Judge: Yonkers must pay nearly $50,000 in costs to Zherka
-
- March
- 26
The Westchester Guardian’s federal court win over Yonkers City Hall earlier this month will cost Yonkers taxpayers nearly $50,000 – a payment that has nothing to do with the tens of millions of dollars publisher Sam Zherka is seeking from the city in series of other lawsuits. U.S. District Judge Charles Brieant ordered the city to pay $42,111.20 in bills run up by the Guardian’s law firm, Lovett and Gould and pay another $6,631.20 for the cost of various documents. The order, signed March 20, follows up on Brieant’s March 3 ruling that Yonkers violated the Frist Amendment rights of the free weekly newspaper when its swept the Guardian’s news racks from city streets and stopped its employees from distributing it.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, March 26th, 2008 at 11:55 am by Len Maniace.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
| 
Email This
We want to make sure one of Spitzer’s derelict campaign donors doesn’t get the appointment Eliot promised him!
Please sign the petition:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nobrandon/
“In one of Eliot Spitzer’s last scandalous actions on March 7, 2008, Brandon Sall; a haughty campaign donor to Spitzer’s campaign with zero recognizable experience in either politics or transportation was bestowed an appointment to the New York State Thruway Board.
We, the undersigned request that the appointment of Brandon R. Sall, a wholly unqualified party to the New York State Thruway, be refused by the New York Senate.
We do not support pay to play politics.
It is our hope that current governor Paterson should appoint an individual of esteem, intellect and appropriate experience be appointed to the existing vacancy on the New York State Thruway Authority Board. ”
I just can’t believe that the taxpayer of Yonkers has to pay for someone’s wrong doing. It should be the one who commanded the order….. It should be taken out of his salary. Weather it be in installments or in full. It should not be from innocent people, who ever is guilty should pay.
$50,000 to lawyers for filing a few papers. These attorneys really like to take care of one another.
to be fair…the city made a mistake…no boxes should
have been taken from the guardian..I said so then and
the judge made clear that was a no no..but what goes
around comes around…legal fees work both ways…when
a client wins he gets them..but when he loses he pays
them..so my suggestion is that mr zherka and his lawyer
keep the fees in a separate account..because based
on his new lawsuit naming the manhattan county da
and so called conspirators..that money will go to
pay the lawyers fees of the defendants in that
action..maybe a lot more…because there are a lot
more defendants
Mr Edelman, I asked once before, what makes a person a good Political Consultant. I am interested.
Smiles
I thought i answered that…first the consultant has
to have experience in running a campaign in the area
he is invovled in..next he has to have a strategic
gut…he needs to advise his candidate based on
polling data as to whether the candidate has got
a chance to win the race..and this cannot be based
on how much money the consultant stands to make
from media commissions..finally he has to advise
the candidate not to be what he or she is not
but only to be what he or she is..otherwise you
wind up with a jeanine pirro for senate situation
Thank You Mr Edelman.
Now if I wanted to be a Political Party Chairwoman, you once wrote that you must be a strategist, insider, credible spokesman and a gentleman.
Can you explain what you meant by strategist, and insider and credible spokesman. I’m already a Gentlelady so I don’t need explanation on that one. LOL
Once again I appreciate the dialogue.
smiles
Charwoman?
sure smiles..political strategy is kind of something you
can’t learn..its from working in the trenches for years
and observing the lessons of modern campaign techniques
as they apply to campaigning..for example if you are running
a campaign for a particular office and the registration is
against you as it was in the Di Fiore race..you need to come
up with positive appeals to attract crossover voters within
the context of the election issues that your candidate will
have to address….ie law enforcement affects women, seniors
non party registered voters etc..so competence, experience
spouse abuse victims, violent crimes are all themses
that have cross over appeal…what would be unimportant
is the party the candidate belongs too for example
hope this little primer helps…and remember in selecting
candidates for office which is ususaly the job of the
chair you have to make sure that the candidate has
no skeletons, has the ability to raise sufficient campaign
dollars, and has some sort of nexus to the community
so their name id isn’t zero
Thank You Mr Edelman.
I Really appreciate it. Your’e very helpful. Capice!
LOL
smiles
that of course is if I am Mr. Edelman…right?
note the time of the blog entries for “the consultant”
they are archived accordingly…the alleged statement
by the consultant in the papers filed in federal
court by salim zherka was not made and is not in
the archives of the blog at all during the time
it was allegedly made..making the lawsuit a creation
of someone’s imagination..that creativity will
cost lots in counsel fees because I have a very
expensive lawyer and we don’t expect to lose
in fact I might wind up a publisher!!
note the time of this blog entry…
zherka is going to pay for his wild assertions which
are manufactured..i will make sure of that ….i dont
care what the cost is..but he will come out the loser
I guess that every thing Zherka wrote about Yonkers and Amicone in his Guardian News Paper is coming to fruition. I have become a big fan of the Guardian. Will Mike Edelman, the consultant own it? Mike I remember reading and hearing you say that the law suits that were filed by Zherka, against Yonkers were frivelous and that Zherka would never win. What happend? I just hope it does’nt cost us too much when he does win. Please keep the content in the Guardian the same, Its informative and good reading.
the content in the guardian is based on personal invective
against certain leaders..there is no attempt to fact
check so you wind up with opinion not news which is
fine but that means you can’t believe all that is
“reported” As for the lawsuit against yonkers for
taking the guardian’s news racks I never said they
would not win that suit because the city made a mistake
in taking them what was said on newsmakers was that
damages would be virtually impossible to prove except
for the value of the boxes themselves…which the
guardian is still entitled to be paid for by the city
the money that was awarded was for legal fees only
as to the upcomiong second suit..that suit will
not succeed and council fees and awards will go to the
defamed defendants whose blogging identity is not even
discoverable but at least we will learn how the guardian
gets its income, from what sources, which advertisers
pay how much etc..and when I am the publisher I can
assure you you will enjoy reading the paper.
actually as you probably know the one thing the editor
of the guardian and I agree on is that cross endorsements
have to go…I even was asked to write a guest editorial
which did appear in the paper awhile ago
when the jury awards “the consultant” damages for
defamation against the guardian 100% of the damage
award will be given to the childrens hospital at
the westchester medical center…I don’t see
mr zherka doing the same..and after all he is
a “newspaper publisher” supposedly interested
in the public good
Zherka only cares about Zherka. His charity is himself. He has no concern for the public good. Anyone who has been following his antics knows that.
well wahoo this time he is going to lose….he’s gone
way too far out on the limb…can’t wait to see what
the manhattan da will say..and by the way this is
not a case he can easily withdraw from once we
put in the counterclaim..he has to go to trial..
