all is when there are some
solutions out there that can work -- and you may have some of

Both of these new FORA can be found via the FIRM Dialogs page at

James Jaeger

Tides Have Changed for the Better
Sara Lilly
5:55 pm Saturday May 23, 1998

I am pleased to see that the unnecessary and unsubstantiated
accusations of a few people with vested interests in the status
quo of the Hollywood regime (3 to be exact), have finally

Nevertheless, I am a little disappointed in the people who
have privately told me that everything John Cones has observed
and posted about the Hollywood Control Group is true, but are
still a little shy about making their views public.

Maybe now that this argument about the prudence in pointing
out that the control group of Hollywood is predominantly Jewish
has finally been put to bed, and most of you out there realize
that this is in fact true and that there is no anti-Semitism in
this research -- some worthwhile discussion on how the film
industry can be reformed can finally begin.

New Film Finance Forum
2:30 pm Sunday May 24, 1998

If you are an independent producer (or investor) looking to
finance your next project, entertainment/securities attorney,
John W. Cones, has just opened a new forum where you can get your
questions answered.

The forum is at:

Before participating, please note the "guidelines" for the forum
which can be accessed at the above URL.

re: Sensing Anti-Semitism?
4:25 pm Monday May 25, 1998

I don't understand why so many people are out to prove that
John Cones has made anti-semitic remarks. As John is so
willing to tell us, he is a lawyer. He'd have to be pretty
stupid to publish any remarks which would be considered
"anti-semitic" under the law. Of course, this does not
alter my opinion that John has a serious problem with Jews (or,
actually, "...Jewish males, of European heritage, who, generally
speaking are politically liberal and not very religious...")

Maybe hating Jews and doing everything in one's power to demonize
them in print falls into a different bucket than any definition of
anti-semitism which can be found in a "...recognizable and
authoritative source."


Response to Robert's Multiple Fallacies
John Cones
1:36 pm Tuesday May 26, 1998

Response to Robert's Multiple Fallacies

In Robert's submission to the FIRM Discussion Forum dated May 18, he makes the
following false assumptions:

1. That I have a problem "with a white guy making a 'black film'". That's false. I have a
problem with consistent patterns of bias directed toward any population in our diverse
society. My studies show that Hollywood films have consistently portrayed Latinos,
Arabs and Arab-Americans, Italian-Americans, Christians and Whites from the South in
a negative or stereotypical manner for decades. My studies further show that although

some progress has been made in recent years, Hollywood films have also tended (in the
recent past) to consistently portray Blacks, women, the elderly, Native Americans, gays
and lesbians in a negative or stereotypical manner.

2. That I have a problem with "a black making a white film". That's also false, for the
same reason stated in #1 above. It's the "patterns of bias". That's the problem I've
expressed concern over.

3. That I'm suggesting that everyone has to stay "within racial boundaries". Again, that's
not what I'm saying. As Joe Goldenberg has correctly observed and pointed out, I am
promoting diversity and balance, but because I believe that movies, to a large extent,
tend to mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives and prejudices of their makers, it
only makes sense that we would be more likely to achieve diversity and balance in these
portrayals on the screen if the film executives who made the decisions about which films
were going to be produced and released were more diverse themselves.

4. That we "do have a choice" about which movies we see, suggesting therefore that we
moviegoers are really responsible for the films that are made and released.
Unfortunately, those of us participating in this online discussion, including Robert, are not
representative of the vast majority of that mass moviegoing audience for which many of
Hollywood's movies are targeted (young, relatively uneducated, unsophisticated,
immature, not well trained in the area of critical thinking, etc.). So, when the MPAA
companies spend an average of $22.2 million dollars per film on the very powerful,
sophisticated and all-pervasive movie publicity, promotion and marketing that it does,
and these major studio releases are taking up the vast majority of the available screens,
how can anyone talk about "choice" in that environment?

