Is this how Willis Carto does business?
Willis A. Carto
P.O. Box 15877
Washington, DC 20003
May 14, 2002
As you probably know, my lawsuit against the LSF, Greg Raven and Mark Weber is going very well in the state court in Texas. I have learned that Raven, alone, has been responsible for the false statements on the LSF web site that have defamed both me and my wife.
I believe that each board member is nevertheless, responsible for the defamation, under the law. However, I do not wish to take legal action against any person who is technically responsible but not really aware of what has been done in his name.
If you assure me that you have not participated in the defamation against me and my wife published on the LSF web site, I will agree not to name you as a defendant in the case now or at any time in the future. Please write to me, c/o The Barnes Review, P.O. Box 15877, Washington DC 20003.
You also may not have been told that I have offered to settle the case with the LSF and that Raven has rejected that offer. Liberty Lobby, Inc. is now just a shell, unable to act with the multi-million dollar judgement against it. I alone have kept it alive, but just barely. I am about to dissolve Liberty Lobby, Inc., since in its present state it is useless to anyone.
There may well be millions of dollars that have been left to Liberty Lobby in wills and trusts that will come into existence in the future. If I dissolve Liberty Lobby those funds, bequests left to Liberty Lobby, will be divided among the other beneficiaries of each will or trust.
Therefore, I have proposed that the judgment, against Liberty Lobby be settled so that both the LSF and Liberty Lobby may benefit. I have proposed that I will pay $50,000 of my own money to the LSF right now and that all future bequests including the Kefer estate to Liberty Lobby will be shared with the LSF. If that proposal is rejected, Liberty Lobby will fold up and neither the LSF or Liberty Lobby will receive any of the potential millions of dollars still out there.
I do not believe that it is in the interest of the LSF to reject this offer that will benefit the LSF. I believe that Raven is not acting in the best interests of the LSF and that his allegiance is elsewhere.
As a member of the board of the LSF I believe that you are devoted to the best interests of that organization. If you think that my proposal has merit please meet with your fellow board members and insist that my proposal be considered or that a fair counter-offer be made. I would be pleased to hear from you about your views on this matter.
Willis A. Carto