Amended Complaint

THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
BY: Dion G. Rassias, Esquire

Identification No.: 49724
1125 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107-4997
(215) 592-1000
(215) 592-8360 (Facsimile)

LISE RAPAPORT and
SEAMUS P. McCAFFERY, h/w
c/o The Beasley Firm, LLC
1125 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107

Plaintiffs,

vs.

INTERSTATE GENERAL MEDIA, LLC
t/a INTERSTATE GENERAL MEDIA, also
t/a THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER,
also t/a PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS,
also t/a PHILLY.COM, also t/a
PHILLYDAILYNEWS.COM
801 Market Street
Suite 300

and

WILLIAM MARIMOW
440 South Broad Street
Unit 1602

and

CRAIG McCOY
330 Church Road
Elkins Park, PA 19027

and

SIGNE WILKINSON
626 South 21
st
Street
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY

FEBRUARY TERM, 2014
No. 3044

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case ID: 140203044
Filed and Attested by
PROTHONOTARY
16 MAY 2014 12:34 pm
C. FORTE
2

and

MICHAEL DAYS
324 Hamilton Avenue
Trenton, NJ 08609

Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

NOTICE TO DEFEND

"NOTICE" "AVISO"

You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims
set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty
(20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a
written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with
the court your defense or objections to the claims set forth against you.
You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without
you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without
further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other
claimor relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or
property or other rights important to you.
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de
estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte
(20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion.
Hace falta asentar una comparencia escrita o en persona o con un
abogado y entregar a la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus
objecciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que
si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede continuar la
demanda en contra suya sin previo aviso o notificacion. Ademas, la
corte puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiere que usted
cumpla con todas las provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puede
perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros derechos iportantes para usted.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT
ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT
AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET
FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET
LEGAL HELP.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO
INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO
TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO,
VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA
OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA
ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR
ASISTENCIA LEGA.
Philadelphia Bar Association
LAWYER REFERRAL & INFO.
One Reading Center
Phila., PA 19107
(215) 238-1701
Asociacion de Licenciados de Filadelphia
Servicio de Referencia e Informacion
One Reading Center
Phila., PA 19107
(215) 238-1701

Case ID: 140203044
BY: Dion G. Rassias, Esquire
Identification No.: 49724
1125 Walnut Street
(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.

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 Street
Unit 1602

and

CRAIG McCOY
330 Church Road
Elkins Park, PA 19027

and

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY

FEBRUARY TERM, 2014
No. 3044

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case ID: 140203044
2

SIGNE WILKINSON
626 South 21
st
Street

and

MICHAEL DAYS
324 Hamilton Avenue
Trenton, NJ 08609

Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION
1. People who dont read the newspaper are uninformed; people who do are
misinformed. Mark Twain
2. Philadelphia is unfortunately a one-horse media town because both major daily
newspapers are owned by the same entities; that means that the Defendants can write whatever
they want, whenever they want to, and their publications can only be held in check by the legal
system. This case is all about media accountability for publishing smear pieces.
II. THE PARTIES
3. Plaintiffs Lise Rapaport and Seamus P. McCaffery are adult individual residents
of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, and they are husband and wife. Plaintiff Rapaport is an
attorney licensed and in good standing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania since 1979.
Plaintiff McCaffery is now a J ustice on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court having been elected in
November 2007. Prior to that, from 2004 through 2007, he served on the Pennsylvania Superior
Court, after his election in November 2003. Before then, Plaintiff McCaffery was a judge in the
Municipal Court of Philadelphia from J anuary 1994 to December 2003. He obtained his law
degree from Temple University in 1989.
Case ID: 140203044
3

4. Defendant Interstate General Media, LLC (IGM) is, upon information and
belief, a licensed Pennsylvania corporation, and conducts business at 801 Market Street, Suite
300, Philadelphia, PA 19107. IGM was formed in the spring of 2012 for the purpose of
acquiring all or substantially all of the capital stock of Philadelphia Media Network, Inc. IGM
owns all or substantially all of The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Daily News and Philly.com.
IGM is and was responsible for the publications which appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer
and The Daily News, as well as in the online versions of the articles it was a publisher of them.
5. Defendant William Marimow (Marimow) is an adult individual residing at 440
South Broad Street, Unit 1602, Philadelphia, PA 19146, and conducts business at 801 Market
Street, Suite 300, Philadelphia, PA 19107. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Marimow was
the Editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer and therefore, in whole or in part, exercised authority
over the content of the newspapers publications and its website.
6. Defendant Craig McCoy (McCoy) is an adult individual residing at 330 Church
Road, Elkins Park, PA 19027, and conducts business at 801 Market Street, Suite 300,
Philadelphia, PA 19107. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant McCoy was responsible for
researching and writing the articles which appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer and online.
7. Defendant Signe Wilkinson (Wilkinson) is an adult individual residing at 626
South 21
st
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19146, and conducts business at 801 Market Street, Suite
300, Philadelphia, PA 19107. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Wilkinson drew the
caricature which appeared in The Daily News.
8. Defendant Michael Days (Days) is an adult individual residing at 324 Hamilton
Avenue, Trenton, NJ 08609, and conducts business at 801 Market Street, Suite 300,
Philadelphia, PA 19107. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Days was the Editor of The
Case ID: 140203044
4

Philadelphia Daily News and therefore, in whole or in part, exercised authority over the content
of the newspapers publications and its website.
9. With respect to The Philadelphia Inquirer, from time to time throughout this
Complaint, Defendants IGM, Marimow and McCoy may be collectively also referred to as the
Inquirer Defendants.
10. With respect to The Philadelphia Daily News, from time to time throughout this
Complaint, Defendants IGM, Wilkinson and Days may be collectively also referred to as the
Daily News Defendants.
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The Publication(s) at Issue
11. The Philadelphia Inquirer published three (3) articles about the Plaintiffs, each of
which placed the Plaintiffs in a false light with the general public. The articles were false,
deliberately misleading, and disgracefully inaccurate as a result of the Inquirer Defendants
calculated and pre-meditated incompleteness and intentionally malicious slant.
12. The three articles at issue from The Philadelphia Inquirer are dated March 5,
2013, J une 11, 2013 and August 18, 2013, respectively, and are attached hereto as Plaintiffs
Exhibits 1, 3 and 5, respectively. Each article was also readable online at Philly.com during the
relevant time periods, and the online versions of the newspapers March 5 article depending
upon the date printed may have a March 3 or March 4 date.
13. In fact, the articles remained online until this lawsuit was filed; they were all
removed one day later.
14. The Daily News published a caricature on J une 16, 2013, that was completely
false and disgraceful, and placed the Plaintiffs in a highly offensive false light. The Daily News
Case ID: 140203044
5

