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. : : 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 : Philadelphia, PA 19107 : : and : : WILLIAM MARIMOW : 440 South Broad Street : Unit 1602 : Philadelphia, PA 19146 : : and : : : :

Filed and Attested by PROTHONOTARY 25 MAR 2014 06:04 pm A. STAMATO

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY

FEBRUARY TERM, 2014 No. 3044

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case ID: 140203044

CRAIG McCOY 330 Church Road Elkins Park, PA 19027 and SIGNE WILKINSON 626 South 21st Street Philadelphia, PA 19146 and MICHAEL DAYS 324 Hamilton Avenue Trenton, NJ 08609 Defendants.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : NOTICE TO DEFEND

"NOTICE" You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defense or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.

"AVISO" 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. 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. Asociacion de Licenciados de Filadelphia Servicio de Referencia e Informacion One Reading Center Phila., PA 19107 (215) 238-1701

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. Philadelphia Bar Association LAWYER REFERRAL & INFO. One Reading Center Phila., PA 19107 (215) 238-1701

Case ID: 140203044

THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC BY: Dion G. Rassias, Esquire Identification No.: 49724 1125 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107-4997 (215) 592-1000 (215) 592-8360 (Facsimile) LISE RAPAPORT and SEAMUS P. McCAFFERY, h/w c/o The Beasley Firm, LLC 1125 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 : : : : : : Plaintiffs, : : vs. : : 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 : Philadelphia, PA 19107 : : and : : WILLIAM MARIMOW : 440 South Broad Street : Unit 1602 : Philadelphia, PA 19146 : : and : : : : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY

FEBRUARY TERM, 2014 No. 3044

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case ID: 140203044

CRAIG McCOY 330 Church Road Elkins Park, PA 19027 and SIGNE WILKINSON 626 South 21st Street Philadelphia, PA 19146 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 are

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

newspapers are owned by the same entities; that means that the Defendants can write whatever they want, whenever they want to, and their publications can only be held in check by the legal system. This case is all about media accountability for publishing smear pieces. II. THE PARTIES 3. Plaintiffs Lise Rapaport and Seamus P. McCaffery are adult individual residents

of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, and they are husband and wife. Plaintiff Rapaport is an attorney licensed and in good standing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania since 1979. Plaintiff McCaffery is now a Justice on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court having been elected in November 2007. Prior to that, from 2004 through 2007, he served on the Pennsylvania Superior 2

Case ID: 140203044

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 News and 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 Inquirer and The Daily News, as well as in the online versions of the articles. 5. Defendant Interstate General Media, LLC (Defendant LLC) is, upon

information 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 News and 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: 140203044

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

South 21st Street, Philadelphia, PA 19146, and conducts business at 801 Market Street, Suite 300, Philadelphia, PA 19107. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Wilkinson drew the caricature which appeared in The Daily News. 9. 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 Philadelphia Daily News and 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 this

Complaint, Defendants Intertrust GCN, LP, Interstate General Media, LLC, Marimow and McCoy may be collectively also referred to as the Inquirer Defendants. 11. With respect to The Philadelphia Daily News, from time to time throughout this

Complaint, Defendants Intertrust GCN, LP, Interstate General Media, LLC, Wilkinson and Days may be collectively also referred to as the Daily News Defendants.

Case ID: 140203044

III.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The Publication(s) at Issue 12. 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. 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.com during the relevant time periods. 14. In fact, the articles remained online until this lawsuit was filed; they were all

removed one day later. 15. The Daily News published a caricature on June 16, 2013, that was completely

false and disgraceful, and placed the Plaintiffs in a highly offensive false light. The Daily News 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. 16. 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.

Case ID: 140203044

17.

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 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 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. 20. 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 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: 140203044

21.

That admission is as important as it is historic: The Inquirers publisher told the

Inquirers 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 smear

piece, 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 this

article that was maliciously designed to make Justice McCaffery and his wife look bad that he even sent a follow-up email to Defendant Marimow on March 4, 2013, exclaiming how disappointed he was with the story and how distressed he was that it was put on the front page of the Sunday paper. 1 24. 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. 25. Defendant Marimow compromised his responsibilities and journalistic ethics in

order 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 had

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

Plaintiffs have already taken steps to ensure that this crucial March 4, 2013 email is preserved. The emails existence was actually disclosed by the law firm of Sprague & Sprague who ironically represent a Defendant here during a hearing before the Honorable Patricia A. McInerney that occurred on November 15, 2013. In that hearing, attorneys Richard Sprague and Joseph Podraza made an offer of proof 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 it to the Court as soon as it is produced by Sprague & Sprague and/or the Defendants.

Case ID: 140203044

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 McCoys

sensationally headlined articles, to smear the Plaintiffs, and he used his position as Editor-inChief 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 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. 29. The March publication deliberately does not truthfully set forth all of the facts

pertaining to the Plaintiffs and the referral fee issue. Instead, the March publication, followed by others in June and August, see infra, was part of a deliberate campaign to smear the Plaintiffs by creating the impression that they had done something illegal and/or unethical when clearly they had not. 30. 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.