no choice..he has no evidence..only the wild
speculations in the complaint which are factually
wrong and do not support his lawsuit..you can
check the blog yourself…go back into the archives
for that date and that time..there was no such
entry by the consultant raising any albanian mob
connection as far as sam zherka is concerned..I can’t
speak for any other bloggers they are entitled to
their opinions but once a jury understands that
the blog he is using doesnt exist..they will
turn on him in a second..not to mention the
fact that we have all the prior issues of his
so called news paper where he uses vile harsh over the
top language to condemn every one from Larry Schwartz
to Phil Amicone…it goes way beyond the pale..the
jury will see every front page blown up on a video
screen….with all the outragous language and then
we will see who they think is defaming whom…
here is the other thing we are going to do…the editor
is richard blassberg..he will be our star witness wait
till you hear what we are going to do with him..and
what we have accumulated about him
I read excerpts from that suit on this blog. Zherka can’t sue the Manhattan DA for doing a criminal investigation of him. It can’t be done. He can’t stop a criminal investigation. The Manhattan DA should just move to dismiss the case against himself and any of the so-called co-conspirators in Yonkers government, and the Consultant. They all are claimed to be conspirators, right?
Then if they counter sue Zherka, they should get him as hard as they can get him. That guy is out of control and is not a real newspaper publisher. He is a strip club owner. He is just an attack dog with his own dis-honorable agendas and uses the Guardian for that reason only. He defames people every week and then he hides behind free speech. But that isn’t a one-way street.
The Manhattan DA should just get the entire filing by Zherka dismissed.
I am sure the manhattan da will do exactly that but I
am more interested now that Zherka thinks he can
sic his attorney on anyone he likes to demonstrate
that he is using the system to extract a personal
vendetta..and I personally want to see exactly how
he finances a newspaper he gives away..where he got
the money for the anti Amicone ads from….how he
pays his staff….whether he pays taxes..whether
he violated the new york state election laws..
all of that will finally come out because zherka
and his lawyer will not control the suit..the counterclaim
will….and even if we have to change venue to state
court the counterclaim will survive…I want the public
to see exactly what the guardian and its owner really
stand for..and as for the defamation counts we have
materials where Zherka is clearly acting in a public
capacity in a political role making him a public figure
now if you know the law you know you cannot libel
or defame a public figure without a showing of malice
which clearly from their own papers there is none
but his release to the press prior to filing the suit
alleging that ‘the consultant’ called him an ‘albanian
muslim” is because of the lack of any ability to
prove it happened malice per se…taking his statements
out of the times holding..that will cost him
money…and since he has so much to throw around
the childrens pavilion at the westchester hospital
will do very nicely…maria..I forget the last name
but that is where it all goes..
And, bravo.
We all know that you guys said exactly what this man is claiming. Who the hell are you trying to convince. Westchester County Politicians are corrupt and you know it. I wish all those who went after this man, go down.
Its called FREE SPEECH!!. If you dont like it dont run for office. Poor Amicone, I hope he gets caught lying in Federal Court and goes to jail for Perjury with the Detroits Mayor.
Interesting,
After Edelman announced that he was being sued, and also mentioned his Friend Ethan Edwards as an additional plaintfiff, Ethan stopped Blogging and Wahoo started. We all know who Ethan is. Ethan and Wahoo are the same Joker. But the Joke is on him.
Defendant not plaintiff
Defendant not Plaintiff. ( correction of the above )
Bret is hollering loud about free speech for Sam Zherka. But he doesn’t like it when others exercise that same principle. Sam Zherka is really the one who is nervous. He should be worried about the Manhattan district attorney, too. According to Zherka himself, the district attorney is investigating him for very serious offenses.
bret you have got it backwards..you are letting your
personal likes and dislikes color your view point.
the statements allegedly attributed to the consultant
in the lawsuit were never made either on a blog or
anywhere else..so why don’t you go back to the archives
of the blog.put it the date and see for yourself..its
all there out in the open…go find the entry…you can’t
and the fact the consultant continues to blog is proof
that he is not intimidated…zherka will lose in federal
court…and he will pay an appropriate financial penalty
for his frivolous action
bret says all westchester politicians are corrupt…
that;s free speech in his book.no evidence..no proof
just a very unhappy guy who hates politicians and
people who work with them..so he assumes the worst
about politicians and the best about a publisher
who doesn’t appear to care about the facts…
nice going bret….the germans people were sold
the same bill of goods about the jews in 1928
by a guy called Hitler
well what do you know the subpoena for the bloggers
identities never was honored and was withdrawn..guess
we will never know the real identities of the bloggers
and if you don’t know that all you get is sanctioned
if you continue the suit
The Federal courts have made it crystal clear under free speech provisions—and also under strict “defamation” provisions as they apply to public persons—that any identifying factors which eventually could lead to those such as bloggers are not required by law to be handed over unless there are very serious extenuating circumstances, such as official law enforcement emergencies, for example. A baseless flailing about by a decidedly controversial public person such as Selim Zherka does not come close to meeting those standards.
All Mr. Zherka has done is to inform many readers that he is being investigated by the Manhattan district attorney for what would be A-level felonies—and position himself for counter claims by Mr. Edelman and potentially others.
once again mr holmes..all proceeds that I collect will
be donated to the maria ferari childrens hospital at
Westchester Medical Center….in a public ceremony
He can write me a settlement check now..or wait until
a jury bangs him.,,either way the children win…I wouldn;t
want his money anyway
Bert sounds like he is closely acquainted with that hysterical and almost maniacal Jeanine Pirro hater Gasberg. Or Blassberg. Or Gasberg. No wonder he works for Zherka. Two fouls of a feather. Or fowls. Or fouls.
blassberg is still fighting to elect tony castro..a man
who is singularly unqualified to be the da of anything
but blassberg doesn’t get his own role in all of this
he is the editor of the guardian..all of the articles
which border on the outrageous were written by
him..he created the allegations in the lawsuit
zherka is not that talented and relies on blassberg
so when the time comes blassberg will be on the stand
for days answering questions on his “editorial
opinions” and in addition answering questions on
how his lawyer got the information for the complaint
perjury may be in his future if he cannnot doccument
the statements made.particularly as they concern
the consultants…again check the blog site..
no such statements were ever made…
You may not EVER censure honest free speech. Even if it’s dislikeable, or if it offends friends of mine, or even me (which The Guardian has, on many occasions).
This is NOT Nazi Germany, or Stalin’s Soviet Union, or Saddam’s Iraq. This is Ben Franklin’s America.
Unlessthe printed word is libelous or slanderous. And you can prove “actual malice.”
Buck it up.
With The Guardian assaulting him on a weekly basis last year, Mayor Phil Amicone nevertheless won re-election with a dominating majority of votes.
