Amended Complaint

THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC BY: Dion G. Rassias, Esquire Identification No.: 49724 1125 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107-4997 (215) 592-1000 (215) 592-8360 (Facsimile) LISE RAPAPORT and SEAMUS P. McCAFFERY, h/w c/o The Beasley Firm, LLC 1125 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Plaintiffs, vs. INTERSTATE GENERAL MEDIA, LLC t/a INTERSTATE GENERAL MEDIA, also t/a THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, also t/a PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS, also t/a PHILLY.COM, also t/a PHILLYDAILYNEWS.COM 801 Market Street Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19107 and WILLIAM MARIMOW 440 South Broad Street Unit 1602 Philadelphia, PA 19146 and CRAIG McCOY 330 Church Road Elkins Park, PA 19027 and SIGNE WILKINSON 626 South 21st Street Philadelphia, PA 19146

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FEBRUARY TERM, 2014 No. 3044 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case ID: 140203044

Filed and Attested byPROTHONOTARY

16 MAY 2014 12:34 pmC. FORTE

2

and MICHAEL DAYS 324 Hamilton Avenue Trenton, NJ 08609 Defendants.

: : : : : : : :

NOTICE TO DEFEND

"NOTICE" "AVISO"

You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims

set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a

written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defense or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without

further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or

property or other rights important to you.

Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion.

Hace falta asentar una comparencia escrita o en persona o con un abogado y entregar a la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus

objecciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contra suya sin previo aviso o notificacion. Ademas, la

corte puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puede

perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros derechos iportantes para usted.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT

AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET

LEGAL HELP.

LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO

TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA

OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR

ASISTENCIA LEGA. Philadelphia Bar Association

LAWYER REFERRAL & INFO. One Reading Center

Phila., PA 19107 (215) 238-1701

Asociacion de Licenciados de Filadelphia Servicio de Referencia e Informacion

One Reading Center Phila., PA 19107

(215) 238-1701

Case ID: 140203044

THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC BY: Dion G. Rassias, Esquire Identification No.: 49724 1125 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107-4997 (215) 592-1000 (215) 592-8360 (Facsimile) LISE RAPAPORT and SEAMUS P. McCAFFERY, h/w c/o The Beasley Firm, LLC 1125 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Plaintiffs, vs. INTERSTATE GENERAL MEDIA, LLC t/a INTERSTATE GENERAL MEDIA, also t/a THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, also t/a PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS, also t/a PHILLY.COM, also t/a PHILLYDAILYNEWS.COM 801 Market Street Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19107 and WILLIAM MARIMOW 440 South Broad Street Unit 1602 Philadelphia, PA 19146 and CRAIG McCOY 330 Church Road Elkins Park, PA 19027 and

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FEBRUARY TERM, 2014 No. 3044 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case ID: 140203044

2

SIGNE WILKINSON 626 South 21st Street Philadelphia, PA 19146 and MICHAEL DAYS 324 Hamilton Avenue Trenton, NJ 08609 Defendants.

: : : : : : : : : : :

AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. “People who don’t read the newspaper are uninformed; people who do are

misinformed.” – Mark Twain

2. Philadelphia is unfortunately a one-horse media town because both major daily

newspapers are owned by the same entities; that means that the Defendants can write whatever

they want, whenever they want to, and their publications can only be held in check by the legal

system. This case is all about media accountability for publishing smear pieces.

II. THE PARTIES

3. Plaintiffs Lise Rapaport and Seamus P. McCaffery are adult individual residents

of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, and they are husband and wife. Plaintiff Rapaport is an

attorney licensed and in good standing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania since 1979.

Plaintiff McCaffery is now a Justice on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court having been elected in

November 2007. Prior to that, from 2004 through 2007, he served on the Pennsylvania Superior

Court, after his election in November 2003. Before then, Plaintiff McCaffery was a judge in the

Municipal Court of Philadelphia from January 1994 to December 2003. He obtained his law

degree from Temple University in 1989.

Case ID: 140203044

3

4. Defendant Interstate General Media, LLC (“IGM”) is, upon information and

belief, a licensed Pennsylvania corporation, and conducts business at 801 Market Street, Suite

300, Philadelphia, PA 19107. IGM was formed in the spring of 2012 for the purpose of

acquiring “all or substantially all” of the capital stock of Philadelphia Media Network, Inc. IGM

owns “all or substantially all” of The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Daily News and Philly.com.

IGM is and was responsible for the publications which appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer

and The Daily News, as well as in the online versions of the articles – it was a publisher of them.

5. Defendant William Marimow (“Marimow”) is an adult individual residing at 440

South Broad Street, Unit 1602, Philadelphia, PA 19146, and conducts business at 801 Market

Street, Suite 300, Philadelphia, PA 19107. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Marimow was

the Editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer and therefore, in whole or in part, exercised authority

over the content of the newspaper’s publications and its website.

6. Defendant Craig McCoy (“McCoy”) is an adult individual residing at 330 Church

Road, Elkins Park, PA 19027, and conducts business at 801 Market Street, Suite 300,

Philadelphia, PA 19107. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant McCoy was responsible for

researching and writing the articles which appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer and online.

7. Defendant Signe Wilkinson (“Wilkinson”) is an adult individual residing at 626

South 21st Street, Philadelphia, PA 19146, and conducts business at 801 Market Street, Suite

300, Philadelphia, PA 19107. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Wilkinson drew the

caricature which appeared in The Daily News.

8. Defendant Michael Days (“Days”) is an adult individual residing at 324 Hamilton

Avenue, Trenton, NJ 08609, and conducts business at 801 Market Street, Suite 300,

Philadelphia, PA 19107. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Days was the Editor of The

Case ID: 140203044

4

Philadelphia Daily News and therefore, in whole or in part, exercised authority over the content

of the newspaper’s publications and its website.

9. With respect to The Philadelphia Inquirer, from time to time throughout this

Complaint, Defendants IGM, Marimow and McCoy may be collectively also referred to as the

“Inquirer Defendants.”

10. With respect to The Philadelphia Daily News, from time to time throughout this

Complaint, Defendants IGM, Wilkinson and Days may be collectively also referred to as the

“Daily News Defendants.”

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Publication(s) at Issue

11. The Philadelphia Inquirer published three (3) articles about the Plaintiffs, each of

which placed the Plaintiffs in a false light with the general public. The articles were false,

deliberately misleading, and disgracefully inaccurate as a result of the Inquirer Defendants’

calculated and pre-meditated incompleteness and intentionally malicious slant.

12. The three articles at issue from The Philadelphia Inquirer are dated March 5,

2013, June 11, 2013 and August 18, 2013, respectively, and are attached hereto as Plaintiffs’

Exhibits 1, 3 and 5, respectively. Each article was also readable online at Philly.com during the

relevant time periods, and the online versions of the newspaper’s March 5 article – depending

upon the date printed – may have a March 3 or March 4 date.

13. In fact, the articles remained online until this lawsuit was filed; they were all

removed one day later.

14. The Daily News published a caricature on June 16, 2013, that was completely

false and disgraceful, and placed the Plaintiffs in a highly offensive false light. The Daily News

Case ID: 140203044

5

Defendants offensively portrayed the Plaintiffs as violating ethical and legal rules and standards

and corrupting the legal system to obtain referral fees. A copy of the Daily News caricature is

attached hereto as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4.

15. Then, in a ludicrous attempt to “address” their already false and outrageous

portrayals of the Plaintiffs, the Inquirer Defendants published a microscopic “Amplification,”

buried on page four of the newspaper, with no headline to identify what it pertained to,

shamefully and weakly “amplifying” a wildly inaccurate assertion from the earlier March article.

The “Amplification” is attached hereto as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2.

16. As a result of the Defendants’ outrageous and misleading publications, at least

one Philadelphia-based media news outlet, Philadelphia Magazine, has reported that a federal

investigation was triggered.

