May 1983: Kinsey-co author, Dr. Wardell Pomeroy refuses to debate Dr. Reisman on CNN TV "Crossfire" and instead threatens to sue Dr. Reisman should she discusses Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). On Crossfire Dr. Reisman describes her findings of child sex atrocities conducted for Kinsey's studies. She is not sued.

May 25, 1983: News columnist Patrick Buchanan reports Dr. Reisman's child sex abuse charges in the press. The Kinsey Institute threatens Buchanan with a libel lawsuit. Buchanan responds with "Buchanan v Kinsey Round 2," documenting all of Reisman's charges. He is not sued.

June 2, 1983: A Kinsey Institute press release defames Dr. Reisman and denies all charges of crimes against children committed under cover of science and the protection of Indiana University.

February 2, 1984: Press reports appear nationwide in concert with Playboy and similar materials, protesting a U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention grant to Dr. Reisman to examine child pornography and to revisit the Kinsey research. In 1993 Dr. Reisman finds evidence of The Kinsey Institute's secret role in discrediting this research.

February 1984: Dr. Reisman is called before American University 's Institutional Review Board several times. The board forbids her to study Kinsey's data. Evidence in 1993 finds The Kinsey Institute secret role in censoring this research.

April 1984: Dr. Reisman is called to testify for the first of three congressional hearings to challenge the Department of Justice award for this research. Evidence in 1993 finds The Kinsey Institute secretly involved in these Congressional efforts to stop the investigations.

1985: Dr. Reisman completes her study, "Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler," over significant obstacles. The research is successfully used at the US Supreme Court level as well as in lower courts.

1990: Kinsey Institute Director, June Reinisch threatens to sue a radio station should Dr. Reisman be interviewed about her recent 1990 book, Kinsey, Sex & Fraud. The radio station drops Dr. Reisman's planned interview.

1990 Dr. Reisman discovers that The Kinsey Institute is secretly circulating "confidential" defamatory materials about her, worldwide. The cover page of the 89 page tome states these "confidential" materials "are not to be attributed to the Kinsey Institute".

1990: A nonprofit law firm offers to represent Dr. Reisman pro bono for defamation against the Kinsey Institute and June Reinisch. Although her DOJ peers approved Reisman's findings (the past president of The American Statistical Association concluded "This is a sound study") the secret Kinsey Institute package mailed to numerous recipients injures Dr. Reisman by falsely claiming the DOJ research is not peer approved.

December 1990, Dr. Reisman appears and handily exposes Kinsey's child abuse culpability on "Phil Donahue." Later Dr. Reisman discovers Donahue was threatened with a lawsuit if Dr. Reisman appears on air. He is not sued.

1991: A lawsuit for defamation is filed by Dr. Reisman against The Kinsey Institute and its (then) Director, June Reinisch.

May 1993: In deposing June Reinisch at Indiana University , Dr. Reisman discovered handwritten file notes. One note said, "sue Am. University for sponsoring things she threatens to do." Another note said "had lengthy conversation" … "Am. Univ. Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects."

Dr. Reisman believes this "lengthy conversation" explains why the AU Institutional Review Board censored her legitimate study of Kinsey in her U.S. Justice Department research.

March 22, 1994: Dr. Reisman's pro-bono law firm said they could not financially continue the lawsuit. If plaintiff (Dr. Reisman) could pay $53,000 in court costs the judge ruled that this would allow her to file the same lawsuit later against the same defendants. Therefore, considering the non frivolous nature of her complaint, the judge would dismiss her case WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pending its reopening.

Circa May 1994: Unable to obtain $53,000 to continue the case for a "without prejudice" decision, the judge dismissed the case "with prejudice" meaning Dr. Reisman could not sue for this collection of "confidential" papers, but could sue later on any other charge.

In sum, due to lack of money not lack of merit this defamation suit was dismissed.

The judge did not absolve the Kinsey Institute or June Reinish of defamation.

This legal proceeding was not about the facts or fraud with respect to Kinsey's research. The court NEVER ruled that Dr. Reisman's defamation charges have no "merit." The defamation case NEVER even addressed Kinsey's crimes. [Note: It has been brought to our attention that The Kinsey Institute claims otherwise, and thus continues its history of trying to twist the facts. Just ask them for a complete copy of the law suit briefs, motions and rulings should you have any doubt.]

Dr. Judith Reisman has proven that the research conducted by A. Kinsey, his associates and collaborators was fraudulent and has invited and continues to invite the Kinsey Institute to debate her publicly about her research. The Kinsey Institute has never taken Dr. Reisman up on her offer, neither has the Kinsey Institute ever sued anyone who claimed that Kinsey's research was fraudulent.

To date, the Kinsey Institute has failed to repudiate any of the facts Dr. Reisman has brought to light against the Kinsey research. Rather than admitting that Kinsey's research had no scientific merit, the Kinsey Institute has engaged in secret cloak and dagger missions to destroy the reputation of those who seek to uncover the truth.

The Kinsey Institute until today continues to deny access to its files to any researcher critical of the "research" conducted by Alfred Kinsey.

The COPA2-Congressional Brief of Members of Congress, Amici Curiae in Ashcroft v. ACLU, No. 03-218 has used Dr. Reisman's "restructuring the human brain" argument found on her White Pages on this website. Arguments will probably be in late 2004. The South African pornography decision--relying upon the altered brain evidence--may have helped move the data forward. Please check pages 6 and 7 for Dr. Reisman's brain précis, the first such thesis brought to the attention of the US Supreme Court.

For document download, please click here.

TO VIEW THIS VIDEO CLICK ON:

http://www.zenjoomla.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73&Itemid=93