I’ve been in the journalism/publishing/free-speech business my entire life. And, I’m a Republican. There will be no harm to good elected officials such as Mayor Phil Amicone, a guy I like, incidentally, so long as freedom of expression is upheld. The Guardian may occasionally suck up to slimeballs such as Bill Ryan, exposing its editor’s prejudices, from time to time, and it will publish letters from anonymous writers, further eroding its credibility. But we live in a free country.
So: get over it. And if ever The Guardian slimes you, I know a great Libel lawyer, the guy who won Steve Pagaones’s case against Sharpton/Maddox/Mason, ten years ago.
Otherwise, learn to live with it. Eventually, Westchester readers may think that The Guardian is a futuristic Joseph Goebbels’ dream—the big lie, an assault on people they do not like, repeated again and again. Albeit, with occasionally some very righteous (and not “all-wrong”) features, such as the theme of “false confessions,” which were unknown in police work 20 years ago. Okay: it may be a rag, and a scandal sheet, but nonetheless it is entitled to its legal distribution. And good people should never hide, or be afraid. Or seek to censure.
Im very outraged to see that some of you have no respect for the First Amendment. I agree with the above poster. And just to make a point, I specifically read blogs in the past by both Ethan Edwards and the consultant that totally went above and beyond free speech and opinion. Those entries are no longer on line, but did exist. What ever you may think of the Guardian, I love it. They called Ernie Davis and Amicone, ” Dumb” and “Dumber” and that has been confirmed. It seems to me at least, and Im not political that the Guardian is right on point. Finally some one who takes the First Amendment to the Limit and tells it the way it is. Edelman and the rest of you politico’s have been lying and taking the people of this County for way too long.
It looks like those days are over. Thank God !
I wish i had the money the Guardian’s owner has, I would be doing the same thing. His voice is a breathe of fresh air for all the little guys who cant fight back and who cant get their voice heard. God Bless America!
hey ed..what do you mean the entries are no longer on
line but do exist..what kind of crap is that…it was
either said and can be proven or it wasn’t…you seem
to buy into the notion that what is contained in
the legal rantings of a document is the truth…Your
statement that Edelman has been lying is also something
you can’t back up…his job as a commentator is to
spin his parties candidates ..that is not lying..lying
is what Elliot Spitzer did when he denied he had a role
in troopergate….it is not when someone in politics
takes a position you don’t agree with…but you just
made edelman’s point..if it aint there it never was
so who is lying now?
by the way ed..was edelman lying when he called for
jeries to step down as republican party leader
the same position the guardian took a year before
the party asked him to do the same thing..Was he lying
when he was honored by the westchester integrity committee
for callling on the end to allowing parties like the
Ind party and Julio Cavallo to stop cross endorseing
candidates..the same postion the guardian took, and
in fact the guardian invited him to write a guest
editiorial? was he lying when the guardian’s newspaper
boxes were taken by the city and even though he
was supporting for an working for the mayor he said
that the boxes should not have been removed…was that
a lie too ed…there is only one lie that we will
be talking about that is the alleged statement
that accuses “the consultant” of refrring to mr zherka
as “an albanian mob member” and a “muslim” those
words were not uttered by Mike Edelman…He does not
use racial or ethnic references to skewere his political
opponents..never has never will..those who know him know
its not his style and the one alleged reference was not
his cadence of writing style…so before you decide
who is lying and who is not..look at the larger picture
one last question…are the legal papers filed by the
guardian which themselves allege that zherka is presently
being investigated by the manhattan county da’s office
a lie for precisely what he is complaining some of the posters accused him of…is that a lie…..
Ed 10704 is more concerned with defending Zherka and slamming Edelman than he is troubled by what Zherka is all about. That alone says something.
Based on quotes from his own legal papers which appeared on this blog, Zherka has admitted he is being investigated by the Manhattan District Attorney for very serious criminal offenses. But that doesn’t bother Ed 10704.
Is 10704 Ed’s zip code or an inmate number?
He also said those “comments” Edelman is talking about DID exist, but do not exist now. He did not say they still exist. Ed 10704 is just another Zherka flunky.
you got that right Paul…I have copies from private sources
of all the blog entries from the date..and I can assure
you that the garbage statements contained in the complaint
atributed to ‘the consultant” were never made..Now there
were some discussions by other bloggers…they will have
to defend themselves although I doubt their real
identities will ever be known..However keep your eye
on the gravaman of the zherka action..he is claiming
that a group of bloggers got the manhattan da to investigate
him..ie they are complaining about a criminal investigation
supposedly started by bloggers…and here is the kicker
I can prove beyond a doubt and to a moral certainty
that I have never spoken to or met the assistant manhattan
da..and that will be their downfall because in releasing
the lawsuit to the press which accused me of a conspiracy
their reckless disregard of the facts constitutes malice
under times vs sullivan…which removes the veil and
allows me to collect damages..all of which again I will
give to the childrens’ hospital in my name not Zherka’s
To my limited knowledge about this, Zherka claims those unknown bloggers were Yonkers officials. Putting aside the strong and constitutionally ensured free speech protections against disclosure that any bloggers have (doubly so when it comes to lightning rod public figures like Zherka is), the case also should be dismissed for other reasons. The Manhattan district attorney will see to that.
No one can sue either him or his so-called confidential informants. If they could, any criminal or suspected criminal would be able to sue to stop investigations and to discover the names of confidential informants. That will never happen.
Zherka has nothing but wild speculation to claim Edelman or anyone else either known or unknown was a confidential informant of the district attorney. The Manhattan district attorney will deal with that, also.
Besides, no district attorney would begin an investigation without seeing evidence that causes him to believe crimes likely were committed. He wouldn’t continue an investigation either, without reason. But Edelman’s own claim against Zherka should continue. Those kids who are helped by the hospital will be grateful for that money.
I fully intend to continue the claim whether in federal
court or in state court…both my attorneys have advised
me that all blogging is confidential and protected..they
have also advised me that the release by a lawyer
of the contents of a proposed lawsuit which has no basis
in fact and contains erroneous information to the press
prior to filing constitutes lible per se.is outside
times vs sullivan, does not constitute protected speech
and is subject to punitive damages….thanks for your
thoughts…and good wishes for the kids who are getting
great treatment at maria ferrari medical
Unfortunatley for you Mike Edelman “the consultant”, Free Speech is live and well in this country. I think the Guardian has alot more friends and supporters than you could imagine, and especially after they won their law suit.
That win just confirms what the Guardian has been saying all along. I originally thought they were a little off the wall, but I am a true supporter and beleiver now.
As the people of this county are starting to witness, you politicians are all full of shit. Im embarrassed to say that I am represented by these fools.
It looks like Wahoo is now Paul Revere. What a bunch of losers. I guess time will tell. I have my money on the Guardian and I think you guys also have your money on them, you are just too pompus to admit it.