Case ID: 140203044

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 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. 33. 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 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 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. 35. 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 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;

Case ID: 140203044

b.

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

paid the $821,000.00 referral fee have never appeared before Justice McCaffery in any of his capacities as a judge or Justice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Instead, The Inquirer blanketly asserts that [a]s the fees have come in, Justice McCaffery has ruled on 11 cases. This clearly creates the wildly false and enormously wrong impression that the $821,000.00 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

10

Case ID: 140203044

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; 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 Justice, with very few exceptions, can have any dispositive effect. Nowhere in the March article is it mentioned that the creating, upholding, diminishing or in any way affecting of a legal right or money judgment, can only be accomplished when an individual 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 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

11

Case ID: 140203044

Justice 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 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 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 2 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 further deliberately failed to report that Rule 3121 was

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

12

Case ID: 140203044

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 Inquirer Defendants conduct was the deliberate avoidance of the truth for

the sole purpose of smearing the Plaintiffs. C. The March 24, 2013 Amplification 37. 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. 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 Inquirer paints 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 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. 40. 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
2

The practice of law does not include referring cases.

13

Case ID: 140203044

absolutely no headline or other means to even identify what the Amplification pertained to, and the Amplification never used the words retraction or correction. microscopic Amplification stated, in part, as follows: In a story March 4 [sic] concerning referral fees received by the wife of state Supreme Court Justice Seamus P. McCaffery, The Inquirer reported that the wife, Lise Rapaport, had worked as a judicial aide since 1997. The newspaper has since learned that Rapaport was on leave from Jan. 15 to Dec. 17, 2007, and received no pay or benefits from the court during that period, according to court officials. See Exhibit P-2 attached hereto. 41. The Amplification finally disclosed the critical information that Plaintiff The buried,

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

newspaper, and is obviously written and placed so as not to seem to have anything whatsoever to do with the prior, front-page coverage excoriating a Supreme Court Justice. Clearly, any

reasonable and truthful amplification deserved at least a title or headline that related it to the March 5, 2013 article which it was allegedly amplifying. This Amplification got neither. As published, the Amplification was deliberately a non-event. 43. 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

14

Case ID: 140203044

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

insult. The Amplification is nondescript and tiny; in fact, not only does it fail to mention a clarification of an issue involving a Supreme Court Justice and the attack upon his ethics and legality, it is even smaller than The 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 Justice and his wife. 45. 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 46. Not to be outdone by the above-described atrocities, The Philadelphia Daily News

decided 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.

15

Case ID: 140203044

47.

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

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

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

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 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). 50. 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

16

Case ID: 140203044

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 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. 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 of

a 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 her husbands name; The Supreme Courts judicial chambers are used as a business office for Plaintiff Rapaport; Neither Plaintiffs review or abide by the book of ethics governing judges and lawyers;

17

Case ID: 140203044

Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of Philly Judges Numbers to conduct business and bring home fees; Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of Traffic Court Numbers to conduct business and bring home fees; Plaintiff McCafferys holding of the gavel suggests that he is 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 rules governing jurists and lawyers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Plaintiffs call Traffic Court judges on behalf of the referral cases to influence results; 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; Within the theme of fornication, the Plaintiffs are screwing the system by illegally and unethically obtaining money; Plaintiff Rapaport identifies herself as Mrs. McCaffery in any professional capacity; Plaintiffs Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Chambers are not used exclusively, entirely and completely for the business of the Supreme Court.

55.

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.

18

Case ID: 140203044

56.

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 characterizations which were later put into a caricature format by The Daily News Defendants, based upon their interpretation of what The Inquirer scandalously wrote. 57. 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 58. In what can only be described as a malicious piling on, the Inquirer Defendants

took their malice to yet a new level when they published their June 11 and August 18, 2013 articles about the Plaintiffs. 59. 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. 60. 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.

19

Case ID: 140203044

61.

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

done in the March 2013 publication, because both the June and August articles continued to serve as a 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 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 63. public figure. 64. By operation of law, Plaintiff McCaffery will establish his claims and prove the Plaintiff McCaffery is a public official; Plaintiff Rapaport is not, nor is she a

Defendants malice. 65. By operation of law, Plaintiff Rapaport will prove her claims through the

Defendants negligence. 66. 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 illconceived, incomplete and designed only to make the Justice and his wife look bad.

20

Case ID: 140203044

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. 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 Justice McCaffery when he was a jurist at any level. d. The articles reference 11 cases where firms or lawyers who paid referral

fees appeared before the Supreme Court, but the Inquirer Defendants have deliberately never identified the 11 cases, either in any subsequent articles or in response to the Plaintiffs request for identification of these 11 cases, until this lawsuit was filed. The Inquirer completely

misrepresented the outcome of the cases in its reporting and by publishing misleading charts that clearly implied Plaintiff 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 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 This is

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

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.

