Dear LA Times

I have sent the following demand for a retraction to The Los Angeles Times. It follows legal requirements for such demands under California law.


On August 19, 2015, The Los Angeles Times’ Deirdre Edgar published a “Readers’ Representative Journal” titled “Times reaffirms decision that Ted Rall’s blog post did not meet its standards” that contains falsehoods and/or libelous statements about me.

I hereby demand that you retract this article and issue an apology for what appears to be a continuation of your malicious effort to defame me.

In addition, I reaffirm my previous demands, based on the “Editor’s Note” dated July 28, 2015 by Nick Goldberg, that you issue a retraction for that piece, which also contains falsehoods and libelous statements, issue an apology, and reinstate my cartoons and blogs to the Opinion Pages.

Regarding the August 19th “Journal” piece:

(1) The Times wrote: ” The Los Angeles Police Department challenged Rall’s account and provided documents and a tape recording of the 2001 encounter that indicate the officer did not use force against Rall and treated him politely.”

This statement is false.

It is not true that the LAPD provided a “tape recording of the 2001 encounter…” According to you (” The LAPD also provided a copy of an audio recording of the jaywalking stop made by Durr”), the original recording was apparently made on an analog micro-cassette. Paul Pringle sent me a digital WAV file. This is not the original tape recording. Because audio experts require the original recording, along with the device with which is was made, in order to determine the authenticity of an audio recording, dubs and copies are inadmissable as evidence in US courts. (See, for example,

This statement is libelous because the article goes on to claim that there are ” discrepancies between the police records and tape recording and his blog post.” In fact, there is no “tape recording.” There is an impossible to authenticate, and therefore utterly worthless, dub — possibly a dub of a dub.

By definition, then, there are no “discrepancies.”

(2) The Times wrote: ” In response, The Times has reexamined the evidence and found no basis to change its decision.”

This statement is false.

The Times did not originally examine the evidence. As stated above, there was no “evidence.” The audio file was not submitted to audio experts for authentication or enhancement – basic steps under journalistic due diligence. By definition, it cannot have “reexamined it” because it did not “examine” it in the first place.

(3) The Times wrote: ” The Times also had two forensic audio experts analyze the LAPD recording after Rall asserted that background voices, which he said were audible on a version enhanced for him by sound technicians, supported his account. Rall has insisted that two women can be heard objecting to the officer’s handcuffing of him.”

This statement contains a striking lie of omission.

The Times says it had its experts “analyze” its LAPD dub of a dubbed recording. However, one of the Times’ experts, Mr. Primeau, also had it enhanced. (See: Perhaps unaware that the Times planned to cherry-pick evidence for a further libelous attack on my reputation, Mr. Primeau posted the results on his blog. Though his transcript is not as complete as the one that resulted from the Post Haste Digital enhancement the results, which the Times chose not to mention or refer to, support my assertion that there was an angry crowd present: people in the background can be heard discussing “jaywalking.”

Why, in 2500 words, did the Times fail to disclose to its readers that its own expert confirmed my account, or that it asked at least one of its experts to have it enhanced? Whatever the reason, it is yet another example of the careless, malicious and dishonest way the Times has handled this matter.

(4) The Times wrote: “A second recording furnished by the department was made by Sgt. Kilby when he called Rall’s phone number and left a voicemail. On the tape, Kilby is heard saying he had left earlier messages to no avail.”

This statement is false.

By the Times’ own account, ” LAPD also provided a copy of an audio recording.”

A copy of an audio recording (” made on a micro-cassette recorder and later transferred to a digital format”) is worthless, impossible to authenticate, inadmissable as evidence, and is not, in any event “a second recording.”

(5) The Times wrote: ” Nor does Rall express any complaints about how is he being treated.”

This statement is libelous because it states that there a discrepancy between the WAV file and my previous statements. There is not.

At no time have I expressed any complaints about how I was treated.

(6) The Times wrote: ” Here is the full LAPD transcript.” There is a link to a document.

This statement is false.

