Japanese website for Chapter 27. Initial release bombs.

Should we have sympathy for this monster
(Thanks Jared Leto - Jerk-off!!)

Chapter 27 (Jared Leto and Lindsay Lohan) was released in Japan on the day of John Lennons murder (while Yoko Ono was dedicating a memorial to her late husband). 27 years to the day that a peaceful man and musical genius was taken from us.
We are excited to say that the movie is already disappearing from Japanese theaters, Chapter 27 may not make it through a single weekend. Peace Arch Entertainment has terribly misjudged the people of Japan. A population of huge Beatles fans has fought back, by avoiding Chapter 27.
Here is the link to the promotional website developed to push this horrible film on the people of Japan. It includes a long version of the movie trailer. The rest of the site is of course, in Japanese.
CHAPTER 27 - Japanese website
Chapter 27 movie trailer



BY RONDA CORNELIUS, STAFF WRITER

THE U.S. VS. JOHN LENNON
・99 minutes
・Toho Cinemas Roppoingi Hills in Tokyo and eleswhere

CHAPTER 27
・85 minutes
・Cine Quinto in Tokyo and elsewhere

Last Saturday, it was 27 years since ex-Beatle John Lennon was shot and killed by a deranged scumbag.

Two movies about the life and death of this peace-loving pop icon/music genius will soon be out here. So, which sounds more appealing: the upbeat, informative, rah-rah one? Or the dreary, uninformative, I'd-chew-my-leg-off-to-get-out-of-here one? I guess it depends on your mood.

・"The U.S. vs. John Lennon" (called "Peace Bed--America vs. John Lennon" in Japan) has a litigious title and made its cable debut on music channel VH1. But fear not: This is not some ludicrous hybrid of Court TV hype and "Behind the Music" melodrama. It is instead good, old-school storytelling: a 99-minute film rich in material that tells a relevant yarn about interesting people, including colorful former newsmakers who are as outspoken as ever. (Wow. Talk about aging boomers! Except Angela Davis, the communist organizer/ex-FBI-list fugitive acquitted in a sensationalist murder trial in the early 1970s--she still looks hip.) The film does well to venture beyond the courtroom; it gathers up the threads of the lawsuit story throughout Lennon's life and then weaves them together into a big zeitgeist tapestry.

The background in a nutshell: By the late 1960s, Lennon was lending his star power to support antiwar, anti-establishment groups. U.S. President Richard Nixon was up for re-election in 1972, and the voting age had just dropped to 18. The administration was paranoid that Lennon's activism would spur young people to vote Nixon out. U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond proposed nullifying Lennon's influence by revoking his visa and kicking him out of the country. The FBI, functioning as political police, gathered intelligence on Lennon for the case. He refused to go quietly.

The story is told by those involved, many of them famous/notorious: former FBI agents including convicted Watergate co-conspirator G. Gordon Liddy (repeating his crack about using a hippie's candle to light his cigar); Bobby Seale, co-founder of the Black Panthers; even poet-activist John Sinclair, who got up to 10 years for giving two joints to an undercover cop. (Sinclair has funny things to say about the cross purposes of smoking marijuana while trying to get it legalized.)

Besides interviews, the story is also told in archive footage of Lennon and others doing talk shows, concerts, protests and so on.

Much of this was before my time, so I can't speak for how rare the footage is, but I will say that hindsight makes for some smug watching. Besides the in-bed protests (with Tommy Smothers!), other choice snippets include a snooty editor from The New York Times telling Lennon he was "ridiculous" and that his song "All You Need Is Love" was a joke.

The footage of Lennon and Yoko Ono is surprising, too. Ono, long blamed and reviled by many for the breakup of the Beatles, has often been painted with a witchy brush in documentaries about the Fab Four. But here, there's no pretense that she's evil. The portrait is kind, if jumbled: Lennon and Ono come across variously as astute rebels, wacky artists, naive activists, scared foreigners. The constant is that Lennon seems truly in love with Ono, even geekily so.

Obviously, in contrasting the vehement antiwar protest movement of the Vietnam era ("Power to the people!") with today's lackluster campaigns, the film has an agenda--that people today should be doing more than blogging to protest the war in Iraq. But you can also watch this film in a specific historic sense to see this legal episode in Lennon's life unfold. Overall, this is an engrossing film, one I wouldn't mind rewatching.