Edelman just admitted that his job was to spin for his client Phil Amicone. I think that is exactly what the Guardian is claiming. You were spinning for Amicone, and calling the owner of the Guardian a Gangster and so on, all in order to discredit him and his publication and silence his free speech. Thanks Mike for confirming my point.
The question to the consultant is this; Were you blogging on the date in question and do those defamatory and slanderous blogs exist on that date. If they dont exist and you were blogging, than why worry.
Mr Simms Greenburgh N.Y
Seems to me Ed10704, Mr. Simms, and Brett, considering their vitriolic ad-hominems, are strangely interested in this banal topic for people (a person?) who supposedly doesn’t have a dog in the fight.
Mister Edelman might do himself and other readers of this blog a service if he would merely stop responding to attempts to bait him. The legal points and constitutional guarantees and protections are clear and indisputable, and they do not align with Mr. Zherka’s latest endeavor.
While Mr. Edelman is known for his chattiness on local television, he is not required to banter with baiters.
mr simms to answer you question I am pissed off that
the legal system and my integrity are being questioned.
and I want everyone to know it…and for ed spinning
a poltical issue is not a violation of anyones
rights..you seem to forget that what mr zherka was
doing was giving dennis robertson 60% or so of
his total campaign money..that is certainly his
right but it is also fodder to be used against
robertson…this was never about zherka or who
he was or was not connected to from my point of
view it was always about the fact that robertson
allowed this one person to single handedly finance
his political campaign..and if you don’t know that
then you have drunk (or drank) the guardians coolaid
and believe me I am not a bit worried but there is
a price that even a publisher must pay for making
public staements that are factually incorrect and
impugn reputations…and he will pay that price
Injustice to one is injustice to all. Sam Zherka has my vote. If more people challenged our govt. officials, there would be alot less corruption, becuase they would fear the public. Sam zherka is a good man.
these latest entries are a public relations effort
to blunt the new york city grand jury investigation into
zherka..confirmed by zherka’s own legal papers…
why is there a criminal investigation..what is it
that zherka allegegly did in new york….go
check out the website of the new york ada..
he is an iraq war hero..he prosecuted p diddy
he is a senior ada with an impeecable record..
I posted last week that I believe Zherka is very afraid he is going to be indicted on some serious charges. If that happens and if he is convicted, he will be looking at a lot of time in state prison.
He is trying to portray himself as a victim, as a “good guy crusader” who is being singled out to shut him up. This is a strategy that will fail miserably. For one reason, it isn’t true. For another, it’s very transparent.
Salim “Strip Club Sam” Zherka a good guy crusader?
Wow it’s amazing and very sad that there are in fact people in this world that can fall for that. Sadly it’s true.
Of course Ted Bundy had a following as well.
I just happened upon this post, three months after I’d seen it last.
Look, guys: sixteen people here in Westcheste read The Guardian. If Mayor Amiconme had known me, I’d have given him my standard Disraeli: “Never complain, never explain.”
Like RMN, feeling threatened by the impotent George McGovern, Mayor Amicone felt as though the ten-readers-in-Yonkers-per-week Guardian may have harmed his re-election chances. (Amicone: 2-1 re-election victory).
Oh well.
The Consultant sings a different song every day of the week. He should read his own post here from June 15. It doesn’t match what he is now saying. Figures.
I haven’t been around all day, and I didn’t miss much. The Consultant now, instead of sticking up for the First Amendment as established by Federal law, suddenly wants to play into Zherka’s hands. See your June 15 comment, Consultant.
I don’t know what those posters on the forums said about Ottinger, but I do believe the JN should have immediately appealed the ruling of a what is just a local judge. That they didn’t says a lot about the JN. As an attorney, the Consultant should have noted that. He didn’t. The Consultant’s comments say a lot about him—flip flop. Not the first time, either.
And if that really was Zherka who posted, it’s really funny for him to try and climb on the Ottinger bandwagon. No one would ever confuse Zherka with Richard Ottinger.
PS: I also believe the Journal News has put a very severe chill in its blogosphere because it caved in so easily on the Ottinger situation, without an appeal.
That the JN does not challenge this “ruling” speaks sclerotic silence. If a newspaper chain is so intimidated by a few blowhards, both pro and con, and sees not its historical obligation to preserve and defend free speech and constitutional mandates, it no longer serves a useful purpose other than frivolous entertainment and for helping to start the charcoal broiler.
This would have been a “non-issue” had the mayor wisely not chosen to fight these paper tigers in court.
Indeed, Tim, in the case of Yonkers, but the other issue is ENORMOUS and reeks of a scary and newly developing deference or indifference on the part of the press in the face of minor court “orders.”
gentlemen: let me address first the issue of the June 15th
statement…as opposed to what I said yesterday…I fully
agree that blogging should be protected…and the JN should
appeal the ruling…that is a different matter from how it
affects me personally if they don’t. Understanding that
the Supreme court ruling in the Ottinger case was apparently
based on a new jersey court decision …this is extremely
weak and the only court that should decide new york law
should be our court of appeals…having said that, I am
fully aware of what the blogs say…and which bloggers said
what…my point being that since I never referred to zherka
as a “mobster” or a “muslim” at any time…discovering
the identity of the bloggers who did does not affect me
but helps me in terms of demonstrating to all the public
that what zherka said about me is false false false..
and in fact by including me in his conspiracy theories
has subjected me to pain and aggravation ( see my
shrink for further details) Mr Zherka cannot intimidate
me…and in the end any court will agree that “the
consultant” never said a defamatory word about mr zherka
having said that ….I fully agree and stated so on
the air that taking the guardian boxes was wrong
it was a dumb stupid error which demonstrated
a lack of clear and fair thinking…That does not
give zherka license to harass me which he is now
doing..It is not my job..by the newspapers to appeal
a ruling which has a chilling effect on protected
speech…I dare say that the lowest trial court
in new york should not be making the determiniation
of what is and is not protected speech….
In this severly chilled blogosphere, I was hesitant to even post this comment.
Consultant—We and Ed, and I would say many thousands of citizens in and out of the legal and media communities, agree that the Journal News folded like a cheap suit to a ruling by a lowly county judge. Incredible. Your point about a ruling from New Jersey being Judge Bellantoni’s justification is a very good one.
Important First Amendment cases should not be decided by County Judges. An appeal should have been automatic.
I assume you know Zherka’s Guardian was a big and very active backer of Bellantoni’s recent failed attempt to win a state supreme court judgeship.
A few weeks ago, someone alerted me to where the Manhattan DA’s official response to Zherka’s bizarre suit involving you could be read. This assistant district attorney, Matthew Bogdanos, is a very senior member of Morganthau’s staff and is a very heavy hitter. There is a very enlightening Wikipedia entry on him which can be found by putting Matthew Bogdanos into Google.
