How to Talk Dirty and Influence People

Synopsis:Last month, in Part V of his autobiography, Lenny Bruce described his narcotics arrest in Philadelphia, and the way in which this seemed to initiate a growing pattern of arrests and other harassments. The Philadelphia grand jury ignored his bill, thus refusing to indict him, but from then on Lenny was in trouble everywhere he went. He was arrested for obscenity in San Francisco, and acquitted. He flew to England and, having been refused admission without a hearing, was stripped and searched for narcotics upon his return to New York. He was arrested for obscenity in Chicago, and given his first conviction, in absentia, having been unable to return to Chicago under the terms of his bail on another narcotics charge, this one in Los Angeles. The story of that arrest, and the tribulations that followed, is told in this concluding installment, which portrays a man conscious of the fact that from now on, wherever he goes, whatever he does, he is forever under suspicion.

Recently, I was offered a writing gig on a TV series for $3500 a week. And I really was happy about that. But after two days, negotiations went right into the can. The company's New York legal department had killed it.

Because of the morality clause.

When Rod Amateau had come backstage and offered me the writing assignment, I had just given my last two possessions — my record player and my camera — to a secretary in lieu of payment.

Moral turpitude. They said the decision related to my arrests for obscenity and narcotics, and the sponsor. The thing I really felt bad about was that Rod Amateau had worked so hard to get me the gig, and I'm sure he felt ashamed. He shouldn't have been subjected to that.

I got really busted out as the arrests began to cut off my income. For the first time in my life I had checks bouncing, and I ruined an eight-year credit rating. Right down the drain.

The morality clause. I'd encountered morality before.

When I lost my screenwriting job at 20th Century-Fox, I hadn't thought my financial woes would last, because I'd kept on working at the burlesque clubs.

Also, a producer had introduced me to a big star who became bigger by playing Las Vegas in a peekaboo dress, and asked me to write a piece of special material for her for $ 500. I did, and she sent me a wire from her show, thrilled — "The Material was Great." She was never home after that, though, and I wanted to get my money. Her mother gave me the brush: "Look, you — we found out you work in burlesque, and if you bother us once more, we're going to black-list you with the Writers Guild."

• • •

When my trial for the alleged possession of heroin came to court in Los Angeles, I wouldn't take the oath. You'd assume that legions of perjurers would say: "Well, how come you swore to God and then you lied?"

(continued on page 124)How to Talk Dirty(continued from page 121)

But you were wondering how I got to trial on this charge. It started like this:

I was stopped on the street one afternoon for no apparent reason by a peace officer whom I considered a friend. He yelled, "Hey, Lenny!" And I recognized him, because he was in the club almost every night. His duties included checking the night clubs along Sunset Strip in Los Angeles that I worked consistently for six years. He had another officer with him.

And very shortly I wound up being booked on a possession charge. How come? Well, there are two versions of what happened.

Their story: These two peace officers were sitting in a car observing the defendant enter a hobby shop the officers had under surveillance. They saw me leave, notice them, make a furtive action, drop a matchbook containing a packet of heroin and run into a bicycle shop. One of them followed me in, frisked me and said that I was under arrest for violation of the State Narcotics Act.

District Attorney Powers questioned the officer who stayed in the car:

Q. At that time, that the package — you saw the package fall — did you notice where your partner was?

A. Yes.

Q. And where was he?

A. He was coming around rapidly in front of the radio car between the MG and the radio car right after the packet hit the ground, he crossed in front of me, picked it up, followed Mr. Bruce inside the bicycle shop.

Later, the partner was cross-examined by my attorney:

Q. ... Did you see anything in the matchbook cover before you put it in your pocket?

A. I did. There was a folded piece of paper, lined notebook paper, protruding from the matches.

Q. Did you form any opinion as to what that might be?

A. It was in my opinion ... a packet of heroin.

Q. After Mr. Bruce dropped the packet on the sidewalk, sir, what did you see him do, if anything?

A. He continued east to the doorway of a bicycle shop. He then walked into the bicycle shop.

Q. Did you see Mr. Bruce enter the bicycle shop?

A. I did ... I was on the sidewalk....I walked over, picked up the matchbook, walked into the bicycle shop, and caught up with the defendant, Mr. Bruce ...

Q. ... Did you say, "You're arrested for dropping these?"

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you say, "You dropped these"?