・So, why did MDC shoot Lennon? Because MDC was nuts. OK, yes, but what exactly was it that made him want to kill the ex-Beatle with the cool granny glasses?

"Chapter 27" apparently doesn't know, or isn't telling. Despite our cinematically spending a meandering three days (Dec. 6-8, 1980) with MDC until the murder in New York, all we get out of the encounter is a big moue of distaste at the whole proceedings. MDC (Jared Leto) does a lot of mumbling about phonies and how much he thinks he's like Holden Caulfield of J.D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye." When he's not repeating to himself that he needs to kill Lennon, he's spewing his anti-homosexual diatribes and other garbage.

Even troubled starlet Lindsay Lohan, who makes brief, unremarkable appearances as another fan, doesn't buoy things along. (A bit of trivia: Lennon is played by Mark Lindsay Chapman (ridiculous stunt hiring him to play Lennon) --apparently not a close relation. Also, the title refers to a continuation of "A Catcher in the Rye.")

To be sure, this is an atmospheric bit of independent filmmaking by first-time director-writer J.P. Schaefer. Visually, it seems to be fairly in tune with ugly 1980s fashion in New York, with its embrace of unflattering tinted glasses and patterned sweaters. Besides, you can almost feel the bitter winter wind whipping through Central Park to the Dakota building, where Lennon and Ono lived.

And surely the physical repulsiveness of the MDC specimen comes through, though this seems to be a bit of grandstanding by the actor, who porked up for the role. More often than is necessary, Leto/MDC's sloppy naked paunch appears in profile, drooping over his tightie whities.

MDC is an unpleasant companion for 85 minutes, more so since we learn little in that time. Dispiriting, drab and uninsightful, "Chapter 27" is one to skip.

On Saturday, it will be 27 years since ex-Beatle John Lennon was shot and killed by a deranged scumbag.

Two movies about the life and death of this peace-loving pop icon/music genius will soon be out here. So, which sounds more appealing: the upbeat, informative, rah-rah one? Or the dreary, uninformative, I'd-chew-my-leg-off-to-get-out-of-here one? I guess it depends on your mood.

・"The U.S. vs. John Lennon" (called "Peace Bed--America vs. John Lennon" in Japan) has a litigious title and made its cable debut on music channel VH1. But fear not: This is not some ludicrous hybrid of Court TV hype and "Behind the Music" melodrama. It is instead good, old-school storytelling: a 99-minute film rich in material that tells a relevant yarn about interesting people, including colorful former newsmakers who are as outspoken as ever. (Wow. Talk about aging boomers! Except Angela Davis, the communist organizer/ex-FBI-list fugitive acquitted in a sensationalist murder trial in the early 1970s--she still looks hip.) The film does well to venture beyond the courtroom; it gathers up the threads of the lawsuit story throughout Lennon's life and then weaves them together into a big zeitgeist tapestry.

The background in a nutshell: By the late 1960s, Lennon was lending his star power to support antiwar, anti-establishment groups. U.S. President Richard Nixon was up for re-election in 1972, and the voting age had just dropped to 18. The administration was paranoid that Lennon's activism would spur young people to vote Nixon out. U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond proposed nullifying Lennon's influence by revoking his visa and kicking him out of the country. The FBI, functioning as political police, gathered intelligence on Lennon for the case. He refused to go quietly.

The story is told by those involved, many of them famous/notorious: former FBI agents including convicted Watergate co-conspirator G. Gordon Liddy (repeating his crack about using a hippie's candle to light his cigar); Bobby Seale, co-founder of the Black Panthers; even poet-activist John Sinclair, who got up to 10 years for giving two joints to an undercover cop. (Sinclair has funny things to say about the cross purposes of smoking marijuana while trying to get it legalized.)

Besides interviews, the story is also told in archive footage of Lennon and others doing talk shows, concerts, protests and so on.

Much of this was before my time, so I can't speak for how rare the footage is, but I will say that hindsight makes for some smug watching. Besides the in-bed protests (with Tommy Smothers!), other choice snippets include a snooty editor from The New York Times telling Lennon he was "ridiculous" and that his song "All You Need Is Love" was a joke.

