Note: The cases I posted to wepapers now seem inaccessible. I am too busy to reload them, but they exisit.....
Cross-post: Kelly Ayotte journal.I know this is a hoot (well for some of us at least) but you really should stop to read the Parole Board shakeup/DOC journal entry from yesterday. It's all tied together because the Herald might as well be a rubber-stamp for bad DOC union officials, you bet.
Joanna Marinova v. Jessica Van Sack et al. Falsely accused of having sex with prison inmates, confidential source might be compelled, case pending.
**********
Murphy v. Boston Herald: $2M plus -- 449 Mass. 42, 865 N.E.2d 746 (2007)
**********
Dr. Mark T. Reilly (full case) -- $225K Jury verdict for claiming that he would rather play golf than take care of dogs. And oh, don't let me forget:
**********
Daniel Lynch v. News Group Boston, 1 Mass. L. Rep (1993) -- Can't find it online so I uploaded it for your viewing pleasure -- Summary Judgment Denied, Settlement not public knowledge but Howie Carr took a smack down, he didn't even finger the right guy hahahahaaa.... Any real newspaper would have fired his ass on the spot. I hate that guy he's a stupid loudmouthed incompetent douchebag. The wrong guy, hahahahahahaa like Van Halen was screamin' somebody get me a doctor I'm dying of a seizure over here, hahahaaa...
On February 14, 1990, a news column was published in the Boston Herald newspaper ("Herald"), which implied that Lynch had obtained his employment as a Massachusetts State Senate court officer in exchange for refusing to testify at a trial of two defendants for a murder which he had apparently witnessed. The column was written by the defendant Carr, an employee of the Herald, and was printed by the Herald's publisher, defendant News Group Boston. The defendant Eisner was at that time, and still is, Managing Editor of the Herald.
Lynch claims that he, the Senate court officer identified in the column, is not the same person named Daniel Lynch who apparently witnessed the murder and refused to testify at trial. The defendants do not dispute this claim. Lynch also claims that he has suffered injury to his good name and reputation, pain and suffering, humiliation and mental anguish [*3] as a result of the column's publication, and that in addition, in response to the column, his employer refused to allow him to perform his usual duties as court officer.**********
Boston Brad Delp/Tom Scholz lawsuit -- Need to check court files.
Dr. Mark T. Reilly- $225K Jury verdict for claiming that he would rather play golf than take care of dogs. And oh, don't let me forget:
Based on the above, this Court AWARDS $ 99,600 in attorneys fees and $ 4,800 in expert fees, Reilly v. Boston Herald, Inc., 20 Mass. L. Rep. 625 (2006). Keep reading below the fold, hahahaaa... hahahaaaaa... hahahahaaa.... hahahaaa.....
The fair reporting privilege derives from the recognition that the general public has the right to know of official government actions that affect the public interest, that news outlets are the best way to disseminate such [***25] information, and that news outlets [**1215] would be willing to make such reports only if they were free from liability. Id. "Whether the occasion was privileged was matter of law to be determined by the judge." Joyce v. Globe Newspaper Co., 355 Mass. 492, 498, 245 N.E.2d 822 (1969).The privilege applies to reports by news media outlets of official government action, including police action, such as the fact of an arrest, a search warrant issued, or a crime charged; but it does not apply to witness statements to police, whether appearing in an official police report or not, where no official police action is taken. Such reports to police are unverified hearsay. See generally Jones v. Taibbi, 400 Mass. at 795-796, and cases cited. The Herald article reports no police investigation or action following up on Foley's statements in the police report.
Such unconfirmed hearsay, upon which no police action was taken, has neither the authority nor the importance to the public that other documents or statements shielded by the fair reporting [*777] privilege possess. See Jones v. Taibbi, 400 Mass. at 797; ELM Med. Lab., Inc. v. RKO Gen., Inc., 403 Mass. at 783. [***26] An analogy may be drawn between such reports and a preliminary written statement of a charge: "Knowledge of them throws no light upon the administration of justice. Both form and contents depend wholly on the will of a private individual, who may not be even an officer of the court." Lundin v. Post Pub. Co., 217 Mass. 213, 215-217, 104 N.E. 480 (1914). SeeSanford v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., 318 Mass. 156, 158, 61 N.E.2d 5 (1945). Extending the privilege in this case would not further the public's interest in learning of official conduct. See McAvoy v. Shufrin, 401 Mass. 593, 598 n.5, 518 N.E.2d 513 (1988). The privilege does not apply here.
Finally, the Herald contends (and the motion judge agreed) that statements in the article about the misfiled or stolen, "doctored" records and anonymous telephone calls were not "of and concerning" Reilly because he was not identified in the article as the individual responsible for the reported acts. Again, we disagree."[A] plaintiff may establish that the defendant's words were of and concerning the plaintiff by proving at least that the defendant was negligent in publishing words which [***27] reasonably could be interpreted to refer to the plaintiff."
**********
Allegations such as that Reilly played golf and lied about it [***16] support opinions about Reilly's competence as a veterinarian and are factual and therefore capable of being proved false. See King v. Globe Newspaper Co., 400 Mass. 705, 717, 512 N.E.2d 241 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 940, 99 L. Ed. 2d 281, 108 S. Ct. 1121 and 485 U.S. 962, 99 L. Ed. 2d 427, 108 S. Ct. 1227 (1988). Palermo was quoted as saying that "Zeke is dead because of lazy treatment by a vet who decided to play golf instead of doing his job." The article's interior subheadline echoes Palermo's conclusion: "Vet played golf instead of treating dog." The article's text elaborates:
Here, [***17] the Herald reported that Reilly deliberately neglected his responsibilities to an ailing dog in favor of playing golf. By contrast, Reilly presented evidence that the purpose of his 8:00 A.M. telephone call was to check on Zeke, that he kept his pager on his person, that he promptly returned Palermo's page, and that he and the Palermos agreed upon a 2:15 P.M. appointment time that Sunday. Further, Reilly stated that during his 8:00 A.M. call, Palermo said that Zeke appeared to be convalescing and had stopped vomiting. That statement calls into question whether Reilly knew or should have known that Zeke was ailing when he left for the golf course.