21

Case ID: 140203044

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 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

22

Case ID: 140203044

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

5, June 11 and August 18, 2013, respectively. j. The article references various legal experts, but only cites those who are

critical of Plaintiff McCaffery, again deliberately suppressing anything favorable to the Plaintiffs. IV. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I: FALSE LIGHT PLAINTIFF McCAFFERY v. THE INQUIRER DEFENDANTS 67. 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. 68. 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. 69. 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. 70. 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 23

Case ID: 140203044

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, 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. 74. 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. 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 a result of these facts being provably false, the Plaintiff has

as set forth herein.

24

Case ID: 140203044

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 facts

omitted 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 and

republished by other media outlets, including but not limited to, The Philadelphia Daily News. As such, when The Daily News printed the offending caricature, it did so based upon the information learned from the March and June 2013 articles published in The Inquirer. Therefore, in light of the false and misleading nature of The 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 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. 79. ethical duties. 80. It is not an opinion to report that a Supreme Court Justice has operated outside It is not an opinion to report that a Supreme Court Justice has abrogated his

the bounds of the law. 81. duties. 82. It is not an opinion to depict a Supreme Court Justice abrogating his legal It is not an opinion to depict a Supreme Court Justice abrogating his ethical

responsibilities.

25

Case ID: 140203044

83.

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. 84. 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. 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 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. 87. 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. 88. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and punitive damages as a result of the

Defendants outrageous conduct set forth above.

26

Case ID: 140203044

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 89. 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. 90. 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. 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 be

highly offensive to a reasonable person because there was a major misrepresentation of her character, history, activities and beliefs, such that serious offense could reasonably be expected to be taken by a reasonable person in the Plaintiffs position.

27

Case ID: 140203044

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, 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. 96. 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. 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 a result of these facts being provably false, the Plaintiff has

as set forth herein.

consequently suffered from being placed in a false light, which the Defendants did, either deliberately, in reckless disregard for the truth or negligently.

28

Case ID: 140203044

99.

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

republished by other media outlets, including but not limited to, The Philadelphia Daily News. As such, when The Daily News printed the offending caricature, it did so based upon the information it learned from the March and June 2013 articles published in The Inquirer. Therefore, in light of the false and misleading nature of The 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 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. 101. 102. the law. 103. 104. 105. It is not an opinion to depict an attorney abrogating her ethical duties. It is not an opinion to depict an attorney abrogating her legal responsibilities. The conduct of these Defendants in the several articles at issue ascribed to the It is not an opinion to report that an attorney has abrogated her ethical duties. It is not an opinion to report that an attorney has operated outside the bounds of

Plaintiff conduct, character and conditions that negatively reflect on her fitness for her business, trade and profession. 106. There is no possible innocent interpretation of the publications identified more

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

29

Case ID: 140203044

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 reckless

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

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

30

Case ID: 140203044

COUNT III: DEFAMATION PLAINTIFF McCAFFERY v. THE DAILY NEWS DEFENDANTS 111. 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. 112. 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: Neither Plaintiff reviews or abides by the book of ethics governing judges and lawyers; Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of Philly Judges Numbers to conduct business and bring home fees; Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of Traffic Court Numbers to conduct business and bring home fees; Plaintiff McCafferys holding of the gavel suggests that he is ruling on Plaintiff Rapaports referral matters. Plaintiffs call Philadelphia judges on behalf of the referral cases to influence results; Plaintiffs do not review or comply with the ethical rules governing jurists and lawyers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Plaintiffs call Traffic Court judges on behalf of the referral cases to influence results; 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; Within the theme of fornication, the Plaintiffs are screwing the system by illegally and unethically obtaining money;

31

Case ID: 140203044

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

113. 114.

The offending caricature was published by the Daily News Defendants. 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 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. 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/or

conditions 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 the

Plaintiff 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 of

average 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 and

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

32

Case ID: 140203044

122.

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. 123. 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. 124. 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. 125. 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. 126. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages as a result of the

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

33

Case ID: 140203044

COUNT IV: DEFAMATION PLAINTIFF RAPAPORT v. THE DAILY NEWS DEFENDANTS 127. 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. 128. 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: Plaintiff Rapaport professionally trades off of her husbands name; The Supreme Courts judicial chambers are used as a business office for Plaintiff Rapaport; Neither Plaintiff do not reviews or abides by the book of ethics governing judges and lawyers; Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of Philly Judges Numbers to conduct business and bring home fees; Both Plaintiffs avail themselves of Traffic Court Numbers 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 rules governing jurists and lawyers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Plaintiffs call Traffic Court judges on behalf of the referral cases to influence results; 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;

34

Case ID: 140203044

Within the theme of fornication, the Plaintiffs are screwing the system by illegally and unethically obtaining money; Plaintiff Rapaport identifies herself as Mrs. McCaffery in any professional capacity;

129. 130.