The footage of Lennon and Yoko Ono is surprising, too. Ono, long blamed and reviled by many for the breakup of the Beatles, has often been painted with a witchy brush in documentaries about the Fab Four. But here, there's no pretense that she's evil. The portrait is kind, if jumbled: Lennon and Ono come across variously as astute rebels, wacky artists, naive activists, scared foreigners. The constant is that Lennon seems truly in love with Ono, even geekily so.

Obviously, in contrasting the vehement antiwar protest movement of the Vietnam era ("Power to the people!") with today's lackluster campaigns, the film has an agenda--that people today should be doing more than blogging to protest the war in Iraq. But you can also watch this film in a specific historic sense to see this legal episode in Lennon's life unfold. Overall, this is an engrossing film, one I wouldn't mind rewatching.

・So, why did MDC shoot Lennon? Because Chapman was nuts. OK, yes, but what exactly was it that made him want to kill the ex-Beatle with the cool granny glasses?

"Chapter 27" apparently doesn't know, or isn't telling. Despite our cinematically spending a meandering three days (Dec. 6-8, 1980) with Chapman until the murder in New York, all we get out of the encounter is a big moue of distaste at the whole proceedings. Chapman (Jared Leto) does a lot of mumbling about phonies and how much he thinks he's like Holden Caulfield of J.D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye." When he's not repeating to himself that he needs to kill Lennon, he's spewing his anti-homosexual diatribes and other garbage.

Even troubled starlet Lindsay Lohan, who makes brief, unremarkable appearances as another fan, doesn't buoy things along. (A bit of trivia: Lennon is played by Mark Lindsay Chapman--apparently not a close relation. Also, the title refers to a continuation of "A Catcher in the Rye.")

To be sure, this is an atmospheric bit of independent filmmaking by first-time director-writer J.P. Schaefer. Visually, it seems to be fairly in tune with ugly 1980s fashion in New York, with its embrace of unflattering tinted glasses and patterned sweaters. Besides, you can almost feel the bitter winter wind whipping through Central Park to the Dakota building, where Lennon and Ono lived.

And surely the physical repulsiveness of the Chapman specimen comes through, though this seems to be a bit of grandstanding by the actor, who porked up for the role. More often than is necessary, Leto/Chapman's sloppy naked paunch appears in profile, drooping over his tightie whities.

Chapman is an unpleasant companion for 85 minutes, more so since we learn little in that time. Dispiriting, drab and uninsightful, "Chapter 27" is one to skip.(IHT/Asahi: December 7,2007)

AMERICAN GLADIATORS FAN CLUB / FAN SITE

Sorry About the American Gladiator Link, not our normal stuff... BUT how can you resist AMERICAN GLADIATOR

Remember John, not his killer!!
Boycott Chapter 27!!!
Stop Peace Arch Entertainment

Latest efforts by Peace Arch Entertainment to push forward on Chapter 27

As you will notice in the latest hyped press release by Peace Arch there is no talk of the disaster known as "Chapter 27", my friends it would appear we have won our fight. Although Peace Arch did show this Lindsey Lohan and Jared Leto film at both Sundance and limited over-seas theatres, it has become apparent that it will not be released in the United States. At the end of the day, there will be absolutely no profit for the company that attempted to give John Lennons the killer the additional fame he desires from his prison cell.

Peace Arch Entertainment Group Inc. (AMEX: PAE) (TSX: PAE), an integrated global entertainment company creating critically acclaimed television, film and DVD content for worldwide distribution, has announced that the Company's television lifestyle programming division, The Eyes Project Development Corp., has concluded a record setting production schedule with 47 new television episodes and three new pilots during the Company's fiscal year ending September 1, 2007. The productions will broadcast on such outlets as the National Geographic Channel, CBC, TLC and Bravo.

Peace Arch continues to execute on its high-growth business model focused on producing an increasing volume of highly commercial film and television content while mitigating risk through the utilization of certain financing strategies such Canadian tax credits and non-recourse bank financing.

