mccaffery complaint copy

5/28/2018 McCaffery Complaint Copy

1/60


2/60

2

CRAIG McCOY

330 Church Road

Elkins Park, PA 19027

and

SIGNE WILKINSON

626 South 21stStreet

Philadelphia, PA 19146

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 claimsset 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 withthe 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 withoutyou 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 orproperty or other rights important to you.

Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse deestas 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 unabogado y entregar a la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus

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

corte puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiere que ustedcumpla 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 ATONCE. 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 GETLEGAL HELP.

LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO

INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NOTIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO,

VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA

OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITAABAJO 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: 140


3/60

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


Plaintiffs,

vs.

INTERTRUST GCN, LP

2711 Centerville Road

Suite 400

Wilmington, DE 19808

and

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


and

WILLIAM MARIMOW

440 South Broad StreetUnit 1602


and

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

::

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

::

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

::

:

:

:

:

:

:

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY

FEBRUARY TERM, 2014

No. 3044

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case ID: 140


4/60

2

CRAIG McCOY

330 Church Road

Elkins Park, PA 19027

and

SIGNE WILKINSON

626 South 21stStreet


and

MICHAEL DAYS

324 Hamilton Avenue

Trenton, NJ 08609

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

::

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

::

CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. People who dont read the newspaper are uninformed; people who do aremisinformed. Mark Twain

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

Case ID: 140


5/60

3

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.

4. Defendant Intertrust GCN, LP (Defendant LP) is, upon information and belief,a licensed Delaware corporation with a registered address of 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400,

Wilmington, DE 19808, and conducts business at 801 Market Street, Suite 300, Philadelphia, PA

19107. Defendant LP became a purchaser of The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Daily Newsand

Philly.com in the spring of 2012 as members of Defendant Interstate General Media, LLC.

Defendant LP has a presently unknown interest in Defendant Interstate General Media, LLC. As

such, this Defendant is ultimately responsible for the publications which appeared in The

Philadelphia Inquirerand The Daily News, as well as in the online versions of the articles.

5. Defendant Interstate General Media, LLC (Defendant LLC) is, uponinformation and belief, a licensed Pennsylvania corporation, and conducts business at 801

Market Street, Suite 300, Philadelphia, PA 19107. Defendant LLC 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. As such, Defendant LLC owns all or substantially all of The

Philadelphia Inquirer, The Daily Newsand Philly.com. As such, this Defendant is ultimately

responsible for the publications which appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Daily

News, as well as in the online versions of the articles.

6.

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

Case ID: 140


6/60

4

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

over the content of the newspapers publications and its website.

7. Defendant Craig McCoy (McCoy) is an adult individual residing at 330 ChurchRoad, 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 Inquirerand online.

8. Defendant Signe Wilkinson (Wilkinson) is an adult individual residing at 626South 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.

9. Defendant Michael Days (Days) is an adult individual residing at 324 HamiltonAvenue, 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

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

of the newspapers publications and its website.

10. With respect to The Philadelphia Inquirer, from time to time throughout thisComplaint, Defendants Intertrust GCN, LP, Interstate General Media, LLC, Marimow and

McCoy may be collectively also referred to as the InquirerDefendants.

11. With respect to The Philadelphia Daily News, from time to time throughout thisComplaint, Defendants Intertrust GCN, LP, Interstate General Media, LLC, Wilkinson and Days

may be collectively also referred to as the Daily NewsDefendants.

Case ID: 140


7/60

5

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Publication(s) at Issue

12. The Philadelphia Inquirerpublished three (3) articles about the Plaintiffs, each ofwhich 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.

13. 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.comduring the

relevant time periods.

14. In fact, the articles remained online until this lawsuit was filed; they were allremoved one day later.

15. The Daily News published a caricature on June 16, 2013, that was completelyfalse and disgraceful, and placed the Plaintiffs in a highly offensive false light. TheDaily News

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 Newscaricature is

attached hereto as Plaintiffs Exhibit 4.

16. Then, in a ludicrous attempt to address their already false and outrageousportrayals 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.

Case ID: 140


8/60

6

17. As a result of the Defendants outrageous and misleading publications, at leastone Philadelphia-based media news outlet, Philadelphia Magazine, has reported that a federal

investigation was started.

B. The March 5, 2013 Publication

18. 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 true nature of Plaintiff Rapaports referral fees and Plaintiff

McCafferys role as a Justice on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The article was intentionally

false, misleading and deliberately incomplete.

19. The short version of the March publication is that the Defendants deliberatelyomitted 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.

20. In fact, The Inquirers March article was so heinous, untrue and savage in itsportrayal 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 Inquirerhad gone to in order

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

newspapers 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.

Case ID: 140


9/60

7

21. That admission is as important as it is historic: The Inquirers publisher told theInquirers editor that the story involving a Justice on the Supreme Court was seriously flawed

and not worthy of front page coverage.