B. The March 5, 2013 Publication

17. The March publication is false, incomplete, and contrary to Pennsylvania law.

The Defendants, seeking to boost sagging readership and interest, published this article knowing

that they were placing the Plaintiffs in false light, falsely accusing them of illegal and unethical

behavior, and falsely reporting the nature of Plaintiff Rapaport’s referral fees and Plaintiff

McCaffery’s participation in certain cases as a Justice on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The

article was intentionally false, misleading and deliberately incomplete.

18. The short version of the March publication is that the Defendants deliberately

omitted facts and truths from it which would have dispelled the intentional false light and

innuendoes it created that Plaintiffs had broken the law and/or done something unethical when

Plaintiff Rapaport received legitimate referral fees.

Case ID: 140203044

6

19. In fact, The Inquirer’s March article was so heinous, untrue and savage in its

portrayal of the Plaintiffs that even the publisher of the newspaper, Robert J. Hall, had to admit

under oath that he was so appalled by the story, and the lengths The Inquirer had gone to in order

to “make Justice McCaffery and his wife look bad,” he called Defendant Marimow – the

newspaper’s editor – and expressed deep concern over the placement of the article, and

specifically told Defendant Marimow that such a piece “should not have been on page one.” He

also told Defendant Marimow that the story was “seriously flawed because it implied that Justice

McCaffery and his wife Lise Rapaport had done something wrong.” See transcript of

proceedings attached as Exhibit “6.”

20. That admission is as important as it is historic: The Inquirer’s publisher told the

Inquirer’s editor that the story involving a Justice on the Supreme Court was “seriously flawed”

and not worthy of front page coverage.

21. Clearly, even the publisher of The Inquirer knew that the article was a smear

piece, journalistic rubbish, and should never have run in the first place as written.

Remarkably, publisher Robert Hall was so concerned over the placement of this article that was

maliciously designed to “make Justice McCaffery and his wife look bad” that he even sent a

follow-up email to Defendant Marimow on March 4, 2013, exclaiming how “disappointed” he

was with the story and how “distressed” he was that it was put on the front page of the Sunday

paper.

22. Mr. Hall’s March 4, 2013 e-mail states, in full:

“Good Morning:

I will tell you I am disappointed in the story. Placed on front page? We do not say the fees are routine and proper (although we know they are) but quote there attorney (which both of us knows what that sounds like to the reader). That was the statement you and I talked about yesterday to be sure we told readers. And we

Case ID: 140203044

7

even state how the cases turned out to make it appear improper. They only drew scrutiny after we raised the issue and a lot depends on how we asked the question.

When we know that we have a delicate situation, we should have been overly sure that the story would be read fairly.

I will call you late this afternoon.”

See Exhibit “7”

23. Even the publisher of The Inquirer clearly concedes that the “disappointing” story

was poorly placed on the front page; was manipulated factually; was reported in such a fashion

as to deliberately make Defendant McCoy’s comments on the disposition of the eleven [11]

cases “appear improper.” He further admits that the referral fee issue only gained attention

because The Inquirer raised it, and finally, reflecting the depth of the malice, proclaims that what

was reported was all subject to “how we ask the question.” Mr. Hall concludes his e-mail to

Defendant Marimow by admonishing him that The Inquirer should have been “overly sure” that

the story would be read “fairly” – because even Mr. Hall recognized that as written, it could not

be.

24. As set forth in detail above, there can be no mistaking the defamatory and false

light content of the March, 2013 publication and the malicious intent behind it. The article was

“disappointing” because it was factually inaccurate, and reported in a fashion deliberately

designed only to embarrass and humiliate the Plaintiffs. It should never have been placed on the

front page, or anywhere within the newspaper, as written. Mr. Hall’s e-mail confirms that the

article made it appear as though the Plaintiffs had done something improper when they clearly

did not. Finally, it is clear that the publisher of The Inquirer suspects there was foul play from

the editor and writer behind the article because he confesses that “a lot” depends upon how The

Inquirer reporter asked his questions. This incontrovertible evidence that the publisher knew that

Case ID: 140203044

8

the article was a smear piece against the Plaintiffs, and confirms that Mr. Hall was suspicious of

the motives of Defendants Marimow and McCoy, because he knew the story was fatally flawed

and had been poisoned and corrupted from the very beginning by virtue of how the key questions

were asked.

25. Publisher Hall correctly confirms that the story could not be read “fairly,” because

the story was false.

26. Obviously, The Inquirer took all necessary steps to sanitize that internal “dirt”

from the general public and never disclosed, in any of its articles, its own publisher’s deep

concerns about the coverage of the Plaintiffs.

27. Defendant Marimow compromised his responsibilities and journalistic ethics to

attack Plaintiffs, and became completely unmoved by and unmoored from the truth. He did so in

furtherance of the several agendas of his friends and his personal counsel, whose interests and

motivations were completely adverse to Plaintiff McCaffery.

28. Nowhere in any of the articles was it ever disclosed that Defendant Marimow had

an extremely close personal friendship and business relationship with individuals whose interests

and motivations were completely adverse to Plaintiff McCaffery; instead he deliberately kept

that information a secret from the general public, and abused his position of power to attack and

humiliate the Plaintiffs.

29. Defendant Marimow spearheaded the effort, effectuated by Defendant McCoy’s

sensationally headlined articles, to smear the Plaintiffs, and he used his position as Editor-in-

Chief to do it, with the referral fee issue as the mechanism. As such, Editor-in-Chief Marimow

transformed himself into the “Enabler-in-Chief” of the entire smear campaign, fueled in part by

his strong business and personal relationships referenced above, and motivated by these and

Case ID: 140203044

9

other factors and relationships that will be probed and more fully disclosed, in far greater detail,

throughout the discovery process.

30. Referral fees among lawyers are proper and extremely common throughout the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The implication of illegal and unethical behavior on the part of

the Plaintiffs is as without merit as it always has been, and this malicious implication has been

put into general circulation, fostered and magnified by the Defendants.

31. The March publication deliberately does not truthfully set forth all of the facts

pertaining to the Plaintiffs and the referral fee issue. Instead, the March publication, followed by

others in June and August, see infra, was part of a deliberate campaign to smear the Plaintiffs by

creating the impression that they had done something illegal and/or unethical when clearly they

had not.

32. In the March publication, The Philadelphia Inquirer states: “As the fees have

come in, McCaffery has ruled on 11 Supreme Court cases in which some of the firms tied to the

fees were participants. Lawyers in the cases say the justice [Plaintiff McCaffery] never disclosed

the fees.”

33. The article goes on to state that in “eight of those 11 appeals, [Plaintiff]

McCaffery voted in favor of the legal position advanced by the firms that had received referrals

from [Plaintiff] Rapaport in other cases.”

34. Mr. Hall’s email, attached as Exhibit “7,” confirms that The Inquirer’s coverage

of “the cases” was written in such a way as to make the dispositions “appear improper.”

35. These statements were published prominently on the front page of The Inquirer,

above the fold, and were written in conjunction with an article-opening, eye-catching statement

that Plaintiff Rapaport had received an $821,000.00 referral fee.

Case ID: 140203044

10

36. Standing alone, without the full and truthful disclosure of all of the facts known to

these Defendants, these statements clearly place the Plaintiffs in false light because of this now

“fact-based” implication that Plaintiff McCaffery’s duties as a Justice were influenced by referral

fees paid to his wife, and that his wife was complicit in such a scheme.

37. The only and very clear conclusion from the article is that Plaintiff McCaffery’s

responsibilities on the Supreme Court were compromised – ethically and legally – because his

wife has received referral fees, and especially an $821,000.00 fee.