A. No.

Q. Did you ask if he dropped these?

A. I made no reference to the article.

Q. And it wasn't until ten minutes, to quote you [earlier], ten minutes later that you first made reference to that?

A. That was the first opportunity I felt I had; yes.

Q. The first opportunity — what do you mean? He offered no resistance, he had his hands up in the air. You were alone, weren't you?

A. Momentarily, yes. I walked him out of the bicycle shop immediately.

Q. When you were walking out of the bicycle shop immediately, at that time, didn't you say, "Did you drop something outside here?"

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you show them to him at that time?

A. I did not.

The District Attorney asked me: "Mr. Bruce, do you think that these officers have to frame people?"

A. No, I didn't say they're framing me.

Q. You can appreciate the manner in which these officers testified. They're completely right or completely wrong. Isn't that a fair statement, sir?

A. Or so concerned with many, many cases— forty or fifty cases — where I am concerned only with one, my own safety, perhaps there is a loss of memory.

Q. In other words, their testimony — and I refer to both of them — and they both saw you drop this packet there by the TV-bicycle store sidewalk area, you think is just because they may have had a lapse of memory?

A. ... I assume a lapse of eyesight and memory.

Q. Then you were framed?

Mr. Marshall: We object to the form of the question.

The Court: I think instead of "framing," you can say "tell an untruth." I'd like that better. "Take the stand and tell an untruth under oath" rather than the word "frame."

• • •

I never knew the hobby-shop owner. He ran a well-known hobby shop in the Sherman Oaks section, one of the most unique stores in all of California. They had a $10,000 remote-control sports-car track. At my stepfather's suggestion — he drove me there — I went, just to look at the sports cars. He went in with me and out with me, went back to his car with me, and went to the station with me, but they booked only me.

He was released.

While officers were in the shop later, a man entered and, upon examining his arm, they found several fresh puncture marks thereon. He was placed under arrest and when taken to his car, the officers found 15 Percodan pills in the glove compartment. He was sentenced to one year in the county jail, suspended, and given three years' probation.

The shop owner was charged with violation of Number 11500 Health and Safety Code for possession of heroin, pleaded guilty and was committed to the Department of Corrections as an addict.

Harassment is a leprous label that draws bully taunts: "Oh, are they picking on you, little boy? They're always picking on you. It's funny, it doesn't happen to your brother."

Harassment. This is getting to be a chant, and like the Gregorian, understood only by a few.

The news media did me in. Seven-fifteen one evening, a local newscaster with his balding crown resting in shadowed bas-relief Himalayas announced: "Lenny Bruce, the sick comedian, was really sick today. The 37-year-old nightclub comedian, who's had more than his share of brushes with the law, charted a new course with a narcotics arrest. He has admitted he's been using heroin since he was 18 years old. Bruce, shown here with his attorney, stops and mugs for the cameramen and promises to stir a little commotion at tomorrow's hearing. A Reseda housewife ..."

And newspapers were next. Who gave them the item that was on the street before I was out on bail? Look at the bottom of my arrest report and you'll find "LAPD [Los Angeles Police Department] Press Room was notified and City Newsroom was called."

A press notice on an arrest report. But don't get me wrong, brother, I love Hollywood. I love the way the reporters and photographers maul you so you'll look desperate enough in their pictures.

The newspaper is the most dramatic medium of the written word, whether it's Dr. Alvarez with his arthritic pen pals or Prudence Penny's attractive ways to make leftovers attractive, and it is because of the newspapers — their disregard for the truth when it comes to reporting — that my reputation has been hurt. None of the "facts" they have printed about me concerning addiction are true. And in the interim, bizarre stories in the syndicated columns about me striking a judge: and enough damning hearsay was printed to keep me from replaying England where I was previously accepted with great aplomb.

• • •

The jury found me guilty of possession of heroin.

Possession of heroin is a felony for which I could be given two years in prison. The Court, however, has adjourned criminal proceedings until my fate is decided by Department 95, pursuant to the terms of Senate Bill 81; the State of California's legislative branch was responsible for this bill, the purpose of which is theoretically to halt the cruel punishment that was being forced upon sick persons, namely narcotics addicts. It is the function of a Department 95 hearing "to determine whether the defendant is addicted to the use of narcotic drugs or" — now dig this — "by reason of repeated use of narcotics is in imminent danger of becoming so addicted."

