An Open Letter to Richard Fitz

January 11 2005: I noticed a missing parenthesis, so I made the change – this is such a minor change that it has no real impact upon the document as a whole.

<Address Information Removed>

Mr. Fitz,

On March 3rd 2004 I found, much to my dismay, an individual attributing various unsatisfactory statements to you, Richard Fitz. I, having read contrary statements in articles that you had previously written, felt that the very least I could was point out said statements to this individual, as well as suggest to them that they contact you directly regarding said statements. However, after a few emails back and forth, I found that you had in fact made the contrary statements. The article's writer had also read the statements that I sent to him to look over, as proof that you could not say what he was attributing to you, and he too found your recent statements to be contrary to what you had originally stated.

From what I can tell, the articles that had the contrary-to-your-recent-statements were the first occurrence of said statements, and are dated to various months in mid-2003. While some individuals can certainly change their mind regarding a stand, and be fully justified in doing so (such as Senator John Kerry), I find that the time between these statements, as well as the content of the statements, prohibits me from finding this case to be justified. In fact, if I may be so bold, these statements are as different as possible.

I urge you to re-read the fifth, seventeenth, and twenty-first paragraphs in your article from October 9th 2003. Then, please peruse paragraphs six and seven (especially the last two sentences of the former) in your first article from October 23rd 2003. Finally, notice the contradictions that continually occur while keeping the previously mentioned articles (especially the above mentioned paragraphs) in mind while re-reading your statements to Mr. Drev (I assume that the fifth instance of another person was merely a spelling error on the part of the typist) on March 2nd 2004.

While not a part of your largest organized following, I am indeed quite a supporter of your ideas. I hope that I'm not too modest in asking you to recall that I have sent you two letters previously (late August and mid-September of 2003) regarding various issues which I found you to be slightly confused on (and which I later found you changed your position in order to correct said mistakes). I hope that you will realize your mistake in this instance as well, and will seek to clarify your perspective.

As always, I appreciate your time and effort for the causes that you bring to the light.

I look forward to your comments regarding this both privately and, I'm sure, publicly.


James Skemp
Madison WI