And as for Bogdanos’s official reply to Zherka’s suit alleging a conspiracy between Bogdanos, the Consultant and Yonkers officials—that reply can be read at www.yonkerstribune.typepad.com. On the right side of the home page, click on the May archive. It’s right there, from May 31. Easily downloaded. It makes for fascinating reading.
Wahoo your research is right on the money…note for
the record that theBellantoni decision is probably
easily overturned..the JN should without a doubt
take take the case up to a court with NO CONNECTION
to zherka..the manhattan county da is beyond reproach
he has no political interest in westchester and in
fact if he is investigating zherka in the city it
is because a crime may have been committed there not
in westchester where he has no jurisdiction. but
read those papers…he makes it abundantly clear
that the conspiracy allegations by zherka are
off the wall…in fact I have never met nor spoken
to mr bogdanos…who apparently is a highly respected
ada with years of experience…I want to make it
clear that the legal system does not exist to allow
wealthy people to intimidate others…it does not
exist to allow suits that harass and annoy..sanctions
are an appropriate remedy..and aside from the money
it sends a message to the public that the suit is
frivolous…Now remember I am only interested in
protecting my reputation…if otherbloggers said
things that were defamatory that has to be resolved
by the parties….I know Richard Blassberg…
He invited me to write a guest editorial on cross
endorsements….but looking at the interrogatories
sent by zherka’s attorney it is clear that they
are trying to stop me from consulting to political
clients…and here is my guess as to why….because
I win..and they want me out of the game…how silly
Blassberg as an editor should not also be a campaign
manager…he holds himself out as a journalist but
he has a political agenda…he has worked for castro
in the last two da races..do you know of any other
reporter, editor or publisher that involves themselves
so deeply in the political process..and do you think
that such involvement although their absolute right
to do it…compromises their objectivity…...
well i do..and i cannot wait to do the cross exam
at the trial…zherka and blassberg really don’t grasp
how embarassed they will be with the material we have
accumulated …copies of all their issues…the number
of corporations contributing which are connected to
zherka..blassbergs political connections etc…no
jury in the world when they hear that will do anything
other than to find for me…now ….that doesn’t mean
that someone else who may have defamed mr zherka will
have to defend their statements.but at this stage in
life with a diagnosis of a progessive debilitating
joint disease..treatable with only cancer medication
Ireally have nothing to lose
Just got in and while perusing the on-line JN, noticed with a smirk that they have buried “Judge to Order LoHud to Name Posters” under ‘Home Towns,’ and then further, under ‘Mamaroneck.’ This is where ink of a First Amendment outrage resides, just above “Saturday Expo in Mamaroneck Promotes Good Health…” By not appealing this low court ruling, they have exposed themselves not simply as gutless wonders, but also as a colossal embarrassment to the newspaper publishing profession.
Ed—- You’re right. I don’t know what information those individuals in the Ottinger situation had to provide the JN to register for their forums. But chances are Internet Service Providers will have to be subpoenaed too. That means those providers will have the opportunity to fight the subpoeanas on their own.
It also means media or legal orgs or public interest groups might still have the time to become involved. Even the ACLU, for all its faults, could be helpful.
The JN should have appealed within an hour of Bellantoni’s decision. A county court judge, way down at the bottom of the judicial ladder, deciding First Amendment law unchallenged —no appeal. And that’s fine with the Journal News? That’s beyond comprehension.
Also beyond comprehension is why the JN, which certainly had to know of Bellantoni’s ties to Zherka and the Guardian, didn’t ask Bellantoni to recuse himself.
The Manhattan DA’s answer to Zherka in the other suit, linked above, seems to leave little doubt that Zherka is under a serious criminal investigation in Manhattan.
As the Consultant said, Manhattan Senior ADA Matthew Bogdanos has flatly rejected Zherka’s claim of a “conspiracy” among himself, the Consultant, Yonkers officials, and even Janet DiFoire, the Westchester DA, who Zherka claims called Bognados and got him to issue even more subpoenas. I believe Zherka said just that on News 12 recently. So, she is the “Janet Doe” in the original suit and also is being sued separately by Zherka.
The Consultant is right that no one heard of this Manhattan investigation until Zherka himself made it public. So he can blame himself. He is trying to set up a “victim” defense, I believe, because he is scared to death he may be indicted by Bogdanos in Manhattan.
To do so, I think he created this crazy conspiracy. Bogdanos’ answer to Zherka appears to make the entire suit nothing more than sour fruit from the same tainted tree.
But would Zherka-Blassberg like to destroy the Consultant along the way? Why not? The Consultant backed Amicone, a Zherka enemy, and he also backed Pirro and now DiFiore, both enemies of Zherka and Blassberg. They want Tony Castro, who has as much chance of being DA as Blassberg does. Meaning, none.
But I believe Zherka’s prime motive is to prepare himself a “victim” defense in case he is indicted. The bizarre nature of the case he filed, seen in the light of Bogdanos’ reply, could indicate Zherka is feeling a tad desperate.
We are living in the Brave New World forecast by Aldous Huxley, and sometimes by George Orwell. The anonymous bloggers should be protected, in the way “anonymous” sources are protected (to a degree); that, though, is the result we live with when using others’ electornic boards.
I would suggest this: more often than not, The Guardian publishes letters to its editor which are signed “anonymous.” Shouldn’t the Court compel the paper to disclose the identities of its “anonymous” letter writers?
A final contrast: Mr. Zherka is actually rather gentle when compared to other newspaper publishers in history. Joseph Pulitzer, Harry Chandler, and William Randolph Hearst were much more heavy-handed. And Ben Bradlee wielded power greater than most of them.
The following has been posted by an “anonymous” poster on a different page:
“The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym ‘Publius,’ and ‘The Federal Farmer’ spoke up in rebuttal. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously as derived from the First Amendment.”
Pretty good company, that!
Yes, good company, Ed. The US Supreme Court also has established clear rules when it comes to the alleged defamation of public persons. In brief, it is almost impossible to defame a public person. Anonymous blogging or commentary also falls under the very strong free speech protections of the First Amendment.
Times v. Sullivan and McIntyre v. Ohio Board of Elections are two landmark cases about protected free speech.
I don’t think Westchester County Judge Rory Bellantoni figures into that equation to anyone but the Journal News.
With all due respect to Tim, is he a few slices short of a loaf of bread? How can he put the Bellantoni backer and politically and personally motivated Zherka into the same company as those he did in his post above? The Guardian isn’t even a real newspaper. It’s a political and personal attack mechanism, that’s all. It also doesn’t often trouble itself with the word “accurate,” either.
While Tim seems like a nice guy, it’s getting easier to just skip over some of his comments, which apparently can occasionally come from a place most are not familiar with. But his point about all the anonymous letters in the Guardian is a good one.