Thus the judge is making it possible for me to have, instead of two years of cruel punishment in prison, ten years of rehabilitation behind walls — if I'm eligible — based on the recommendation of two physicians appointed by the court.

Here are excerpts from the transcript of my Department 95 hearing: "The People of the State of California, For the best interest and protection of society and Lenny Bruce, an Alleged Narcotic Drug Addict."

The Court: Dr. Tweed, will you give us the results of your examination?

The Witness: When Mr. Bruce was examined on the seventh of June, he denied the use of marijuana. He denied the illegal use of pills. He denied the use of heroin. The probation officer's report was read. He [Bruce] stated: "Very succinctly, I have never used any illegal narcotics." He did admit using Methedrine intravenously [to treat his chronic lethargy]. When asked questions concerning when he first began to use [Methedrine] he stated that he had no total recall....He had been using it by hypo. He states that he is still using the medication, that he was instructed in its use by a doctor and that his doctor has been prescribing it to him and giving prescriptions to use it as well as the things to use it with.

Examination of both arms showed numerous fresh marks which he stated were from the injection of Methedrine....he did admit that he was, had been convicted on the charge of possessing heroin recently. However, he denies that he had any heroin as was reported or that he was actually honestly convicted on it. He stated, and had a Dr. Niemetz with him at the time, that he had the Nalline test the day before, and the doctor was prepared to testify at that particular time and did so state that the test was negative. He stated that he and a Dr. Gahagan had given him two cc. of Nalline the day before and the results were entirely negative.

(The Nalline test is the injection of a standard drug to which a narcotics addict reacts quite differently from a nonuser. Dr. Peters, who had "examined" me with Dr. Tweed, concurred with his testimony. Then followed cross-examination of Dr. Tweed by my attorney.)

Q. ... How long was Mr. Bruce in your presence at that time [of the examination], sir?

A. Well, I don't recall, but it was longer than average ... He was there at least 20, 25 minutes.

Q. Did you conduct any Nalline examination or test of any kind at that time, sir?

A. No.

Q. Subsequent, have you performed any Nalline examination of Mr. Bruce?

A. No.

Q. Did you perform any urinanalysis at that time, sir?

A. No.

Q. Did you make any physical examination of any kind whatsoever that indicated the presence of any narcotic in Mr. Bruce's system at the time you examined him?

A. No.

(My attorney's cross-examination of Dr. Tweed went on to establish that it is very difficult, in Dr. Tweed's opinion, to differentiate between the marks caused by the injection of one substance, such as Methedrine, and another such as heroin. Dr. Tweed said he had no axes to grind with anybody; that heroin users tended not to sterilize their equipment properly and as a result might show scars where a man injecting Methedrine with presterilized disposable syringes might not. My attorney pointed out that a man might simply not be a skillful self-injector, and that this might account for my scars. Dr. Tweed said it might. My attorney asked him then whether he had found any evidence of a narcotic in my system, other than the scars.)

A. That is as far as I could go, actually.

Q. Doctor, the Nalline test, the urinalysis examination, those are accepted methods of determining whether or not there is a narcotic in the system at that time and in a short period of time immediately prior, is it not so?

A. Yes.

Q. And there are certain physical attributes of an individual undergoing withdrawal or an individual who is demonstrating his dependency upon a narcotic, is that not true, sir?

A. Yes ... He didn't have any of those at that time.

Q. ... Doctor, isn't it a fact that it is impossible for you or for the most qualified doctors in America or any other country to make a conclusion, a conclusion valid by your own standards in medicine, as to whether or not a person is a narcotic addict unless a person is observed under clinical conditions over a continuous period of time, to observe withdrawal dependence on the narcotic and physical reaction?

A. No, this is not a fact, because medicine is not only a science; it is an art.

Q. As an artist or doctor, did you conclude from your 25-minute examination that Mr. Bruce is a narcotic addict?

A. It was left up in the air, actually, because I want further information.

(Deputy District Attorney Melvin B. Thale then carried on a redirect examination of the witness.)

Q. Suppose you had no further information, you had to make up your mind based on what you observe today.

A. ... On a basis of — you see, I come to certain conclusions on the basis — I have a history that he is convicted of possession. He is convicted on the basis of having in his possession heroin. The individuals who were arrested at the same time that he was arrested were also convicted of it and have come through here and have admitted their use. This is part of the art.