38. This conclusion is completely wrong, and would have been shown to be wrong

had The Inquirer disclosed all of the true facts which were known to it when it published the

smear pieces. Ultimately, this “seriously flawed” article, to quote The Inquirer’s own publisher,

never should have been written in the first place. Therefore, in reckless disregard of falsity and

with knowledge of completely contrary facts, the Inquirer Defendants published and/or omitted

the following:

a. At the time she made the referral that five years later resulted in the

payment of $821,000.00, Plaintiff Rapaport was not employed by the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania in any capacity. When she made this referral, she had no tie to the Supreme Court.

The Inquirer deliberately omits this crucial fact;

b. The Inquirer deliberately failed to report that the lawyer and law firm who

paid the $821,000.00 referral fee have never appeared before Justice McCaffery in any of his

capacities as a judge or Justice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Instead, The Inquirer

blanketly asserts that “[a]s the fees have come in, Justice McCaffery has ruled on 11 cases….”

This clearly creates the wildly false and enormously wrong impression that the $821,000.00

Case ID: 140203044

11

referral fee was tied to lawyers and firms who not only appeared before Plaintiff McCaffery, but

was tied to cases that were “ruled upon” by him;

c. The Inquirer deliberately uses the $821,000.00 referral fee as the lightning

rod for its false light portrayal that Plaintiffs were violating the law or acting unethically. The

gist of its article is to smear the Plaintiffs and to prominently declare and paint a false light

picture that the lawyers and/or law firm who paid the $821,000.00 referral fee – among others –

were getting favorable treatment from Plaintiff McCaffery. By doing this, The Inquirer

deliberately violated each and every fundamental and core principle of responsible journalism.

Then, after smearing the Plaintiffs with their false light portrayals, these Defendants

affirmatively chose not to later correct these bogus, unmoored-from-truth “facts.” Instead, the

Defendants crucified the Plaintiffs with front-page articles that were nowhere close to the truth,

and ultimately deliberately promoted and allowed these misimpressions and innuendos to

circulate on a nationwide basis. The Defendants never demonstrated the journalistic integrity to

publish all of the true facts, or to appropriately correct the “facts” they knew were wrong. This,

all while the Plaintiffs labored under the heavy cloud of a federal investigation;

d. The Inquirer Defendants wrote that Plaintiff McCaffery “never disclosed

the fees.” This is a blatant lie and the Defendants knew this. Contrary to that wrongful

statement, Plaintiff McCaffery has disclosed the fees received by his wife pursuant to each and

every Rule required of judges in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Defendants knew that

the fees received had been disclosed as required by law, and the Inquirer Defendants’ statement

to the contrary further places the Plaintiffs in false light. In fact, if Plaintiff McCaffery had never

disclosed the fees, Defendants would never have known about the referrals in the first place, all

as admitted by Publisher Hall in his March 4, 2013 email. See Exhibit “7”;

Case ID: 140203044

12

e. The Inquirer’s bare and unsubstantiated reference to 11 cases Plaintiff

McCaffery assertedly “ruled on” was one of the linchpins of its false light coverage. Because

identification of these 11 cases appearing in the March article was clearly crucial to the

Plaintiffs’ ability to disprove the false facts underpinning the smear campaign against them,

Plaintiffs’ counsel immediately requested a list of those cases. The Inquirer refused to identify

these cases until recently compelled to do so by this lawsuit. Now that the 11 cases have been

identified, Plaintiffs have the ability to prove that The Inquirer published completely false and

misleading assessments of those cases, including but not limited to its self-servingly false “chart”

of referral fees;

f. Nowhere in the March article is it mentioned that any one, single vote by a

Supreme Court Justice, with very few exceptions, can have any dispositive effect. Nowhere in

the March article is it mentioned that the creating, upholding, diminishing or in any way

affecting of a legal right or money judgment, can only be accomplished when an individual

Justice’s vote is tied to a majority of his or her fellow Justice’s votes. Without that critical tie, an

individual justice’s vote is not the law and cannot be controlling. Instead, the March article

clearly and maliciously suggests that Plaintiff McCaffery is alone “ruling on” and deciding cases,

for falsely suggested improper purposes, in favor of those lawyers and law firms that have paid

Plaintiff Rapaport referral fees;

g. The Inquirer deliberately chose not to identify or otherwise detail the 11

cases referenced in the March and subsequent articles, because to do so would have shown that

Justice McCaffery’s votes did not provide “help” to the lawyers or firms who had paid referral

fees, as The Inquirer suggests. The Inquirer deliberately did not identify and/or publish details

Case ID: 140203044

13

about the 11 cases because to do so would have clearly established that what The Inquirer

spewed in its March publication was false;

h. The Inquirer still has not published or produced one shred of evidence

that Plaintiff McCaffery violated any law or in any way acted unethically. Indeed, it bears

repeating: Plaintiff McCaffery has done nothing wrong, illegal or unethical;

i. The Inquirer deliberately did not publish the text of Rule 3121 of the

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, which clearly permitted the payment of referral fees

to Plaintiff Rapaport when those payments were made. While there will be more herein on The

Inquirer’s continuing silence on Rule 3121, for purposes of the March article, there was a

deliberate omission and/or reckless indifference to the truthful fact that Pennsylvania Rule of

Appellate Procedure 3121 permitted a staff member to practice law1 in any court other than the

appellate court where the staff lawyer was working, provided that the staff lawyer received the

prior approval of the judge on whose staff such person was employed. Specifically, at the

relevant time, Rule 3121 stated:

Practice of Law by Staff. Neither the prothonotary, deputy prothonotary, chief clerk, nor any person employed in the Office of the Prothonotary, nor any law clerk, administrative assistant, or secretary employed by an appellate court or by any judge thereof, shall practice in the court. Nor shall any such person otherwise practice law without prior approval of the judge on whose staff such person is employed or of the president judge if such person is not so employed.

j. The Inquirer thereafter deliberately failed to report that Rule 3121 was

subsequently amended, by a unanimous Supreme Court, to rescind the permission staff lawyers

had previously enjoyed, up until August 21, 2013, to practice law. This failure highlights and

magnifies The Inquirer’s biased conduct, because to publish the full truth in a subsequent

Case ID: 140203044

14

article would again have contradicted and exposed the falsehoods and false implications The

Inquirer had created and continued to promote and foster.

39. The Inquirer Defendants’ conduct was the deliberate avoidance of the truth for

the sole purpose of smearing the Plaintiffs.

C. The March 24, 2013 “Amplification”

40. The Inquirer Defendants knew that their March 5, 2013 article was seriously

wrong and flawed: Plaintiff Rapaport was not even working in the court system at the time that

she made the referral that resulted in the payment of $821,000.00 five years later. This fact was

known to the Inquirer Defendants from court documents.

41. The Inquirer deliberately did not publish this fact in its March 2013 article,

because to do so would have completely taken the malicious sting out of the newspaper’s

$821,000.00 sensational, lightning-rod headline that was designed to attract all of the readers to

the later parts of the story where The Inquirer paints the wholly inaccurate picture of Plaintiff

McCaffery ruling in favor of those firms who have paid referral fees to Plaintiff Rapaport.

42. Knowing from communications with Plaintiffs’ counsel that their deliberate and

malicious omission was about to become public, the Inquirer Defendants did the unbelievable:

they published an “Amplification,” whatever that is, that standing alone, further establishes the

Defendants’ malice toward the Plaintiffs.

43. While the Inquirer Defendants blasted the Plaintiffs on the front page of the

Sunday paper in their false light portrayals that the Plaintiffs were engaged in illegal and

unethical conduct, the so-called “Amplification” was buried on page four of the newspaper, with

absolutely no headline or other means to even identify what the “Amplification” pertained to,

1 The practice of law does not include referring cases.

Case ID: 140203044

15

and the “Amplification” never used the words “retraction” or “correction.” The buried,

microscopic “Amplification” stated, in part, as follows:

In a story March 4 [sic] concerning referral fees received by the wife of state Supreme Court Justice Seamus P. McCaffery, The Inquirer reported that the wife, Lise Rapaport, had worked as a judicial aide since 1997. The newspaper has since learned that Rapaport was on leave from Jan. 15 to Dec. 17, 2007, and received no pay or benefits from the court during that period, according to court officials….