5. That there is something wrong with me not pointing to all of the wonderful films
Hollywood has produced and released over the years. I have no problem conceding
that Hollywood has produced and released many wonderful films over the years, but as a
film industry critic, it is not an essential part of my job to balance my own criticism of the
industry with the good things that come out of Hollywood. The Hollywood establishment
controls the world's most powerful PR machine and overwhelms us everyday with its
own perspective on how wonderful its films are. In fact, as witnessed by the many false
and unsubstantiated attacks being directed towards me for speaking out, Hollywood
tends to stifle dissent, thus, it is necessary that those of us who recognize many of the
problems in Hollywood to speak out with even more vigor about those problems.
Besides, the "wonderful" films of Hollywood over the years, do not change or erase the
decades of discrimination in studio hiring practices or the decades of consistent negative
and stereotypical portrayals in many of those same films.

Moving On To Reform
John Cones
1:40 pm Tuesday May 26, 1998

I do want to publicly to thank Sara Lilly and Joe Goldenberg (individuals that I have not
had the pleasure of meeting personally) for their insight, honesty and support in this
discussion. And, as Sara Lilly points out, it is important that we move on to discuss
actual reform issues. That is why we at FIRM have created the "Remedies" discussion
section at this site. We encourage all of you to add your specific suggestions regarding
film industry reform remedies there. On the other hand, since there are still false
accusations floating around out there at Film Threat Weekly, the LA Weekly, Hollywood
Network and elsewhere, and it is very likely that those same false allegations will appear
again and again in whatever forum we are able to raise our questions regarding film
industry reform, that struggle for truth will continue to be ongoing.

News and Commentary
John Cones
1:42 pm Tuesday May 26, 1998

A new FIRM site section called "News and Commentary" is up elsewhere on this site. It
contains brief quotes from current news sources along with commentary on those quotes
as they relate to the broad topic of film industry reform. Take a look at add your own
news and commentary.

Studios: A Thing of the Past
Joe Goldenberg
4:35 pm Tuesday May 26,

The movie industry will remedy itself because major studios
are on their way out anyway. Here are some of the reasons:

1. Since the digital revolution has arrived (with such
spin-offs as the digitally, packet-switched Internet),
And this is where the studios mainly get all the talent and the
investors (including their Wall Street stockholders).

2. Heightened world communications, made possible by such
things as the Net and countries going-democratic, will make it
impossible for there to be any centralized control group, such as
the studios and so - no one can continually repress other people
(such as Afro Americans or acting/writing talent) for too long
before the REST of the world hears about it and has the option to
DO SOMETHING about it before everybody is dead - or unemployed.

3. Digital post production and digital cameras, as well as
the increase in quality and the new chips, and software, that
WILL actually replace 35mm 5247 etc., someday WILL open the
filmmaking process to all the studio/distributor's independent
competitors in the long run whether they like it or not, because
expense will come down. The video boys and the film boys are
going to get heavy competition from the computer boys and they
deserve it for increasing the cost of film, cameras and video
equipment over the past 50+ years and thus keeping all the
aspiring new talent, writers and filmmakers IN CHECK and

4. Pretty soon you will not even NEED a star - but only a
PICTURE of one and, with this, independent producers who cannot
afford the stars' bill of $20 million per picture, will just have
to digitally "paste" the image of the star's face onto the body
of any struggling actor. Therefore any competing independent
producer will be able to have say, Harrison Ford "staring" in
their movie and the public will not even know the difference -

5. Since "any Joe" (I like the sound of that), will now be
able to purchase the digital rights to a Name talent, the Name
talents will not have to sell perfume or salad dressing when they
don't feel like going to the set anymore (or when they find
something more worthwhile to do other than making movies that
brainwash the kids with the idea that it is okay to shoot guns at
people or teachers). This ability to acquire Name talent
inexpensively will help remedy the studios death-grip on the
independents because most of their pictures are so ridiculously
expensive (to keep their army of people working and "wow" the
public away from modest, but well-crafted, independently-produced
Otherwise, count on it, the studios would waste all the Name
talent and stars just the same as they now do to the struggling
new talent out there. Why else would they be compelled to file
the largest class action in the history of the movie business:
Estate of Garrison v. Warner, et. al. if the talent, the writers
and actors and directors were not extremely dismayed. Also, the
Mothers of the children, that are being desensitized enough to
shoot guns at teachers and other kids are extremely upset and
there is nothing more effective than a mother that is "mad" and
protecting her children from something she perceives as a threat
- such as some of the movies being put out today.

