Thomas A. Clare, Esq.
Clare Locke LLP
10 Prince Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Re: Bob Lefsetz / Charlie Walk
Dear Mr. Clare:
We are legal counsel to Bob Lefsetz and are responding to your surprising letter of February 6, 2018, which was clearly designed to threaten, intimidate, and stifle Mr. Lefsetz's rights and obligations to continue distributing his industry newsletter. Your letter also demonstrates little understanding of or appreciation for the First Amendment.
Put simply, Mr. Lefsetz will not succumb to the threats of litigation intended to chill his rights to distribute his column.
Mr. Lefsetz has a long and well-respected history of commenting on the entertainment business, among other topics, and operating as a clearing house for any third party comments directed to him. It is not Mr. Lefsetz's practice to investigate the truth or veracity of third party comments, nor does he purport to do so. "Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton," 491 U.S. 657, 688 (1989)("failure to investigate before publishing, even when a reasonably prudent person would have done so, is not sufficient to establish reckless disregard"); "Khawar v. Globe Intern., Inc.," 19 Cal. 4th 254, 275-76 (1998)("(w)hen ... a finding of actual malice is based on the republication of a third party's defamatory falsehoods, 'failure to investigate before publishing, even when a reasonably prudent person would have done so, is not sufficient'")(citing "Harte-Hanks," 491 U.S. at 688).
To the extent interested parties object to third party posts, Mr. Lefsetz's practice is to post those responses. "The marketplace of ideas, not the tort system, is the means by which our society evaluates those opinions." "Grillo v. Smith," 144 Cal.App.3d 868, 872 (1983)(citing "Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.," 418 U.S., 323, 339-040 (1974)). Accordingly, Mr. Lefsetz will be posting your letter as an expression of your objection to other posts.
The First Amendment and the cases interpreting same have consistently held that journalist's expressions of opinion are not only protected, but are encouraged. "Opinions that present only an individual's personal conclusions and do not imply a provably false assertion of fact are nonactionable; indeed, such opinions are the lifeblood of public discussion promoted by the First Amendment, under which speakers remain free to offer competing opinions based upon their independent evaluations of the facts." "Paterno v. Superior Court," 163 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1356 (2008)(citing cases). It is certainly true that Mr. Lefsetz does not shy away from giving his opinions, which is probably why his newsletter is the most read publication in the entertainment business.
Notably, you have not identified any purported statement of fact regarding Mr. Walk that you contend is provably false and should be corrected. In fact, Mr. Lefsetz's piece was essentially a series of questions. Maybe your client answered them and didn't like the answers. But that's not defamation - that's a guilty conscience. The most salient question Mr. Lefsetz posed was "Does Charlie Walk get bounced from (the) television singing show 'The Four'? One would think definitely, right?" Well, yes.
Frankly, there was no intent to harm Mr. Walk. He seems very capable of doing that on his own. Mr. Lefsetz was merely going about his business. However, Mr. Lefsetz accepts no obligation to censor third party postings or his own opinions, including his opinion that, under the circumstances, Mr. Walk should resign (which opinion, as noted, does not even appear in the post.) (Hyperlinking to a third party post is not actionable republication even assuming it contains any defamatory material. "A mere reference does not directly publish the defamatory material to a new audience. Instead, it tells the new audience where the defamatory material can be found. A URL is not qualitatively different. It tells the reader the address where she can find the material on the Web." "U.S. ex rel. Klein v. Omeros Corp.," 897 F.Supp.2d 1058, 1074 (W.D. Wash. 2012). Should you identify any statement of material fact that was attributed to Mr. Lefsetz and which you contend arises to the level of libel, your remedy is to identify that statement and demand a correction. Cal. Civ. Code § 48(a). We're waiting.
Speaking of opinions, you're certainly entitled to propound your convoluted theory about Tom Gilligan's drunk texting leading to Ms. Coopersmith's post. After all, there are people who believe that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring out of a DC pizzeria (not smart people, but people). And Mr. Lefsetz will publish Mr. Gilligan's e-mail to him in his letters post, as he customarily does no matter how crackpot the theory.
Since your letter clearly contemplates litigation where the truth of Ms. Coopersmith's statements about Mr. Walk are the core issue, your demand that Mr. Lefsetz preserve all records applies equally to Mr. Walk. Please make sure that Mr. Walk preserves all of his records and communications, including emails, text messages, and digital records, relating to Ms. Coopersmith, including relating to his relationship, sexual or otherwise, with her, the events and his conduct alleged in her post, and Mr. Walk's contention that there are "material inconsistencies" in her account. Mr. Walk similarly should preserve any records of any communications with any other women who worked with or for him that are of a sexual nature or that in any way relate to sexual relations between Mr. Walk and those women, and any other claims made against Mr. Walk relating to sexual harassment or impropriety in the workplace.
Nothing contained herein shall be deemed an admission of any fact or a waiver of any rights.
Very truly yours,
Howard E. King
of King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP
and
Peter T. Paterno
of King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP
HEK:dw
cc: Bob Lefsetz
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Re: Charlie Walk/Tom Gilligan
Hi Bob,
I'm Tom Gilligan the guy being falsely accused of "extortion" against Charlie Walk which is 100% BS. The accusations against me are a ploy/deflection by his defense team to take the focus off Charlie's alleged sexual misconduct. There is no conspiracy that I know of against Walk. I am not and have no intention of extorting or creating problems for Charlie. When I made the phone call and wrote the texts, which I don't remember doing, I was struggling with the anniversary of my mother's death and had been drinking. This has nothing to do with Jon BonJovi. My voicemail was simply a guy drunk dialing and rambling as I'm sure you've heard. I'm embarrassed and ashamed. I apologize for the distraction to the women and supporters of #metoo which I totally support. I have no association with #metoo, do not know and have never met the woman who wrote the open letter accusing Charlie of sexual harassment and have no problem with Charlie other than he's always been a smug asshole who in my opinion always treated everyone like dirt (unless he wanted something from you…)
A mutual friend suggested that I reach out to you so that you know how to contact me.