I find marks on him. However, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. I cannot say that he has. If he has been taking this thing [Methedrine] legally, I would like to have the doctor here to testify that this is what he is doing or at least have a report from the doctor ...

Q. Doctor, couldn't you, on the basis of the history that you just gave us plus your examination, form some opinion?

A. Well, the opinion would be that if he isn't, he is in imminent danger of becoming addicted if he has had it in his possession. He was convicted of that, however. I mean, the marks could either be or could not be.

Q. Taking your history that you gave us into consideration, then, wouldn't that help you to form an opinion as to the marks, then?

A. ... Well, the manner, I will say this, the manner in which Mr. Bruce reacted during the examination was indicative at the time that I examined him that he was under the influence of Methedrine, because he was very talkative. He tended to be very rambling. He was sarcastic. He was hostile.

(There followed recross-examination by my attorney.)

Q. I will ask you one hypothetical question. Doctor, if this man before you was not someone subject to many newspaper columns, if you didn't know he had been convicted, and the company he was with were some businessmen from downtown and you made that 25-minute examination and you found no physical evidence of narcotics in his system at that time or any other time and you hadn't seen any reports of any medical examination, would you state an opinion to this court that the man we are talking about is a narcotic addict?

A. If he didn't give me a history that he used Methedrine, I would, yes.

Q. But in this case not only did he give you a history of having used Methedrine, you as a doctor concluded at the time you saw him that he had a non-narcotic, Methedrine, in his system; isn't that correct, Doctor?

A. When I saw him, yes.

(Note: The reactions to having Methedrine in one's system are the exact opposite of the reactions to having heroin in one's system ... Now came redirect examination of Dr. Peters.)

The Court: Dr. Peters, do you concur?

The Witness: Your Honor, I concur in past, but I am of the opinion that he is a narcotic drug addict.

The Court: Based upon your examination, you reached the conclusion that the patient is a narcotic drug addict?

The witness: That is correct, sir.

(Following brief cross-examination, the court appointed two more doctors to examine me, because "There is a split in the medical testimony." The hearing continued the next week. On June 17th I was examined by two doctors in a room one flight up from the courtroom, and on June 18th they testified on their findings. The first one, Doctor Thomas L. Gore, gave it as his opinion that I was an addict. He based this on the condition of the veins in my arms, which he said could not have been caused by injecting Methedrine, an isotonic solution, but were characteristic of the use of heroin in a hypertonic solution. "My opinion is that he has been using a drug of the opium series ..." He went on to say, in cross-examination, that he had detected nothing indicating that I had withdrawal symptoms at the time of my examination.)

My attorney went on with the cross-examination:

Q. ... Doctor, is it a correct statement that in order to determine whether or not a person is a narcotic addict he should be placed under clinical conditions for a period of several days and he should be observed as to whether or not there are any withdrawal symptoms; is that a correct statement?

A. The presence of withdrawal symptoms, of course, is conclusive. The condition of the veins of an individual is also conclusive ...

(Dr. Berliner, who "examined" me with Dr. Gore, took the stand.)

Q. ... Now, as a result of your examination of the parts of the body and whatever history you did obtain from Mr. Bruce, were you able to form an opinion as to whether or not he is a (continued on page 130)How to Talk Dirty(continued from page 126) narcotic drug addict, or by reason of repeated use of narcotics, in imminent danger of becoming one?

A. I did.

Q. What is your opinion?

A. I believe that Mr. Bruce is a narcotic drug addict.

(Cross-examination followed.)

Q. ... Could any type of Methedrine administered in any way produce some of the symptoms which you have described you noticed on Mr. Bruce's arms?

A. Certainly.

Q. Doctor, is this a correct statement: You found no physical evidence at the time of your examination that any narcotic was in Mr. Bruce's system?

A. This is a correct statement.

Q. ... Doctor, is this a correct statement: That some of the marks on Mr. Bruce's arms may have been caused by self-injection of a nonnarcotic?

A. I would say that was very likely.

(My attorney called Dr. Keith Dittman, the first of three witnesses for the defense, to the stand.)

Q. Doctor ... will you state your occupation [and] where you practice ... for the Court, please?

A. I am a physician specializing in psychiatry, and I practice at the UCLA Health Center.

Q. How long have you been a physician specializing in psychiatry?

A. Fourteen years.

Q. Doctor, have you in the course of your career had occasion to examine within your people those who have had any narcotic difficulty or possibly had any narcotic difficulty?