See Exhibit P-2 attached hereto.

44. The “Amplification” finally disclosed the critical information that Plaintiff

Rapaport was not an employee of the court system in 2007 when the referral was made. The

Inquirer Defendants deliberately buried this fact because, as part of the smear campaign, the

truthful disclosure about Plaintiff Rapaport’s employment status would have served only to

further justify and clarify that this referral fee, along with her other referral fees, was lawful and

proper, and the Inquirer Defendants had no interest whatsoever in telling the truth on this point.

45. The “Amplification” was, of course, strategically buried on page A-4 of the

newspaper, and is obviously written and placed so as not to seem to have anything whatsoever to

do with the prior, front-page coverage excoriating a Supreme Court Justice. Clearly, any

reasonable and truthful “amplification” deserved at least a title or headline that related it to the

March 5, 2013 article which it was allegedly “amplifying.” This “Amplification” got neither.

As published, the “Amplification” was deliberately a non-event.

46. The “Amplification” should have been placed in the newspaper in a spot of

comparable prominent, eye-catching location and newsworthiness, and with a font comparable to

the earlier smear piece, and at a bare minimum, it should have contained an appropriate headline

to identify it so that it could be seen and understood as pertaining to the Plaintiffs. However, the

Case ID: 140203044

16

Inquirer Defendants had no interest in publishing the truth, and instead, maliciously continued

their savage attack upon the Plaintiffs.

47. The “Amplification’s” placement and juxtaposition was and remains an utter

insult. The “Amplification” is nondescript and tiny; in fact, not only does it fail to mention a

clarification of an issue involving a Supreme Court Justice and the attack upon his ethics and

legality, it is even smaller than The Inquirer’s coverage of Punxsutawney Phil’s “bum forecast,”

which coverage appeared literally directly above and in a larger font than the “Amplification.”

See Exhibit P-2 and note the comparison. Obviously “enabled” by Defendant Marimow’s

undisclosed bias, his irresponsible and sub-standard journalistic ethics, and the desire to not in

any way mitigate their earlier smear piece, the Inquirer Defendants highlighted that their

coverage of a rodent’s ability to predict the weather was more important than clarifying their

earlier front-page attack upon a Supreme Court Justice and his wife.

48. The puny, microscopic and strategically nowhere-placed “Amplification”

destroyed any reasonable chance the Plaintiffs had to overcome the misrepresentations,

falsehood and innuendoes created by the incomplete and inaccurate reporting in the March

article.

D. The Daily News Piece

49. Not to be outdone by the above-described tabloid antics of The Inquirer, The

Philadelphia Daily News decided to weigh in on and amplify the false light portrayals spewed by

The Inquirer, and did so with a repulsively false caricature, which similarly casts the Plaintiffs in

an even more blatant and offensive false light. See Exhibit P-4.

50. The caricature published in The Daily News on June 16, 2013, drawn by

Defendant Signe Wilkinson and edited and approved by Defendant Michael Days, purports to

Case ID: 140203044

17

show Plaintiffs McCaffery and Rapaport in his chambers, even though they are lounging in bed.

Plaintiff Rapaport is referred to as “Mrs. McCaffery” even though she does not hold and never

has held herself out that way professionally, since she is an attorney in her own right and does

not use that title as though to remind everyone that she is married to a justice.

51. The caricature portrays Plaintiff Rapaport blindfolded with pursed lips, holding

two bags of money, while her high heels are strewn randomly next to the bed. Plaintiff

McCaffery is also in bed, clutching a gavel while clad in his black judicial robes. Underneath

the bed, there is an unopened book of ethics, which appears out of reach, and two other books,

one titled “Philly Judges’ Numbers” and the other “Traffic Court Numbers,” that are drawn in

such a way as to appear more accessible and clearly more within reach. The ethics book appears

pushed well underneath the bed, while the books reflecting the judges’ numbers and traffic court

numbers are more at the ready.

52. Plaintiff McCaffery is portrayed as being “in bed with” his wife masquerading as

the blindfolded lady justice. While “in bed with” can connote “sexual relations” between a

husband and wife (Oxford New Dictionary), here, because of the black robes and the reference to

the blindfolded lady justice, it is obvious that The Daily News intended to perversely and

unlawfully exploit the fornication analogy for its other false light meaning: “in undesirably close

association” (Oxford), or “to work with a person or organization, or to be involved with them, in

a way that causes other people not to trust you.” (Cambridge Dictionary).

53. The blindfolded lady justice, seen as Plaintiff McCaffery’s employee and thus

under his “command,” has two large bags of money, clearly painting the picture that Plaintiffs

are “in bed with” the judicial system, and have obviously corrupted it. This false light is further

perpetuated by the three books strategically placed within varying degrees of access at the foot of

Case ID: 140203044

18

the bed. The implication here is that the two more available books reflect the means of Plaintiff

McCaffery’s corruption, to wit, fixing cases by way of influencing trial judges.

54. The quote attributed to Plaintiff McCaffery is, “Bring home any fees from your

separate and perfectly legal business, hon?” The “home” is clearly drawn and identified as

Plaintiff McCaffery’s judicial chambers, to again highlight for the readership that the money is

actually coming through chambers to Plaintiff Rapaport and him.

55. The false light portrayal actually goes a step further because the “in bed with”

symbolism further maliciously implies that our laws, like the fees earned by Plaintiff Rapaport,

are not “separate,” but rather stem only from the improper relationship, abuse and corruption.

56. The false light portrayal from this unseemly bedroom scene set in the chambers of

a Supreme Court Justice is as obvious as it is despicable: the fees are being generated through

chambers, under the threat of Plaintiff McCaffery’s gavel, through illegal and unethical phone

calls to judges, all under the cover of the Supreme Court’s judicial chambers. It is false and

disgraceful, and its purely malicious and scandalous purpose is manifest from the combination of

its actual words and its clear innuendo, that:

a) Plaintiff Rapaport professionally trades off of her husband’s name;

b) The Supreme Court’s judicial chambers are used as a

business office for Plaintiff Rapaport;

c) Neither Plaintiffs review or abide by the book of ethics governing judges and lawyers;

d) Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of “Philly Judges’

Numbers” to conduct business and bring home fees;

e) Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of “Traffic Court Numbers” to conduct business and bring home fees;

Case ID: 140203044

19

f) Plaintiff McCaffery’s holding of the gavel suggests that he is ruling on Plaintiff Rapaport’s referral matters.

57. As a result, it places the Plaintiffs in false light to represent that:

a) Plaintiffs call Philadelphia judges on behalf of the referral cases to influence results;

b) Plaintiffs do not review or comply with the ethical rules

governing jurists and lawyers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;

c) Plaintiffs call Traffic Court judges on behalf of the referral

cases to influence results;

d) The Plaintiffs are “in bed” with the “system,” in the judicial chambers of the Supreme Court, using Plaintiff Rapaport to obtain money with the threat of Plaintiff McCaffery’s gavel;

e) Within the theme of “fornication,” the Plaintiffs are

screwing the system by illegally and unethically obtaining money;

f) Plaintiff Rapaport identifies herself as “Mrs. McCaffery” in

any professional capacity;

g) Plaintiff’s Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Chambers are not used exclusively, entirely and completely for the business of the Supreme Court.

58. Upon information and belief, The Daily News did not itself investigate or publish

anything about the fee issue pertaining to Plaintiff McCaffery as The Philadelphia Inquirer did

on the three (3) occasions referenced above, two of which were published before the Daily News

caricature was published.