Defendants offensively portrayed the Plaintiffs as violating ethical and legal rules and standards
and corrupting the legal system to obtain referral fees. A copy of the Daily News caricature is
attached hereto as Plaintiffs Exhibit 4.
15. Then, in a ludicrous attempt to address their already false and outrageous
portrayals of the Plaintiffs, the Inquirer Defendants published a microscopic Amplification,
buried on page four of the newspaper, with no headline to identify what it pertained to,
shamefully and weakly amplifying a wildly inaccurate assertion from the earlier March article.
The Amplification is attached hereto as Plaintiffs Exhibit 2.
16. As a result of the Defendants outrageous and misleading publications, at least
one Philadelphia-based media news outlet, Philadelphia Magazine, has reported that a federal
investigation was triggered.
B. The March 5, 2013 Publication
17. The March publication is false, incomplete, and contrary to Pennsylvania law.
The Defendants, seeking to boost sagging readership and interest, published this article knowing
that they were placing the Plaintiffs in false light, falsely accusing them of illegal and unethical
behavior, and falsely reporting the nature of Plaintiff Rapaports referral fees and Plaintiff
McCafferys participation in certain cases as a J ustice on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The
article was intentionally false, misleading and deliberately incomplete.
18. The short version of the March publication is that the Defendants deliberately
omitted facts and truths from it which would have dispelled the intentional false light and
innuendoes it created that Plaintiffs had broken the law and/or done something unethical when
Plaintiff Rapaport received legitimate referral fees.
Case ID: 140203044
6

19. In fact, The Inquirers March article was so heinous, untrue and savage in its
portrayal of the Plaintiffs that even the publisher of the newspaper, Robert J . Hall, had to admit
under oath that he was so appalled by the story, and the lengths The Inquirer had gone to in order
to make J ustice 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 J ustice
McCaffery and his wife Lise Rapaport had done something wrong. See transcript of
proceedings attached as Exhibit 6.
20. That admission is as important as it is historic: The Inquirers publisher told the
Inquirers editor that the story involving a J ustice on the Supreme Court was seriously flawed
and not worthy of front page coverage.
21. Clearly, even the publisher of The Inquirer knew that the article was a smear
piece, journalistic rubbish, and should never have run in the first place as written.
Remarkably, publisher Robert Hall was so concerned over the placement of this article that was
maliciously designed to make J ustice McCaffery and his wife look bad that he even sent a
follow-up email to Defendant Marimow on March 4, 2013, exclaiming how disappointed he
was with the story and how distressed he was that it was put on the front page of the Sunday
paper.
22. Mr. Halls March 4, 2013 e-mail states, in full:
Good Morning:

I will tell you I am disappointed in the story. Placed on front page? We do not
say the fees are routine and proper (although we know they are) but quote there
attorney (which both of us knows what that sounds like to the reader). That was
the statement you and I talked about yesterday to be sure we told readers. And we
Case ID: 140203044
7

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

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

I will call you late this afternoon.

See Exhibit 7

23. Even the publisher of The Inquirer clearly concedes that the disappointing story
was poorly placed on the front page; was manipulated factually; was reported in such a fashion
as to deliberately make Defendant McCoys comments on the disposition of the eleven [11]
cases appear improper. He further admits that the referral fee issue only gained attention
because The Inquirer raised it, and finally, reflecting the depth of the malice, proclaims that what
was reported was all subject to how we ask the question. Mr. Hall concludes his e-mail to
Defendant Marimow by admonishing him that The Inquirer should have been overly sure that
the story would be read fairly because even Mr. Hall recognized that as written, it could not
be.
24. As set forth in detail above, there can be no mistaking the defamatory and false
light content of the March, 2013 publication and the malicious intent behind it. The article was
disappointing because it was factually inaccurate, and reported in a fashion deliberately
designed only to embarrass and humiliate the Plaintiffs. It should never have been placed on the
front page, or anywhere within the newspaper, as written. Mr. Halls e-mail confirms that the
article made it appear as though the Plaintiffs had done something improper when they clearly
did not. Finally, it is clear that the publisher of The Inquirer suspects there was foul play from
the editor and writer behind the article because he confesses that a lot depends upon how The
Inquirer reporter asked his questions. This incontrovertible evidence that the publisher knew that
Case ID: 140203044
8

the article was a smear piece against the Plaintiffs, and confirms that Mr. Hall was suspicious of
the motives of Defendants Marimow and McCoy, because he knew the story was fatally flawed
and had been poisoned and corrupted from the very beginning by virtue of how the key questions
were asked.
25. Publisher Hall correctly confirms that the story could not be read fairly, because
the story was false.
26. Obviously, The Inquirer took all necessary steps to sanitize that internal dirt
from the general public and never disclosed, in any of its articles, its own publishers deep
concerns about the coverage of the Plaintiffs.
27. Defendant Marimow compromised his responsibilities and journalistic ethics to
attack Plaintiffs, and became completely unmoved by and unmoored from the truth. He did so in
furtherance of the several agendas of his friends and his personal counsel, whose interests and
motivations were completely adverse to Plaintiff McCaffery.
28. Nowhere in any of the articles was it ever disclosed that Defendant Marimow had
an extremely close personal friendship and business relationship with individuals whose interests
and motivations were completely adverse to Plaintiff McCaffery; instead he deliberately kept
that information a secret from the general public, and abused his position of power to attack and
humiliate the Plaintiffs.
29. Defendant Marimow spearheaded the effort, effectuated by Defendant McCoys
sensationally headlined articles, to smear the Plaintiffs, and he used his position as Editor-in-
Chief to do it, with the referral fee issue as the mechanism. As such, Editor-in-Chief Marimow
transformed himself into the Enabler-in-Chief of the entire smear campaign, fueled in part by
his strong business and personal relationships referenced above, and motivated by these and
Case ID: 140203044
9

other factors and relationships that will be probed and more fully disclosed, in far greater detail,
throughout the discovery process.
30. Referral fees among lawyers are proper and extremely common throughout the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The implication of illegal and unethical behavior on the part of
the Plaintiffs is as without merit as it always has been, and this malicious implication has been
put into general circulation, fostered and magnified by the Defendants.
31. The March publication deliberately does not truthfully set forth all of the facts
pertaining to the Plaintiffs and the referral fee issue. Instead, the March publication, followed by
others in J une and August, see infra, was part of a deliberate campaign to smear the Plaintiffs by
creating the impression that they had done something illegal and/or unethical when clearly they
had not.
32. In the March publication, The Philadelphia Inquirer states: As the fees have
come in, McCaffery has ruled on 11 Supreme Court cases in which some of the firms tied to the
fees were participants. Lawyers in the cases say the justice [Plaintiff McCaffery] never disclosed
the fees.
33. The article goes on to state that in eight of those 11 appeals, [Plaintiff]
McCaffery voted in favor of the legal position advanced by the firms that had received referrals
from [Plaintiff] Rapaport in other cases.
34. Mr. Halls email, attached as Exhibit 7, confirms that The Inquirers coverage
of the cases was written in such a way as to make the dispositions appear improper.
35. These statements were published prominently on the front page of The Inquirer,
above the fold, and were written in conjunction with an article-opening, eye-catching statement
that Plaintiff Rapaport had received an $821,000.00 referral fee.
Case ID: 140203044
10