A. Yes.

Q. And have you in the course of your career studied the subject with regard to the diagnosis and treatment of narcotic addicts?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have an opinion, sir, as to how a conclusive determination may be made by a medical doctor as to whether or not a man is a narcotic addict?

A. Well, the best way would be to hospitalize them and see them develop withdrawals and then counteract those symptoms of withdrawal with the drug that you believe they're addicted to.

Q. Over what period of time would this be done?

A. Within a week or possibly two weeks.

Q. ... Have you in the course of your profession had occasion to interview and examine Mr. Lenny Bruce?

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately when was that examination?

A. About ten days ago.

Q. Where did it take place?

A. At UCLA.

Q. Had you had occasion to examine Lenny Bruce before that?

A. No.

Q. Now, Doctor ... based on your examination of Mr. Bruce, are you of the opinion ... that he is a narcotic addict?

A. No, I can't state conclusively that he is.

Q. Can you state, based on your examination, Doctor, that he is in imminent danger, and I use the words "imminent danger" advisedly, of becoming a narcotic addict?

A. No.

Q. Doctor, now can you tell me whether or not you feel any qualified physician could conclusively conclude in the absence of admissions that any person was a narcotic addict after a 15-, 20-, or 30-minute interview and visual examination of the veins ...?

A. I don't know of any way that it can be done.

Q. ... Is it an accepted method to merely visually observe the veins of a person and in the absence of observation under clinical conditions to make a conclusion that that person is a narcotic addict?

A. You mean to only confine it to that? ... No.

Q. ... Now. Doctor, could you, if you had examined the arm of someone who had marks on it from the discoloration or the location of the marks on the arm, could you without any other information distinguish between a mark that was occasioned by a nonnarcotic that had been administered in any manner and a narcotic that had been administered in any manner?

A. No.

(Dr. Norman Rotenberg, who had given me the letter I always carry, about my use of Methedrine, was then called to the stand for direct examination by my attorney. He established his credentials to practice in the State of California, and as a Certified Specialist in Orthopedic Surgery. He stated that I had been his patient approximately four years, that he had seen me perhaps a dozen times in his office, that he was aware of my lethargy, and that he knew other doctors had prescribed Methedrine for me at various times in various parts of the country. He testified that Methedrine was not a narcotic: that it could not disguise withdrawal symptoms from narcotics: that he had never observed any withdrawal symptoms in me. In the course of his examination by my attorney and his subsequent cross-examination, Dr. Rotenberg testified that lethargy was one of the symptoms of heroin addiction. The State's attorney then asked him: "... Could you say at this time with your experience that he is not an addict?" "I say definitely that Mr. Bruce is not a narcotic [addict] at this time." In redirect examination, my attorney then asked him again.)

Q. Doctor ... in your opinion, is Mr. Bruce a narcotic addict?

A. No, my opinion is that Mr. Bruce is not a narcotic addict.

Q. In your opinion, is Mr. Bruce in imminent danger of becoming a narcotic addict?

A. No, my opinion is that this man is not in imminent danger of becoming a narcotic addict.

(The third witness for the defense, David Niemetz, M.D., was called to the stand by my attorney. He established that he was a specialist in gastroneurology, in Beverly Hills, and that on June 6, 1963, he and a neuropsychiatrist in his building, Dr. Gahagan, had administered a Nalline test to me, indicating that there had been no narcotic in my system within the past 24 to 72 hours. In response to my attorney's question, he stated that neither he nor Dr. Gahagan had observed any withdrawal symptoms in me at that time. He further stated that while present at my examination by Drs. Tweed and Peters [for the State], he had observed no withdrawal symptoms in me. Then again, he testified that in connection with another Nalline test, also negative, which he had conducted on me with a Dr. Dean on the 13th of June, he had observed no withdrawal symptoms. He had also observed me in court on three occasions in connection with this case, and observed no withdrawal symptoms. Finally, my attorney asked him to conduct a Nalline test on the spot. The test was given to me during a recess of the court, and the court then reconvened. My attorney resumed questioning Dr. Niemetz.)

Q. Doctor, during the recess of this court, did you administer a Nalline test to the respondent, Lenny Bruce?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you tell the Court the results of that Nalline test?