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

understood 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 and

special harm to each Plaintiff, and her general reputation. 133. 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. 134. 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. 135. 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. 136. At all times relevant hereto, the caricature and its representations were false and

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

35

Case ID: 140203044

138.

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

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

36

Case ID: 140203044

COUNT V: FALSE LIGHT PLAINTIFF McCAFFERY v. THE DAILY NEWS DEFENDANTS 143. 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. 144. 145. As set forth fully above, the Defendants published the caricature at issue. 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 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. 147. 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. 148. The caricature, as described above, created, perpetuated and regurgitated the

implication and innuendo that the Plaintiff breached his ethical responsibilities and legal responsibilities in the performance of his job as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and as such would be and is highly offensive to a reasonable person under any and all circumstances. 149. 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. 37

Case ID: 140203044

150.

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

served 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, 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. 152. 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. 153. It is not an opinion to draw and present a caricature depicting a Supreme Court

Justice abrogating his ethical duties. 154. It is not an opinion to draw and present a caricature depicting a Supreme Court

Justice abrogating his legal responsibilities. 155. 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, trade and profession. 156. 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. accountable. This is a series of lies for which the Defendants must and will be held

38

Case ID: 140203044

157.

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

Defendants deliberately false, misleading and outrageous conduct set forth above. 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 VI: FALSE LIGHT PLAINTIFF RAPAPORT v. THE DAILY NEWS DEFENDANTS 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. 161. As set forth fully above, the Defendants published the caricature at issue. 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 be

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

39

Case ID: 140203044

character, history, activities and beliefs, such that serious offense could reasonably be expected to be taken by a reasonable person in the Plaintiffs position. 163. 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. 164. 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. 165. 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. 166. The conduct of the Defendants with respect to their false light caricature has

served 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, 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. 168. 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.

40

Case ID: 140203044

169.

It is not an opinion to draw and present a caricature depicting an attorney

abrogating her ethical duties. 170. It is not an opinion to draw and present a caricature depicting an attorney

abrogating her legal responsibilities. 171. 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, trade and profession. 172. 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. 173. 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. 174. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and punitive damages as a result of the

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

41

Case ID: 140203044

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

42

Case ID: 140203044

VERIX'ICATION
I, 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 are
subject to penalties

of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

,./-

LISE RAPAPORT

DATED:

%r' {, Aorl
/

Case ID: 140203044

VERIFICATION
I, Seamus P. McCaffery, hereby state that I am a Plaintiff in this action and verify 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 are
subject to penalties

of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

4 F
SEAMUS P.

DArED:

3/g

Case ID: 140203044

EXHIBIT P-1
Case ID: 140203044

Itd[RER
I}IYESTrcATNil

hrhnna's
top murt, a

qutionon referrlfe
The fees received bv

Justice McCaffer/swife

- one for $82L000 drawscrutinyfrom

ByfttgR.U.Coy

Castille and ethicists.

INQUIRER STAF? WBTER

Over the last decade, tbe sife of Peonsylraia Supreme Court Justice Seanus P. McCafiery his chiefiudicial aide has re ceived 18 pannents as eferral fees for co'nnecting bw fims

witb clients. In te most neoent payment,

McCatreqt/s wife' lawYer Lise Rapaporq received $tezlmo her fee from a settment in-a multimilliondollar ndical ralpractice case. Court records and McCaf-

fer'/s state-mandated public nansialdisclosure forme list the 18 instances in cric his
wife received a rcferral fee. A tswyer frr e cowb, and br:s $ith te funs, say tb

ftes tre rutine and prqer But tbe high courds cbiefju* tice, Ronald D. Castillg gestioned Rapapods making referrals, as did some legal experts @ata by Tbe Inguirer. Castille said tbey aised tbe potential for "couflicts of interst and tbe appearance of im: pmpriety arisig hom adge's staff employee practicing law while receiving feir c( -pensation while employed in a judicial chamber, and especia in
a

Cstilte and McCafrery have in recent months, persona and pmfesbeen bitterly at odds

dicial chamber."

pr.eme Court cases in which some of tle 6rms tied to the fees were participants, Lawyers in tbe cases say fe justice nev. er disclosed the fees. In elgtt of ose 11apea McCafteryvd in vm of tbe legal position adnoed bD' ee firmg tht had rceircd rcfenals from Rapagct in oter cases.
See

Caffery has ruled on 11 Su-

sionally. ,{s the fees have come

Mc-

lEll!3

on A6

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT

orlcdc

A drdft of this story apard

?- I

nadrtent[

br

sernl

hars

funday m the Ptty.om website

Case ID: 140203044

^6

| rH[

prLAoELpHra rNGUrR

^Y,iM43_.

