[ [http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/lowenthal.pdf "Venona and Alger Hiss"] , by John Lowenthal (2000).] , published in Autumn 2000 issue of the journal.]At the same time Alexander Vassiliev sued for libel Amazon.com over defamatory allegations published by John Lowenthal, lawyer and friend of Alger Hiss, on "The Haunted Wood" page. The review of the book began with the words "Unreliable and mostly unverifiable" and among other things said that the book, "particularly in its use of KGB archival files, is unreliable and, for the most part, unverifiable. Where it is verifiable at all, it turns out to be wrong."
Alexander Vassiliev represented himself as a litigant in person in both litigations.
In Vassiliev vs Frank Cass (The High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, HQ 01X03222) the Defendant based its defense on three points:
1. qualified privilege: the journal "had a moral or social duty" to publish John Lowenthal's allegations;
2. "fair comment": the statements Alexander Vassiliev was complaining about were "fair comment upon a matter of public interest."
3. justification.
In January 2003 Frank Cass's lawyers offered Alexander Vassiliev to settle the monetary claim for more than 2,000 British pounds and promised not to republish the John Lowenthal article. Vassiliev rejected the offer. In May 2003 Frank Cass proposed to settle the case for 7500 pounds, but Vassiliev rejected that offer too.
The trial Vassiliev vs Frank Cass started on June 9, 2003 before Judge Eady and the jury. Alexander Vassiliev had no right to tell the jury that Frank Cass had offered to settle the case twice.
On the final day, Friday, June 13, 2003 Judge Eady summed up the case for the jury and instructed them about the procedure for reaching a verdict. He asked the jury to answer three questions.
* To the first one - "Do you find that the words are in their context defamatory of Mr Vassiliev?" – they answered "yes."
* To the second one – "If yes, do you find that the defamatory allegations were expressions of opinion or were allegations of fact?" – the answer was "opinion."
* To the third one - "If opinion, were the comments such that an honest person could express them in the light of what Mr Lowenthal knew at the time his article was published?"– they answered "yes."
The "fair comment" defense worked, and there was no need to go to the question of justification.
Later the same day Judge Eady gave his verdict on "qualified privilege", and Frank Cass succeeded here too.
The judge decided that the contents of John Lowenthal's allegations in the article and in his review published on Amazon.com were similar, and there was no need to have a trial of Alexander Vassiliev vs Amazon.com, which meant Vassiliev lost that one as well. Amazon.com defense was based mostly on the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The Defendant was claiming the Act gave them immunity from prosecution.
On June 3, 2002 the contents of John Lowenthal’s review of "The Haunted Wood" were altered.[ [http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3P4EE3HB490FV John Lowenthal’s review of "The Haunted Wood"] , (altered on June 3, 2002).] ] Footnotes
External links
* Alexander Vassiliev vs Frank Cass: [http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/judgerule.pdf Judgment]
* Persico, Joseph E. (1999) [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E3DC1F3CF930A35752C0A96F958260&scp=2&sq=The%20Kremlin%20Connection&st=cse The Kremlin Connection] . The New York Times review of "The Haunted Wood".
* Lehmann-Haupt, Christopher (1999) [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E3DD1730F93BA25752C0A96F958260&scp=1&sq=Romantics+and+Hustlers+With+Gloves%2C+Cloaks+and+Daggers+&st=nyt Romantics and Hustlers With Gloves, Cloaks and Daggers] . The New York Times review of "The Haunted Wood".
* Alexander Vassiliev’s Notes on Anatoly Gorsky’s December 1948 Memo [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page48.html Compromised American Sources and Networks]
* A Historian’s Bibliography and Guide to the Literature [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page94.html American Communism and Anticommunism]