22. Clearly, even the publisher of The Inquirer knew that the article was a smearpiece, journalistic rubbish, and should never have run in the first place as written.

23. Remarkably, publisher Robert Hall was so concerned over the placement of thisarticle 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.1

24. Obviously, The Inquirer took all necessary steps to sanitize that internal dirtfrom the general public and never disclosed, in any of its articles, its own publishers deep

concerns about the coverage of the Plaintiffs.

25. Defendant Marimow compromised his responsibilities and journalistic ethics inorder 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.

26. Nowhere in any of the articles was it ever disclosed that Defendant Marimow hadan extremely close personal friendship and business relationship with individuals whose interests

1Plaintiffs have already taken steps to ensure that this crucial March 4, 2013 email is preserved. Theemails existence was actually disclosed by the law firm of Sprague & Sprague who ironically representa Defendant here during a hearing before the Honorable Patricia A. McInerney that occurred onNovember 15, 2013. In that hearing, attorneys Richard Sprague and Joseph Podraza made an offer ofproof to Judge McInerney indicating that they wanted to question Mr. Hall about the critical March 4,2013 email. The Plaintiffs have already demanded that Sprague & Sprague preserve it and will present itto the Court as soon as it is produced by Sprague & Sprague and/or the Defendants.

Case ID: 140


10/60

8

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

that information a secret from the general public.

27. Defendant Marimow spearheaded the effort, effectuated by Defendant McCoyssensationally 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

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

throughout the discovery process.

28. Referral fees among lawyers are proper and extremely common throughout theCommonwealth 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.

29. The March publication deliberately does not truthfully set forth all of the factspertaining 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.

30. In the March publication, The Philadelphia Inquirer states: As the fees havecome 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.

Case ID: 140


11/60

9

31. 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.

32. These statements were published prominently on the front page of TheInquirer,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.

33. Standing alone, without the full and truthful disclosure of all of the facts known tothese Defendants, these statements clearly place the Plaintiffs in false light because of this now

fact-based implication that Plaintiff McCafferys duties as a Justice were influenced by referral

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

34. The only and very clear conclusion from the article is that Plaintiff McCafferysresponsibilities on the Supreme Court were compromised ethically and legally because his

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

35. This conclusion is completely wrong, and would have been shown to be wronghad The Inquirerdisclosed all of the true facts which were known to it when it published the

smear pieces. Ultimately, this seriously flawed article, to quote The Inquirers own publisher,

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

with knowledge of completely contrary facts, theInquirerDefendants omitted the following:

a. At the time she made the referral that five years later resulted in thepayment 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 Inquirerdeliberately omits this crucial fact;

Case ID: 140


12/60

10

b. The Inquirerdeliberately failed to report that the lawyer and law firm whopaid 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

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 Inquirerdeliberately uses the $821,000.00 referral fee as the lightningrod 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 InquirerDefendants wrote that Plaintiff McCaffery never disclosedthe 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

Case ID: 140


13/60

11

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 theInquirerDefendants 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;

e. The Inquirers bare and unsubstantiated reference to 11 cases PlaintiffMcCaffery 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 Inquirerrefused 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 Inquirerpublished 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 aSupreme Court Justice, with very few exceptions, can have anydispositive 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

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

individual justices 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

in favor of those lawyers and law firms that have paid Plaintiff Rapaport referral fees;;

g. The Inquirerdeliberately chose not to identify or otherwise detail the 11cases referenced in the March and subsequent articles, because to do so would have shown that

Case ID: 140


14/60

12

Justice McCafferys votes did not provide help to the lawyers or firms who had paid referral

fees, as The Inquirersuggests. The Inquirerdeliberately did not identify and/or publish details

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

spewed in its March publication were nothing but half-truths and false light;

h. The Inquirerstill has not published or produced one shred of evidencethat 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 thePennsylvania 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

Inquirers 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 law2in 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 anyperson employed in the Office of the Prothonotary, nor any lawclerk, administrative assistant, or secretary employed by anappellate court or by any judge thereof, shall practice in the court.

Nor shall any such person otherwise practice law without priorapproval of the judge on whose staff such person is employed or ofthe president judge if such person is not so employed.

j. The Inquirer further deliberately failed to report that Rule 3121 wassubsequently amended, by a unanimous Supreme Court, to rescindthe permission staff lawyers

Case ID: 140


15/60

13

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

magnifies The Inquirers biased conduct, because to publish the full truth would again have

contradicted and exposed the falsehoods and false implications The Inquirer had created and

continued to promote and foster.

36. The InquirerDefendants conduct was the deliberate avoidance of the truth forthe sole purpose of smearing the Plaintiffs.

C. The March 24, 2013 Amplification

37. The Inquirer Defendants knew that their March 5, 2013 article was seriouslywrong 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 theInquirerDefendants from court documents.