),

prrLL/.COM

In top Pa. court,

&

{uestion on fees
he

lks aliffDt basus

@ bubled by the referEls i te 6 pl. Ttough it wodd be ufa limit e abilityd rylls of lwy6 pcd aB Fox sid, "it
she's

sid.
H.

"Sheb

pubc

*ruL'

he

n e iitil itedieg }to| hcdM of the Hoftu Uivity Ie Sch@l eid lccaffery shorld e iEsd o ay r irckig the fim tid to rdd .s. IntNiwed i Sedy dd asked Pieth iht @ pGil

wiy i a pof$ior in wc judF ofr& Mied to a&N - he sid Mccftry dd M disdsd the Ef rals o! ffied hif if he c.be o b FEa th@ FeedED lso said tt sorrld be the n for ry judg bliry lD wich e Iar fm LEfo t ploys a
6pous.
sity of

Sam l{acfry fid ila tlfc, d RaDdt, in 2m8, fter he s sworn in dung eremonyatth covento center aE^sftsM6/sde@

s Supreme

Coui justice

nrdce ilc(affety lncmc Ddoglrn

Juices such s $amus ilccaffery e Huked to ile 0al Bblc

com lhis 2009 fom re that dudng ilc&ffMs sond yer

RgsbeF, Bmm & Sdle, h

o6beB
2O1O

@ fouo*-up cI& (tlccaffry's bmq Deiel is a @ b$ of e Fried@ e) Roben ilgel@i, a fomdr of a Phildelpia wd-ldry fim Pith a Wil Wti* ir dm &cid, dld rcr @nd to !pated clt5 Neilher im Hwel K R!bry, fNdq of BNkE&

lalie W, b@4 Uiwrhile Iw S.@l p fess who bas sdied e ethi' l ssG fcigdg$ d wyrlFlads, also sid McCafry sodd h dtul@d the fe Gffrey C. Ilkd Jr, e effiituNfsratc ljniq" dty of kryh?ia lsw Schel
aDd fstigs Colege Sch@l

lr i Se Ft*is, ery lqal ethic issG, sid {q

Cry shd haw @ed bio-

of

gpreme Cd. hiswife

Use Rpa rcceivd

rcr6l

ls frm thre

tud
Gds

Id q
Iite
be

(hootrSof

tu16 $hb "I int hds right " *id

fode. of the thics

Pmrylmi.
Co
,

hq

hG.

ehL

B@u

q
1

S Fl*i,

CA

105

Fds Firy te fs dd th hd d h l{sbld had rctd on s irolvig tb 6r. an FbliCa Ei4 r McCffe/5 gridldi@ i e l is W d iD t Ed of pp o mmd ridr judbial di4 ft @" Had si m m !d I leg tEqui@ sch tigf aal dd -@MbilmdMd qihty M higb Nd h e n @eeet oldg6 dde ary tu fd th a@ wb bd e roeiDtbeulrylNft eeiingbryder6ryb lied Mfery dd have
6
ID his Iq

rn lbc Fold bld bo by Rapa-

Rdis sid rbs

l?0t

br's- fsb ot@sive.Disclffi ru6 fo judgs @irc lh oly to de fblic bic itoo! ut oud hme fo judg dd his 3p!* - e $W d the y. Judgs ned not ws mdnb pid 6 hos te aory ms eed. Of the eight ms irclvd si Eferq 6ve did not nd to peid *. lfe lF tutudtutfufs AFFfr bkwtrei@eda ODc dd h 6m Ea Me et}!is mE th ppo sgEted becli5t6lNiblehie The privte lWF wdt iletifr e qs or $y bow B kFn had @ived. Fr.hffit h tbs o f ede NbUq Raa EferEl iD the Fpn dd eot of S821'58, Thd ms hsr sb fto the lun of a sit ed by the fim Fode, lw & Lalti Ieging dat 2-Bdd boy ffis b dged bt dodo6' dmts. the dMa 3how tut th bryb arelts Hred konard Fod3 fitu in 2m7 md tht q..be kFF, EryiB" @de
te referI. The eowt of RpFds f 3s dklqd bu he ffil Eeb o! eib invobiry sino filed Fblicy as a my to p td thei rie!ts.

bp. Ilfllc Gol ritorl ?erhps sil bt hm for @ckiry dom on un*y h! t S4i6 Cod 5 yffi p, M &ffry,62,inmot@ b iDd sith C$ile in mrhdiry Phnadelphia 6id1 @behcswm E tried o thei rrib, He m! i the n* in N@m' bs wt$ d on mpdo! h P!hdetphi thc & rugesed in Fn tbt Mccry bd 6xed tictq ised to RaFp. The ju*ie deied that fte invesdgadve rqfi ms Eiten by a od6t lH at Csie's wdio
ee& of tu embsig repon acebated loryr6sio! be in d Cstille 1th M.(er,ts h&iry, sues ey Cslleb fIow ,6is itr JeW bl wy his rcr s ovr of Phildelphiab ft.
public