There is no way to verify whether this document is authentic.

Also, this “full LAPD transcript” has clearly been redacted. Therefore, it is not “full.”

Furthermore, it contains at least one glaring error, referring to a “Mr. Raul.” It is hard to believe that anyone should be expected to rely on this shoddy document.

(7) The Times wrote: “Grigoras said his analysis detected no reference to handcuffs. He said a man and a woman can be heard speaking in the background at one point, but only a few of their words are intelligible.  Grigoras said the man and woman appear to be having a conversation unrelated to the jaywalking stop. “It is obvious the police officer is not part of that conversation,” he said.”

This passage contains two conflicting statements. Both cannot be true.

If Grigoras really said that “only a few of their words are intelligible,” it is not possible for it to be “obvious that the police officer is not part of that conversation.”

This does not constitute a complete listing of the libelous and/or untruthful statements contained within this article.

Given the substantial “discrepancies” between the truth and what the Times has written about me in two articles, will everyone involved in writing them be fired and repeatedly libeled, the way I was over my truthful May 11, 2015 blog post?

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this urgent matter.

Very truly yours,
Ted Rall

This entry was posted in Blog on by .

About Ted Rall

Ted Rall is the political cartoonist at, editor-in-chief of, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is the author of the biography "Trump," to be published in July 2016.

13 thoughts on “Dear LA Times

  1. Ted,

    I thought the LAPD had not confirmed it was the source of the documents. Therefore, the LATimes has not provided any EVIDENCE that the LAPD was the source of the documents. Thus, their validity cannot be established in the first place.

  2. Primeau Forensics’ transcript is absolutely worthless. It doesn’t even include parts of the conversations that I can hear plainly (with headphones), even with my age-related hearing impairments.

    Additinally, the LAPD transcript offers nothing to advance the claim of the LA Times that your blog was a lie. It was an obvious set-up.

    I agree with *alex_the_tired* that there is no EVIDENCE at all.

    I’m looking forward to the pending lawsuit and wish you the best!

  3. Ever since the end of WWII, police unions in the United States have expansively transformed into de-facto intelligence organizations. Police unions are also data-mining operations. The most prevailing target against which all police unions operate IS the general public. They have access to “dirt” (real or invented) on EVERYONE.

    Inadvertently, the LAPD told the truth, it did not provide the covert evidence against Ted. Instead, that “tape” came from the police union’s secret archives. Unlike any other city in America (beyond even Washington D.C.), Los Angeles County has the most important people among greater America’s digitally communicated, civilian propaganda hierarchy. More so than even the Federal government, ONLY POLICE UNIONS covertly assume first-hand access to highly privileged information, both private and “public.” The “in-plain-sight,” undercover operatives commanded by the PU’s spymasters is the entire cop-force itself.

    Police Unions are the most integral element of America’s Shadow Government. Functionally, police unions are wholly unregulated. As a political force, they are the latest transformation of organized crime, PUBLIC ENEMY No. 1.


    • I should have emphasized, (fascistly controlled) PRIVATELY INCORPORATED, intelligence organizations ~


      • There is yet another way of defining the problem. Every tin-pot police chief and sheriff, from the largest LE murder-machines in L.A., Detroit, N.Y., Atlanta and Miami, to the cheeziest lynchmasters of Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, etc., are their own (self-conflated) J.E.Hoover. It’s the police union(s) that tie all those official — and secretly self-serving — databases together.

        To this crowd, its greatest enemy IS the 4th Amendment.


    • @ mhenriday –

      Ted posted a link to a similar story on Facebook, and I was wondering the same thing.

      Perhaps the songbird will sing, reckon?


      • Frankly, mein verehrter Lehrer, I deem it most unlikely, but it would certainly be nice if something related to Ted’s case were to come out….


      • @ mhenriday –

        I’m with you 100%. It was just “wishful thinking” — that he would be so pissed that he would see a chance to hang his bosses out to dry and be willing to admit that they pressured him into action against Ted, contrary to legal limits. (Ain’t I the Dreamer?)