38. The Inquirer deliberately did not publish this fact in its March 5, 2013 article,because to do so would have completely taken the malicious sting out of the newspapers

$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 Inquirerpaints the wholly inaccurate picture of Plaintiff

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

39. Knowing from communications with Plaintiffs counsel that their deliberate andmalicious omission was about to become public, the InquirerDefendants did the unbelievable:

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

Defendants malice toward the Plaintiffs.

40. While the Inquirer Defendants blasted the Plaintiffs on the front page of theSunday 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

2The practice of law does not include referring cases.

Case ID: 140


16/60

14

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

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 thewife of state Supreme Court Justice Seamus P. McCaffery, TheInquirer reported that the wife, Lise Rapaport, had worked as ajudicial aide since 1997. The newspaper has since learned thatRapaport was on leave from Jan. 15 to Dec. 17, 2007, and receivedno pay or benefits from the court during that period, according tocourt officials.

See Exhibit P-2 attached hereto.

41.

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 Rapaports 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 theInquirerDefendants had no interest whatsoever in telling the truth on this point.

42. The Amplification was, of course, strategically buried on page A-4 of thenewspaper, 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 itto the

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

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

43. The Amplification should have been placed in the newspaper in a spot ofcomparable 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

Case ID: 140


17/60

15

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

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

their savage attack upon the Plaintiffs.

44. The Amplifications placement and juxtaposition was and remains an utterinsult. 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 TheInquirers coverage of Punxsutawney Phils 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 Marimows

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 rodents ability to predict the weather was more important than clarifying their

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

45. The puny, microscopic and strategically nowhere-placed Amplificationdestroyed 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

46. Not to be outdone by the above-described atrocities, The Philadelphia Daily Newsdecided to weigh in on and amplify the false light portrayals spewed by The Inquirer, and did so

with a repulsive caricature, which similarly casts the Plaintiffs in an even more blatant and

offensive false light. See Exhibit P-4.

Case ID: 140


18/60

16

47. The caricature published in The Daily News on June 16, 2013, drawn byDefendant Signe Wilkinson and edited and approved by Defendant Michael Days, purports to

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.

48. The caricature portrays Plaintiff Rapaport blindfolded with pursed lips, holdingtwo 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.

49. Plaintiff McCaffery is portrayed as being in bed with his wife masquerading asthe 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).

50. The blindfolded lady justice, seen as Plaintiff McCafferys employee and thusunder his command, has two large bags of money, clearly painting the picture that Plaintiffs

Case ID: 140


19/60

17

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

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

McCafferys corruption, to wit, fixing cases by way of influencing trial judges.

51. The quote attributed to Plaintiff McCaffery is, Bring home any fees from yourseparate and perfectly legal business, hon? The home is clearly drawn and identified as

Plaintiff McCafferys judicial chambers, to again highlight for the readership that the money is

actually coming through chambers to Plaintiff Rapaport and him.

52.

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.

53. The false light portrayal from this unseemly bedroom scene set in the chambers ofa Supreme Court Justice is as obvious as it is despicable: the fees are being generated through

chambers, under the threat of Plaintiff McCafferys gavel, through illegal and unethical phone

calls to judges, all under the cover of the Supreme Courts judicial chambers. There is nothing

editorially funny, witty or truthful about the caricature. 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:

Plaintiff Rapaport professionally trades off of herhusbands name;

The Supreme Courts judicial chambers are used as abusiness office for Plaintiff Rapaport;

Neither Plaintiffs review or abide by the book of ethicsgoverning judges and lawyers;

Case ID: 140


20/60

18

Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of Philly JudgesNumbers to conduct business and bring home fees;

Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of Traffic CourtNumbers to conduct business and bring home fees;

Plaintiff McCafferys holding of the gavel suggests that heis ruling on Plaintiff Rapaports referral matters.

54. As a result, it places the Plaintiffs in false light to represent that: Plaintiffs call Philadelphia judges on behalf of the referral

cases to influence results;

Plaintiffs do not review or comply with the ethical rulesgoverning jurists and lawyers in the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania;

Plaintiffs call Traffic Court judges on behalf of the referralcases to influence results;

The Plaintiffs are in bed with the system, in the judicialchambers of the Supreme Court, using Plaintiff Rapaport toobtain money with the threat of Plaintiff McCafferysgavel;

Within the theme of fornication, the Plaintiffs arescrewing the system by illegally and unethically obtainingmoney;

Plaintiff Rapaport identifies herself as Mrs. McCaffery inany professional capacity;

Plaintiffs Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Chambers arenot used exclusively, entirely and completely for thebusiness of the Supreme Court.

55. Upon information and belief, The Daily Newsdid not itself investigate or publishanything about the fee issue pertaining to Plaintiff McCaffery as The Philadelphia Inquirerdid

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

caricature was published.

