Talk:"Mr. Butts" documents

Moving the following from SourceWatch User:Merrell123 to the article "talk" page. Diane Farsetta 11:48, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I am Merrell Williams, Jr. The article in this "Sourcewatch" is inaccurate. In "Mr.Butts", for example, it is impossible and incorrect (and I have attempted often to correct you on this) for Merrell Williams, Jr. to be "Mr. Butts". The record for this information has been that (1) it was impossible for me to have sent any information to Don Barrett. Mr. Barrett and Mr. Scruggs, who obtained the "Brown and Williamson Documents" on a flight from Trent Lott International Airport to Orlando, FL, on April 15, 1994, obtained documents (which I did not access) from Nina Selz at the Orlando private airport. Mr. Scruggs' team, which illegally copied documents against a Court Order from Jefferson County, Louisville KY (Judge Thomas Wine's TRO) re Maddox vs Unknown Defendant, Sept. 9, 1993, filed in Jefferson County Court and may be viewed by the Archives in Civil Court Records, was not available to me, and was purportedly "locked" in a bank safe vault in Pascagoula, MS. It was sent to Don Barrett, and he received the documents, and forwarded the documents to Stanton Glantz on or about April 17, 1994. So, Merrell Williams, Jr. is NOT "Mr.Butts". Please correct this - once again. Also, it is obvious that much of the "bio" data in this very dated article is pulled from a St.Petersburg Times feature story (two stories) written by a present writer at the NY Times. The article, which was researched over a period of months, was tongue-in-cheek, and humorous; your pull of certain items is out of context, and, as a matter of record, is not only an embarrassing read, but is libel per se of Merrell Williams, Jr. If you want particulars on this "bio", I suggest you revise what you are obviously taking out of context. Please take a look at your text once again. David Barstow's feature stories are entirely out of context, and your reliance on false information subjects you to punitive legal analysis and perhaps further action. I don't mind that you get it wrong, but you should at least try to get it closer to fact and - if possible - do it in standard English.