The government, on behalf of the people of the United
States, once divested the studios of their theaters because of
the monopoly then, and today the Mothers and the Talent and
intelligent people in THIS reform movement WILL help remedy the
major problems perceived in the film industry today. Hollywood,
and its apologists, are NO indication of what the American
people at-large perceive and want and I will bet the American
people are mostly in agreement with this reform movement's

Joe Goldenberg

Violence in Movies
Michael R Henson
5:28 pm Tuesday May 26, 1998

"Look it's shit. A child doesn't see the violence, a child only
sees the film. Censorship is necessary for television, and the
only evidence relating to film of any harmful effect is that the
violent have their urges exaggerated by transferring themselves
to the film environment. That is no more harmful than the effect
of a football match at a stadium or attendance at a political

So there's no reason to go banning it, and to some extent a
good=20 reason to use it to find out who the anti-socially
inclined amongst us are.

The reason I believe the violence is more notable in children
nowadays is that there has been a touchy-feely sentimentalism
creeping in to culture which has accompanied a decay in
aesthetics. Film may have reflected that social change, but
violence if properly portrayed can actually go some way to
tackling that erosion.

The repugnance which many display towards the violence is in
my=20 view a part of the sentimentalism which causes the problem.
The children's egos are kept artificially stunted and do not
mediate the primal urges in a manner which borders on the
psychotic. The repugnance being part of the problem is amazingly

Quote me ad lib.

Michael R. Henson,
Managing Director=20
Cypselus Limited"

re: Violence in Movies
Joe Goldenberg
5:58 pm Wednesday May 27, 1998

:A child doesn't see the violence, a child only sees the film.

What does THIS mean? Sounds like pure horse... to me.

:Censorship is necessary for television,

Oh, yeah, let's pick on TV some more, as if the movies were the
good guys.

:and the
:only evidence relating to film of any harmful effect is that the
:violent have their urges exaggerated by transferring themselves
:to the film environment. That is no more harmful than the effect
:of a football match at a stadium or attendance at a political

Probably true. The power structure of the current civilization
YOU happen to be in, is set up so the less intelligent meat-heads
out there get brain-washed from infancy to the idea they MUST
WATCH FOOTBALL, MUST WATCH FOOTBALL, must watch football... This
is purposely encouraged so aggressive behavior will drain into the
stadium instead of the streets - hopefully. Roman powers had same
idea only they used gladiators to subdue their meat-heads.

I don't know if you can say movies de-meat-headize people though.
Movies give them narratives and images, without which they would
not have those images to carry out anything ((because they are,
after all, MEAT-heads, and by definition, a meat-head is MEAT not
IMAGE, (otherwise they would be call IMAGE-heads. We call
image-heads writers and directors.)).

:So there's no reason to go banning it, and to some extent a
:good=20 reason to use it to find out who the anti-socially
:inclined amongst us are.

20=0 on this one.

:The reason I believe the violence is more notable in children
:nowadays is that there has been a touchy-feely sentimentalism
:creeping in to culture which has accompanied a decay in
:aesthetics. Film may have reflected that social change, but
:violence if properly portrayed can actually go some way to
:tackling that erosion.

Yes this touchy-feely stuff is directly connected to aesthetics
and all that is connected to my mother's ass.
:The repugnance which many display towards the violence is in
:my=20 view a part of the sentimentalism which causes the problem.
:The children's egos are kept artificially stunted and do not
:mediate the primal urges in a manner which borders on the
:psychotic. The repugnance being part of the problem is amazingly

This guy sounds like a shrink or some sort of mustard pretzel.

:Quote me ad lib.

No thanks, I'm afraid my tongue might twist around my ear lobe.
:Michael R. Henson,
:Managing Director=20
:Cypselus Limited"

Joe Goldenberg

View of a life long movie fan
6:08 pm Thursday May 28, 1998


I am a life long movie fan trying to break-in to the
entertainment industry. So, my views are as a fan, consumer and
observer of trends; definitely someone on the outside looking in
view point.