36. Standing alone, without the full and truthful disclosure of all of the facts known to
these Defendants, these statements clearly place the Plaintiffs in false light because of this now
fact-based implication that Plaintiff McCafferys duties as a J ustice were influenced by referral
fees paid to his wife, and that his wife was complicit in such a scheme.
37. The only and very clear conclusion from the article is that Plaintiff McCafferys
responsibilities on the Supreme Court were compromised ethically and legally because his
wife has received referral fees, and especially an $821,000.00 fee.
38. This conclusion is completely wrong, and would have been shown to be wrong
had The Inquirer disclosed all of the true facts which were known to it when it published the
smear pieces. Ultimately, this seriously flawed article, to quote The 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, the Inquirer Defendants published and/or omitted
the following:
a. At the time she made the referral that five years later resulted in the
payment of $821,000.00, Plaintiff Rapaport was not employed by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania in any capacity. When she made this referral, she had no tie to the Supreme Court.
The Inquirer deliberately omits this crucial fact;
b. The Inquirer deliberately failed to report that the lawyer and law firm who
paid the $821,000.00 referral fee have never appeared before J ustice McCaffery in any of his
capacities as a judge or J ustice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Instead, The Inquirer
blanketly asserts that [a]s the fees have come in, J ustice McCaffery has ruled on 11 cases.
This clearly creates the wildly false and enormously wrong impression that the $821,000.00
Case ID: 140203044
11

referral fee was tied to lawyers and firms who not only appeared before Plaintiff McCaffery, but
was tied to cases that were ruled upon by him;
c. The Inquirer deliberately uses the $821,000.00 referral fee as the lightning
rod for its false light portrayal that Plaintiffs were violating the law or acting unethically. The
gist of its article is to smear the Plaintiffs and to prominently declare and paint a false light
picture that the lawyers and/or law firm who paid the $821,000.00 referral fee among others
were getting favorable treatment from Plaintiff McCaffery. By doing this, The Inquirer
deliberately violated each and every fundamental and core principle of responsible journalism.
Then, after smearing the Plaintiffs with their false light portrayals, these Defendants
affirmatively chose not to later correct these bogus, unmoored-from-truth facts. Instead, the
Defendants crucified the Plaintiffs with front-page articles that were nowhere close to the truth,
and ultimately deliberately promoted and allowed these misimpressions and innuendos to
circulate on a nationwide basis. The Defendants never demonstrated the journalistic integrity to
publish all of the true facts, or to appropriately correct the facts they knew were wrong. This,
all while the Plaintiffs labored under the heavy cloud of a federal investigation;
d. The Inquirer Defendants wrote that Plaintiff McCaffery never disclosed
the fees. This is a blatant lie and the Defendants knew this. Contrary to that wrongful
statement, Plaintiff McCaffery has disclosed the fees received by his wife pursuant to each and
every Rule required of judges in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Defendants knew that
the fees received had been disclosed as required by law, and the Inquirer Defendants statement
to the contrary further places the Plaintiffs in false light. In fact, if Plaintiff McCaffery had never
disclosed the fees, Defendants would never have known about the referrals in the first place, all
as admitted by Publisher Hall in his March 4, 2013 email. See Exhibit 7;
Case ID: 140203044
12

e. The Inquirers bare and unsubstantiated reference to 11 cases Plaintiff
McCaffery assertedly ruled on was one of the linchpins of its false light coverage. Because
identification of these 11 cases appearing in the March article was clearly crucial to the
Plaintiffs ability to disprove the false facts underpinning the smear campaign against them,
Plaintiffs counsel immediately requested a list of those cases. The Inquirer refused to identify
these cases until recently compelled to do so by this lawsuit. Now that the 11 cases have been
identified, Plaintiffs have the ability to prove that The Inquirer published completely false and
misleading assessments of those cases, including but not limited to its self-servingly false chart
of referral fees;
f. Nowhere in the March article is it mentioned that any one, single vote by a
Supreme Court J ustice, with very few exceptions, can have any dispositive effect. Nowhere in
the March article is it mentioned that the creating, upholding, diminishing or in any way
affecting of a legal right or money judgment, can only be accomplished when an individual
J ustices vote is tied to a majority of his or her fellow J ustices 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,
for falsely suggested improper purposes, in favor of those lawyers and law firms that have paid
Plaintiff Rapaport referral fees;
g. The Inquirer deliberately chose not to identify or otherwise detail the 11
cases referenced in the March and subsequent articles, because to do so would have shown that
J ustice McCafferys votes did not provide help to the lawyers or firms who had paid referral
fees, as The Inquirer suggests. The Inquirer deliberately did not identify and/or publish details
Case ID: 140203044
13

about the 11 cases because to do so would have clearly established that what The Inquirer
spewed in its March publication was false;
h. The Inquirer still has not published or produced one shred of evidence
that Plaintiff McCaffery violated any law or in any way acted unethically. Indeed, it bears
repeating: Plaintiff McCaffery has done nothing wrong, illegal or unethical;
i. The Inquirer deliberately did not publish the text of Rule 3121 of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, which clearly permitted the payment of referral fees
to Plaintiff Rapaport when those payments were made. While there will be more herein on The
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 law
1
in any court other than the
appellate court where the staff lawyer was working, provided that the staff lawyer received the
prior approval of the judge on whose staff such person was employed. Specifically, at the
relevant time, Rule 3121 stated:
Practice of Law by Staff.

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

j. The Inquirer thereafter deliberately failed to report that Rule 3121 was
subsequently amended, by a unanimous Supreme Court, to rescind the permission staff lawyers
had previously enjoyed, up until August 21, 2013, to practice law. This failure highlights and
magnifies The Inquirers biased conduct, because to publish the full truth in a subsequent
Case ID: 140203044
14

article would again have contradicted and exposed the falsehoods and false implications The
Inquirer had created and continued to promote and foster.
39. The Inquirer Defendants conduct was the deliberate avoidance of the truth for
the sole purpose of smearing the Plaintiffs.
C. The March 24, 2013 Amplification
40. The Inquirer Defendants knew that their March 5, 2013 article was seriously
wrong and flawed: Plaintiff Rapaport was not even working in the court system at the time that
she made the referral that resulted in the payment of $821,000.00 five years later. This fact was
known to the Inquirer Defendants from court documents.
41. The Inquirer deliberately did not publish this fact in its March 2013 article,
because to do so would have completely taken the malicious sting out of the 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 Inquirer paints the wholly inaccurate picture of Plaintiff
McCaffery ruling in favor of those firms who have paid referral fees to Plaintiff Rapaport.
42. Knowing from communications with Plaintiffs counsel that their deliberate and
malicious omission was about to become public, the Inquirer Defendants did the unbelievable:
they published an Amplification, whatever that is, that standing alone, further establishes the
Defendants malice toward the Plaintiffs.
43. While the Inquirer Defendants blasted the Plaintiffs on the front page of the
Sunday paper in their false light portrayals that the Plaintiffs were engaged in illegal and
unethical conduct, the so-called Amplification was buried on page four of the newspaper, with
absolutely no headline or other means to even identify what the Amplification pertained to,

1
The practice of law does not include referring cases.
Case ID: 140203044
15

and the Amplification never used the words retraction or correction. The buried,
microscopic Amplification stated, in part, as follows:
In a story March 4 [sic] concerning referral fees received by the
wife of state Supreme Court J ustice Seamus P. McCaffery, The
Inquirer reported that the wife, Lise Rapaport, had worked as a
judicial aide since 1997. The newspaper has since learned that
Rapaport was on leave from J an. 15 to Dec. 17, 2007, and received
no pay or benefits from the court during that period, according to
court officials.