59. As such, The Daily News Defendants were guided and “informed” by their

reading of The Philadelphia Inquirer’s articles on the issue. Therefore, as manifested by The

Daily News’ creation of the caricature clearly depicting the Plaintiffs in false light, The

Philadelphia Inquirer’s articles directly created, fostered and perpetuated the false light

Case ID: 140203044

20

characterizations which were later put into a caricature format by The Daily News Defendants,

based upon their interpretation of what The Inquirer scandalously wrote.

60. As such, The Philadelphia Inquirer Defendants aided and abetted The

Philadelphia Daily News Defendants with respect to the false light caricature as a result of the

articles’ foreseeability.

E. The June 11 and August 18, 2013 Articles

61. In what can only be described as a malicious “piling on,” the Inquirer Defendants

took their malice to yet a new level when they published their June 11 and August 18, 2013

articles about the Plaintiffs.

62. While the articles lamely suggest that they were “follow up” pieces written to

discuss the status of the federal investigation, they were ultimately nothing more than a way for

The Inquirer to again regurgitate all of the false light in which they had previously placed the

Plaintiffs.

63. The true import and impact of the articles, therefore, was to re-publish the “fact”

that the Plaintiffs were receiving fees that were somehow unethical and/or illegal. Instead of

limiting the piece to a true update of the federal investigation, the piece regurgitated the earlier

March publication in numerous respects, including the same reference to “cases” assertedly ruled

upon by Plaintiff McCaffery, with the same analysis of the $821,000.00 referral fee, and the

same interviews of lawyers and professed “legal experts.”

64. The June and August articles were maliciously designed to reinforce the damage

done in the March 2013 publication, because both the June and August articles continued to

serve as a misleading “reminder” to the general public that the Plaintiffs were allegedly operating

illegally and unethically.

Case ID: 140203044

21

65. In fact, the June and August articles were so focused on regurgitating the March

2013 false light publication that they even republished the same photograph of the Plaintiffs and

the same contrived and bogus chart of referral fees paid over 10 years. The regurgitation of the

photograph and chart was not offered in support of any new analysis, but was instead a retelling

of the same smear-story, now for the second and third time, respectively.

F. An Abundance of Malice

66. Plaintiff McCaffery is a public official; Plaintiff Rapaport is not, nor is she a

public figure.

67. By operation of law, Plaintiff McCaffery will establish his claims and prove the

Defendants’ malice.

68. By operation of law, Plaintiff Rapaport will prove her claims through the

Defendants’ negligence.

69. As set forth above, there is more than enough evidence of malice in this case to

establish those claims. Those acts of malice include to date the following:

a. The Inquirer has never disclosed the fact that its own publisher questioned

Defendant Marimow’s judgment about the placement and content of the March article; instead,

the Inquirer Defendants forged ahead with the story and its headlining placement on the front

page of the Sunday paper despite an obvious warning from the publisher that the story was ill-

conceived, incomplete and designed only to “make the Justice and his wife look bad.” Indeed,

Mr. Hall’s email – Exhibit “7” hereto – shines a powerful light on The Inquirer’s malice;

b. The Inquirer never disclosed in its lead article the fact that at the time the

$821,000 referral was made and any fee then earned, Plaintiff Rapaport was not employed within

the court system;

Case ID: 140203044

22

c. The Inquirer’s lead article deliberately never disclosed that neither the

lawyer nor law firm that paid Ms. Rapaport the $821,000 referral fee has ever appeared before

Justice McCaffery when he was a jurist at any level;

d. The articles reference 11 cases where firms or lawyers who paid referral

fees appeared before the Supreme Court, but the Inquirer Defendants have deliberately never

identified the 11 cases, either in any subsequent articles or in response to the Plaintiffs’ request

for identification of these 11 cases, until this lawsuit was filed. The Inquirer completely

misrepresented the outcome of the cases in its reporting and by publishing misleading charts that

clearly implied Plaintiff McCaffery’s vote in those cases made a difference in cases for the

lawyers and firms who had paid Plaintiff Rapaport a referral fee in other matters. This was

absolutely false and The Inquirer deliberately withheld the truth. The Inquirer deliberately

suppressed these facts and sabotaged the Plaintiffs with its contrived and manipulated “chart”

which was designed and published to mislead the public and support the Inquirer Defendants’

accusations that the Plaintiffs had done something illegal or unethical;

e. The Inquirer stated that Plaintiff McCaffery did not disclose to the lawyers

appearing before him the referral fees that had been paid to Plaintiff Rapaport. This is

completely false. At all times relevant hereto, the Inquirer Defendants knew that Plaintiff

McCaffery had disclosed the referral fees fully and completely, consistent with Pennsylvania

law. For The Inquirer to have published otherwise was maliciously false and misleading;

f. The Inquirer buried its “Amplification” in tiny print well after the damage

was already done. A simple comparison of the microscopic “Amplification” to the headlining

article shows how maliciously The Inquirer was acting, and how unmistakably they chose to

bury the truth after having smeared the plaintiffs. The Inquirer Defendants did not even have the

Case ID: 140203044

23

journalistic ethics to call what they wrote a “retraction” or a “correction.” Instead they referred

to it, and buried it, as an “Amplification,” without any indication that it even pertained to

Plaintiffs;

g. The Inquirer article referenced the issue of recusal in a case before the

Supreme Court where a lawyer from Plaintiff McCaffery’s brother’s firm was representing a

litigant. The Inquirer knew the oral argument in the case referenced by The Inquirer was

actually tape-recorded by PCN, as are all oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Prior to the

start of oral argument, Plaintiff McCaffery himself raised the issue of his brother’s membership

in the firm and asked if any party wanted him to recuse. Neither of the attorneys associated with

the case wanted Plaintiff McCaffery to recuse. This was all captured on television. This fact

was never disclosed by The Inquirer, again because the plan was never to publish anything

favorable about Plaintiff McCaffery; the pieces about him were solely intended to smear him

from the very beginning;

h. In the March article, The Inquirer referenced a Pennsylvania Rule of

Appellate Procedure governing the practice of law by staff appellate lawyers. The Inquirer

Defendants deliberately did not publish the text of, nor otherwise cite or disclose what they were

referring to. The Inquirer Defendants further manifested their malice by failing to publish the

fact that three days after the publication of their August 18, 2013 article, the Supreme Court

unanimously amended Rule 3121 to clarify the positions that had earlier been disputed in The

Inquirer’s coverage, to wit, who and what was subject to Rule 3121. In the face of the newly

amended rule, The Inquirer went totally dark and failed to publish the additional facts that made

it even clearer that Plaintiff Rapaport had done nothing wrong. They simply chose not to cover

the amended rule at all, again, suppressing anything favorable to the Plaintiffs;

Case ID: 140203044

24

i. The Inquirer published essentially the same article three times, on March

5, June 11 and August 18, 2013, respectively;

j. The article references various “legal experts,” but only cites those who are

critical of Plaintiff McCaffery, again deliberately suppressing anything favorable to the

Plaintiffs.

IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I: FALSE LIGHT PLAINTIFF McCAFFERY v. THE INQUIRER DEFENDANTS

70. Plaintiffs incorporate each and every allegation set forth above as though fully set

forth at length, as the detailed averments and facts above are only summarized in the paragraphs

below.

71. As set forth fully above, the Defendants engaged in a discriminate publication of

both true and false statements in the three articles referenced above, and thereby created a false

impression by knowingly or recklessly publicizing selective pieces of true information.

72. By selectively publicizing information that created the above-referenced false

impressions, the Defendants subjected the Plaintiff to unreasonable and highly objectionable

publicity, attributing to him characteristics, conduct and/or beliefs that are false. He was thereby

placed before the public in a false position.