"The Eyes continues to produce high-quality, low-cost content that enables Peace Arch to provide reliable cash flow and profitability," said John Flock, President of Peace Arch Entertainment. "The division's commitment to innovation, quality and production efficiency has yielded terrific results for Peace Arch. We congratulate our colleague Blair Reekie on the outstanding performance of his division and we are confident that The Eyes will continue to produce television programming at a record setting pace in fiscal 2008 which will provide the Company with attendant revenues and earnings."

The Eyes is a full service production and post production company based in Vancouver that is widely recognized for reality entertainment formats that include weight loss programs and home makeovers. The Company also produces sponsored programming and provides post production services to networks and independent producers.

In fiscal 2007, The Eyes' production schedule included episodes for the series "Makeover Wish," "Bulging Brides," "Last 10 Pounds Boot Camp" and "Air Dogs." Other original programs include "Animal Miracles" (ANIMAL PLANET), "Alien Abduction" (UPN), "Rights of Passage" (TLC), "Raven in the Sun" (CBC), "Campus Vets" (National Geographic Channel) and "Love it or Lose it!" (HGTV). The company earned a 2007 Western Regional Emmy® Award for its series "Heroines" broadcast on BRAVO.

"The Last 10 Pounds Boot Camp" is a format that propels women through an intense fitness and nutrition regimen that dramatically resizes them in record time. Motivated by a special event (an upcoming wedding, anniversary, vacation) participants strive to transform themselves physically and mentally in just four weeks. "The Last 10 Pounds Boot Camp" is already on its second season, which is due to begin broadcasting later this month.

"Bulging Brides" is a new and riveting comical format that is due to launch in January 2008 on the Slice Network. It is a brash take on weight loss, as the show depicts various scenarios on how to get a 'bride to be' into her undersized wedding dress. A 'Dream Team' of fitness trainers and nutritionists identify the bride's physical problem zones, the challenges she faces with her wedding dress and how to establish her goals by working with the bride over a six-week period in order to meet her target weight.

"Love It or Lose It" is the latest part design, part game show from Peace Arch Television. Currently airing on HGTV, Canada alongside other popular British design shows, "Love It or Lose It" is a fun-filled interior design series that gives homeowners the opportunity to offer up a room in their home for a big budget makeover. It ends with the ultimate choice -- love It and keep the new room or lose It, forcing the designer to tear down their masterpiece.

"Makeover Wish" is a feel good format that follows a $25,000 makeover dream come true for very deserving people. Nominated by friends and family for this special and once in a life time opportunity, homeowners will receive the chance to have a fantastic makeover for the whole family, for one person, or just one room.

Where's Chapter 27 is this press release!!!!!! Leto and Lohan your fame wasn't worth crap in selling this disaster against humanity!!!!

About Peace Arch Entertainment Group Inc.

Peace Arch Entertainment produces and acquires feature films, television and home entertainment content for distribution to worldwide markets. Peace Arch owns one of the largest libraries of top quality independent feature films in the world, featuring more than 500 classic and contemporary titles. Through its subsidiary, Peace Arch Home Entertainment, Peace Arch is also one of the leading distributors of DVDs and related products in Canada. Peace Arch recently acquired Dufferin Gate Productions, one of Toronto's foremost providers of production services and facilities, and Trinity Home Entertainment, a leading distributor of independent features films in the United States.

---------------

NAMESAKEDOMAINS.COM

Besides leaving the hospital with a birth certificate and a clean bill of health, baby Mila Belle Howells got something she won't likely use herself for several years: her very own Internet domain name.

Likewise, newborn Bennett Pankow joined his four older siblings in getting his own Internet moniker. Before naming his child, Mark Pankow checked to make sure "BennettPankow.com" hadn't already been claimed.

"One of the criteria was, if we liked the name, the domain had to be available," Pankow said. It was, and Pankow quickly grabbed Bennett's online identity.A small but growing number of parents are getting domain names for their young kids, long before they can even peck at a keyboard.

The practice is no longer limited to parents in Web design or information technology.

They worry that the name of choice might not be available when their babies get older, just as someone claimed the ".com" for Britney Spears' 11-month-old son before she could.

The trend hints at the potential importance of domain names in establishing one's future digital identity.

Think of how much a typical teen's online life now revolves around Facebook or News Corp.'s MySpace. Imagine if one day the domain could take you directly to those social-networking profiles, blogs, photo albums and more.