Jry Gry do, e fosd d e w.di$add Pbflddple frq ki4 enks h l.fy & WilqeAhWb ftq Sed h H rdd Ff]s &m l@Et br srdwrH@ttu {fb eid . slff kFldt ldE'm&t@" hDd didnt tu trs

Mcc'fferl/s ger or the

1@ brc Xr@ o the l6iDg side of m 4FL t irdffilMe!"hdd. affibiF@ifcjustiq' Iam sid of Mccfery "l Abnham c' Reid! @bir of tl het hi. thint heb a fir tbe Philadclphira fe of Fc e dry t6 log: RodEhild, sid k r{d tBut ChI S. Ra Ji, a Paoli d *tdd i 92. tut lsrywo bl 2 , dd cle$ed the W for mu W' he td d bom ut lbe G Ed& he sid. fer f*. Tl 6 @ntiDued lwiw efter d it ho %d I km bot it,I eould @b haE4ddbbrueb od e pfed Dgt" Reic Ne in d eiL 'Ibe slf," Ke si oua Fid rcr sigif-

kp!@ldbakb.w. h the , Fod@ E@ llle I!4uiF fr* sqtc 4 ie 6ed si 2W on beha of a tu si tu mpl Feb. Nofhl Phihdelph @uple e a jdiq M.Cry b Fid who bd &le the sn to Sr.
i 200r after h had a Fssi Th 6t sF d@6 mitel tloryhgiAheantid.a dng. By the tire tlE boy @e hodq it sid, he'd k dsetd by hepdic enqhditis, which lert hh Mble to lk, 1! frral f*B 6 app la[y dryed, le8ly bid, oD Mccafej/s fmchl.discl irnticnt, ad epilqtic E fotu h 2m3. e F he The ms setdd fo! f/s ru & th. apFb bcrrb. lh illio. Fodemt E kepl a re o sch f3 drirg hb tlid of ur RaFp ived i ys o Pbiladehia Mu- te third of a third." licipd Cot, @diDg to his The boy's pts siged dislo fo@, iocludiry the dmet ihd spened out si y kFF s a ihe tot RFpd. The shry in ldici Cd fuily dslind to @ffint h On m offidl M reb6ite for F&n or by phone. th se bq kFp lis hl his l! Rsri8 sid the slf * r Ir working for fte fmily ws "very sef at the SupDe Co. Se gie* hs d- anEpts to @n&d heE. dss d "ChDbe of ,us Fodm,tuabdfhtewieE Mcc6ery" rsm d!s St., Phil- $id oily, .Th ly is do i* delphi& sue" *i tu fral fe. He h lhe sitq kpp @ did ot e,abote o! M ftlshe hs m DFci hlow-up pho cals o that or oih. e "b@ I have ro pikte cliets," I 66is'lene! he Hls tlrm, wblcb chaged mte that oe tFFn "bq e6dtim6, isli$edB wo'ldryriti! the ffi syth, e $lre of Eferral incme fo pndciry Ss tupped h.' Rp i 23, 2W, 2G, hblic ifoetio bout the 2009, d i lhe malprcti

ffiiE jrdi:is ard*t, Rpporf b aid $t95 E naFFt b ror*ed f the @ ajudicl aide si W. fu tht, 6he % e ai@ dittd&ryturtued i! FiEte pEdi fo B

tr96c9 Fdy. 8

ief adetje

&stopheis Hoital for Chil-

blesi.