Until I found this web site I had resigned myself to a limited
set of possibilities, if I entered the entertainment industry.
For example, I could take my computer skills and join an
established company or I could join an "independent"
(I am still trying to determine what criterion defines an
independent) and finally, I can author my own stories and allow
viewing via the World Wide Web. The Web is an option I will use
even it I choose to work for an established company, because of
the freedom of expression it allows, which brings me to my first


Some comments concerning this web pages anti this group or that’s

I have considered your arguments concerning the control a few
individuals or small groups my wield over the entertainment
industry. I think the crux of the debate should not be "what"
group controls what resources. But if "any" group should have a
monopoly on the content, creation mechanism and distribution of
this "resources". Make no mistake; movies, TV, and computer games
are "information resources". If the problem of control was taken
care of today, I think we would still have a more fundamental
problem to fix. It seems to me that getting a movie made is not
as difficult as getting it shown. So, would it be advantageous
for all (and it wouldn’t punish people that have been creative
and or successful) if the creation side of the entertainment
industry were left alone and theaters, their location and number
were examined instead? This might allow, the local market place
to determine what films are available in local areas? I don’t
think any government entity should use tax dollars or force the
entertainment industry to use its money to rate or regulate
entertainment content. I know this doesn’t answer question of
concern like: the same corporate entities that make the major
films are able to buy advertising on TV which is also a closed
medium (unless you're a billionaire, Gates, Turner, etc.) and
reaches most of the people in the US, but I think its a start.
The question of who will protect the children is simple, the

Something I have a real problem with is the idea of the larger
group being able to force its will on a smaller group through
what is euphemistically referred to as a democratic process. So,
any group or entity trying to use the larger group to take
control of the legal business concerns of a smaller group, rubs
me the wrong way. What I am trying to say is, if your group wants
to try to level the playing field, I think that’s a good thing.
If your organization is simply trying to acquire power from one
group to give to another, then I don’t think that’s a good thing.

My search is for an organization that expresses the view that
an "adult" should have the right to determine the content of what
they create or in what entertainment they indulge. (flame on)
Why, I am a proponent of is Personal Responsibility in all
questions concerning the conduct of adults. This epistemology is
simple: if you are an adult every thing that you do you are
responsible for. Since parents should be the sole arbiters of
what entertainment information their children partake of, the
only children that can come under the auspices of the state would
be orphans that are wards of the state. (flame off)

Every adult has to choose for themselves what they do or don’t
want to watch, read or think! Thinking for oneself is an
important activity and some of us prefer to do it unaided by the
"state" our anyone else. (opps … flame off again) My viewpoint is
colored by my forced inclusion into a group that I have seen
stereotyped and vilified in practically every movie or TV program
I have seen in 30 years of viewing. And I’m still wondering how
most of this stuff is created and who the intended cunsumers are?

To cut this diatribe short, I think the controllers of the
entertainment mediums "reflect" in their work as many of our
societies prejudices and stereotypes as they "project". And since
no one has a shield against projecting their own point of view
into anything they create, the only solution is to allow the
expression of as many points of view as possible.

Sorry, I did not plan to write so much, but this topic is
fascinating and deserves as much discourse as possible. Before
the eventual name calling and coming to blows that our species
eventually digresses to.
( opps …… that pesky flame won’t seem to go out ………… ;-] )

LA Weekly Defamation
John Cones
2:19 pm Friday May 29,

Law Office of
1324 Marinette Road
Pacific Palisades, California 90272

May 29, 1998

L. A. Weekly

Re: Charles Fleming Article on Hollywood
Dear Editor:

Your May 15-21 article by Charles Fleming entitled "Naked Hollywood" was

irresponsible journalism at its worst. The article contained misleading headlines,
numerous factual errors and false conclusions.

First, the description of the article provided on your contents page and describing my
agenda as "anti-Semitic" was false. The headline suggests that I say: "It's the Jews".
That's false. The secondary sub-head suggests that I contend that the Hollywood
situation is a result of some form of conspiracy. That's false. This sub-head goes on to
say that "A Hollywood Conspiracy Theory Resurfaces". That's false.

In the 2nd paragraph of the text of the article, you state that Film Threat's "readers
E- mailed editors there to tell them what was really going on with Cones and his Film
Industry Reform Movement". That's false. Also, in the 2nd paragraph the allegation that
one of my Web- site essays states "connections or relationships with Hollywood Jews"
are the "key to success in the motion-picture industry", is false. The further allegation that
I have said Hollywood studio executives are "all-powerful, unaccountable and
irresponsible to all but themselves" is false.