"It is the starting point for your online identity," said Warren Adelman, president of registration company Go Daddy.com, which sells basic domain-name packages for about $9 a year. "We do believe the domain name is the foundation upon which all the other Internet services are based."

Hundreds of companies sell domain names with suffixes such as ".com," ".org" and ".info," which individuals can then link to personal Web sites and e-mail accounts. Parents visit one of those companies' Web sites, search for the name they want and, if it is unclaimed, buy it with a credit card.

There is no guarantee domain names will have as central a role in online identity. After all, with search engines getting smarter, Internet users can simply type the name of a person into Google.

"Given the pace of change on the Internet, it strikes me as a pretty impressive leap of faith that we're going to use exactly the same system and the same tools . . . 15 to 20 years from today," said Peter Grunwald of Grunwald Associates, which researches kids and technology.

Still, even if the effort is for naught, $9 a year is cheap compared with the cost of diapers and college tuition.

Besides providing an easily remembered Web address, the domain name makes possible e-mail addresses without awkward numbers -- as in "JohnSmith24," because 23 other John Smiths had beaten your child to Google's Gmail service.

Parents not ready to commit or knowledgeable enough on how to buy a domain, though, are at least trying their luck with Microsoft Corp.'s Hotmail or Gmail.

Melissa Coleman of Springfield, Mass., grabbed Hotmail addresses for her two kids. She said the kids' grandparents occasionally send e-greeting cards to those accounts, and she sends thank-you notes for gifts in her child's voice.

"I think it's great that it's so loud and that it came with an actual WORKING MICROPHONE . . . and I'm not sure what 'annoying' means, but I'm sure it means that Mommy loves it too!!!!" read one message to Grandpa.

She said she logs in at least once every month to keep the accounts active.

Tony Howells, a business consultant in Salt Lake City, got a Gmail address along with the domain name for his daughter, thinking people would enjoy seeing "an e-mail address pop up for an 8-month-old who is obviously not equipped to use it."

Although some parents have yet to use the domain names they have bought, others send visitors to baby photos, blogs and other sites. Domain name owners have a variety of options to have their personal sites hosted, typically for free or less than $10 a month. They include baby-geared services such as TotSites.com and Baby HomePages.net.

Theresa Pinder, a physician's assistant in Phoenix, received a domain name as a Christmas gift from her son's godparents and gives it out to friends and family.

There are downsides to all this, though: An easy-to-remember domain also makes a child easier for strangers to find. Chances are one only needs to know a child's name and add ".com."

Pankow, a database administrator in Phoenix, said that was one concern keeping him from using the domains he bought for his kids.

"I'd want to research and try to figure out how easy it is to find out what school she goes to and where she lives" based on the Web site and domain name, Pankow said.

GoDaddy and many other registration companies offer proxy services that let domain-name buyers register anonymously. Otherwise, the person's name, address and other contact information are publicly searchable.

Boycott Chapter 27 presents a soldiers animation

This is a very scary piece of animation. The work was done by a US soldier fighting in Iraq. Imagine the talent lost if he had been killed.

PEACE




This is not directly related to Chapter 27 or our Boycott, but it is even more important to work spreading a message of peace. A message that could be delivered by John Lennon, had he not been taken from this world by a maniac seeking fame.
Lohan, Leto, and Peace Arch Entertainment are working hard to give this murdering dirtbag the fame he was seeking.

F...Jackie and Stuttering John

Hiiii Fred

Heyyyy NOWWWWW

The random complaint generator for Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27

Unless you want to accumulate a long list of examples of Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27's acts of corruption and depredation, this letter may become a bit monotonous. However, I honestly do hope you read it all the way through because anger is contagious. So, without further ado, I present you with this all-important piece of information: The gloss that Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27's thralls put on Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27's op-ed pieces unfortunately does little to kick butt and take names. Even though Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27 gives flattering titles to its natural distempers, Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27's opinion is that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that in asserting that rambunctious sybarites should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers, it demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. If Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27 believes that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power, then it's obvious why it thinks that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. In a recent essay, Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27 stated that its statements provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything. Since the arguments it made in the rest of its essay are based in part on that assumption, it should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but I would certainly like to comment on its attempt to associate cynicism with antidisestablishmentarianism. There is no association. Jared Leto and Lindsey Lohan are the finest examples of Hollywood scum. Just thought I might ad that to further insight clueless teenagers planning on supporting their heroes as they continue to help the cause of John Lennons killer. This happens to be a great keyword generator by the way. Kudos the creator of the random complaint generator.