See Exhibit P-2 attached hereto.
44. The Amplification finally disclosed the critical information that Plaintiff
Rapaport was not an employee of the court system in 2007 when the referral was made. The
Inquirer Defendants deliberately buried this fact because, as part of the smear campaign, the
truthful disclosure about Plaintiff 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 the Inquirer Defendants had no interest whatsoever in telling the truth on this point.
45. The Amplification was, of course, strategically buried on page A-4 of the
newspaper, and is obviously written and placed so as not to seem to have anything whatsoever to
do with the prior, front-page coverage excoriating a Supreme Court J ustice. Clearly, any
reasonable and truthful amplification deserved at least a title or headline that related it to the
March 5, 2013 article which it was allegedly amplifying. This Amplification got neither.
As published, the Amplification was deliberately a non-event.
46. The Amplification should have been placed in the newspaper in a spot of
comparable prominent, eye-catching location and newsworthiness, and with a font comparable to
the earlier smear piece, and at a bare minimum, it should have contained an appropriate headline
to identify it so that it could be seen and understood as pertaining to the Plaintiffs. However, the
Case ID: 140203044
16

Inquirer Defendants had no interest in publishing the truth, and instead, maliciously continued
their savage attack upon the Plaintiffs.
47. The Amplifications placement and juxtaposition was and remains an utter
insult. The Amplification is nondescript and tiny; in fact, not only does it fail to mention a
clarification of an issue involving a Supreme Court J ustice and the attack upon his ethics and
legality, it is even smaller than The Inquirers 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 J ustice and his wife.
48. The puny, microscopic and strategically nowhere-placed Amplification
destroyed any reasonable chance the Plaintiffs had to overcome the misrepresentations,
falsehood and innuendoes created by the incomplete and inaccurate reporting in the March
article.
D. The Daily News Piece
49. Not to be outdone by the above-described tabloid antics of The Inquirer, The
Philadelphia Daily News decided to weigh in on and amplify the false light portrayals spewed by
The Inquirer, and did so with a repulsively false caricature, which similarly casts the Plaintiffs in
an even more blatant and offensive false light. See Exhibit P-4.
50. The caricature published in The Daily News on J une 16, 2013, drawn by
Defendant Signe Wilkinson and edited and approved by Defendant Michael Days, purports to
Case ID: 140203044
17

show Plaintiffs McCaffery and Rapaport in his chambers, even though they are lounging in bed.
Plaintiff Rapaport is referred to as Mrs. McCaffery even though she does not hold and never
has held herself out that way professionally, since she is an attorney in her own right and does
not use that title as though to remind everyone that she is married to a justice.
51. The caricature portrays Plaintiff Rapaport blindfolded with pursed lips, holding
two bags of money, while her high heels are strewn randomly next to the bed. Plaintiff
McCaffery is also in bed, clutching a gavel while clad in his black judicial robes. Underneath
the bed, there is an unopened book of ethics, which appears out of reach, and two other books,
one titled Philly J udges Numbers and the other Traffic Court Numbers, that are drawn in
such a way as to appear more accessible and clearly more within reach. The ethics book appears
pushed well underneath the bed, while the books reflecting the judges numbers and traffic court
numbers are more at the ready.
52. Plaintiff McCaffery is portrayed as being in bed with his wife masquerading as
the blindfolded lady justice. While in bed with can connote sexual relations between a
husband and wife (Oxford New Dictionary), here, because of the black robes and the reference to
the blindfolded lady justice, it is obvious that The Daily News intended to perversely and
unlawfully exploit the fornication analogy for its other false light meaning: in undesirably close
association (Oxford), or to work with a person or organization, or to be involved with them, in
a way that causes other people not to trust you. (Cambridge Dictionary).
53. The blindfolded lady justice, seen as Plaintiff McCafferys employee and thus
under his command, has two large bags of money, clearly painting the picture that Plaintiffs
are in bed with the judicial system, and have obviously corrupted it. This false light is further
perpetuated by the three books strategically placed within varying degrees of access at the foot of
Case ID: 140203044
18

the bed. The implication here is that the two more available books reflect the means of Plaintiff
McCafferys corruption, to wit, fixing cases by way of influencing trial judges.
54. The quote attributed to Plaintiff McCaffery is, Bring home any fees from your
separate and perfectly legal business, hon? The home is clearly drawn and identified as
Plaintiff McCafferys judicial chambers, to again highlight for the readership that the money is
actually coming through chambers to Plaintiff Rapaport and him.
55. The false light portrayal actually goes a step further because the in bed with
symbolism further maliciously implies that our laws, like the fees earned by Plaintiff Rapaport,
are not separate, but rather stem only from the improper relationship, abuse and corruption.
56. The false light portrayal from this unseemly bedroom scene set in the chambers of
a Supreme Court J ustice 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. It is false and
disgraceful, and its purely malicious and scandalous purpose is manifest from the combination of
its actual words and its clear innuendo, that:
a) Plaintiff Rapaport professionally trades off of her
husbands name;

b) The Supreme Courts judicial chambers are used as a
business office for Plaintiff Rapaport;

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

d) Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of Philly J udges
Numbers to conduct business and bring home fees;

e) Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of Traffic Court

Case ID: 140203044
19

f) Plaintiff McCafferys holding of the gavel suggests that he
is ruling on Plaintiff Rapaports referral matters.