Case ID: 140


21/60

19

56. As such, The Daily News Defendants were guided and informed by theirreading of The Philadelphia Inquirers articles on the issue. Therefore, as manifested by The

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

Philadelphia Inquirers articles directly created, fostered and perpetuated the false light

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

based upon their interpretation of what The Inquirerscandalously wrote.

57. As such, The Philadelphia Inquirer Defendants aided and abetted ThePhiladelphia Daily NewsDefendants with respect to the false light caricature as a result of the

articles foreseeability.

E. The June 11 and August 18, 2013 Articles

58. In what can only be described as a malicious piling on, the Inquirer Defendantstook their malice to yet a new level when they published their June 11 and August 18, 2013

articles about the Plaintiffs.

59. While the articles lamely suggest that they were follow up pieces written todiscuss 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.

60. The true import and impact of the articles, therefore, was to re-publish the factthat 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.

Case ID: 140


22/60

20

61. The June and August articles were maliciously designed to reinforce the damagedone in the March 2013 publication, because both the June and August articles continued to

serve as a reminder to the general public that the Plaintiffs were operating illegally and

unethically.

62. In fact, the June and August articles were so focused on regurgitating the March2013 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

63. Plaintiff McCaffery is a public official; Plaintiff Rapaport is not, nor is she apublic figure.

64. By operation of law, Plaintiff McCaffery will establish his claims and prove theDefendants malice.

65. By operation of law, Plaintiff Rapaport will prove her claims through theDefendants negligence.

66. As set forth above, there is more than enough evidence of malice in this case toestablish those claims. Those acts of malice include to date the following:

a. The Inquirerhas never disclosed the fact that its own publisher questionedDefendant Marimows judgment about the placement and content of the March article; instead,

the InquirerDefendants 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.

Case ID: 140


23/60

21

b. The Inquirernever 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.

c. The Inquirers lead article deliberately never disclosed that neither thelawyer 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 referralfees 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 McCafferys 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. 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 InquirerDefendants accusations that the Plaintiffs had done something

illegal or unethical.

e. The Inquirerstated that Plaintiff McCaffery did not disclose to the lawyersappearing 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 Inquirerto have published otherwise was maliciously false and misleading.

Case ID: 140


24/60

22

f. The Inquirerburied its Amplification in tiny print well after the damagewas 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. TheInquirerDefendants did not even have the

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 theSupreme Court where a lawyer from Plaintiff McCafferys brothers firm was representing a

litigant. TheInquirer knew the oral argument in the case referenced by TheInquirer 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 brothers 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 ofAppellate 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 InquirerDefendants 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

Case ID: 140


25/60

23

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

amended rule, The Inquirerwent 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.

i. The Inquirerpublished essentially the same article three times, on March5, June 11 and August 18, 2013, respectively.

j. The article references various legal experts, but only cites those who arecritical of Plaintiff McCaffery, again deliberately suppressing anything favorable to the

Plaintiffs.

IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I: FALSE LIGHT

PLAINTIFF McCAFFERY v. THE INQUIRERDEFENDANTS

67. Plaintiffs incorporate each and every allegation set forth above as though fully setforth at length, as the detailed averments and facts above are only summarized in the paragraphs

below.

68. As set forth fully above, the Defendants engaged in a discriminate publication ofboth 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.

69. By selectively publicizing information that created the above-referenced falseimpressions, 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.

70. The false light that these Defendants put the Plaintiff in is of a kind that would behighly offensive to a reasonable person because there was a major misrepresentation of his

Case ID: 140


26/60

24

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

to be taken by a reasonable person in the Plaintiffs position.

71. The combination of true and false statements, implications and innuendoes,selectively publicized in a manner to deliberately create a false impression bearing upon the

Plaintiffs conduct and ethics, clearly placed him in a false position before the public.

72. 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.

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

74. The conduct of the Defendants with respect to their false light reporting hasserved to disgrace the Plaintiff and irreparably stain the Plaintiffs reputation on a nationwide

basis.

75. 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.

76. 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

Case ID: 140


27/60

25

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

deliberately or in reckless disregard for the truth.

77. As set forth above, the Inquirer Defendants selective publication of factsomitted a significant amount of other information and true facts which make it completely clear

that the Plaintiff had done nothing wrong.

78. The Inquirer Defendants knew that their articles would be reviewed andrepublished 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 Inquirers 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 Newsclearly concluded from the articles that the Plaintiffs had

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

own gain.

79. It is not an opinion to report that a Supreme Court Justice has abrogated hisethical duties.

80. It is not an opinion to report that a Supreme Court Justice has operated outsidethe bounds of the law.

81. It is not an opinion to depict a Supreme Court Justice abrogating his ethicalduties.

82. It is not an opinion to depict a Supreme Court Justice abrogating his legalresponsibilities.

Case ID: 140


28/60

26

83. The conduct of these Defendants in the several articles at issue ascribed to thePlaintiff conduct, character and conditions that negatively reflect on his fitness for his business,

trade and profession.