73. The false light that these Defendants put the Plaintiff in is of a kind that would be

highly offensive to a reasonable person because there was a major misrepresentation of his

character, history, activities and beliefs, such that serious offense could reasonably be expected

to be taken by a reasonable person in the Plaintiff’s position.

Case ID: 140203044

25

74. The combination of true and false statements, implications and innuendoes,

selectively publicized in a manner to deliberately create a false impression bearing upon the

Plaintiff’s conduct and ethics, clearly placed him in a false position before the public.

75. A series of selective publications, as described above, all of which created,

perpetuated and regurgitated the implication and innuendo that the Plaintiff breached his ethical

responsibilities and legal responsibilities in the performance of his job as a Justice of the

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, would be and is highly offensive to a reasonable person under

any and all circumstances.

76. The articles described above reasonably imply false and defamatory facts, and

these pieces, when considered together in the context in which the Defendants placed them in the

newspaper, clearly suggested to the average reader that the Plaintiff acted to the detriment of the

judicial system with regard to ethical rules and illegal conduct.

77. The conduct of the Defendants with respect to their false light reporting has

served to disgrace the Plaintiff and irreparably stain the Plaintiff’s reputation on a nationwide

basis.

78. The Defendants, by and through the exhibits to the Complaint, have implied,

stated and drawn a factual scenario painting the Plaintiff as acting in violation of the laws of this

Commonwealth and the ethical rules governing jurists.

79. The selective publication of certain “facts” by the Defendants are provably false,

as set forth herein. As a result of these “facts” being provably false, the Plaintiff has

consequently suffered from being placed in a false light, which the Defendants did, either

deliberately or in reckless disregard for the truth.

Case ID: 140203044

26

80. As set forth above, the Inquirer Defendants’ selective publication of “facts”

omitted a significant amount of other information and true facts which make it completely clear

that the Plaintiff had done nothing wrong.

81. The Inquirer Defendants knew that their articles would be reviewed and

republished by other media outlets, including but not limited to, The Philadelphia Daily News.

As such, when The Daily News printed the offending caricature, it did so based upon the

information learned from the March and June 2013 articles published in The Inquirer.

Therefore, in light of the false and misleading nature of The Inquirer’s March and June articles,

it was completely foreseeable that another news outlet would read the false and misleading

articles in such a fashion so as to lead it to create the offending caricature. As manifested

through the caricature, The Daily News clearly concluded from the articles that the Plaintiffs had

violated the law, breached ethical responsibilities and had corrupted the judicial system for their

own gain.

82. It is not an “opinion” to report that a Supreme Court Justice has abrogated his

ethical duties.

83. It is not an “opinion” to report that a Supreme Court Justice has operated outside

the bounds of the law.

84. It is not an “opinion” to depict a Supreme Court Justice abrogating his ethical

duties.

85. It is not an “opinion” to depict a Supreme Court Justice abrogating his legal

responsibilities.

Case ID: 140203044

27

86. The conduct of these Defendants in the several articles at issue ascribed to the

Plaintiff conduct, character and conditions that negatively reflect on his fitness for his business,

trade and profession.

87. There is no possible innocent interpretation of the publications identified more

fully above. The heinous, horrendous, demonstrably false and malicious message from these

publications is clear: Plaintiff McCaffery breached his ethical duties and his legal responsibilities

to obtain and share in referral fees. This is a series of lies for which the Defendants must and

will be held accountable.

88. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ deliberate and/or reckless

misconduct set forth at length above, the invasion of the Plaintiff’s privacy has caused mental

suffering, anguish, shame and humiliation for the Plaintiff, and would be perceived as having

caused such by a person of ordinary sensibilities. Further, the false light in which the Plaintiff

has been placed would be highly offensive to any reasonable person.

89. The literal accuracy of separate statements of truth that are strung together in such

an improper way, as set forth above, can never render a communication true where the

implication of the communication as a whole is completely false.

90. In the end, these Defendants have knowingly and/or recklessly selectively printed

certain true statements and painted a picture in a manner which created a false and highly

offensive impression. The selectively chosen experts and publications of only portions of the

truth do not correct the Defendants’ illegal and savage behavior. As a result, the Plaintiff has

suffered significant damages.

91. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and punitive damages as a result of the

Defendants’ outrageous conduct set forth above.

Case ID: 140203044

28

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court grant judgment in

favor of the Plaintiffs in an amount substantially and significantly in excess of the jurisdictional

limit to guarantee a jury trial, compensatory damages, punitive damages, delay damages,

attorneys’ fees, costs and interest, together with any further relief which this Court deems just

and appropriate under the circumstances.

COUNT II: FALSE LIGHT PLAINTIFF RAPAPORT v. THE INQUIRER DEFENDANTS



below.

93. As set forth fully above, the Defendants engaged in a discriminate publication of

both true and false statements, and created a false impression by knowingly, recklessly and/or

negligently publicizing selective pieces of true information.

94. The Defendants, by selectively publicizing information that created the above-

described false impressions in the three articles referenced above, subjected the Plaintiff to

unreasonable and highly objectionable publicity that attributes to her characteristics, conduct

and/or beliefs that are false, and she was thereby placed before the public in a demonstrably false

position.


highly offensive to a reasonable person because there was a major misrepresentation of her



Case ID: 140203044

29

96. The combination of true and false statements, implications and innuendoes,

selectively publicized in a manner to deliberately create a false impression bearing upon the

Plaintiff’s conduct and ethics, clearly placed her in a false position before the public.

97. A series of selective publications, as described above, all of which created,

perpetuated and regurgitated implications and innuendoes that the Plaintiff breached her ethical

responsibilities and legal responsibilities in the performance of her job, would be and is highly

offensive to a reasonable person under any and all circumstances.

98. The articles described above reasonably imply false and defamatory facts, and

these pieces, when considered together in the context in which the Defendants placed them in the

newspaper, clearly suggesting to the average reader that the Plaintiff acted to the detriment of the

judicial system.

99. The conduct of the Defendants with respect to their false light reporting has


basis.

100. The Defendants, by and through the exhibits to the Complaint, have implied,

stated and drawn a factual scenario painting the Plaintiff as acting in violation of the laws of this

Commonwealth and the ethical rules governing attorneys.

101. The selective publication of certain “facts” by the Defendants are provably false,

as set forth herein. As a result of these “facts” being provably false, the Plaintiff has

consequently suffered from being placed in a false light, which the Defendants did, either

deliberately, in reckless disregard for the truth or negligently.

Case ID: 140203044

30

102. As set forth above, the Inquirer Defendants’ selective publication of “facts”

omitted a significant amount of other information and true facts which made it completely clear

that the Plaintiff has done nothing wrong.

103. The Inquirer Defendants knew that their articles would be reviewed and

republished by other media outlets, including but not limited to, The Philadelphia Daily News.

As such, when The Daily News printed the offending caricature, it did so based upon the

information it learned from the March and June 2013 articles published in The Inquirer.

Therefore, in light of the false and misleading nature of The Inquirer’s March and June articles,

it was completely foreseeable that another news outlet would read the false and misleading

articles in such a fashion so as to lead it to create the offending caricature. As manifested

through the caricature, The Daily News clearly concluded from the articles that the Plaintiffs had

violated the law, breached ethical responsibilities and had corrupted the judicial system for their

own gain.

104. It is not an “opinion” to report that an attorney has abrogated her ethical duties.

105. It is not an “opinion” to report that an attorney has operated outside the bounds of

the law.