A. It was a negative Nalline test.

Q. Doctor, in your opinion, is Lenny Bruce a narcotic addict?

A. No.

(Cross-examination by Deputy District Attorney Thale, who was present at the Nalline test.)

Q. ... Now, Doctor, all your testimony proves is that at the time you gave the Nalline test that there was no narcotic in the system; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. If he had not taken an injection of narcotics three to four days prior to giving the test, you wouldn't expect to find any symptoms?

A. Except there were other Nalline tests given in intervals that would preclude any narcotic in between, during the period that I have known him.

Q. ... Doctor, where a person has used, say, narcotics, assume for the question, over, say, a year, two-, three-, four-year period, would you say in a period from June 6th through June 19th, a person could stop taking it and not be addicted? Assume for that question that the person had used for a two-, three-, four-year period.

A. It would be very, very unlikely ... you would expect an abrupt withdrawal period that would be easily diagnosed ...

Q. If he had a withdrawal period prior to coming to you, then, Doctor, you wouldn't see any evidence of it, would you?

A. If it had been that far ahead, I would not have any evidence.

Q. Or if a person took some substitute, we will say, that will prevent the person from going through the withdrawal; then, of course, you wouldn't see them either?

A. That is correct.

(Redirect examination.)

Q. Doctor, if a man had been taking narcotics, whatever the degree of addiction, and he went through a withdrawal period, completely withdrew, there was no diagnosis and no indication of any narcotics, there was no narcotics in his system, then over a period of time he was observed, would he then be a narcotic addict?

A. Not at that time.

Q. ... It is my understanding, Doctor, that your testimony is that Lenny Bruce is not a narcotic addict?

A. That is correct.

(Recross-examination.)

Q. That is from the period from June 6th?

A. Yes.

Q. Since you did not know him previously?

A. That is correct.

(Redirect examination.)

Q. If I asked you, Doctor, if Lenny Bruce was a previous narcotic addict, you wouldn't have any more idea how to answer that question than you would if I asked you whether or not this officer was a previous narcotic addict?

A. That is correct.

The Court: ... In other words, after the physical need for the drug has ceased — say, after three weeks there is no withdrawal evidence — would you consider that individual to be a narcotic addict?

The Witness: Medically, you couldn't consider him to be an addict. You'd have no basis, nothing to base it on.

The Court: Supposing the psychological need continued. Doctor, for the drug?

The Witness: Well, this is getting into the realm of what is an addict, the basis and theories.

(Aha. Lenny Bruce is a psychological addict!)

There was an additional witness for the defense: Dr. Joel Fort. My attorney conducted a direct examination of him, beginning by establishing his credentials. Dr. Fort testified that he was a physician licensed to practice in California, specializing primarily in public health and criminology, with special interest in narcotics addiction, dangerous drugs and alcoholism. He stated that he was the Director of the School of Criminology at the University of California in Berkeley, teaching a course on narcotic addiction; that he was a Court Examiner in Alameda County, Chairman of a bicounty Medical Association Committee on Alcoholism and Dangerous Drugs, and formerly a consultant to the Alameda County Probation Department. He had been on the staff of the U. S. narcotics hospital at Lexington, Kentucky; he had been an invited delegate to the White House Conference on Narcotic Drug Use; he had appeared before Congress to speak on drug addiction and been praised in the Congressional Record; he was the author of numerous publications on drug addiction, had worked with several thousand addicts over the course of his career, and was serving on the Statewide Advisory Committee to the California Narcotics Rehabilitation Center.

Q. ... Doctor, let's get down to the meat of it....Are you familiar with clinical treatment of narcotic addicts?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Have you studied and are you familiar with the diagnosis of narcotic drug addiction?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. ... Can a person who is a narcotic addict cease being a narcotic addict?

A. They certainly can.

Q. I see. Have you had occasion to examine Mr. Lenny Bruce?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. When and where did that examination take place, sir?

A. It took place this morning on the floor above here in this building.

Q. ... Now, on the basis of your personal examination of Mr. Bruce this afternoon, or rather, this morning, coupled with the examination of the court file with regard to the Nalline test administered and the fact that these doctors have on no occasion seen [in] him within the small period of time that is covered by their visits any withdrawal symptoms, can you state for me whether or not Mr. Lenny Bruce is a narcotic drug addict?