84. There is no possible innocent interpretation of the publications identified morefully 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.

85.

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

misconduct set forth at length above, the invasion of the Plaintiffs 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.

86. The literal accuracy of separate statements of truth that are strung together in suchan improper way, as set forth above, can never render a communication true where the

implication of the communication as a whole is completely false.

87. In the end, these Defendants have knowingly and/or recklessly selectively printedcertain 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.

88. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and punitive damages as a result of theDefendants outrageous conduct set forth above.

Case ID: 140


29/60

27

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 INQUIRERDEFENDANTS


below.

90. As set forth fully above, the Defendants engaged in a discriminate publication ofboth true and false statements, and created a false impression by knowingly, recklessly and/or

negligently publicizing selective pieces of true information.

91. 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.

92. The false light that these Defendants put the Plaintiff in is of a kind that would behighly offensive to a reasonable person because there was a major misrepresentation of her



Case ID: 140


30/60

28

93. The combination of true and false statements, implications and innuendoes,selectively publicized in a manner to deliberately create a false impression bearing upon the

Plaintiffs conduct and ethics, clearly placed her in a false position before the public.

94. 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.

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

96. The conduct of the Defendants with respect to their false light reporting hasserved to disgrace the Plaintiff and irreparably stain the Plaintiffs reputation on a nationwide

basis.

97. 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.

98. 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: 140


31/60

29

99. As set forth above, the Inquirer Defendants selective publication of factsomitted a significant amount of other information and true facts which made it completely clear

that the Plaintiff has done nothing wrong.

100. The Inquirer Defendants knew that their articles would be reviewed andrepublished 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 Inquirers 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 Newsclearly concluded from the articles that the Plaintiffs had

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

own gain.

101. It is not an opinion to report that an attorney has abrogated her ethical duties.102. It is not an opinion to report that an attorney has operated outside the bounds of

the law.

103. It is not an opinion to depict an attorney abrogating her ethical duties.104. It is not an opinion to depict an attorney abrogating her legal responsibilities.105. 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,


106. There is no possible innocent interpretation of the publications identified morefully above. The heinous, horrendous, demonstrably false and malicious message from these

Case ID: 140


32/60

30

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.

107. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants deliberate and/or recklessand/or negligent misconduct set forth abundantly above, the invasion of the Plaintiffs 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.

108.

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.

109. In the end, these Defendants have knowingly, recklessly and/or negligentlyselectively 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.

110. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and punitive damages as a result of theDefendants deliberately false, misleading and outrageous conduct set forth above.






Case ID: 140


33/60

31

COUNT III: DEFAMATION

PLAINTIFF McCAFFERY v. THE DAILY NEWSDEFENDANTS


below.

112. With respect to the offending caricature at issue, the caricature is defamatory inthat 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:

Neither Plaintiff reviews or abides by the book of ethicsgoverning judges and lawyers;


Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of Traffic CourtNumbers to conduct business and bring home fees;

Plaintiff McCafferys holding of the gavel suggests that heis ruling on Plaintiff Rapaports referral matters.

Plaintiffs call Philadelphia judges on behalf of the referralcases to influence results; Plaintiffs do not review or comply with the ethical rules

governing jurists and lawyers in the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania;




Case ID: 140


34/60

32

Plaintiffs Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Chambers arenot used exclusively, entirely and completely for thebusiness of the Supreme Court.

113. The offending caricature was published by theDaily NewsDefendants.114. It is evident from the writing defining the caricature that the caricature applies

exclusively to the Plaintiffs at issue.

115. Based upon the foregoing, it is obvious that all readers of The Daily Newswouldhave understood that the above-referenced content was defamatory and was drawn in such a way

as to apply exclusively to the Plaintiffs.

116.

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

special harm to each Plaintiff, and his general reputation.

117. The caricature ascribes to the Plaintiff certain conduct, character and/orconditions that would adversely affect his fitness for the proper conduct of his business, trade

and profession.

118. There is no innocent interpretation of this caricature that clearly states that thePlaintiff does not abide by the law or the ethical rules and regulations governing the law.

119. There is no doubt that the effect the caricature would have on the minds ofaverage readers would be to cause great harm to the reputation of the Plaintiff and lower him in

the estimation of the community.

120. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature and its representations were false andmaliciously made.

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

Case ID: 140


35/60

33

122. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature was drawn and published todeliberately and/or recklessly state and reinforce the fact that the Plaintiff has acted unethically

and in violation of the law.

123. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature was drawn and published deliberatelyand/or in reckless disregard of the truth regarding the Plaintiffs character and professional

fitness.

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

125. As a proximate result of Defendants malicious, intentional or reckless conduct asset 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.

126. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages as a result of theDefendants deliberate, reckless and outrageous conduct set forth above.






Case ID: 140


36/60

34

COUNT IV: DEFAMATION

PLAINTIFF RAPAPORT v. THE DAILY NEWSDEFENDANTS


below.

