Accused Statutory Rapist Robert Wadman’s “Libel” Suit Against John DeCamp Flops
By Alex Constantine Revised 7-31-08
Yesteraday, at 5:09 pm, I had a call from Lincoln, Nebraska attorney John DeCamp, author of The Franklin Cover-Up, and his legal assistant, Bobby Kosmicki. They were driving away from the Ogden, Utah courtroom – where Robert Wadman made one more attempt to suppress allegations of statutory rape and conspiracy to conceal the evidence, among other serious charges – in jubilant spirits. This was decent enough news because Wadman is also suing my publisher, Adam Parfrey, for libel – thirteen years after my own book, Psychic Dictatorshiip in the USA, was printed.
Thie trial was over in a couple of hours, and DeCamp didn’t exactly limp away from it a legal eunuch, as Wadman hoped. John DeCamp DeCamp moved early on in the proceeding to have the suit thrown out because in many states a libel suit cannot be filed in small claims. The judge saw it differently, however, and maintained that though the case should have been brought in district or superior court, Utah statutes grant him the authority to preside over libel claims. So Wadman pressed on, claiming that DeCamp’s book had defamed him and caused him to lose employment as an overseas advisor in international policing by the Bush Justice Department, resulting in a “loss of income.” Little evidence was presented at trial, though, and in the end the judge ruled in favor of DeCamp, although Wadman has the right of appeal. According to Ms. Kosmicki, the former police chief’s testimony consisted of “continual misstatements and a lot of whining of victimization, and lies about being besieged by DeCamp office’s ‘death threats.”” Wadman’s perjured case against myself and my publisher hinges on his contention that he “does not know Larry King,” the Republican whig at the epicenter of the Omaha scandal, among other claims. Wadman has gone so far as to swear under oath that he barely knew King. DeCamp, in a post-publication interview: “… That’s not what King says. In April 22, 1989 interviews with King and Wadman, Frank Brown of TV-7, Omaha, questioned them about an incident in which Wadman intervened at King’s request, to order the release of a suitcase seized in a drug raid. BROWN: King acknowledges he is a friend of Chief Wadman’s. We asked King did he call the chief to get a suitcase released that had been seized in a drug investigation? BROWN: You had that friendship where, you could – KING: Yes. http://www.vrijheids.net/media/The_Franklin_Cover_Up.pdf Robert Wadman also claims that he does not know Alisha Owen, who has testified (and never recanted) that the-then chief of the Omaha police department is the father of her child, and that she had sex with him at the age of 14. From the Nebraska Leadership Conference Newsletter, No. 2, Oct. 11, 1991: “[Alisha] Owen stated that when she first met Police Chief Robert Wadman, she was a virgin.” This was at a party in Omaha. “Another party took place on August 31, at the same location. Present were ‘Alfie Allen, Larry King, Alan Baer, Robert Wadman … ” And so it goes. Wadman denies everything. My publisher meets him in the courtroom in September. Stay tuned for more details – and word on my own suit against Wadman – who has actually written to by distributor, claiming that Psychic Dictatorship is under “litigation” (he fails to mention that it’s in small claims court) and should be recalled, removed from the shelves. This is a lame attempt to censor my books and abridge my first amendment rights. In California, there are anti-SLAPP statutes against filing harassment suits to silence journalists … like good ol’ Alex Constantine, as Wadman is about to find out.* So I’ll be filing a suit against him to put a stop to this stalking and filing groundless legal compliants in a pathetic attempt to silence DeCamp and myself. ••••••• http://www.casp.net/slapps/mengen.html * What are SLAPPs? SLAPPs — Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation — are civil complaints or counterclaims (against either an individual or an organization) in which the alleged injury was the result of petitioning or free speech activities protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. SLAPPs are often brought by corporations, real estate developers, or government officials and entities against individuals who oppose them on public issues. Typically, SLAPPs are based on ordinary civil tort claims such as defamation, conspiracy, and interference with prospective economic advantage. While most SLAPPs are legally meritless, they effectively achieve their principal purpose: to chill public debate on specific issues. Defending a SLAPP requires substantial money, time, and legal resources and thus diverts the defendant’s attention away from the public issue. Equally important, however, a SLAPP also sends a message to others: you, too, can be sued if you speak up. Every year thousands of people are hit with SLAPPs for such activities as writing a letter to a newspaper, reporting misconduct by public officals, speaking at public meetings, filing complaints with officials over violations of labor laws or health and safety laws, “whistleblowing” in corporations, or organizing tenants. …