My position is misstated in paragraph #4, with the "It's the Jew!" reference. That's
not my position and never has been. It is falsely suggested in paragraph #5 that by
looking at my writings questions can be fairly raised about whether they contain any
anti-Semitism. Nothing is fair about alleging anti-Semitism where there is none.

It is also false to state that "basically, everyone else" in my chart of Hollywood studio
executives whose background is not otherwise identified is Jewish. That's false. Further,
Neal Gabler is quoted in the article suggesting an argument I've never made. That's
irresponsible on both your and Gabler's part. In paragraph #7, Fleming again makes the
false statement that I have theories about the "impact of Jews in Hollywood". That's

In paragraph #8, it is inaccurate to say that Mensa is "embarrassed" about my
speech. Mensa is an organization made up of a large number of people. An interview
conducted by Fleming with one or two members of Mensa does not accurately reflect
the views of the group. Finally, associating a symbol that implies hatred for Jews with my
position is a gross injustice. Nothing could be more wrong or irresponsible.

You are a weekly newspaper. There was no urgency involved in the publication of
this article. It was published with the intention to do harm or in reckless disregard for the
truth. Your published defamation has caused irreparable harm to my reputation for
honesty and fair dealing in the film community. It has damaged my law practice, my
lecturing opportunities and my book sales. Simply publishing this letter to the editor will
not repair the damage. I demand an apology from each of the individuals involved,
including Neal Gabler, a prominently placed retraction in a forthcoming publication, and
an opportunity to author an article of approximately the same length accurately explaining
my position with respect to what is really going on in Hollywood.

This letter will be published at my Film Industry Reform Movement site
( while awaiting your reply.

Sincerely yours,

John W. Cones


Scott's Muddled Thinking
John Cones
2:24 pm Friday May 29, 1998


You have provided us with a very good example of the muddled thinking that has
created this entire false dispute. On the one hand, you have suggested that my writing is
not anti-Semitic in a technical sense, but still that it some how indicates that I hate Jews,
or more specifically, "Jewish males, of European heritage, who, generally speaking are
politically liberal and not very religious...". Go back and do some more reading Scott.
See if you can find any language of mine that fairly suggests hatred of anything or
anybody. Criticism of the business-related behavior of the Hollywood insiders, you'll
find. But, criticism is a far cry from "hatred". If you have hate in your heart, don't
project it onto me or my writings.

Further, try to find any generalization of any kind in my writings directed toward Jews.
It's not there, so why suggest that it is? Don't you realize that by making such false
allegations, you are revealing your own inability to read and comprehend, or in the
alternative, your own dishonesty. Finally, it is not even accurate to say that I am

criticizing "politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage". The
subjects of my criticism form an even more narrow group than that. They are the
politically liberal, not very religious, Jewish males of European heritage who work at the
top levels of the Hollywood-based U.S. film industry and engage in reciprocal
preferences with each other to the arbitrary exclusion of many Hollywood outsiders, a
practice, I might add, that is anti-competitive in nature and effect. By the way, Scott,
why is it that you and other Hollywood apologists are not willing to disclose your
identity? Are you embarrassed by your faulty reasoning and inaccurate observations?

Garrison Lawsuit Setback
John Cones
2:28 pm Friday May 29, 1998

See the brief discussion of the ruling this week in which the class in the Garrison Estate v.
Warner Bros. lawsuit was decertified in the FIRM site News and Commentary section.

Film Threat Defamation
John Cones
2:32 pm Friday May 29,

Law Office of
1324 Marinette Road
Pacific Palisades, California 90272

May 29, 1998

Chris Gore, Publisher
Film Threat Weekly
5042 Wilshire Boulevard
Penthouse Suite 150
Los Angeles, CA 90036

Re: Your Recent Defamatory Remarks
Dear Mr. Gore:

I have waited patiently for a responsible reply from you or your publication regarding
your defamatory remarks relating to me, my writings and my Web site

To refresh your memory on Monday, April 27, 1998, you ran something called a
"Special Apology Edition", claiming that you had been "duped into plugging" our Web
site. This is a false and misleading allegation. You further stated that "the previous
writings of one of the founders (of the FIRM site) . . . John Cones, brings into question
exactly what the agenda of the founders of F.I.R.M. (Film Industry Reform Movement)
are all about. Their hidden agenda seems to be an Anti-Semitic one. Please avoid this
site at all costs." Again, the suggestion that the FIRM site has any hidden agenda or that
the agenda for the site is anti-Semitic in any way is false.