A. I would say that he is not a narcotic drug addict.

Q. Would you say he is in imminent danger of becoming a narcotic addict?

A. He would not be.

Q. ... For the purpose of this question, let us assume ... that at one time Lenny Bruce was a narcotic drug addict. Now, based on your examination of him and the Nalline tests which were given over the past several days, which are in the record, and the observation made by the doctors on the few occasions, which [are] in the record we have reviewed, could he still be a narcotic drug addict?

A. No, he could not.

Q. Is it possible he is a narcotic drug addict?

A. It is absolutely impossible, absolutely impossible.

Q. ... Is there such a thing as a psychological or psychic drug addict?

A. I have never heard that term used by an experienced person.

Q. ... Would Lenny Bruce, would this man here who you have examined, benefit by being sent to the State Narcotic Rehabilitation Center if he were sent there today by the Court?

A. I do not think that he would. I think that he would be harmed.

Q. Would the community benefit, Doctor, in your opinion?

A. I feel that the community would be harmed also.

After hearing closing arguments by both attorneys, the judge announced:

"Mr. Bruce, the Court will find that you are a narcotic drug addict within the meaning of Section 6451 of the Penal Code. You are committed to the Director of Corrections for placement, as provided for by law, for the period prescribed by law. It is further ordered and directed that the Sheriff of the County deliver you to the Rehabilitation Center for Men at Chino, California. Bail is ordered exonerated and you are remanded to the custody of the Sheriff for transportation to the Center."

My attorney requested "a stay for a period of one week for Mr. Bruce to get his financial and personal affairs in order." The request was granted, and my attorney responded: "By June 28th, your Honor, we shall either present Mr. Bruce to the Court or have an order staying this Court's order."

And the judge reinstated the bail which he had just ordered exonerated.

On June 26, 1963, my attorney moved for a stay of the commitment and of all the proceedings in Department 95, pending a final disposition of the appeal. The notice of the appeal automatically stayed the proceedings.

It is now six months later, the matter is still pending, and my hands tremble as I write this. Soon it will be dark and my veins will start to palpitate and I must have the stuff. Judge Munnell's granting me bail has let a drug addict loose upon the citizenry of Los Angeles. The blood will be on his hands. Seven days of disarrayment, bloodied heads and pleading storekeepers reduced to their knees — and what prompts me to come back? My personal affairs ...

I have really become possessed with winning — with vindicating myself rather than being vindictive — and my room is cluttered with reels of tape and photostats of transcripts.

Recently, when I pretended to doubt the word of my eight-year-old daughter, Kitty, she said: "Daddy, you'd believe me if it was on tape."

• • •

I'm glad I had a girl. They are really sweet and nice — and they're a possession. People are usually embarrassed when they get complimented, whereas with a daughter you can get compliments that people don't know they're giving.

"You've got a lovely daughter, Mr. Bruce."

Speak the first part — "Well, thank you very much" — and continue silently enjoying the unspoken second half: "Yes, I guess I'm all right, everybody says how pretty she is and how nice she is. If I wasn't nice, she wouldn't be nice, she would be bad. The little bad that she has is from the other kids she plays with."

• • •

The police coming to see me — twice during one week, and both times there were witnesses, and both times they talked with me in excess of half an hour — has been in effect the greatest balloon test in the world; these were unexpected visits, and certainly they would have been remiss in their duties for not arresting me, had I been under the influence of heroin.

On the night of October 15, 1963, at 11 p.m., four officers showed up on my property. When I challenged them as intruders and asked them to leave if they didn't have a search warrant, one of them simply took out his gun and said, "Here's my search warrant."

People ask, "Why don't they leave you alone?"

"Who is it? It's not me," each of them says, just doing his duty.

It's them, it's them, it's them, it's them, it's them.

That's really all there is to say about it. No matter what happens from now on, it'll be "them" who try to do me in. Never you. Them. Never you.

• • •

People wonder what Lenny Bruce is really like. "What're you really like, Lenny Bruce?" they ask. I'm like them. And like this:

I like the capitalistic system because I grew up in it. I dig it because to me free enterprise is this: If I go to Macy's and that chick behind the counter really bugs me and gives me a lot of grief, I can resolve the whole conflict by saying, "You're a tub of crap, Madam, and goodnight." And that's it. I walk out. This chick, if she becomes the president of Macy's, all she can do is eject me from that store. But I can always go to Gimbels. Communism is one big telephone company, though. I know if I get rank with the phone company, some schmuck will take my phone, and I'll end up talking through a Dixie cup.