128. With respect to the offending caricature at issue, the caricature is defamatory inthat 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:

Plaintiff Rapaport professionally trades off of herhusbands name;

The Supreme Courts judicial chambers are used as abusiness office for Plaintiff Rapaport;

Neither Plaintiff do not reviews or abides by the book ofethics governing judges and lawyers;


Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of Traffic CourtNumbers to conduct business and bring home fees; Plaintiffs call Philadelphia judges on behalf of the referral

cases to influence results;

Plaintiffs do not review or comply with the ethical rulesgoverning jurists and lawyers in the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania;



Case ID: 140


37/60

35


Plaintiff Rapaport identifies herself as Mrs. McCaffery in anyprofessional capacity;

129. The offending caricature was published by theDaily NewsDefendants.130. It is evident from the writing defining the caricature that the caricature applies

exclusively to the Plaintiffs at issue.

131. Based upon the foregoing, it is obvious that all readers of The Daily Newsunderstood that the above-referenced content was defamatory and was drawn in such a way as to

apply exclusively to the Plaintiffs.

132. Further, it is averred that the caricature maliciously associates a very specific andspecial harm to each Plaintiff, and her general reputation.

133. The caricature ascribes to the Plaintiff certain conduct, character and/orconditions that would adversely affect her fitness for the proper conduct of her business, trade

and profession.

134. There is no innocent interpretation to of this caricature that clearly states that thePlaintiff does not abide by the law or the ethical rules and regulations governing the law.

135. There is no doubt that the effect the caricature would have on the minds ofaverage readers would be to cause great harm to the reputation of the Plaintiff and lower her in

the estimation of the community.

136. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature and its representations were false andmaliciously made.

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

Case ID: 140


38/60

36

138. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature was drawn and published todeliberately, recklessly and/or negligently state and reinforce the fact that the Plaintiff has

acted unethically and in violation of the law.

139. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature was drawn and published deliberately,in reckless disregard of the truth and/or negligently regarding the Plaintiffs character and fitness.

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

141. As a proximate result of Defendants malicious, intentional, reckless or negligentconduct 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.

142. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages as a result of theDefendants deliberate, reckless and outrageous conduct set forth above.






Case ID: 140


39/60

37

COUNT V: FALSE LIGHT

PLAINTIFF McCAFFERY v. THE DAILY NEWSDEFENDANTS


below.

144. As set forth fully above, the Defendants published the caricature at issue.145. 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.

146. The false light that these Defendants put the Plaintiff in is of a kind that would behighly offensive to a reasonable person because there was a major misrepresentation of his



147. The caricature deliberately created a false impression, thereby bearing negativelyupon the Plaintiffs conduct and ethics, and clearly placed him in a false position before the

public.

148. The caricature, as described above, created, perpetuated and regurgitated theimplication 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.

149. The caricature, as described above, reasonably implies false and defamatory factsin 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: 140


40/60

38

150. The conduct of the Defendants with respect to their false light caricature hasserved to disgrace the Plaintiff and irreparably stain the Plaintiffs reputation on a nationwide

basis.

151. The Defendants, by and through the exhibit to the Complaint, have implied, statedand drawn a factual scenario painting the Plaintiff as acting in violation of the laws of this

Commonwealth and the ethical rules governing jurists.

152. The facts that emanate from the caricature are provably false, as set forthherein. 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.

153. It is not an opinion to draw and present a caricature depicting a Supreme CourtJustice abrogating his ethical duties.

154. It is not an opinion to draw and present a caricature depicting a Supreme CourtJustice abrogating his legal responsibilities.

155. The conduct of these Defendants in publishing the caricature ascribed to thePlaintiff conduct, character and conditions that reflect negatively on his fitness for his business,


156. There is no possible innocent interpretation of the caricature identified more fullyabove. 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: 140


41/60

39

157. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants deliberate and/or recklessmisconduct set forth at length above, the invasion of the Plaintiffs 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 NEWSDEFENDANTS

159.

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.

160. As set forth fully above, the Defendants published the caricature at issue.161. 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.

162. The false light that these Defendants put the Plaintiff in is of a kind that would behighly offensive to a reasonable person because there was a major misrepresentation of her

Case ID: 140


42/60

40



163. The caricature deliberately created a false impression, thereby bearing negativelyupon the Plaintiffs conduct and ethics, and clearly placed her in a false position before the

public.

164. The caricature, as described above, created, perpetuated and regurgitated theimplication 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.

165. The caricature, as described above, reasonably implies false and defamatory factsin 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.

166. The conduct of the Defendants with respect to their false light caricature hasserved to disgrace the Plaintiff and irreparably stain the Plaintiffs reputation on a nationwide

basis.

167. The Defendants, by and through the exhibit to the Complaint, have implied, statedand drawn a factual scenario painting the Plaintiff as acting in violation of the laws of this

Commonwealth and the ethical rules governing attorneys.