57. As a result, it places the Plaintiffs in false light to represent that:
a) Plaintiffs call Philadelphia judges on behalf of the referral
cases to influence results;

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

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

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

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

f) Plaintiff Rapaport identifies herself as Mrs. McCaffery in
any professional capacity;

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

58. Upon information and belief, The Daily News did not itself investigate or publish
anything about the fee issue pertaining to Plaintiff McCaffery as The Philadelphia Inquirer did
on the three (3) occasions referenced above, two of which were published before the Daily News
caricature was published.
59. As such, The Daily News Defendants were guided and informed by their
reading of The Philadelphia 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
Case ID: 140203044
20

characterizations which were later put into a caricature format by The Daily News Defendants,
based upon their interpretation of what The Inquirer scandalously wrote.
60. As such, The Philadelphia Inquirer Defendants aided and abetted The
Philadelphia Daily News Defendants with respect to the false light caricature as a result of the
articles foreseeability.
E. The June 11 and August 18, 2013 Articles
61. In what can only be described as a malicious piling on, the Inquirer Defendants
took their malice to yet a new level when they published their J une 11 and August 18, 2013
articles about the Plaintiffs.
62. While the articles lamely suggest that they were follow up pieces written to
discuss the status of the federal investigation, they were ultimately nothing more than a way for
The Inquirer to again regurgitate all of the false light in which they had previously placed the
Plaintiffs.
63. The true import and impact of the articles, therefore, was to re-publish the fact
that the Plaintiffs were receiving fees that were somehow unethical and/or illegal. Instead of
limiting the piece to a true update of the federal investigation, the piece regurgitated the earlier
March publication in numerous respects, including the same reference to cases assertedly ruled
upon by Plaintiff McCaffery, with the same analysis of the $821,000.00 referral fee, and the
same interviews of lawyers and professed legal experts.
64. The J une and August articles were maliciously designed to reinforce the damage
done in the March 2013 publication, because both the J une and August articles continued to
serve as a misleading reminder to the general public that the Plaintiffs were allegedly operating
illegally and unethically.
Case ID: 140203044
21

65. In fact, the J une and August articles were so focused on regurgitating the March
2013 false light publication that they even republished the same photograph of the Plaintiffs and
the same contrived and bogus chart of referral fees paid over 10 years. The regurgitation of the
photograph and chart was not offered in support of any new analysis, but was instead a retelling
of the same smear-story, now for the second and third time, respectively.
F. An Abundance of Malice
66. Plaintiff McCaffery is a public official; Plaintiff Rapaport is not, nor is she a
public figure.
67. By operation of law, Plaintiff McCaffery will establish his claims and prove the
Defendants malice.
68. By operation of law, Plaintiff Rapaport will prove her claims through the
Defendants negligence.
69. As set forth above, there is more than enough evidence of malice in this case to
establish those claims. Those acts of malice include to date the following:
a. The Inquirer has never disclosed the fact that its own publisher questioned
Defendant Marimows judgment about the placement and content of the March article; instead,
the Inquirer Defendants forged ahead with the story and its headlining placement on the front
page of the Sunday paper despite an obvious warning from the publisher that the story was ill-
conceived, incomplete and designed only to make the J ustice and his wife look bad. Indeed,
Mr. Halls email Exhibit 7 hereto shines a powerful light on The Inquirers malice;
b. The Inquirer never disclosed in its lead article the fact that at the time the
$821,000 referral was made and any fee then earned, Plaintiff Rapaport was not employed within
the court system;
Case ID: 140203044
22

c. The Inquirers lead article deliberately never disclosed that neither the
lawyer nor law firm that paid Ms. Rapaport the $821,000 referral fee has ever appeared before
J ustice McCaffery when he was a jurist at any level;
d. The articles reference 11 cases where firms or lawyers who paid referral
fees appeared before the Supreme Court, but the Inquirer Defendants have deliberately never
identified the 11 cases, either in any subsequent articles or in response to the Plaintiffs request
for identification of these 11 cases, until this lawsuit was filed. The Inquirer completely
misrepresented the outcome of the cases in its reporting and by publishing misleading charts that
clearly implied Plaintiff 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 and The Inquirer deliberately withheld the truth. The Inquirer deliberately
suppressed these facts and sabotaged the Plaintiffs with its contrived and manipulated chart
which was designed and published to mislead the public and support the Inquirer Defendants
accusations that the Plaintiffs had done something illegal or unethical;
e. The Inquirer stated that Plaintiff McCaffery did not disclose to the lawyers
appearing before him the referral fees that had been paid to Plaintiff Rapaport. This is
completely false. At all times relevant hereto, the Inquirer Defendants knew that Plaintiff
McCaffery had disclosed the referral fees fully and completely, consistent with Pennsylvania
law. For The Inquirer to have published otherwise was maliciously false and misleading;
f. The Inquirer buried its Amplification in tiny print well after the damage
was already done. A simple comparison of the microscopic Amplification to the headlining
article shows how maliciously The Inquirer was acting, and how unmistakably they chose to
bury the truth after having smeared the plaintiffs. The Inquirer Defendants did not even have the
Case ID: 140203044
23

journalistic ethics to call what they wrote a retraction or a correction. Instead they referred
to it, and buried it, as an Amplification, without any indication that it even pertained to
Plaintiffs;
g. The Inquirer article referenced the issue of recusal in a case before the
Supreme Court where a lawyer from Plaintiff McCafferys brothers firm was representing a
litigant. The Inquirer knew the oral argument in the case referenced by The Inquirer was
actually tape-recorded by PCN, as are all oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Prior to the
start of oral argument, Plaintiff McCaffery himself raised the issue of his 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 of
Appellate Procedure governing the practice of law by staff appellate lawyers. The Inquirer
Defendants deliberately did not publish the text of, nor otherwise cite or disclose what they were
referring to. The Inquirer Defendants further manifested their malice by failing to publish the
fact that three days after the publication of their August 18, 2013 article, the Supreme Court
unanimously amended Rule 3121 to clarify the positions that had earlier been disputed in The
Inquirers coverage, to wit, who and what was subject to Rule 3121. In the face of the newly
amended rule, The Inquirer went totally dark and failed to publish the additional facts that made
it even clearer that Plaintiff Rapaport had done nothing wrong. They simply chose not to cover
the amended rule at all, again, suppressing anything favorable to the Plaintiffs;
Case ID: 140203044
24

i. The Inquirer published essentially the same article three times, on March
5, J une 11 and August 18, 2013, respectively;
j. The article references various legal experts, but only cites those who are
critical of Plaintiff McCaffery, again deliberately suppressing anything favorable to the
Plaintiffs.
IV. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I: FALSE LIGHT
PLAINTIFF McCAFFERY v. THE INQUIRER DEFENDANTS

70. Plaintiffs incorporate each and every allegation set forth above as though fully set
forth at length, as the detailed averments and facts above are only summarized in the paragraphs
below.
71. As set forth fully above, the Defendants engaged in a discriminate publication of
both true and false statements in the three articles referenced above, and thereby created a false
impression by knowingly or recklessly publicizing selective pieces of true information.
72. By selectively publicizing information that created the above-referenced false
impressions, the Defendants subjected the Plaintiff to unreasonable and highly objectionable
publicity, attributing to him characteristics, conduct and/or beliefs that are false. He was thereby
placed before the public in a false position.
73. The false light that these Defendants put the Plaintiff in is of a kind that would be
highly offensive to a reasonable person because there was a major misrepresentation of his
character, history, activities and beliefs, such that serious offense could reasonably be expected
to be taken by a reasonable person in the Plaintiffs position.
Case ID: 140203044
25