**********
Wojcik v. Boston Herald, Inc., 60 Mass. App. Ct. 510: Established that confidential source identification may be compelled when the source provides supplemental commentary in addition to documents that gives rise to the Defamatory publication. I'm not privy to the Deposition testimony or Discovery Responses in Marinova v. Van Sack yet, although some may be filed in Superior Court already and they most definitely will be filed if the case doesn't settle and it goes into Dispositive Motions so we will see whether their sources did anything more than simply offer up Darrell Jones' D-Ticket.
Note: Attorney General Martha Coakley, Governor Patrick and DA Dan Conley had damn well better find out who did it and fire the guilty parties however, because of the criminal CORI violations involved, and I don't give a damn what the Union says that is clearly criminal conduct, so these three public officials need to step to the plate and do what's right. See my public information request to Attorney Coakley herein. And as long as they fail to do so, I will circulate this information throughout the Internet at every opportunity. Viva the First Amendment.
Dr. Mark T. Reilly- $225K Jury verdict for claiming that he would rather play golf than take care of dogs. And oh, don't let me forget:
The fair reporting privilege derives from the recognition that the general public has the right to know of official government actions that affect the public interest, that news outlets are the best way to disseminate such [***25] information, and that news outlets [**1215] would be willing to make such reports only if they were free from liability. Id. "Whether the occasion was privileged was matter of law to be determined by the judge." Joyce v. Globe Newspaper Co., 355 Mass. 492, 498, 245 N.E.2d 822 (1969).The privilege applies to reports by news media outlets of official government action, including police action, such as the fact of an arrest, a search warrant issued, or a crime charged; but it does not apply to witness statements to police, whether appearing in an official police report or not, where no official police action is taken. Such reports to police are unverified hearsay. See generally Jones v. Taibbi, 400 Mass. at 795-796, and cases cited. The Herald article reports no police investigation or action following up on Foley's statements in the police report.
Such unconfirmed hearsay, upon which no police action was taken, has neither the authority nor the importance to the public that other documents or statements shielded by the fair reporting [*777] privilege possess. See Jones v. Taibbi, 400 Mass. at 797; ELM Med. Lab., Inc. v. RKO Gen., Inc., 403 Mass. at 783. [***26] An analogy may be drawn between such reports and a preliminary written statement of a charge: "Knowledge of them throws no light upon the administration of justice. Both form and contents depend wholly on the will of a private individual, who may not be even an officer of the court." Lundin v. Post Pub. Co., 217 Mass. 213, 215-217, 104 N.E. 480 (1914). SeeSanford v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., 318 Mass. 156, 158, 61 N.E.2d 5 (1945). Extending the privilege in this case would not further the public's interest in learning of official conduct. See McAvoy v. Shufrin, 401 Mass. 593, 598 n.5, 518 N.E.2d 513 (1988). The privilege does not apply here.
Finally, the Herald contends (and the motion judge agreed) that statements in the article about the misfiled or stolen, "doctored" records and anonymous telephone calls were not "of and concerning" Reilly because he was not identified in the article as the individual responsible for the reported acts. Again, we disagree."[A] plaintiff may establish that the defendant's words were of and concerning the plaintiff by proving at least that the defendant was negligent in publishing words which [***27] reasonably could be interpreted to refer to the plaintiff."
**********
Allegations such as that Reilly played golf and lied about it [***16] support opinions about Reilly's competence as a veterinarian and are factual and therefore capable of being proved false. See King v. Globe Newspaper Co., 400 Mass. 705, 717, 512 N.E.2d 241 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 940, 99 L. Ed. 2d 281, 108 S. Ct. 1121 and 485 U.S. 962, 99 L. Ed. 2d 427, 108 S. Ct. 1227 (1988). Palermo was quoted as saying that "Zeke is dead because of lazy treatment by a vet who decided to play golf instead of doing his job." The article's interior subheadline echoes Palermo's conclusion: "Vet played golf instead of treating dog." The article's text elaborates:
"At 8 the next morning, Reilly called to say that he had been summoned on an 'emergency horse call.' He said he could see Zeke at noon. The truth, Reilly later admitted, was that he had gone to play golf, using an old vets' excuse."We view these statements as factual. The statements are un-attributed and are presented not as opinions but as actual events preceding (and possibly contributing to) Zeke's death. Compare King v. Globe Newspaper Co., 400 Mass. at 714 (readers expect to read columnist's views and opinion pieces as opposed to factual stories on op-ed page).
Here, [***17] the Herald reported that Reilly deliberately neglected his responsibilities to an ailing dog in favor of playing golf. By contrast, Reilly presented evidence that the purpose of his 8:00 A.M. telephone call was to check on Zeke, that he kept his pager on his person, that he promptly returned Palermo's page, and that he and the Palermos agreed upon a 2:15 P.M. appointment time that Sunday. Further, Reilly stated that during his 8:00 A.M. call, Palermo said that Zeke appeared to be convalescing and had stopped vomiting. That statement calls into question whether Reilly knew or should have known that Zeke was ailing when he left for the golf course.
0 comments:
Post a Comment