The evils of slander and libel thoroughly permeates the fabric of life in America. Therefore, more often than not, something outrageous has to happen in order to impress on our minds the inherent evils and the egregious effects of this wickedness. (Egregious refers to that which is conspicuously, and extraordinarily bad or very objectionable.)

Its effect on our spiritual and moral sensibilities is like the effect of eating pig. It's deadening. However, the further away from either we get the more hateful they (hog and slander) become.

Attorney Arif Muhammad and Attorney Ava Muhammad, on behalf of the Nation of Islam, made very clear in our appeal to the New York Supreme Court (Appellate Division) that as a result of the libelous article carried by The New York Post, in March 1994, the Nation of Islam "sustained actual injury in the form of immediate threat of danger to the life, liberty and character of its leadership and the interference with the redemption and salvation of its members in the person of Minister Louis Farrakhan."

Among the wicked things done, against the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, by The New York Post, was the presentation of information in a manner calculated to make the public think that this information was both new and news worthy. The fact was and is, that this information--which we are about to get into--was based upon the deceitful and deliberate misuse of information that is about thirty years old.

Others around the country are still repeating the lies that The New York Post told and spread. I wonder if they are wondering that if we win this case will we sue them?

Now there are even certain evil people putting on the internet that Minister Farrakhan is not only guilty of the lie that The New York Post told, but has confessed to it.

This latest lie has been sent to our attorneys. The reason I am bringing this up is to say that we must fight harder than ever to uphold the good name of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan.

If we are not willing to increase our effort on Minister Farrakhan's behalf, and on behalf of the cause for which Master Fard Muhammad came, then, among other things, we are saying that the sacrifice the Honorable Elijah Muhammad (and the believers) made from the 1930s until you (we) came into the Nation, is of no value. In this case we are not worth a damn!

Let us now focus on the specifics that shows the malicious mind set of our opponents.

It is our position, as set forth by our attorneys, that the defendants had thorough knowledge of the truth of the matter, but knowingly and with reckless disregard for the truth, published the evil contents of their hearts against Minister Farrakhan, with the aim of ruining him and, in my view, they hoped some Black brother or sister would murder him.

First, let us start with the prime illustration of these facts. In the December 4, 1964 edition of the Muhammad Speaks newspaper, there appeared an article under the name Louis X.

Now put yourself in the position of Mr. Jack Newfield of The New York Post who well knows what slander and libel is. You know that millions of people are going to read this particular article that you are in the process of writing. You already know that if in any way you show the public that Minister Louis Farrakhan was directly involved in the death of Malcolm X that this is going to go all the way around the world.

As Mr. Jack Newfield, you have in your possession the full text of an article which appeared thirty-two years ago in the Muhammad Speaks, under Minister Farrakhan's name. (To be more exact he would receive the name Farrakhan a few years later from his teacher. However, his picture and name is clearly connected to the article.) As Mr. Jack Newfield, you have before you the full text of the article under Minister Farrakhan's name. You focus on a specific passage, which reads: "Such a man as Malcolm is worthy of death, and would have met with death if it had not been for Muhammad's confidence in Allah for victory over the enemies."

You clearly see a comma comes immediately after the word "death." There is no mistake in your mind about this.

Then you proceed to write the following words: "Such a man as Malcolm is worthy of death." You deliberately omit the rest of the words and you put a period where a comma clearly was. What is your state of mind as you do this?

You know full well that this alters the clear intent and meaning of the original statement that appeared thirty-two years ago in Muhammad Speaks.

What effect or impact do you, as Mr. Newfield, intend that your altering of the meaning these words are to have on the public's mind, when they read the article that you are writing about Minister Farrakhan?

The reading public has no way of knowing that certain words had been left out of the original sentence. Now suppose you go on to characterize your mutilated or fabricated quotation as a "death warrant." What kind of foundation are you, as Mr. Newfield, setting down and for what? Are you laying the basis for charging Minister Farrakhan with murder? Do you want someone who love Malcolm to murder Minister Farrakhan? Are you a part of a wide conspiracy, which has been in effect for years, but which has failed, from time to time, to fulfill its objective? Are you part of a group who are dedicated to ruining Minister Farrakhan, or having him killed and are you also working to rid America of the Nation of Islam?

Now the writer, Mr. Jack Newfield, of the offending and libelous article in The New York Post wrote in 1994 that the 1964 article with the Minister's name over it, was the point of origin for "rumors" surrounding Minister Farrakhan's so-called "complicity" in Malcolm's assassination. This scandal-mongering writer wrote: "There have long been rumors of Farrakhan's complicity because of an article he published ... December 4, 1964, 10 weeks before Malcolm X's murder."

Mr. Newfeld of The New York Post specifically traced these alleged rumors to this 1964 article. He knew better than this. But he also knew that most every reader of his article is probably not going to do any research to see if he is lying or not. By using some of the Minister's words he hoped to bolster his article's credibility.

In an earlier article, in this series, I gave the full text of an affidavit of Attorney William Kunstler. It is evidence of that which Mr. Jack Newfield already knew. It involves an affidavit signed in 1978 by Talmadge Hayer (now Mujahid Abdul Halin) in which he went into details about the planning of the assassination.

At this point I refer the reader to page 384 of Attorney Kunstler's book titled "My Life As A Radical Lawyer," in which he wrote that in 1977 Hayer (Halin) signed a lengthy affidavit going into and affirming all of the details and the persons involved in the assassination of Malcolm X.

Attorney Kunstler continued: "Acting New York County Supreme court justice Harold I. Rothwax, determined not to rock the boat, ruled that this affidavit was not enough to reopen the case, even though Hayer had named and described the four men and given their last known address as well as information about their backgrounds. An investigation might well have determined the truth. But the F.B.I., aware of its part in Malcolm's assassination, desperately wanted the truth kept under wraps, probably for forever."