It is quite true, of course, that Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27's actions are way off base. But pauperism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture, and enslavement of more people than any other "ism". That's why it's Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27's favorite; it makes it easy for it to break down traditional values.

Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27 is a tremendous deadweight on our will and morale. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. When asked to mend its ways, Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27 will give people a wink and a smile, but when the wheels begin to turn, it's business as usual. I challenge all of the obscene crooks out there to consider this: Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27 has been known to say that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and deluded, prodigal soi-disant do-gooders of one sort or another. That notion is so reckless, I hardly know where to begin refuting it.

Some people assert that there is something besotted about Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27's shabby mendacity and sneaking duplicity. Others insist that Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27's modus operandi is to tell us how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know, and -- most importantly -- what not to know. In the interest of clearing up the confusion, I'll make the following observation: Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27 leaves me no choice but to serve as a human shield for its bombardments. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. I may be beating a dead horse here, but I do want to point out that if I have a bias, it is only against shabby carousers who wiretap all of our telephones and computers. "What's that?", I hear you ask. "Is it true that Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27's position that its coalition of pretentious Philistines and simple-minded, headlong conspiracy theorists is looking out for our interests is based upon a specious argument without any substantive basis?" Why, yes, it is.

When we condemn Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27's hypocrisy, we are not only threading our way through a maze of competing interests; we are weaving the very pattern of our social fabric. Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27 dreams of a time when they'll be free to allow federally funded research to mushroom into a longiloquent, grossly inefficient system, hampered by abominable stirrers and irritating, revolting cretins. That's the way it's planned it, and that's the way it'll happen -- not may happen, but will happen -- if we don't interfere, if we don't eschew disaffected nonrepresentationalism. Nonetheless, only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that statements like, "We can see the damage that is done when Peace Arch Entertainment and Chapter 27 tries to tell everyone else what to do" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. Sorry for babbling so much, but I am appalled that I have cause to write this article.

and more about Ms. Lindsey "Fire Crotch" Lohan

Doesn't anyone get the point? It doesn't matter for squat that Ms. Lindsey Lohan's argument is invalid. What's far more relevant is that Lohan exists in a state of intellectual hibernation. With this letter, I hope to tell Lohan what we all think of her -- and boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Statements like, "I, hardheaded cynic that I am, can hardly believe how in this day and age, devious dissemblers are allowed to make life less pleasant for us" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. By her standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children -- let alone teach them to be morally fit -- you're definitely a sententious temperamental-type. My standards -- and I suspect yours as well -- are quite different from Lohan's. For instance, I surely aver that I'm not very conversant with her background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that Lohan's merciless, catty squibs provoke terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. In other words, when I observe Lohan's goombahs' behavior, I can't help but recall the proverbial expression, "monkey see, monkey do". That's because, like her, they all want to accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice. Also, while a monkey might think that Lohan's communications epitomize wholesome family entertainment, the fact remains that she plans to open new avenues for the expression of hate. The result will be an amalgam of garrulous revanchism and deranged antidisestablishmentarianism, if such a monster can be imagined.

Although Lohan is ever learning, she is never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. The truth, in this context, is that Lohan says that human life is expendable. That's her unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely ill-bred and self-deceiving lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Lohan's sympathizers. Despite her evident lack of grounding in what she's talking about, she wants to trivialize the issue. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Lohan's gossamer grasp of reality. Because of Lohan's jeremiads, our schools simply do not teach the basics anymore. Instead, they preach the theology of brusque irreligionism. Lohan insists that commercialism is the only alternative to hooliganism. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject.