dn

h h Moflrc, Mccfery ha i6 of s trylrysl eid e in@ o Efed EltiNhip to jdge up f*bePdMdaphatiy *t F in *e te! @e i! 08 ed . b.forc i s SuFrior Co@ tr apRb inwhiry Fc Ro the Supeid dd cle, McCfry wted k I N@@bet Fly qticizd Phitradeltie fm's in @ i6t Fidm pir Como Pt Cod Jdge A forerpoli ofr, Mc{f- 3 ed eith it i rbid. AI& L k6hko fo. failry b lq bse a Philadelphi Mu- "I fl W @ndmt ttat N nicipal Co idge in 1994. He 6m 6ed iely !d apryri- dcl* i a tht hjr wifq bcge *ig on e # SUF atelt dth spd to lhtu ma! lary4 mrkcd ha l d!fdi e inswe copey ior Cou h 2 d od th t4" kich sid. io a md.deiqjw ismuit SupE@ Co in 2008, He d kFp mried in frbsrolrfr* 6 sl'dd empoy f 1990. His wife, 61, h odsOf ihc @ fiD thd Fili io defedFdte d ftom lamd ig peral-iqjry si$. RefeUiveEiry and lw degree Fom the Uniw$ity of Pry1El fs did not phy !ole. tror rc. Tehlo als faid Judicial rues gdem rcfere d hs eife! p1ry6 on hi6 f* somshar d futh @liclG fom. He rcndy late the pcti of w by em6ffid tt oDisi{e 6li!g plo of the @fr s,Bte adedd Dods vith state For one th9, tlre rul6 *ipuMdeid . lte tht oDly hrye fre aDpi @ otd it8 irc ferrl fs. "dtuapproval" of ftshko, W with the ule quiing t8h bi6 rite hd b! a appq ftom a chiefjsde, o. law i the ic sit beforc @n plici$ 6vr tu pG hiaedwFnsshad of lw by mdrys. ftry iry h E68. sy aid mut frd obbin prcrl om the judge who sFlbtrhko doclied 6ment for fts dde vise6 thm I lkFpol @, tbt @t 1lEshlo si8ned spdi9 she solld hve ded Wie iq judg b cvil suib i Philasion pci jsw t@ h6 te dephiq b sught b kee hbhd, wlo % s her sFri. ing suc . fhe Sp@e sr. I hi5 le$et Fsias Sd CoM i4d @d lshko at makhg refrms ms ot ftlo cieil @t, 6edively d pEqici fl. otig hiE. fccaffery ws eory the ji detd XoomraeBftr5rl bshiEffi@e4@ itr f the f-ms that ived ferEls froD kFFrt lad6 of hJryhi8h@, 6ve dd ot re@ td tel+ si8led l}crhko h*JMd* phoe c.lls. Lw6 with tle @, hisjob 20ys sidheB prcvidd $re iriomaq r be d beme a jud. don b rould not te udelyiq 6* r ry how mucb .on,*.o6 * r*o]li* RaFprt had ived. 2!549421o. itwiw, Per S. Fied- ws ud @ obligadoD @ ftudr of te Fied@ itigeb bo te FfeFl f6. crucq@pjllnM.m. Schume {fm i! MoDtgomery tux ale 6id h did tut b &rrty, dd he Fold l@k hb [ Uctfry w obli8td ro lqir l dld hph the relemt 6s. Ee did F ddo* the fees, thow he sid $oMbn conldutd to ths dlcl
slmdiog

A.-rTm

Case ID: 140203044

EXHIBIT P-2
Case ID: 140203044

,. r . I

dolfo since he Stepped down Feb. 28 and became the lrst pope to rerign in 600 years.

th;;td

ietiat n cagtel c-n-

SAves

From the moment he rryas elected, Francis, 76, made clear he wuld go visit him, refusing in a way to let Benedict remain "hidden from the world" as h had
intended. Wearing a white quilted jacket

Fnncl rnd Benedlct greet on the helipad of

over his white cassock to

guard

Castel Gandolfo. brought a gft. "They told me it's the Madonna of Huriility;'he told gentleness" of his predecessor "humility and Benedict, acknowledging

Francls df

cmwd

t!nto the

against the spring chill, Benedict greeted Francis on the helipad of the Castel Gandolfo gardens as soon as the Papal helicopter landed. They embraced and clasped hands. And in a series of ges-

said. The two used a longer side o the car, thg traditional kneeler in the pows.and prayed of the place ofthe pope, while Bnedic{ side-bY-slde, the papdl *neell' tures that followed, Benedict sat on the left. llthen they en- facing the altar left vacnt. It riras a gesturc,that, 10.dys made clear tlit he conslderd .terrd the chapel inside the palazFtancis to be pope while Ilancie m to pray, Benedict tried to di- into Flsncis' papacy, is.becommade clear he considered his rect tanck to the papal lxreeler ing rnutihe: a shunning of the happings of the papacy ln favor predecessor to be very mch a in the frcrit, but Francis.refused. Ihking Benedict'3 hands and of coiegial an simple stYle revered bmther and equal..

Ilaveling from the helipad to the palazzo, Benedict gave Francis te seat on the right-hand

drawing him near, Francis.eaid, "No, we are brcthers,? Irrbadi

there
marltable

Fffiffi
I)
I

EfilitttPltr*.I

mnwnmn(qavE|ril

ffi ffi ffi ffi

rNFT'NITI

nmUll: ffi latc

tolrl lues ln 0lo.

Radnnt's
By Amand le Itters ond Mrik Scolfom
ssOCTATED PRE38

putshinnperl

- A sh0d. ow of a dlfferent kind ie hanging over hnxsutawCINCINNflT ney Phil. Authorltiee. ln sttll-frgid Ohio have issued an 1ln-

dictrhent" against the

famed groundhog, who

prodlcted an earlY sPring when he didn't see his hadon after emerging
Pennsylvania on Feb' 2.

fmm his lair in Western

Spring arrived Wednday, and temprturcs are still hovering in the 30s in

the

Brckeye

state and

much of the Northeast. While it's not the coldest spring on record, ifs e
Amerlcn Sood 5 degreee below nor-

tns cltn, rld

,rshe

W
opllonsl,
,

upto

l0l

& ftna UJ,

ffi
ttrE

mrll

tfo({h

8:30

fi, to

ftnmcOn
In
Supremc.
$earnus .