168. The facts that emanate from the caricature are provably false, as set forthherein. 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: 140


43/60

41

169. It is not an opinion to draw and present a caricature depicting an attorneyabrogating her ethical duties.

170. It is not an opinion to draw and present a caricature depicting an attorneyabrogating her legal responsibilities.

171. The conduct of these Defendants in publishing the caricature ascribed to thePlaintiff conduct, character and conditions that reflect negatively on her fitness for her business,


172. There is no possible innocent interpretation of the caricature identified more fullyabove. 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.

173. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants deliberate, reckless and/ornegligent misconduct set forth at length above, the invasion of the Plaintiffs 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: 140


44/60

42

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: March 25, 2014

Case ID: 140


45/60

VERIX'ICATIONI, Lise Rapaport, hereby state that I am a Plaintiffin this action and veriS that the

statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made therein aresubject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

,./-wLISE RAPAPORT

DATED: r'{, Aorl/

Case ID: 140


46/60

VERIFICATION

I Seamus P. McCaffery hereby state that I am a Plaintiff in this action and verify that thestatements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledgeinformation and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made therein aresubject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

F4SEAMUS P.

DArED: 3/g

Case ID: 140


47/60

EXHIBIT P-1

Case ID: 140


48/60

Itd[RERI}IYESTrcATNilhrhnna'stop murt, aqutiononreferrlfeThe fees received bvJustice McCaffer/swife- one for $82L000 -drawscrutinyfromCastille and ethicists.

ByfttgR.U.CoyINQUIRER STAF? WBTEROver the last decade, tbe sifeof Peonsylraia Supreme CourtJustice Seanus P. McCafiery -his chiefiudicial aide - has received 18 pannents as eferralfees for co'nnecting bw fimswitb clients.In te most neoent payment,McCatreqt/s wife' lawYer LiseRapaporq received $tezlmo -her fee from a settment in amultimilliondollar ndical ral-practice case.Court records and McCaf-fer'/s state-mandated public -nansialdisclosure forme listthe 18 instances in cric hiswife received a rcferral fee.A tswyer frr e cowb, and -br:s $ith te funs, say tbftes tre rutine and prqerBut tbe high courds cbiefju*tice, Ronald D. Castillg ges-tioned Rapapods making refer-rals, as did some legal experts@ata by Tbe Inguirer.Castille said tbey aised tbepotential for "couflicts of inter-st and tbe appearance of im:pmpriety arisig hom adge'sstaff employee practicing lawwhile receiving feir c( -pensa-tion while employed in a judi-cial chamber, and especia ina dicial chamber."Cstilte and McCafrery havebeen bitterly at odds in recentmonths, persona and pmfes-sionally.,{s the fees have come Mc-Caffery has ruled on 11 Su-pr.eme Court cases in whichsome of tle 6rms tied to thefees were participants, Lawyersin tbe cases say fe justice nev.er disclosed the fees.In elgtt of ose 11apea Mc-Cafteryvd in vm of tbe legalposition adnoed bD' ee firmgtht had rceircd rcfenals fromRapagct in oter cases.See lEll 3 on A6orlcdcI A drdft of this story apardnadrtent[ br sernl harsfunday m the Ptty.om website

PLAINTIFF'SEXHIBIT?- ICase ID: 140


49/60

^6 | rH[ prLAoELpHra rNGUrR ^Y,iM43_. ), prrLL/.COMIn top Pa. court, & {uestion on fees

Samdung l{acfry fid ila tlfc, d RaDdt, in 2m8, fter he s sworn in s Supreme Coui justiceeremonyatth covento center aE^sftsM6/sde@nrdce ilc(affety lncmc DdoglrnJuices such s $amus

@ fouo*-up cI& (tlccaf-fry's bmq Deiel is a @b$ of e Fried@ e)Roben ilgel@i, a fomdrof a Phildelpia wd-ldryfim Pith a Wil Wti* irdm &cid, dld rcr@nd to pated clt5Neilher im Hwel K R -bry, fNdq of BNkE&

he @ bubled by the referElsi te 6 pl.Ttough it wodd be ufa limit e abilityd rylls of lw-y6 pcd aB Fox sid, "itlks aliffDt basus she's h"Sheb 3 pubc *ruL' hesid.n e iitil itedieg }to|H. hcdM of the Hoftu Ui-vity Ie Sch@l eid lccaf-fery shorld e iEsd oay r irckig the fimtid to rdd .s.IntNiwed i Sedy ddasked Pieth iht @ pGil- wiy i a pof$ior inwc judF ofr& Miedto a&N - he sid Mccftrydd M disdsd the Efrals o ffied hif if hec.be o b FEa th@FeedED lso said ttsorrld be the n for ry judgbliry lD wich e Iarfm LEfo t ploys a6pous.lalie W, b@4 Uiwr-sity of hile Iw S.@l pfess who bas sdied e ethi'l ssG fcigdg$ d w-yrlFlads, also sid McCa-fry sodd h dtul@d thefe