If Lohan had her way, schools would teach students that the sun rises just for her. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how there's a time to keep silent and a time to speak. There's a time to love and a time to hate. There's a time for war and a time for peace. And, I suspect, there's a time to illustrate the virtues that Lohan lacks -- courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry. Or, to put it less poetically, Lohan seems to have recently added the word "epididymodeferentectomy" to her otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose she intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that if we contradict her, we are labelled pea-brained fussbudgets. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. If nothing else, Lohan's opinions have created a hypersensitive, insensate universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that everyone who doesn't share Lohan's beliefs is an indelicate half-wit deserving of death and damnation. Only within this universe does it make sense to replace discourse and open dialogue with sexist machinations and blatant ugliness. And, only if we get my message about Lohan out to the world can we destroy this stubborn universe of Lohan's and stand uncompromised in a world that's on the brink of Lohan-induced disaster and encourage others to do the same. Our goal must now be to create and nurture a true spirit of community. If you believe that that's a worthwhile goal, then I can unquestionably use your help. Let me hear from you.

Hey NOW
F...Jackie and Stuttering John
Hiii Fred and FU Fat Artie

Chapter 27 making the killer "adored" by Lohan character

Chapter 27 makes a mockery of Johns death, as well as the request of his widow Yoko Ono and his band mate and friend Paul McCartney.

This clip is an example of how this film will humanize Johns killer and make his release from prison possible in the future.





NEW EBAY AUCTION
...as always all funds go back to promoting PEACE
Boycott Chapter 27!!!!

Remember John, not his killer

HeyNOW
F...Jackie and Stuttering John
Hiiii Fred

E online! generates huge traffic for Boycott Chapter 27

Signatures on our petition skyrocketed yesterday as E online! put a link and a great mention on there website. A terrific article regarding Yokos' feelings about Chapter 27 and our effort to boycott this film by Peace Arch Entertainment:

Ono also took issue with the latest work of fiction concerning her husband, but the way things are going she may not have to have to worry about American audiences getting too familiar with it.
Chapter 27, starring Jared Leto as Lennon's killer, Mark David Chapman, premiered at the Sundance Film Festival but has not yet found a U.S. distributor, although it is headed for European, Asian and South American theaters.
Of course, it's not its depiction of Lennon that has Ono concerned.
''This is another thing which will hurt me, I'm sure," she told the Australian newspaper last summer. "I would rather not make a story out of Mr. Chapman at all, although I sympathize with the actors. They need to work. It's not just films, you're always talking about it [Lennon's murder].
"Every day, every week, is an anniversary for me. There is not one time that John is not around me, or my memory of John is not there. It has been 25 years, but it has passed so fast.''
At press time, 2,550 people have signed an online petition opposing Chapter 27.
"What is the name of the person who killed John Lennon? Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono made a simple request to John Lennon's fans. Never repeat the name of his killer. Doing so would only give his killer the fame and notoriety he was seeking," reads a statement on the petition Website.
"When John and I were doing things, a lot of people just didn't think about it," Ono told Entertainment Weekly last month. "Maybe we planted a seed; there are so many people, each doing it in his own way."
On the thousands of people ready to boycott Chapter 27: "It's very sweet of them. John would have thought so, too." --Thanks Yoko

NEW EBAY AUCTION - ALL PROCEEDS GO TO NEW ADS

F...Jackie and Stuttering John
Hiiii Fred

An interview with the Killer. Wish would could interview John instead.

We would have prefered to obtain an interview with John Lennon.

An interview with Johns killer, with Sundance on the way we are sure to hear more from him.
Help us to stop Peace Arch Entertainment. Remember buy one share of PAE and join us at the shareholders meeting in 2007. STOP the CHAPTER 27 movie !!!


A while back I was someone who thought fame was what I wanted. In certain ways and earning it the right way. If there was anyone I wish I could be like or have their essence, not a doubt in my mind, it would be John. I feel miserable when I listen to some of his songs now. It really didn't dawn on me how beautiful this man was. One day I saw a documentary on his life called Imagine. And then I really got hooked on this man. His music was flawless. Then I started to listen to Beatle music non-stop. I bought the Imagine Dvd and watched it everyday. I can't watch it anymore. It hurts alot. As magnificent a life this man lived. All that replays in my head over and over is that he was killed by a spineless coward. Who is alive and well. Oh I'm sorry he's in prison. In maximum security living the life of a peaceful librarian. He's a "born again christian" who thinks John Lennon would say that this yellow piece of scum should be released and free. I don't think so. I'm so furious that no one gave this guy the chair. He's living proof of injustice. And no one will ever harm him ever. He's protected for the rest of his life. These idiotic guards who are doing their "job" won't so much as let this sorry S.O.B. catch a flu. I read in this article just how bad our innocent murderer has it. He had an interview with Larry King a while back stating how bad his "justified" prison sentence was going. Usually you'd expect someone who goes to prison to get what's coming to them by another prisoner right? Not this guy..oh no we can't have that. Then all these idiotic guards wouldn't be doing their job of keeping "justice" in order. These are some quotes of just how bad our murderer has it.Don't worry I'm not gonna say his name but let' s just call him "coward". I'm not making any of this up, these are real quotes by the coward and larry king .

