This was part of a column published by the Santa Barbara News-Press in December 2021.
In September 1981, a short-lived magazine called The Investigator, created by syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, published my in-depth investigation of Liberty Lobby, a neo-Nazi organization that masqueraded as being populist. The article exposed a man named Willis Carto as the mysterious figure behind Liberty Lobby and its weekly anti-Semitic newspaper, The Spotlight.
Carto took umbrage and sued The Investigator and Jack Anderson for defamation. That case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against Liberty Lobby on the basis that the plaintiff “had not provided clear and convincing evidence.” (Apparently, this case is now required reading in law schools across the nation.)
Liberty Lobby—some called it Liberty Lobotomy—could not name me as a Defendant even though I was the true author, having researched, investigated and written the piece. This was because The Investigator’s editor improperly gave the byline to a magazine staffer, Charles Bermant, who had conducted supplemental research and penned the opening paragraphs.
I have not, until now (40 years later), refuted the nonsense spewed by all parties.
I, of course, had evidence in my possession to back up every aspect of my story, including tape-recordings and transcripts of interviews conducted with ex-Liberty Lobby employees, among others who’d had unpleasant dealings with Willis Carto.
Oddly, these extensive notes/recordings/transcripts were never requested for review, either before the piece was published or after the lawsuit was filed.
Jack Anderson's attorney, David Branson of White & Case, flew to London to meet me. We had tea at the hotel where he stayed, Inn on the Park. When I asked what Mr. Branson needed from me, he whimsically stated that he just needed to be able to tell the Court that he had met me in person and I that truly exist.
The assertion (in Liberty Lobby’s lawsuit) that "Carto often observes interviews of prospective employees through a mirror" came from a former senior Liberty Lobby employee who claimed (to me directly) that he had personally witnessed this behavior.
A second source, also an ex-Liberty Lobby employee, corroborated that point (to me directly, no duplicate sourcing). This was old-fashioned, by-the-book investigative reporting (remember that?) as taught to me by legendary Fleet Street investigations editor Laurie Manifold.
As for "a drawing of a Hitleresque person, allegedly Carto": The draft I submitted to The Investigator was a typescript without illustrations of any kind. Hence, this drawing did not come from me, as Charles Bermant erroneously testified, but most likely was created by The Investigator's own art department.
That said, I have no doubt, based on my investigation, that Willis Carto admired Adolph Hitler; that the illustration truly reflected his leanings. It was Carto, for instance, who created (from behind the scenes) the notorious Institute for Historical Review, which published books and held conventions to promote a revisionist theory that the Holocaust was a hoax.
Every other point in my story that Liberty Lobby alleged to be "defamatory" was similarly sourced and documented as true. Neither Mr. Bermant nor Joseph Spears—a key lieutenant to Jack Anderson who negotiated my fee—ever asked me about my sources nor asked to see evidence that supported my story.
Had I been a named Defendant in the action, all of my files would have been "discovered" and Liberty Lobby would have been sent packing long before their case reached the Supreme Court.
Lesson to publications: Don't steal credit/bylines from freelance journalists.
As usual, those who benefitted most were lawyers.