106. It is not an “opinion” to depict an attorney abrogating her ethical duties.

107. It is not an “opinion” to depict an attorney abrogating her legal responsibilities.

108. The conduct of these Defendants in the several articles at issue ascribed to the

Plaintiff conduct, character and conditions that negatively reflect on her fitness for her business,


109. There is no possible innocent interpretation of the publications identified more

fully above. The heinous, horrendous, demonstrably false and malicious message from these

Case ID: 140203044

31

publications is clear: Plaintiff Rapaport has breached her ethical duties and her legal

responsibilities to obtain and share in referral fees. This is a series of lies for which the

Defendants must and will be held accountable.


and/or negligent misconduct set forth abundantly above, the invasion of the Plaintiff’s privacy

has caused mental suffering, shame and humiliation for the Plaintiff, and would be perceived as

having caused such by a person of ordinary sensibilities. Further, the false light in which the

Plaintiff has been placed would be highly offensive to any reasonable person.

111. The literal accuracy of separate statements of truth that are strung together in such

an improper way, as set forth above, can never render a communication true where the

implication of the communication as a whole is completely false.

112. In the end, these Defendants have knowingly, recklessly and/or negligently

selectively printed certain true statements and painted a picture in a manner which created a false

and highly offensive impression. The selectively chosen experts and publications of only

portions of the truth do not correct the Defendants’ illegal and savage behavior. As a result, the

Plaintiff has suffered significant damages.


Defendants’ deliberately false, misleading and outrageous conduct set forth above.






Case ID: 140203044

32

COUNT III: DEFAMATION PLAINTIFF McCAFFERY v. THE DAILY NEWS DEFENDANTS



below.

115. With respect to the offending caricature at issue, the caricature is defamatory in

that it is false and disgraceful, and its purely malicious and scandalous purpose is manifest from

the combination of its actual words and its clear innuendo, that:

a) Neither Plaintiff reviews or abides by the book of ethics governing judges and lawyers;

b) Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of “Philly Judges’


c) Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of “Traffic Court Numbers” to conduct business and bring home fees;

d) Plaintiff McCaffery’s holding of the gavel suggests that he

is ruling on Plaintiff Rapaport’s referral matters.

e) Plaintiffs call Philadelphia judges on behalf of the referral cases to influence results;

f) Plaintiffs do not review or comply with the ethical rules

governing jurists and lawyers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;

g) Plaintiffs call Traffic Court judges on behalf of the referral


h) The Plaintiffs are “in bed” with the “system,” in the judicial chambers of the Supreme Court, using Plaintiff Rapaport to obtain money with the threat of Plaintiff McCaffery’s gavel;

i) Within the theme of “fornication,” the Plaintiffs are

screwing the system by illegally and unethically obtaining money;

Case ID: 140203044

33

j) Plaintiff’s Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Chambers are not used exclusively, entirely and completely for the business of the Supreme Court.

116. The offending caricature was published by the Daily News Defendants.

117. It is evident from the writing defining the caricature that the caricature applies

exclusively to the Plaintiffs at issue.

118. Based upon the foregoing, it is obvious that all readers of The Daily News would

have understood that the above-referenced content was defamatory and was drawn in such a way

as to apply exclusively to the Plaintiffs.

119. Further, it is averred that the caricature maliciously associates a very specific and

special harm to each Plaintiff, and his general reputation.

120. The caricature ascribes to the Plaintiff certain conduct, character and/or

conditions that would adversely affect his fitness for the proper conduct of his business, trade

and profession.

121. There is no innocent interpretation of this caricature that clearly states that the

Plaintiff does not abide by the law or the ethical rules and regulations governing the law.

122. There is no doubt that the effect the caricature would have on the minds of

average readers would be to cause great harm to the reputation of the Plaintiff and lower him in

the estimation of the community.

123. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature and its representations were false and

maliciously made.

124. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature is provably false.

Case ID: 140203044

34

125. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature was drawn and published to

deliberately and/or recklessly state and reinforce the “fact” that the Plaintiff has acted unethically

and in violation of the law.

126. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature was drawn and published deliberately

and/or in reckless disregard of the truth regarding the Plaintiff’s character and professional

fitness.

127. As a result of the offending caricature, the Plaintiff has been damaged. As a

direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ deliberate and/or reckless misconduct set forth at

length above, the Plaintiff has endured mental suffering, shame and humiliation, and these

damages will be easily perceived by a person of ordinary sensibilities.

128. As a proximate result of Defendants’ malicious, intentional or reckless conduct as

set forth above, Plaintiff is entitled to such damages as will compensate him for the injury to his

professional and personal reputation, and for his emotional distress, and punitive damages to

punish the Defendants’ for their conduct and to deter them and others similarly situated from

similar acts in the future.

129. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages as a result of the

Defendants’ deliberate, reckless and outrageous conduct set forth above.






Case ID: 140203044

35

COUNT IV: DEFAMATION PLAINTIFF RAPAPORT v. THE DAILY NEWS DEFENDANTS



below.

131. With respect to the offending caricature at issue, the caricature is defamatory in

that it is in horrible taste, it is false and disgraceful, and its purely malicious and scandalous

purpose is manifest from the combination of its actual words and its clear innuendo, that:

a) Plaintiff Rapaport professionally trades off of her husband’s name;

b) The Supreme Court’s judicial chambers are used as a

business office for Plaintiff Rapaport;

c) Neither Plaintiff do not reviews or abides by the book of ethics governing judges and lawyers;

d) Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of “Philly Judges’


e) Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of “Traffic Court Numbers” to conduct business and bring home fees;

f) Plaintiffs call Philadelphia judges on behalf of the referral


g) Plaintiffs do not review or comply with the ethical rules governing jurists and lawyers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;

h) Plaintiffs call Traffic Court judges on behalf of the referral


i) The Plaintiffs are “in bed” with the “system,” in the judicial chambers of the Supreme Court, using Plaintiff Rapaport to obtain money with the threat of Plaintiff McCaffery’s gavel;

Case ID: 140203044

36

j) Within the theme of “fornication,” the Plaintiffs are screwing the system by illegally and unethically obtaining money;

k) Plaintiff Rapaport identifies herself as “Mrs. McCaffery” in any professional capacity;

132. The offending caricature was published by the Daily News Defendants.

133. It is evident from the writing defining the caricature that the caricature applies

exclusively to the Plaintiffs at issue.

134. Based upon the foregoing, it is obvious that all readers of The Daily News

understood that the above-referenced content was defamatory and was drawn in such a way as to

apply exclusively to the Plaintiffs.

135. Further, it is averred that the caricature maliciously associates a very specific and

special harm to each Plaintiff, and her general reputation.

136. The caricature ascribes to the Plaintiff certain conduct, character and/or

conditions that would adversely affect her fitness for the proper conduct of her business, trade

and profession.

137. There is no innocent interpretation to of this caricature that clearly states that the

Plaintiff does not abide by the law or the ethical rules and regulations governing the law.

138. There is no doubt that the effect the caricature would have on the minds of

average readers would be to cause great harm to the reputation of the Plaintiff and lower her in

the estimation of the community.

139. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature and its representations were false and

maliciously made.

140. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature is provably false.

Case ID: 140203044

37

141. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature was drawn and published to

deliberately, recklessly and/or negligently state and reinforce the “fact” that the Plaintiff has

acted unethically and in violation of the law.

142. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature was drawn and published deliberately,

in reckless disregard of the truth and/or negligently regarding the Plaintiff’s character and fitness.

143. As a result of the offending caricature, the Plaintiff has been damaged. As a

direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ deliberate, reckless and/or negligent misconduct

set forth abundantly above, the Plaintiff has endured mental suffering, shame and humiliation,

and these damages will be easily perceived by a person of ordinary sensibilities.

144. As a proximate result of Defendants’ malicious, intentional, reckless or negligent

conduct as set forth above, Plaintiff is entitled to such damages as will compensate her for the

injury to her professional and personal reputation, and for her emotional distress, and punitive

damages to punish the Defendants’ for their conduct and to deter them and others similarly

situated from similar acts in the future.

145. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages as a result of the

Defendants’ deliberate, reckless and outrageous conduct set forth above.