Why don’t you read Manhattan ADA Bogdanos’ reply to Zherka’s suit, Tim? It is linked several posts above. And then tell us again that Zherka is in the same company as Ben Bradlee and others you listed—only “gentler.”
you cannot compare zherka as a publisher and blassberg
as an editor with ben bradlee or hearst..is not the same
thing….editorially both were tough..so was the manchester
guardian on the conservative side…what the guardian does
however is to use its front page to go after its political
targets…most recently janet di fiore. its one thing to
put your opinion on a page that everyone knows is opinion
it is quite another to hold out as news….stories which
attack particular individuals on the front page as
news based solely on opinion..even though he is entitled
to do it..however that doesnt make it journalism…or
right…and you need to look at the history…blassberg
was castro’s “consultant”,,,he stated so in a recent
issue..he also claimed that the difiore election was
stolen…and it is clear he is setting up another
run by castro…albeit in a democratic primary..
so given the fact that blassberg is politically
active..and zherka gave robertson lots of money
which by the way we have copies of the cable buys
paid for by him..and never filed as either a contribution
or an independent expenditure..the so called stories
printed in the guardian have to be taken in the context
of the agendas of both the publisherand the editor
(see zherkas papers for admissions of working to
defeat amicone).....the journal news is owned by
gannett Inc…I doubt very seriously that the
Gannett people are going to allow their local
paper to make a decsision on a first amendment
issue like protected speech without a fight
because it jeopardizes all the blog of all the
newspapers in the state,,,this is a large
issue and no lower court judge can finally
decide it…mr zherka doesn’t get it..I believe
he is relying on blassberg for guidance and
either doesn’t understand or has bought
into the game blassberg wants to play
they sue they sue they sue..that game
will soon be over..because when they
get the counterclaim we are preparing
they will understand that the game is over
Wahoo and CONSULTANT: You may have missed my point(s).
I was addressing the freedom we each enjoy to publish, though freedom of the press belongs to he who owns one.
I think the Journal News could have fought harder. But appellants should hire a top intellectual property lawyer such as Marty Garbus if they want to try and protect their identities. Then again, one reason I use my real name is to avoid situations such as this one, which understandably has citizens concerned about privacy rights.
Lastly, the only comparison to (Harry) Chandler and Pulitzer, et al, is that they, too, were ambitious businessmen who sought to expand their influence by publishing journals disguised as news organs. W R Hearst mastered the art; Orson Welles played him well, with just a bit of exaggeration. Harry Chandler was the model for Noah Cross in Chinatown, amplified just a bit by Robert Towne (and John Huston). Bradlee was always a professional journalist who nonetheless was unafraid to flex his muscles, and Richard Nixon was just one of his targets. (Ask William Tavaloureas, the former chairman of Mobil Oil, if you don’t believe me.)
That influence is the reason any person seeks to publish ANY newspaper, and has been the primary motivation since Ben Franklin. Do you think Rupert Murdoch enjoys losing $10 million a year on The Post so he can subsidize journalists? Hardly.
We have courts for grievances. I hope the anonymous posters are successful in getting the decision reversed.
Tim —You sound like a lost semi-intellectual who is not in touch with the real world.
You have no response (and don’t bother doing one now) to the facts and legal precedents put in front of you. Like the US Supreme Court on freedom of speech protections and the vitual impossibility under the law of defaming a public person. Oh, well.
Like Zherka under criminal investigation in Manhattan, according to the papers filed by the DA there. Did you read them? I doubt it. And to you, Zherka is “gentle.”
Also according to you, the bloggers in the Ottinger situation should hire someone like Marty Garbus. Are you going to pay Garbus for them?
Ottinger knows he won’t win a defamation case. Zherka knows he won’t win vs. the Consultant, etc. This is about them using their money to shut people up and to intimidate them.
The Consultant is right. Ed is right. And you are somewhere on Cloud Nine and the Journal News is dead wrong. No county judge, let alone one tied to Sam Zherka, should ever be the deciding voice in freedom of speech cases. The JN should have appealed immediately.
Marty Garbus, indeed. Find those bloggers and send Garbus a check on their behalf, Tim.
The climate on these blogs is now FRIGID. That is thanks to the Journal News, and there are a hell of a lot of people who know that. Except you, apparently.
Wahoo: you sound like the kind of naive guy who anonymously posts ad hominem insults on the blog of a stranger—in this case, the Journal News—and expects that stranger to protect your anonymity forever.
Who’s missing slices in their loaf?
I don’t need to pay Marty Garbus. Only the fools who expect their anonymity to go unexposed need do so. You must have something to hide.
And to think we started off on the same side.
Read some journalism history: start with Dick Clurman’s “Beyond Malice.”
Friend, I’ve been in this business since 1974, And I can quote you chapter and verse on libel law, fair use, and just about anything else on intellectual property law in the past century. (And about the history of newspaper publishing, dating to John Peter Zenger.)
When you finally get some courage, wahoo, you may use your real name. Until that time, you are only half a man.
Tim—The subject at hand was real “meat and potatoes,” legal, First Amendment, U.S. Supreme Court, and so forth. But you decided to wax intellectual and ignored the meat and potatoes. And when you put Zherka into the company of those you did—and then even called him more “gentle”—I thought that was way over the top and wrong. The Consultant agreed with that, and also about the newspaper’s caving in so easily. Ed also agreed about the Journal News.
I don’t know exactly what those Forum posters said about Ottinger. My point was, and remains, that no newspaper should shout “No Mas!” on the ruling of a low-level County judge on such an important First Amendment matter. The case should have been appealed immediately. The fallout from that ruling, if it remains unchallenged, can adversely impact every newspaper, magazine, and TV and radio station blog in the state. That’s not a minor issue.
Maybe you can quote libel and other laws, etc. But they certainly didn’t seem to concern you in your posts. If you have a publishing background, I would think you would be a big supporter of the First Amendment. If you are, it doesn’t show very much. But legally, I think the points have been made about what the Journal News did.
Sorry if you took my comments personally. Maybe I was a bit too strident, but I was annoyed. And thanks but no thanks, I’ll pass on the refresher about Zenger.
Finally, about 99 percent of the people who comment on these blogs don’t use their real names. You are disparaging all of them, too. If you want to share your real name with us, fine. That’s your business. But it’s wrong to take your own shots at the 99 percent who don’t.
Wahoo: Yes, I am a big supporter of our First Amendment. I thought that sentiment would have come through in my previous posts, to those who understand and appreciate the pain that the First Amendment brings.
I don’t understand what this has to do with The Guardian. If it has done something actionable to you, respond accordingly.