I don't get involved with politics as much as Mort Sahl does, because I know that to be a correct politician and a successful one, you must be what all politicians have always been: a chameleon.

If the bomb is going to go off, I can't stop it because I'm not in charge yet. I'll probably be working that night, a New Year's Eve show; it'll be around 11:30 and everybody's waiting with their hats and their horns. I've got my scene and they've got theirs. Now it's about three minutes to go, and I'm the only one who knows about the bomb.

"Ha, ha, a lot of you people didn't get noisemakers, but I've got a beaut coming up, and it's really going to gas everybody. The people who haven't had the two-drink minimum, you don't have to have it, all right? And listen, you guys in the band, why don't you go back to the dressing room and lay on the floor for a while? Don't ask questions, just do it. Folks, you know, a lot of you have seen me work before, but I've got a new bit, we're really going to bring in the new year right" — and then, Boooooom!

One guy will probably be heckling me on his way out through the roof. And I can just see the owner — "Look, don't do that bit anymore, we're getting a lot of complaints. Put back Religions, Inc., if you have to, and Christ visiting earth — the whole bit ..."

If the Messiah were indeed to return and wipe out all diseases, physical and mental, and do away with all man's inhumanity to man, then I, Lenny Bruce — a comedian who thrives both economically and egotistically upon the corruption and cruelty he condemns with humor, who spouted impassioned pleas to spare the life of Caryl Chessman and Adolf Eichmann alike, who professed the desire to propagate assimilation and thereby evolve integration — would in truth know that I had been a parasite whose whole structure of success depended on despair: like J. Edgar Hoover and Jonas Salk; like the trustees, wardens, death-house maintenance men, millions of policemen, uniform makers, court recorders, criminal-court judges, probation officers and district attorneys whose children joyously unwrap Christmas presents under the tree bought with money by keeping me from seeing my child's face beam at a cotton angel, who would have been without jobs if no one in the world had ever violated the law; like the Owl-Rexall-Thrifty Drugstores, crutch makers, neurological surgeons and Parke-Lilly employees on the roof of the Squibb pharmaceutical house, ready to jump because the blind can see, the deaf can hear, the lame can walk; like the Ban-the-bomb people who find out there really is no bomb to ban and don't know what to do with their pamphlets.

The dust would gather on the ambulances, their drivers, and all the people that hold the moral position of serving humanity, who will have become aware that their very existence, creative ability, and symbolic status had depended wholly upon intellectual dishonesty. For there is no anonymous giver, except perhaps the guy who knocks up your daughter.

In the movies, Everett Sloane was always the successful businessman. No, I take that back. Porter Hall was always the successful businessman, along with Gene Lockhart. But Everett Sloane was a tycoon. When they were rich, boy, they were really rich.

Everett Sloane would get his gun off, disillusioning Joel McCrea, who wanted to put out a newspaper that would make a statement. And when Sloane would say, "M'boy, you'll see when you get old, that it's all a game," I used to think: "It's not that way, this cynical old bastard is wrong, there are the Good Guys and the Bad Guys, the liars and the truth-tellers." But Everett was right.

There is only what is.

My friend Paul Krassner, editor of The Realist, once asked me what I've been influenced by in my work.

It was an absurd question.

I have been influenced by my father telling me that my back would become crooked because of my maniacal desire to masturbate ... by reading "Glori-osky, Zero!" in Little Annie Rooney ... by listening to Uncle Don and Clifford Brown ... by smelling the burnt shell powder at Anzio and Salerno ... torching for my ex-wife ... giving money to Moondog as he played the upturned pails around the corner from Hanson's at 51st and Broadway ... getting hot looking at Popeye and Toots and Casper years ago ... hearing stories about a pill they can put in the gas tank with water but the big companies won't let it out, the same big companies that have the tire that lasts forever ... and the viper's favorite fantasy: "Marijuana could be legal, but the big liquor companies won't let it happen!" ... James Dean is alive in a sanatorium ... Hitler's waiting to book me for eight weeks in Argentina ... colored people have a special odor.

I am influenced by every second of my waking hours.

This is the last installment of a six-part serialization of Lenny Bruce's autobiography, "How to Talk Dirty and Influence People," to be published soon in a hardbound edition by Playboy Press.