KING: Yes. How are you treated at that infamous place? Attica, while maybe it got its rap badly when they had the riots, but Attica is known as one of the tough-duty prisons.

Coward: It's a maximum-security prison. It's not the same prison as it was those years ago. I'm treated humanely. I'm eating well, as you can see. I am treated -- once the officers get to know me, they see I'm just like everybody else, if that can be imagined, and I'm treated decently. I don't have any problem here in that area. I'm not beaten or tortured.

KING: Are you in a cell alone?

Coward: Every prisoner in Attica has his own cell. That's one of the good things about Attica.

KING: What kind of room are you in now?

Coward: I'm in a probably a 6 by 8 cell. I'm -- by the way, I have a job. I'm let out every morning at 6:30, and I work throughout the day.

KING: Doing?

Coward: My job is called kitchen man. I help set up the meals for the inmates that are here in this particular building. And I do other things, too, but basically my job is in the kitchen?

KING:The treatment by the other prisoners -- good?

Coward: I'm upstairs with three other inmates, and they're carefully screened. And most of them are going home very soon....

KING: They're nice to you?

Coward: They're very nice to me.

KING: You haven't had any brawls or anything.

Coward: No.

KING: How about homosexualty attacks?

Coward: None, zero.

KING: None at all? None threatened?

Coward: It doesn't happen in this building.

KING: Because it's tightly secure?

Coward: Tightly secure.

Oh no, heaven forbid anything bad should happen to this man. And this fat walrus has been eating well. Just look at his mugshots. I must warn you he looks like a hideous sideshow circus feak. The elephant man was ten times better looking than this fat blob.I can't stand the fact that this scumbag is now getting what he wanted. I'd be willing to bet a million dollars that he will reap the benefits of the film. Perhaps he'll even get to see what is obviously his life's work first hand. A nice air conditioned room where they may even throw in some popcorn and a soft drink .You know what the hell, again christian" so that makes every thing ok. Jared Leto is an even bigger jerk for taking the role for this film. Which is why I think he's perfect for the part of a lame actor playing the role of a pathetic loser human being. That's a perfect casting in my book. It's so obvious why Leto took this role. He just did it to try and win an oscar. He's copying what Charlize Theron did in Monster. He gained some weight to try and be a "serious" actor. Same for Lohan. Lame actress as well. They don't care about the grief of Lennon's death. All they want is to get a stupid award of them benefiting on someone's grief. And they'll hold that award up and smile thinking they did something great. It's sickening to my stomach. They even re-did the whole shooting scene in the exact same spot. They don't care if Yoko is still living their. They're money hungry morons who could care less. And the idiot who funded this produced and directed this is as much to blame as anyone to. I pray for justice. Leto just wants to win the stupid oscar.I hope they boo him if he gets nominated till he goes deaf. Same for Lohan. What gets under my skin even more is that when films are usually finished... they have what is know as a wrapping party.So let me get this straight. They are going to celebrates film about a man who killed someone in cold blood. They are actually going to have their glasses of wine and toast to this film and to the death of John Lennon at their party.And this coward will have his long sought after fame and is alive and well in o harm what so ever in his "justified"prison sentence. While Julian and Sean Lennon are fatherless and Yoko Ono is without her husband. While 50,000 or more people were crying their hearts and souls out for a beautiful human being that sad day.
Somebody please answer this question:
"Where is the justice in all this?"

OK, this guy is kind of soft, but we like his point.

Artie Lange .....are you back on heroin? You sound like hell !!!!!

F...Jackie and Studdering John