You went on to publish a letter from Richard Herskowitz who falsely states that my
writings have a "strong anti-semitic agenda", and that my writings suggest "Hollywood's
hatred of Christians" (also false). You continue by publishing another letter, this one from
Joshua Moss, who falsely alleges that my writings are "racist" and "anti-Semitic".

As I understand it, your publication holds itself out to be a weekly online magazine,
with a circulation of 40,000. There was no sense of urgency involved in your publication
of the false and defamatory allegations made against me, my writings and my Web site.
You had plenty of time to check out the accuracy or inaccuracy of such statements
should you have chosen to do so. Your published defamation has caused irreparable
harm to my reputation for honesty and fair dealing in the film community. It has damaged
my law practice, my lecturing opportunities and my book sales. I demand a retraction
specifically citing the above noted false allegations published by you, accompanied by an
apology. I demand that you publish this letter in your Letters to the Editor column.
Recognizing, however, that a mere letter to the editor cannot repair the damage caused
by your defamation, I also demand an opportunity to publish a brief article in your
weekly magazine that accurately states my position on what is really going on in
Hollywood, in answer to the several false statements already published in your magazine.

If you want your online magazine to be recognized as a legitimate publication, then
you need to see that it conducts itself in a responsible manner. Rushing to publication
with false and defamatory allegations is not responsible publishing. Ignoring my requests
for a retraction, apology, letter to the editor and/or responsive article, is also
irresponsible. This letter will be published at the FIRM site
(, while I await your reply.

Sincerely yours,

John W. Cones


Request of Carlos de Abreau
John Cones
2:35 pm Friday May 29,


Law Office of
1324 Marinette Road
Pacific Palisades, California 90272

May 29, 1998

Raymond Sutton, Attorney
15233 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1000
Sherman Oaks, California 91403

Re: Availability of Investor Financing Archives
Dear Mr. Sutton:

I have been advised by John Jacobson of the Hollywood Network that I should
correspond with you regarding any questions I have relating to the future of the Investor
Financing Archives. I assume you have some familiarity with the fact that at the request
of Carlos de Abreu some years ago, I became one of the original contributing "Hosts"
(or authors), of a Q&A site within the Hollywood Network umbrella, for the initial
purpose of adding value to the site and thereby attracting visitors. Over the years, we
created a body of some 400 or more questions and answers relating to the questions of
hundreds of independent filmmakers regarding investor financing of the film projects.
The Investor Financing Q&A site was quite popular and served as a valuable "free"
resource for independent film producers throughout the country.

Now, that Carlos de Abreau has decided (for whatever reason) to abruptly
discontinue the service, for the moment, I merely have one question. We have created a
new Investor Financing Q&A at, so is Carlos de
Abreau willing to provide the accumulated questions and answers of my previous site
within the Hollywood Network to us in electronic format, so that we can continue to
make that accumulated information available to independent filmmakers around the
country, or is it Carlos de Abreau's intention to specifically deprive these filmmakers of
this valuable resource (i.e., the Investor Financing Q&A Archives), and to do damage to
my own law practice, which also benefited from this service and interaction with
independent filmmakers?

Please advise at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely yours,

John W. Cones
cc: FIRM Discussion Forum

Just Sue Carlos de Abreau
Joe Goldenberg
5:17 pm Friday May 29, 1998

I think you should just SUE Hollywoodnet for outright THEFT of
your intellectual property. At the very LEAST, both YOU and THEY
should own non-exclusive rights to the material YOU wrote to, and
for the benefit of, THEIR subscribers.