COUNT V: FALSE LIGHT PLAINTIFF McCAFFERY v. THE DAILY NEWS DEFENDANTS

Case ID: 140203044

38



below.

147. As set forth fully above, the Defendants published the caricature at issue.

148. In the caricature, the Defendants subjected the Plaintiff to unreasonable and

highly objectionable publicity, attributing to him characteristics, conduct and/or beliefs that are

false. He was thereby placed before the public in a false position.


highly offensive to a reasonable person because there was a major misrepresentation of his



150. The caricature deliberately created a false impression, thereby bearing negatively

upon the Plaintiff’s conduct and ethics, and clearly placed him in a false position before the

public.

151. The caricature, as described above, created, perpetuated and regurgitated the

implication and innuendo that the Plaintiff breached his ethical responsibilities and legal

responsibilities in the performance of his job as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,

and as such would be and is highly offensive to a reasonable person under any and all

circumstances.

152. The caricature, as described above, reasonably implies false and defamatory facts

in the context in which the Defendants placed it in the newspaper, clearly suggesting to the

average reader that the Plaintiff acted to the detriment of the judicial system.

Case ID: 140203044

39

153. The conduct of the Defendants with respect to their false light caricature has


basis.

154. The Defendants, by and through the exhibit to the Complaint, have implied, stated

and drawn a factual scenario painting the Plaintiff as acting in violation of the laws of this

Commonwealth and the ethical rules governing jurists.

155. The “facts” that emanate from the caricature are provably false, as set forth

herein. As a result of these “facts” being provably false, the Plaintiff has consequently suffered

from being placed in a false light, which the Defendants did, either deliberately or in reckless

disregard for the truth.

156. It is not an “opinion” to draw and present a caricature depicting a Supreme Court

Justice abrogating his ethical duties.

157. It is not an “opinion” to draw and present a caricature depicting a Supreme Court

Justice abrogating his legal responsibilities.

158. The conduct of these Defendants in publishing the caricature ascribed to the

Plaintiff conduct, character and conditions that reflect negatively on his fitness for his business,


159. There is no possible innocent interpretation of the caricature identified more fully

above. The heinous, horrendous and demonstrably false message from this caricature is clear:

Plaintiff McCaffery breached his ethical duties and his legal responsibilities to obtain and share

in referral fees. This is a series of lies for which the Defendants must and will be held

accountable.

Case ID: 140203044

40


misconduct set forth at length above, the invasion of the Plaintiff’s privacy has caused mental

suffering, anguish, shame and humiliation for the Plaintiff, and would be perceived as having

caused such by a person of ordinary sensibilities. Further, the false light in which the Plaintiff

has been placed would be highly offensive to any reasonable person.








COUNT VI: FALSE LIGHT PLAINTIFF RAPAPORT v. THE DAILY NEWS DEFENDANTS



below.

163. As set forth fully above, the Defendants published the caricature at issue.

164. In the caricature, the Defendants subjected the Plaintiff to unreasonable and

highly objectionable publicity, attributing to her characteristics, conduct and/or beliefs that are

false. She was thereby placed before the public in a false position.


highly offensive to a reasonable person because there was a major misrepresentation of her

Case ID: 140203044

41



166. The caricature deliberately created a false impression, thereby bearing negatively

upon the Plaintiff’s conduct and ethics, and clearly placed her in a false position before the

public.

167. The caricature, as described above, created, perpetuated and regurgitated the

implication and innuendo that the Plaintiff breached her ethical responsibilities and legal

responsibilities in the performance of her job, and as such would be and is highly offensive to a

reasonable person under any and all circumstances.

168. The caricature, as described above, reasonably implies false and defamatory facts

in the context in which the Defendants placed it in the newspaper, clearly suggesting to the

average reader that the Plaintiff acted to the detriment of the judicial system.

169. The conduct of the Defendants with respect to their false light caricature has


basis.

170. The Defendants, by and through the exhibit to the Complaint, have implied, stated

and drawn a factual scenario painting the Plaintiff as acting in violation of the laws of this

Commonwealth and the ethical rules governing attorneys.

171. The “facts” that emanate from the caricature are provably false, as set forth

herein. As a result of these “facts” being provably false, the Plaintiff has consequently suffered

from being placed in a false light, which the Defendants did, either deliberately, in reckless

disregard for the truth or negligently.

Case ID: 140203044

42

172. It is not an “opinion” to draw and present a caricature depicting an attorney

abrogating her ethical duties.

173. It is not an “opinion” to draw and present a caricature depicting an attorney

abrogating her legal responsibilities.

174. The conduct of these Defendants in publishing the caricature ascribed to the

Plaintiff conduct, character and conditions that reflect negatively on her fitness for her business,


175. There is no possible innocent interpretation of the caricature identified more fully

above. The heinous, horrendous and demonstrably false message from this caricature is clear:

Plaintiff Rapaport breached her ethical duties and her legal responsibilities to obtain and share in

referral fees. This is a series of lies for which the Defendants must and will be held accountable.

176. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ deliberate, reckless and/or

negligent misconduct set forth at length above, the invasion of the Plaintiff’s privacy has caused

mental suffering, anguish, shame and humiliation for the Plaintiff, and would be perceived as

having caused such by a person of ordinary sensibilities. Further, the false light in which the

Plaintiff has been placed would be highly offensive to any reasonable person.








Case ID: 140203044

43

NOTICE OF PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS AND REQUESTS THAT DEFENDANT TAKE

NECESSARY ACTION TO ENSURE THE PRESERVATION OF ALL DOCUMENTS,

COMMUNICATIONS, WHETHER ELECTRONIC OR OTHERWISE, ITEMS AND THINGS

IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PARTY TO THIS ACTION, OR ANY

ENTITY OVER WHICH ANY PARTY TO THIS ACTION HAS CONTROL, OR FROM

WHOM ANY PARTY TO THIS ACTION HAS ACCESS TO, ANY DOCUMENTS, ITEMS,

OR THINGS WHICH MAY IN ANY MANNER BE RELEVANT TO OR RELATE TO THE

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION AND/OR THE ALLEGATIONS OF

THIS COMPLAINT.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand a jury trial.

THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC BY: ___/s/ Dion G. Rassias ______ DION G. RASSIAS DATED: May 16, 2014

Case ID: 140203044

VERIF'ICATION

I, Seamus P. McCaffery, hereby state that I am a Plaintiff in this action and verify that the

statements made in the foregoing Amended Complaint are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made

therein are subject to penalties of l8 Pa.C.S.A. 4904 relaling to unsworn falsification to

authorities.

SEAMUS P. MoCAFFER

DATED: no7 l(t Ja t'f

Case ID: 140203044

VERIFICATION

I, Lise Rapaport, hereby state that I am a Plaintiff in this action and verify that the

statements made in the foregoing Amended Complaint are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made

therein are subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to

authorities.

J.þs-LISE RAPAPORT

DATED: l5 lot'f

Case ID: 140203044

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dion G. Rassias, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to

be served via ECF and/or first class mail, postage prepaid, upon:

Amy B. Ginensky, Esquire

Michael A. Schwartz, Esquire Michael E. Baughman, Esquire

Raphael Cunniff, Esquire Eli Segal, Esquire

Kaitlin M. Gurney, Esquire Pepper Hamilton, LLP

3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Attorneys for Defendants Interstate General Media, LLC,

William Marimow, Craig McCoy, Signe Wilkinson and Michael Days

Honorable John M. Cleland

(Address withheld)

THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC

BY: /s/ Dion G. Rassias DION G. RASSIAS, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No.: 49724 1125 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 592-1000 (215) 592-8360 (facsimile)

DATED: May 16, 2014

Case ID: 140203044

Date post:	23-Apr-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	joel-mathis
View:	232 times
Download:	0 times

Amended Complaint

Documents