Id q rn lbc FoldIite be bld bo by Rapa-Fds Firy te fs dd thhd d h l{sbld had rctdon s irolvig tb 6r.an FbliCa Ei4 r McCf-fe/5 gridldi@ i e l isW d iD t Ed of pp o mmd ridr ju-dbial di4 ft @" HadsiID his Iq Rdis sid rbsm m d I leg tEqui@6 sch tigf aal dd-@MbilmdMdhigb Nd qihty Mh e n @eeet oldg6 dde ary tu fd th a@ wb bd eroeiDtbeulrylNfteeiingbryder6ryblied Mfery dd have 1@ brc Xr@ o thel6iDg side of m 4FL tirdffilMe "hdd.affibiF@ifcjustiq'Iam sid of Mccfery "ltl het hi. thint heb a fir e dry t6 log:But ChI S. Ra Ji, a Paolilsrywo bl 2 , ddhe td d bom ut lbe Gfer f*.%d I km bot it,I eouldhaE4ddbbruebslf," Ke siA.-rTmha i6 of s trylryslEltiNhip to jdge upaphatiy *t F in *eb.forc i s SuFrior Co@I N@@bet the Supeidk Fly qticizd Phitradel-pir Como Pt Cod JdgeAI& L k6hko fo. failry bdcl* i a tht hjr wifq lary4 mrkcd ha l d -fdi e inswe copeyio a md.deiqjw ismuit6 sl'dd empoy f fiD thd Fili io defed-ig peral-iqjry si$. Refe-El fs did not phy ole.tror rc. Tehlo als faid d hs eife p1ry6 on hi6liclG fom. He rcndy6ffid tt oDisi{e 6li gadedd Dods vith stateMdeid .fre aDpi @ otd it8"dtuapproval" of ftshko,t8h bi6 rite hd b alaw i the ic sit beforchiaedwFnssha-iry h E68.lbtrhko doclied 6mentfor fts dde1lEshlo si8ned spdi9iq judg b cvil suib i Phila-dephiq b sught b kee h-ing suc . fhe Sp@eCoM i4d @d lshkoftlo cieil @t, 6edively dotig hiE. fccaffery wseory the ji detdbshiEffi@e4@ itr

ilccaffery e Hukedto ile 0al Bblccom lhis 2009 fomre that dudngilc&ffMs sond yergpreme Cd. hiswifeUse Rpa rcceivdrcr6l ls frm thre

Gffrey C. Ilkd Jr, eeffiituNfsratc ljniq"dty of kryh?ia lsw SchelaDd fstigs Colege Sch@l oflr i Se Ft*is, ery lqal ethic issG, sid {qCry shd haw @ed bio-RgsbeF, Bmm & Sdle, o6beB %h 2O1OtudGds

"I int hds right " *id qfode. of the thics B@u 1(hootrSof Pmrylmi.tu16 $hb Co , hq S Fl*i, CA I 105

l?0thG. ehL

kp @ldbakb.w.llle I 4uiF fr* sqtc 4 ietu si tu mpl Feb. e a jdiq M.Cry b Fidtr96c9 Fdy. 8 ief adetjeffiiE jrdi:is ard*t, Rpporfb aid $t95 EnaFFt b ror*ed f the@ ajudicl aide si W.fu tht, 6he % e ai@dittd&ryturtued i FiEte pEdi fo B1 frral f*B 6 appoD Mccafej/s fmchl.disclE fotu h 2m3. e F heru & th. apFb bcrrb. lhre o sch f3 drirg hbi ys o Pbiladehia Mu-licipd Cot, @diDg to hisdislo fo@, iocludiry thesi y kFF s a shry in ldici CdOn m offidl M reb6ite forth se bq kFp lis h-slf * r Ir working for fteSupDe Co. Se gie* hs d-dss d "ChDbe of ,usMcc6ery" rsm d s St., Phil-delphi&h lhe sitq kpp @she hs m DFci h-e "b@ I have ro piktecliets," I 66is'lene hemte that oe tFFn "bqwo'ldryriti the ffi syth,Ss tupped pndciry h.'hblic ifoetio bout the

ru6 fo judgs @irc lholy to de fblic bic ito-o ut oud hme fo judg dd his 3p * - e$W d the y. Judgsned not ws mdnb pid 6hos te aory ms eed.Of the eight ms irclvdsi Eferq 6ve did not nd to peid *.tutudtutfufsbkwtrei@edaMe ODc dd h 6m EamE th ppo sgEted

mccaffery complaint copy

Documents

usted en

mccaffery complaint

demandas en contra

demanda y

philadelphia inquirer

tiene abogado o si notiene

court withoutfurther

philadelphia daily news