Whether you like him or not, Sam Zherka is, in fact, a “publisher of a newspaper.” Call it a scandal sheet, trash, whatever you wish. It is in fact a “newspaper.” Go to library archives and read the Chicago Tribune of the late 19th Century (through the mid-20th) for comparison. There is no less opinion on the news pages of the old Trib than in today’s Guardian.
I am not defending The Guardian: I am defending the profession. And our right as Americans to publish. If you disagree with The Guardian, write them a letter and see if they publish it. If they pub something you deem actionable, there are First Amendment lawyers who work pro bono, if you can’t afford Garbus, who will seek remedy.
Okay, all best.
Tim—Zherka and the Guardian got into this for a few reasons.
1. The County Judge, Bellantoni, who ruled in the Ottinger case, was very heavily backed by Zherka and the Guardian in a failed run for a State Supreme Court judgeship last year.
2. You put Zherka into a grouping hardly anyone but you would say he belongs in.
3. Zherka is suing Westchester DA Janet DiFiore, the Consultant, Yonkers officials and a senior Manhattan District Attorney, Matthew Bogdanos, claiming “defamation” and a crazy conspiracy to “get him.” Bogdanos’ official reply, which is linked above, reveals a lot about Zherka. None of it is good. I am now almost positive you didn’t read it. Regardless, Bogdanos’ official reply makes it evident that Zherka is under criminal investigation for what would be servious offenses, if indicted and convicted.
To my mind, Zherka is trying to use the courts to sue and to create a “victim” defense in case he is indicted.
You call him a publisher. Most would call him something else.
Tim-
Libel Suits are so hard to win for the everyday citizen that lawyers don’t take them for money usually. If there is some “hook” then perhaps you could find a pro bono attorney but the very idea of finding one is an overwhelming task for the average citizen.
When a Strip Club Owner uses his ill-gotten gains to start up a rag and attack people there is really little the average citizen can do about it.
It recalls the foundation of this country when a group of citizens had to hide behind trees and shoot at British Soldiers in order to maintain their freedom. At the time the Europeans were aghast that soldiers would hide behind trees and rocks rather than come out in an open field and get slaughtered. However that would not have been a fair fight.
So the anonymous poster is doing what they need to do to fight power and that is something the Journal News should support. They did no such thing and no one should be surprised by that act of cowardice. Nonetheless that is what Gannett should have done.
Remember that the Gannett Group regularly prints the percentage of truth that they select. Nobody can force them to print the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so they join Strip Club Sam in supporting the manner of business that they have practiced for so long. This is why the anonymous poster is practicing another form of news. Sometimes it gets ugly and sometimes it’s wrong but as we all know retractions in the newspaper never make the headlines that the original story made one and that is wrong as well.
Wahoo and nonaubiz:
Forget what you think of Mr. Zherka. If he’s afoul of the law, the law will take care of that. But I haven’t seen any convictions yet—or even serious charges. I have seen only victories by Zherka in the courts.
It’s lunchtime, and I’m taking a break from the writing of my fifth book, which is about the decline and fall of the New York Mafia. You’ll get copies when we have lunch after it’s published, next year.
For chrissake, Zherka only wanted influence as he rolled out his newspaper—rag, sheet, whatever—and you have helped him achieve that position by your criticisms, and by our continued discussion on this blog. You could have each pulled a Disraeli (“Never complain, never explain”) and The Guardian might have been ignored.
Perhaps 100 people here in Westchester read The Guardian each week—us.
Mayor Amicone—a man I admire—could have similarly ignored its threats. Remember: he won by 2-1 last year. Holy Nixon! Why try to thwart your enemies when they aren’t going to hurt you?
But yes, a person who finances a “newspaper” of any kind is referred to as a “publisher,” whether you think he’s worthy of stature with W R Hearst, Harry Chandler (or his grandson Otis, for whom I worked), Philip Graham, Col. McCormack, Punch Sulzberger, Al Neuharth, or anybody else.
As to the comment about The Journal News’ veracity in printing “truth” or any other articles, go get “Goodbye Gutenberg” by Anthony Summers, published in 1981. There are space limitations.
Guys: lunch discussion needed to fully get through this.
Faithfully,
Tim
tim@haysmedia.net
Tim-
I will take a look at “Goodbye Gutenberg”. I also understand your time limitations in going back and forth and I respect that.
For the record I was referring to intentional omissions by newspapers including the Journal News which are not related to space limitations but by an agenda driven policy.
It’s hard to fight that.
Tim
Anthony Smith, not Anthony Summers
I don’t understand. Publishers slander certain people and then sue other people for slandering THEM? Ever hear of a SLAPP suit? Google it. As the Russian poet Yevtushenko wrote: “There are no gentlemen; Gentleness is a posthumous honor.” Sad state of affairs. More sanity and enjoyment available in reading ‘Goodbye, Columbus’ than ‘Goodbye Gutenberg,’ I suspect. The sentence of lunacy and grumbling on our death beds is the only court order that this, or any “society” cannot enforce. Unless we allow it to happen.
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. SLAPP suit. Good call, Ed. “Intended to intimidate and silence
critics and opponents by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense so that they abandon their criticism or opposition.” That is from Wikipedia.
That’s Ottinger, and partly Zherka. The rest of Zherka, I believe, is to set himself up as a “victim” in the event he is indicted by Bogdanos in Manhattan. He would then try and play the part of “persecuted crusading publisher.”
Call that the potential laugh of the year. And how all that melds with his strip club and other dubious endeavors is a question that would be decided later.
nonaubiz:
you are in fact correct, and I am ashened. I was confusing my Brit Anthonys. Smith was the bright one; Summers was the fun conspiracy theorist who wrote the bios of Marilyn Monroe and J. Edgar Hoover.
Thanks,
I hope the anonymous posters beat this thing. Although, it is a somewhat of a conundrum or paradox for anonymous bloggers to sue in open court to protect their identities.
Again: the Journal News could have pursued this better. THEY could have hired Marty Garbus. But, should you want to know how newspaper lawyers feel about the law in general—as it “may” protect their reader constituents—just go rent Absence of Malice. The lazy fat guy who curtly says, “Absent malice, we can say anything we want!” is typical of newspaper lawyers (other than Floyd Abrams, the one exception) I have known in my life.
Well “anonymous persons” sued the Town of Mamaroneck due to the fact that they were and are illegally in this country and that resulted in a court victory against the town, albeit for little monetary reward.
That lawsuit was to ensure that the town would not interfere in the illegal immigrant hiring hall and the unlawful hiring that was and is going on
If the courts will protect illegal hiring and ensure that illegal immigration is not halted then they ought to protect the civil rights of American citizens. Of course we have no assurance that this protection is of any interest to judges today as it does not result in rewards at the ballot box.
Tim—The wealthy Gannett Corp. could have hired Garbus and five others if needed. They also have their own lawyers. Again, my very big concern is that the paper collapsed on the ruling of a lowly County judge—let alone one who is so connected to Zherka. An appeal should have been filed immediately on a First Amendment case.