74. The combination of true and false statements, implications and innuendoes,
selectively publicized in a manner to deliberately create a false impression bearing upon the
Plaintiffs conduct and ethics, clearly placed him in a false position before the public.
75. A series of selective publications, as described above, all of which created,
perpetuated and regurgitated the implication and innuendo that the Plaintiff breached his ethical
responsibilities and legal responsibilities in the performance of his job as a J ustice of the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, would be and is highly offensive to a reasonable person under
any and all circumstances.
76. The articles described above reasonably imply false and defamatory facts, and
these pieces, when considered together in the context in which the Defendants placed them in the
newspaper, clearly suggested to the average reader that the Plaintiff acted to the detriment of the
judicial system with regard to ethical rules and illegal conduct.
77. The conduct of the Defendants with respect to their false light reporting has
served to disgrace the Plaintiff and irreparably stain the Plaintiffs reputation on a nationwide
basis.
78. The Defendants, by and through the exhibits to the Complaint, have implied,
stated and drawn a factual scenario painting the Plaintiff as acting in violation of the laws of this
Commonwealth and the ethical rules governing jurists.
79. The selective publication of certain facts by the Defendants are provably false,
as set forth herein. As a result of these facts being provably false, the Plaintiff has
consequently suffered from being placed in a false light, which the Defendants did, either
deliberately or in reckless disregard for the truth.
Case ID: 140203044
26

80. As set forth above, the Inquirer Defendants selective publication of facts
omitted a significant amount of other information and true facts which make it completely clear
that the Plaintiff had done nothing wrong.
81. The Inquirer Defendants knew that their articles would be reviewed and
republished by other media outlets, including but not limited to, The Philadelphia Daily News.
As such, when The Daily News printed the offending caricature, it did so based upon the
information learned from the March and J une 2013 articles published in The Inquirer.
Therefore, in light of the false and misleading nature of The Inquirers March and J une articles,
it was completely foreseeable that another news outlet would read the false and misleading
articles in such a fashion so as to lead it to create the offending caricature. As manifested
through the caricature, The Daily News clearly concluded from the articles that the Plaintiffs had
violated the law, breached ethical responsibilities and had corrupted the judicial system for their
own gain.
82. It is not an opinion to report that a Supreme Court J ustice has abrogated his
ethical duties.
83. It is not an opinion to report that a Supreme Court J ustice has operated outside
the bounds of the law.
84. It is not an opinion to depict a Supreme Court J ustice abrogating his ethical
duties.
85. It is not an opinion to depict a Supreme Court J ustice abrogating his legal
responsibilities.
Case ID: 140203044
27

86. The conduct of these Defendants in the several articles at issue ascribed to the
Plaintiff conduct, character and conditions that negatively reflect on his fitness for his business,
trade and profession.
87. There is no possible innocent interpretation of the publications identified more
fully above. The heinous, horrendous, demonstrably false and malicious message from these
publications is clear: Plaintiff McCaffery breached his ethical duties and his legal responsibilities
to obtain and share in referral fees. This is a series of lies for which the Defendants must and
will be held accountable.
88. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants deliberate and/or reckless
misconduct set forth at length above, the invasion of the 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.
89. The literal accuracy of separate statements of truth that are strung together in such
an improper way, as set forth above, can never render a communication true where the
implication of the communication as a whole is completely false.
90. In the end, these Defendants have knowingly and/or recklessly selectively printed
certain true statements and painted a picture in a manner which created a false and highly
offensive impression. The selectively chosen experts and publications of only portions of the
truth do not correct the Defendants illegal and savage behavior. As a result, the Plaintiff has
suffered significant damages.
91. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and punitive damages as a result of the
Defendants outrageous conduct set forth above.
Case ID: 140203044
28

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court grant judgment in
favor of the Plaintiffs in an amount substantially and significantly in excess of the jurisdictional
limit to guarantee a jury trial, compensatory damages, punitive damages, delay damages,
attorneys fees, costs and interest, together with any further relief which this Court deems just
and appropriate under the circumstances.
COUNT II: FALSE LIGHT
PLAINTIFF RAPAPORT v. THE INQUIRER DEFENDANTS
below.
93. As set forth fully above, the Defendants engaged in a discriminate publication of
both true and false statements, and created a false impression by knowingly, recklessly and/or
negligently publicizing selective pieces of true information.
94. The Defendants, by selectively publicizing information that created the above-
described false impressions in the three articles referenced above, subjected the Plaintiff to
unreasonable and highly objectionable publicity that attributes to her characteristics, conduct
and/or beliefs that are false, and she was thereby placed before the public in a demonstrably false
position.
highly offensive to a reasonable person because there was a major misrepresentation of her
Case ID: 140203044
29

96. The combination of true and false statements, implications and innuendoes,
selectively publicized in a manner to deliberately create a false impression bearing upon the
Plaintiffs conduct and ethics, clearly placed her in a false position before the public.
97. A series of selective publications, as described above, all of which created,
perpetuated and regurgitated implications and innuendoes that the Plaintiff breached her ethical
responsibilities and legal responsibilities in the performance of her job, would be and is highly
offensive to a reasonable person under any and all circumstances.
98. The articles described above reasonably imply false and defamatory facts, and
these pieces, when considered together in the context in which the Defendants placed them in the
newspaper, clearly suggesting to the average reader that the Plaintiff acted to the detriment of the
judicial system.
99. The conduct of the Defendants with respect to their false light reporting has
basis.
100. The Defendants, by and through the exhibits to the Complaint, have implied,
stated and drawn a factual scenario painting the Plaintiff as acting in violation of the laws of this
Commonwealth and the ethical rules governing attorneys.
101. The selective publication of certain facts by the Defendants are provably false,
as set forth herein. As a result of these facts being provably false, the Plaintiff has
consequently suffered from being placed in a false light, which the Defendants did, either
deliberately, in reckless disregard for the truth or negligently.
Case ID: 140203044
30

102. As set forth above, the Inquirer Defendants selective publication of facts
omitted a significant amount of other information and true facts which made it completely clear
that the Plaintiff has done nothing wrong.
103. The Inquirer Defendants knew that their articles would be reviewed and
republished by other media outlets, including but not limited to, The Philadelphia Daily News.
As such, when The Daily News printed the offending caricature, it did so based upon the
information it learned from the March and J une 2013 articles published in The Inquirer.
Therefore, in light of the false and misleading nature of The Inquirers March and J une articles,
it was completely foreseeable that another news outlet would read the false and misleading
articles in such a fashion so as to lead it to create the offending caricature. As manifested
through the caricature, The Daily News clearly concluded from the articles that the Plaintiffs had
violated the law, breached ethical responsibilities and had corrupted the judicial system for their
own gain.
104. It is not an opinion to report that an attorney has abrogated her ethical duties.
105. It is not an opinion to report that an attorney has operated outside the bounds of
the law.
106. It is not an opinion to depict an attorney abrogating her ethical duties.
107. It is not an opinion to depict an attorney abrogating her legal responsibilities.
108. The conduct of these Defendants in the several articles at issue ascribed to the
Plaintiff conduct, character and conditions that negatively reflect on her fitness for her business,
109. There is no possible innocent interpretation of the publications identified more
fully above. The heinous, horrendous, demonstrably false and malicious message from these
Case ID: 140203044
31