I can't see what writer would trust, or want to deal with, an
organization that just arbitrarily confiscates another writer's
material one day without even giving them a copy - especially when
that writer was one of the early people to help them grow.
Writers, be alert, you are seeing the way Hollywood and, its
apoligists, treat writers in general - AND UNFOLDING RIGHT BEFORE

And sue any newspaper, periodical or TV news entity who publishes
ANYTHING defamatory or untrue about either you, FIRM, its founders
or contributors.

Hey it's the American way isn't it?

Joe Goldenberg

Just Sue Film Threat
Joe Goldenberg
6:15 pm Friday May 29, 1998

Again, my opinion is, you should just sue these people for
defamation and publishing false information about you and/or FIRM
if you can in fact prove that this is what they are doing.

You cannot reason with people that cannot read or that have a
hidden agenda to destroy you with overt or covert black
propaganda. Deal with such people the same way the Church of
Scientology has been able to effectively deal with the mainstream,
vested-interest "news" reporters and entities that have tried to
wipe THEM out since the early 1950s.

The current mainstream has a definite left-wing agenda to
socialize the planet and neutralize anything it perceives as new,
creative and especially religious. Why do you think the whole
civilization is actually going to hell while everyone thinks "oh
the economy is doing just fine, look at the stock market." Where
do you think today's inflation is? Duh! And while everyone
thinks they have the "luxury" to sit around yapping about the
personal affairs of people and presidents, India and Pakistan have
only blown off 10 atomic bombs and the IMF is using your taxpayer
money to "buy-off" as many countries as possible by getting them
into debt through World Bank loans, (the ultimate slave-master's

My point: the liberal media (including Hollywood and its
apologists), is supporting left-wing socialist governments in
order to bring the planet's economic systems under IMF/World Bank
control (which is just a lap-dog financed predominantly by the
secret operations of a government-sanctioned, quasi-private
banking cartel known as: The Federal Reserve).

Have you noticed a few bank mergers lately? Are they all
operating under the Federal Reserve Act? Stop horsing around with
Hollywood and the movies and do your research buddy, before it is
too late, before you are too in debt or before you think your
mutual fund portfolio is the panacea to your retirement.

Here's how it works:

Hollywood’s directors, writers and producers voted for Clinton,
not to mention the campaign contributions);

have three (3) times in the past rid the country of previous
central banks, such as the Federal Reserve System, which causes
inflation and boom/bust cycles);

on money to get made and when bank financing is not available,
nothing happens in the way of production, distribution and/or

To the degree the liberal Hollywood system keeps itself in
business you will get violence oriented movies that continually
exploit left-wing agendas which attempt to generalize or wipe-out
religion and morals in the society and which attempt to prime
popular opinion FOR the socialization of America and especially
the world (i.e., everybody-works-for-the-government-mentality or
the government-pays-for-everything-mentality).

In addition, with the help of Hollywood's liberal agenda, the
banks are consolidating under the Federal Reserve System, and
while you may think they are keeping inflation down, the FED is
now monetizing debt with, not only US T-Bills, T-Notes and
T-Bonds, but that of other countries around the world through the
IMF/World Bank.

ONLiBANK is on the way with the help of the Hollywood control
group and those ignorant apologists who are too young or stupid to
understand what's going on because they're so blinded by the idea
of being a MOVIEmaker. Wee.

Joe Goldenberg

re: Garrison Lawsuit Setback
Joe Goldenberg
2:18 pm Saturday May 30,

:See the brief discussion of the ruling this week in which the
:class in the Garrison Estate v. Warner Bros. lawsuit was
:decertified in the FIRM site News and Commentary section.

This is a REALLY serious set back and one that frankly
ticks me.

Now all you people that have been nit-picking about whether
John Cones is anti-Semitic or not can SUFFER SOME MORE while your
net profit participation PAY CHECKS DO NOT COME IN THE MAIL. You
deserve to be screwed by your Mother-of-all-Industries: the Film
Industry then and the old saying: "people get the government they
deserve" can be applied: "you get the Film Industry YOU deserve."

You weenies that think it is more important to argue about
such subjects as bigotry, anti-Semitism and racism than to oust
the criminals that are running the Hollywood Film Industry and
screwing you, are TOTAL SUBJUGATED MORONS!

YOU disappoint me off by your short-sighted, tiny little,
glass see-through minds and POVs.

Joe Goldenberg

| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |