<http://poynter.org/forum/?id=letters>
[...]
Finally, about Debbie Nathan. This is a woman who has a vendetta against me. I already know that one publication has refused to publish her articles on this matter because of their concern that she seemed too determined to hurt me. She has a deep, personal conflict that cannot be resolved by disclosure. And now, she and I are litigants. My wife and I have instructed our financial advisor to set aside $100,000 to finance the initial portions of this lawsuit. This woman has falsely accused me of breaking child pornography laws, of subscribing to gay porn sites, of admitting that I was wrong in sending the money, of acknowledging that I violated journalistic rules, etc. I have done none of that. She has acknowledged engaging in libel per se. She is about to learn the consequences of that.
At this time, I consider Salon to be a victim of Nathan’s unprofessionalism, and will not be naming them in this suit. New York Magazine has, so far, been very professional about dealing with this issue, and are examining whether Nathan’s statements about my testimony actually coincides with what I said. As a result, I also consider them Nathan’s victims, and will not be naming them. Jack Shafer, who cited Nathan extensively in his piece, did so in good faith.
However, anyone else who relies on Nathan’s misleading and false report to depict what occurred in the courtroom in Michigan is on notice. If you wish to speak to lawyers in the case, go to it. If you want a transcript of what I said, I will provide it when I have it. But I will not be held accountable for the statements that Nathan falsely depicts me as having said. And if you choose to rely on this conflicted woman for your reports, you do so at your own legal peril.
[...]