Ed nailed it with the SLAPP suits. It’s intimidation, and it’s an attempt to silence critics on the part of Ottinger. Zherka has his own problems. Both Ottinger and Zherka will lose, and they know it. They know that as public persons they can’t prevail in any defamation suits. Zherka also has Bognados’ reply to contend with. That’s a heavy, as the expression goes. And the Consultant posted that he’s filing a strong counterclaim.
You also commented on a prime reason they will lose—absence of malice. It is virtually impossible to prove malice. But winning isn’t the goal. Their goal is to harass and to intimidate and to silence critics.
As I said a few times recently, by doing what it did re: Ottinger, the Journal News has made the blogging atomosphere frigid. It’s not a friendly climate anymore.
For some reason, I (again) posted this under a Bruno blog. Sorry for the resultant confusion.
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Our government, in its infinite wisdom, sees fit to allow both Princes and peasants to seek-out and retain expensive law firms to defend their rights under the First Amendment. If publishers are disinterested in preserving and defending this noble, necessary bulwark against the tyranny of the devil, we are all lost. As Anatole France wrote, (a pen-name, by the way), “The majestic quality of the law…prohibits the wealthy as well as the poor to sleep under bridges.”
The Journal News should have taken note of that before bowing to a lowly County judge. BTW, that loon Zherka has now filed yet another suit against Yonkers. This time, he’s claiming some guy was fired just because he is a friend of Zherka’s. How Zherka can sue for that is beyond me.
The City says bull…t. That the guy was fired for a list of other work-related reasons.
Zherka must have a few dozen suits out there, some against Yonkers, some against other communities, and one or more against New York City. Isn’t it time for the Bar Association to look into all this? One crazy suit after another. Zherka looks to be out of control to some extent, at least as I see it. Maybe he is coming apart because he thinks the Manhattan DA is getting closer.
Here again is the link to Senior Assistant Manhattan DA Matthew Bogdanos’ reply to that other crazy Zherka suit vs. the Consultant, Bogdanos, Yonkers officials, and now Janet DiFiore, too.
www.yonkerstribune.typepad.com. Go to the right side of the home page. Click on the May archive. It’s right there, from May 31. The Bogdanos official answer to Zherka.
The problem with the system is that is works great for the noble as sometimes well for the peasants.
The wealthy such as Strip Club Sam can spend freely with little regard for costs.
Those with no intention of getting or keeping a job can often find some Pro Bono attorney to take on a frivolous suit. Certainly in criminal cases they always get free lawyers no questions asked.
Large law firms can take on these civil suits for two reasons. The first is that when they take on such cases they often assigns them to new associates and then writes off the cost at full partner rates which essentially means the taxpayer foots the bill for training new attorneys for multi-million dollar law firms. The second is they might win and if it’s true pro bono and there is no money there is at least a headline to crow about. As for the contingency lawsuits don’t even get me started (my head might explode).
Please don’t think I believe the poor get great legal services (they don’t) but what I am saying is that the immoral poor have a better shot than the decent working class by far. This is the other side of the Slapp Lawsuit blade, if you will.
The problem is that the overwhelming majority of citizens have work for a living and that means they can’t get free legal support and certainly can’t afford to pay for it so they are in no position to prevail without the overwhelming risk of losing all or most of what you have spent a lifetime working to achieve.
This situation is not something that makes for great front page articles and journalists might not win prizes writing about it,but it’s a true injustice in this country.
Most countries have overcome this injustice by enacting “Loser Pays” policies but that is not going to be an agenda pushed in our litigious society.
This would have to be a citizen driven ballot initiative (state by state) because the various state legislators would not support such common sense as it would cost the legal profession billions which they are successfully taking from the middle class.
Wahoo: you are a very knowledgable guy. And, apparently, close to the situation(s).
Our discussion cannot continue on these open boards.
(914) 478-5110 or tim@haysmedia.net
Completly confidential.
But, there are a bunch of questions raised here which should never be discussed openly. (Before court.)
And yes, I could probably rouse a good first amendment lawyer to help you, maybe pro bono, to thwart the speech/thought nazis. Might not be Marty Garbus, but there are others who would be upset at the consternation present here.
I have no financial interest whatsoever in the outcome.
Tim
Wahoo:
addendum—
if you do call or email, I don’t want to know your identity. (Not yet, at least—unless we know each other already.)
So. . .use a “blocked” phone number (I have caller id) or a wahoo-only email.
But yeah—this nuisance usage of the courts to reveal identities thought to have been confidential bothers me, too. National security is not at risk.
Want to know more about me, ask “consultant”
I am a HUGE believer in, and defender of, our freedom of expression, and our First Amendment (also, Amendments 2 through 26).
Faithfully,
Tim
Excepting Amendment XIX, that is.
;>
Tim—I learned about Zherka’s latest nutty suit vs. Yonkers simply because it was on Cablevision News last night. If that isn’t trying to abuse the legal system, I don’t know what would be. For instance, how could Zherka even have legal “standing” in such a case? He himself wasn’t fired from a Yonkers job. But I have no particular inside information and am not involved with Yonkers government—nor am I one of the Ottinger posters.
But I resent what those like Ottinger and Zherka are doing. I think they are abusing the courts and are attempting to trash the First Amendment. I also read the Manhattan DA’s reply to Zherka, which is very revealing. I also know Zherka is a strip club owner, and I am aware his brother is tied to the Albanian mob and is, I think, currently under a Federal indictment in Manhattan for crimes that are allegedly Albanian mob-related.
Mostly, I guess I don’t like any sleazy characters who use their money to abuse the legal system. I am a defender of the Constitution, if you will permit me that somewhat corny phrase. But that doesn’t make me unique by any means. And so I also resent that the Journal News just collapsed on the important First Amendment Ottinger case because of a ruling by a low-level County Court judge.
Wahoo—
Then let’s fight back, and have some fun. This thing is getting my Irish up.
Tim—Fight back? How? I am voicing my anger here. The Ottinger posters should counter-sue. In one of the Zherka cases, the Consultant posted that he is counter suing. Yonkers, NYC, the other communities Zherka is suing, and DA Janet DiFiore should counter sue him, too.
The Bar Association also should be notified. Zherka’s lawyer is part of this, too.
And I am now restricting my participation in this blog because the Journal News is also at fault for caving in to Ottinger and that local judge. Disgraceful. That case should have gone to the Appellate Division ASAP and all the way to the State Court of Appeals if necesssary.
Not only is the local judge in the Ottinger case, Bellantoni, connected to Zherka—but as the Consultant posted, Bellantoni also reached across state lines to find some New Jersey ruling to decide both NY State and First Amendment law. That also should be unacceptable.