publications is clear: Plaintiff Rapaport has breached her ethical duties and her legal
responsibilities to obtain and share in referral fees. This is a series of lies for which the
Defendants must and will be held accountable.
and/or negligent misconduct set forth abundantly above, the invasion of the 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.
111. The literal accuracy of separate statements of truth that are strung together in such
an improper way, as set forth above, can never render a communication true where the
implication of the communication as a whole is completely false.
112. In the end, these Defendants have knowingly, recklessly and/or negligently
selectively printed certain true statements and painted a picture in a manner which created a false
and highly offensive impression. The selectively chosen experts and publications of only
portions of the truth do not correct the Defendants illegal and savage behavior. As a result, the
Plaintiff has suffered significant damages.
Defendants deliberately false, misleading and outrageous conduct set forth above.
Case ID: 140203044
32

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

below.
115. With respect to the offending caricature at issue, the caricature is defamatory in
that it is false and disgraceful, and its purely malicious and scandalous purpose is manifest from
the combination of its actual words and its clear innuendo, that:
a) Neither Plaintiff reviews or abides by the book of ethics
governing judges and lawyers;

b) Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of Philly J udges

c) Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of Traffic Court

d) Plaintiff McCafferys holding of the gavel suggests that he
is ruling on Plaintiff Rapaports referral matters.

e) Plaintiffs call Philadelphia judges on behalf of the referral

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

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

h) The Plaintiffs are in bed with the system, in the judicial
gavel;

i) Within the theme of fornication, the Plaintiffs are
money;

Case ID: 140203044
33

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

116. The offending caricature was published by the Daily News Defendants.
117. It is evident from the writing defining the caricature that the caricature applies
exclusively to the Plaintiffs at issue.
118. Based upon the foregoing, it is obvious that all readers of The Daily News would
have understood that the above-referenced content was defamatory and was drawn in such a way
as to apply exclusively to the Plaintiffs.
119. Further, it is averred that the caricature maliciously associates a very specific and
special harm to each Plaintiff, and his general reputation.
120. The caricature ascribes to the Plaintiff certain conduct, character and/or
conditions that would adversely affect his fitness for the proper conduct of his business, trade
and profession.
121. There is no innocent interpretation of this caricature that clearly states that the
Plaintiff does not abide by the law or the ethical rules and regulations governing the law.
122. There is no doubt that the effect the caricature would have on the minds of
average readers would be to cause great harm to the reputation of the Plaintiff and lower him in
the estimation of the community.
123. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature and its representations were false and
maliciously made.
124. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature is provably false.
Case ID: 140203044
34

125. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature was drawn and published to
deliberately and/or recklessly state and reinforce the fact that the Plaintiff has acted unethically
and in violation of the law.
126. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature was drawn and published deliberately
and/or in reckless disregard of the truth regarding the Plaintiffs character and professional
fitness.
127. As a result of the offending caricature, the Plaintiff has been damaged. As a
direct and proximate result of the Defendants deliberate and/or reckless misconduct set forth at
length above, the Plaintiff has endured mental suffering, shame and humiliation, and these
damages will be easily perceived by a person of ordinary sensibilities.
128. As a proximate result of Defendants malicious, intentional or reckless conduct as
set forth above, Plaintiff is entitled to such damages as will compensate him for the injury to his
professional and personal reputation, and for his emotional distress, and punitive damages to
punish the Defendants for their conduct and to deter them and others similarly situated from
similar acts in the future.
129. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages as a result of the
Defendants deliberate, reckless and outrageous conduct set forth above.

Case ID: 140203044
35

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

below.
131. With respect to the offending caricature at issue, the caricature is defamatory in
that it is in horrible taste, it is false and disgraceful, and its purely malicious and scandalous
purpose is manifest from the combination of its actual words and its clear innuendo, that:
a) Plaintiff Rapaport professionally trades off of her
husbands name;

b) The Supreme Courts judicial chambers are used as a
business office for Plaintiff Rapaport;

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

d) Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of Philly J udges

e) Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of Traffic Court

f) Plaintiffs call Philadelphia judges on behalf of the referral

g) Plaintiffs do not review or comply with the ethical rules
Pennsylvania;

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

i) The Plaintiffs are in bed with the system, in the judicial
gavel;

Case ID: 140203044
36

j) Within the theme of fornication, the Plaintiffs are
money;

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

132. The offending caricature was published by the Daily News Defendants.
133. It is evident from the writing defining the caricature that the caricature applies
exclusively to the Plaintiffs at issue.
134. Based upon the foregoing, it is obvious that all readers of The Daily News
understood that the above-referenced content was defamatory and was drawn in such a way as to
apply exclusively to the Plaintiffs.
135. Further, it is averred that the caricature maliciously associates a very specific and
special harm to each Plaintiff, and her general reputation.
136. The caricature ascribes to the Plaintiff certain conduct, character and/or
conditions that would adversely affect her fitness for the proper conduct of her business, trade
and profession.
137. There is no innocent interpretation to of this caricature that clearly states that the
Plaintiff does not abide by the law or the ethical rules and regulations governing the law.
138. There is no doubt that the effect the caricature would have on the minds of
average readers would be to cause great harm to the reputation of the Plaintiff and lower her in
the estimation of the community.
139. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature and its representations were false and
maliciously made.
140. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature is provably false.
Case ID: 140203044
37

141. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature was drawn and published to
deliberately, recklessly and/or negligently state and reinforce the fact that the Plaintiff has
acted unethically and in violation of the law.
142. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature was drawn and published deliberately,
in reckless disregard of the truth and/or negligently regarding the Plaintiffs character and fitness.
143. As a result of the offending caricature, the Plaintiff has been damaged. As a
direct and proximate result of the Defendants deliberate, reckless and/or negligent misconduct
set forth abundantly above, the Plaintiff has endured mental suffering, shame and humiliation,
and these damages will be easily perceived by a person of ordinary sensibilities.
144. As a proximate result of Defendants malicious, intentional, reckless or negligent
conduct as set forth above, Plaintiff is entitled to such damages as will compensate her for the
injury to her professional and personal reputation, and for her emotional distress, and punitive
damages to punish the Defendants for their conduct and to deter them and others similarly
situated from similar acts in the future.
145. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages as a result of the
Defendants deliberate, reckless and outrageous conduct set forth above.