Regards,
Tom Gilligan
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
CLARE LOCKE LLP
10 Prince Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
(202) 628-7400
www.clarelocke.com
THOMAS A. CLARE, P.C.
tom@clarelocke.com
(202) 628-7401
February 6, 2018
VIA PRIORITY MAIL
Robert "Bob" Lefsetz
Re: Blog Post Concerning Charlie Walk
Dear Mr. Lefsetz:
I write on behalf of my client, Charlie Walk.
On January 28, 2018, you published a blog post on "The Lefsetz Letter" and sent a mass email regarding Mr. Walk entitled "The Charlie Walk Letter." (The post is still available at http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/2018/01/29/the-charlie-walk-letter/) The blog post included a link to an "Open Letter to Charlie Walk" published by Tristan Coopersmith on a commercial website that promotes her business.
Your blog post also surprisingly contained specific content authored by you that plainly sought to affirm the truth and validity of Ms. Coopersmith's claims, which are false. You expressly asserted that you think Mr. Walk should be fired from his job and more. Additionally, you solicited and sent to your subscribers worldwide additional uncorroborated, and false, claims about Mr. Walk that were republished widely in the media - including in publications such as "Variety."
These published statements are demonstrably false and were published with a reckless disregard for the truth. It was especially reckless that, contrary to well-established journalistic standards and basic considerations of fairness, you did not even bother to contact Mr. Walk before publishing these false and damaging allegations and validating them with your own imprimatur. If you had bothered to contact Mr. Walk for comment prior to publication of your blog post, he would have provided you with important facts and information material to any responsible decision-making about the wisdom and consequences of publishing and validating Ms. Coopersmith's false and unsubstantiated claims.
First, with respect to Ms. Coopersmith's allegations of misconduct by Mr. Walk, he absolutely denies that any of those incidents ever took place, and would have said so if you bothered to contact him. Mr. Walk would also have told you that he and his wife never had dinner with Ms. Coopersmith, so her claim that he groped Ms. Coopersmith on "multiple occasions" during dinners at which Mrs. Walk was present is provably false. Moreover, Mr. Walk would have alerted you to material inconsistencies in the accounts that Ms. Coopersmith has told in leveling these false allegations.
Second, As "The New York Post" reported yesterday (https://pagesix.com/2018/02/05/charlie-walk-claims-he-was-being-extorted-before-allegations/), Mr. Walk has been the target of a several-months-long unlawful extortion scheme perpetrated by an individual named Tom Gilligan who has sent dozens of menacing text messages and voicemails to Mr. Walk threatening to weaponize the #MeToo movement to make sexual harassment claims about Mr. Walk - and threatening to use these allegations to cause Mr. Walk to lose his job at UMG and his position on "The Four" - if Mr. Walk did not accede to his bizarre demands. The scheme involved increasingly erratic text messages and voicemails accusing Mr. Walk of somehow affecting Gilligan's relationship with Jon Bon Jovi. Mr. Walk promptly reported this bizarre and unlawful extortion scheme to the New York City District Attorney's Office. Ms. Coopersmith published false allegations against Mr. Walk immediately after this failed extortion attempt. Mr. Walk has updated his report to the New York District Attorney's Office to include Ms. Coopersmith's suspiciously time "Open Letter" and requested that law enforcement explore the connection between this failed extortion attempt, Mr. Gilligan and Ms. Coopersmith's allegations.
You would have known all this if you had simply contacted Mr. Walk and allowed him the chance not only to deny the false allegations, but also to provide you with this critical additional context about what has been occurring. Surely your readers would have been glad to know what has really been taking place, including a criminal report to the authorities.
I am sure you understand the seriousness of these issues. In order to mitigate the substantial harm that you have already caused to his reputation, Mr. Walk demands that you immediately retract and remove all posts referring or relating to these allegations against Mr. Walk, including without limitation your blog post entitled "The Charlie Walk Letter," all references to Ms. Coopersmith's "Open Letter," and all comments and submissions posted in response to these posts. Failure to take these remedial steps will be viewed by Mr. Walk as additional evidence of actual malice and an intent to harm Mr. Walk.
Until these issues are resolved, we require that you retain - and direct all of your agents, contractors, and vendors to retain - all documents, communications, and electronically-stored information regarding the posts and submissions referenced in this letter. For avoidance of doubt, this requirement includes, without limitation, emails, text messages, chat transcripts, social media direct messages, social media post, and internet browser histories - and includes all communications with or relating to Ms. Coopersmith, all communications with or relating to Ms. Coopersmith's publicists (at BLND Public Relations or otherwise), all unpublished drafts of your posts referencing Mr. Walk, all research undertaken prior to publishing posts referencing Mr. Walk, and all submissions and comments regarding Mr. Walk submitted by your readers that you elected, for whatever reason, not to publish.
This letter is sent without waiver of or prejudice to Mr. Walk's rights, claims and remedies, at law and in equity, all of which are expressly reserved. Please contact me if the requirements set forth in this letter are in any way unclear.
Very truly yours,
Thomas A. Clare, P.C.
--
Visit the archive: http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
http://www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=unsubscribe&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
To change your email address http://lefsetz.com/lists/?p=preferences&uid=0eecea7b60b461717065cbde887c8e25
-- powered by phpList, www.phplist.com --
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.