COUNT V: FALSE LIGHT
PLAINTIFF McCAFFERY v. THE DAILY NEWS DEFENDANTS
Case ID: 140203044
38

below.
147. As set forth fully above, the Defendants published the caricature at issue.
148. In the caricature, the Defendants subjected the Plaintiff to unreasonable and
highly objectionable publicity, attributing to him characteristics, conduct and/or beliefs that are
false. He was thereby placed before the public in a false position.
highly offensive to a reasonable person because there was a major misrepresentation of his
150. The caricature deliberately created a false impression, thereby bearing negatively
upon the Plaintiffs conduct and ethics, and clearly placed him in a false position before the
public.
151. The caricature, as described above, created, perpetuated and regurgitated the
implication and innuendo that the Plaintiff breached his ethical responsibilities and legal
responsibilities in the performance of his job as a J ustice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,
and as such would be and is highly offensive to a reasonable person under any and all
circumstances.
152. The caricature, as described above, reasonably implies false and defamatory facts
in the context in which the Defendants placed it in the newspaper, clearly suggesting to the
average reader that the Plaintiff acted to the detriment of the judicial system.
Case ID: 140203044
39

153. The conduct of the Defendants with respect to their false light caricature has
basis.
154. The Defendants, by and through the exhibit to the Complaint, have implied, stated
and drawn a factual scenario painting the Plaintiff as acting in violation of the laws of this
Commonwealth and the ethical rules governing jurists.
155. The facts that emanate from the caricature are provably false, as set forth
herein. As a result of these facts being provably false, the Plaintiff has consequently suffered
from being placed in a false light, which the Defendants did, either deliberately or in reckless
disregard for the truth.
156. It is not an opinion to draw and present a caricature depicting a Supreme Court
J ustice abrogating his ethical duties.
157. It is not an opinion to draw and present a caricature depicting a Supreme Court
J ustice abrogating his legal responsibilities.
158. The conduct of these Defendants in publishing the caricature ascribed to the
Plaintiff conduct, character and conditions that reflect negatively on his fitness for his business,
159. There is no possible innocent interpretation of the caricature identified more fully
above. The heinous, horrendous and demonstrably false message from this caricature is clear:
Plaintiff McCaffery breached his ethical duties and his legal responsibilities to obtain and share
in referral fees. This is a series of lies for which the Defendants must and will be held
accountable.
Case ID: 140203044
40

misconduct set forth at length above, the invasion of the 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 NEWS DEFENDANTS

below.
163. As set forth fully above, the Defendants published the caricature at issue.
164. In the caricature, the Defendants subjected the Plaintiff to unreasonable and
highly objectionable publicity, attributing to her characteristics, conduct and/or beliefs that are
false. She was thereby placed before the public in a false position.
highly offensive to a reasonable person because there was a major misrepresentation of her
Case ID: 140203044
41

166. The caricature deliberately created a false impression, thereby bearing negatively
upon the Plaintiffs conduct and ethics, and clearly placed her in a false position before the
public.
167. The caricature, as described above, created, perpetuated and regurgitated the
implication and innuendo that the Plaintiff breached her ethical responsibilities and legal
responsibilities in the performance of her job, and as such would be and is highly offensive to a
reasonable person under any and all circumstances.
168. The caricature, as described above, reasonably implies false and defamatory facts
in the context in which the Defendants placed it in the newspaper, clearly suggesting to the
average reader that the Plaintiff acted to the detriment of the judicial system.
169. The conduct of the Defendants with respect to their false light caricature has
basis.
170. The Defendants, by and through the exhibit to the Complaint, have implied, stated
and drawn a factual scenario painting the Plaintiff as acting in violation of the laws of this
Commonwealth and the ethical rules governing attorneys.
171. The facts that emanate from the caricature are provably false, as set forth
herein. As a result of these facts being provably false, the Plaintiff has consequently suffered
from being placed in a false light, which the Defendants did, either deliberately, in reckless
disregard for the truth or negligently.
Case ID: 140203044
42

172. It is not an opinion to draw and present a caricature depicting an attorney
abrogating her ethical duties.
173. It is not an opinion to draw and present a caricature depicting an attorney
abrogating her legal responsibilities.
174. The conduct of these Defendants in publishing the caricature ascribed to the
Plaintiff conduct, character and conditions that reflect negatively on her fitness for her business,
175. There is no possible innocent interpretation of the caricature identified more fully
above. The heinous, horrendous and demonstrably false message from this caricature is clear:
Plaintiff Rapaport breached her ethical duties and her legal responsibilities to obtain and share in
referral fees. This is a series of lies for which the Defendants must and will be held accountable.
176. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants deliberate, reckless and/or
negligent misconduct set forth at length above, the invasion of the 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: 140203044
43

NOTICE OF PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS AND REQUESTS THAT DEFENDANT TAKE
NECESSARY ACTION TO ENSURE THE PRESERVATION OF ALL DOCUMENTS,
COMMUNICATIONS, WHETHER ELECTRONIC OR OTHERWISE, ITEMS AND THINGS
IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PARTY TO THIS ACTION, OR ANY
ENTITY OVER WHICH ANY PARTY TO THIS ACTION HAS CONTROL, OR FROM
WHOM ANY PARTY TO THIS ACTION HAS ACCESS TO, ANY DOCUMENTS, ITEMS,
OR THINGS WHICH MAY IN ANY MANNER BE RELEVANT TO OR RELATE TO THE
SUBJ ECT MATTER OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION AND/OR THE ALLEGATIONS OF
THIS COMPLAINT.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs demand a jury trial.


BY: ___/s/ Dion G. Rassias ______
DION G. RASSIAS

DATED: May 16, 2014
Case ID: 140203044
VERIF'ICATION
I, Seamus P. McCaffery, hereby state that I am a Plaintiff in this action and verify that the
statements made in the foregoing Amended Complaint are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made
therein are subject to penalties of l8 Pa.C.S.A. 4904 relaling to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
SEAMUS P. MoCAFFER
DATED:
no7 l(t
Ja
t'f
Case ID: 140203044
VERIFICATION
I, Lise Rapaport, hereby state that I am a Plaintiff in this action and verify that the
statements made in the foregoing Amended Complaint are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made
therein are subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
J.
s-
LISE RAPAPORT
DATED:
l5 lot'f
Case ID: 140203044
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Dion G. Rassias, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to
be served via ECF and/or first class mail, postage prepaid, upon:

Amy B. Ginensky, Esquire
Michael A. Schwartz, Esquire
Michael E. Baughman, Esquire
Raphael Cunniff, Esquire
Eli Segal, Esquire
Kaitlin M. Gurney, Esquire
Pepper Hamilton, LLP
3000 Two Logan Square
18
th
and Arch Streets
Attorneys for Defendants Interstate General Media, LLC,
William Marimow, Craig McCoy,
Signe Wilkinson and Michael Days

Honorable J ohn M. Cleland
(Address withheld)

BY: /s/ Dion G. Rassias
DION G. RASSIAS, ESQUIRE
Attorney I.D. No.: 49724
1125 Walnut Street
(215) 592-1000
(215) 592-8360 (facsimile)
DATED: May 16, 2014
Case ID: 140203044

Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC

BY: Dion G. Rassias, Esquire

You might also like