ls

4.con- theSupltme

te

Cort 1hear-

of tte 'Jutice

ffit
AEE

w)l
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT

ffi.ffi
coltt&

all
ltofl

?-

l.f

Case ID: 140203044

-.-..,,-..,-.-.;|,.. :,. | :.-;

EXHIBIT P-3
Case ID: 140203044

TAKI A LOK!

tRtt Atffss ALt l]\lttil fil Uti lt{tB5lTt:

lN0UlRER.[0]'l

fi$;

1,'"li,:'.iJ"-riil

il mf a pfria "lluqniueu
T\resday, June 11,2013

lnquireacom

$rn.6il mu

c i rsnlr

F'BI Probes
lmuler Erduslve: Referral fees the Pa. justice's wife received are focus. Castille raises Ethics Act issue.
BvCaigR Mc{oy
INQU]RR STFII WRITT:R

The FBI is investigating Pennsylvania Supreme Coun Justce Seamus P. Mccaffery over fees his wife received for referring c[ents to personal-injrrry law frrms, Tte Inquirer has leamed.

The investigation is examining 19 referral fees paid to Lise RapaPort, the justiee's wife and his chief aide for most of the last 16 years, according to sevral people with direct knowledge of the investigation. In March, Ttre Inquirer reported that Rpaport received an $821,000

referral fee in 2012 afrer a Philadelphia law firm successfully settled a multimillion-dollar medical-malpractice caseDion G. Rassias, an ttomey for It could not be determined whether the justice and his wife, called any the rwo investigations were related. suggestion that there ws a federa Municipal Coun, the lowertier in ivestigation "complete Donsense." the Philadelphia judicial system, He also said McCaffery has not hears drunkendiving casei and midone "anything at all improper." nor criminal and civil violations. 'You're indulging rumors without lhe federal inquiry iato Municipal See loClftnT on A6 any facts, which is sad," he said.

ryon

ees
Justlc. S..mG
P,

Ilccrff.fy

In N.J.,

srxue forUS.
Senate
Of four Democrats and two

Republicans who filed, one remains the odds-on favorite.

Jonathau lbnari
and Clris lllordcs
I{qUTRER STFF WRITERS

md polls ey one- candidate akeady

has a huge head start

WSHINGTON

The eld is set,

iu the race to become New Jersefs next senator. Six candidates four Denocrats and t'o Repubcans filed Monday to ru! in the special election to replace Sea. ank R, lutenberg, a DeEocr?t who died June 3. Most of te nmes we aredy knoc,. On the Democratic side ae Newark Mayor Cory Bookef, U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver of Essex County, and U.S. Rep. Ftank Pallone. Conservatirre leader Steve lnegan and Alieta Eclg a doc. tor ftom Souerset County, are run. ning for the Republican nomination. Booker has long ben seen as thti favorite, but tn'o independent po[s released Monday show how large his initial azntage appears to be. A Quinnipiac University poll found See SEIllE on A2

Grand jury, to look clty Case ID: 140203044

..* r.^ll-.t r.

(: I illolrRttl

cd

investigates McCaffey over wife's refenal fees

:

ItiltitllrtTt

fM Al
Cou

ib
cd tht

Sdh llltl tt
l ^ pnel

ves

ieengwih
on

dment6

immigtid

flto

^cr

Inunigration
mts ae set
WSHNCmN - S6. roil prpd {ordry lor the ait w!6 id the fl

f ry lar. t6 wbi l i Perytia, pald to @sE a 9yq for bridg . dint b a ftn iftbo litis{d l s @tuL lrpicly, dE e&rrine hW &$ a lhid of
rrl
gal
Suct

fucd

in

Clvl[ ct
onStudy

the st

of a bqnbim n 8ghdtd3 al-Aeen neighboood

sM/e

k[
5?in norft lraq
@ bohlas .&cd eF rd ed rim Iq on M6ds blry ld 6' !plo ed ffidlDg. tbe ddllst dDtid ol vlo
ro hit

ary

S@t6o aldsalkmigl{ior bll, redying

nd&& on @tan
dar sEoaty, bck 8ca, nd h6th@ @vega

rios issu6 ltrc{ding o

InqE R$is $id lh6 sfe's wifc 6 sugh

oul by clicD6 ba@ sh is lWr vith "xl-

InoMrchtlffiThe

tD t 6ms tltd lhe rcferatr frcF Raprpon, d&dbed thc fr 6 mde d pIr

ciFls

peid to t m, Rsirq aoru wilh prls-

fe

AAGIA

*,t

wrc of

6iv.d

for la dvic md thd citizdhip to s she in 0m refcd thm llmilio! poplc hcre ile to other b*yt. gy Bol eog crydPennsti qrif J8.

al

mrk6 th tudonb lmigEtion ls sd offar cv{ft-

p vo vos $chc&drd fo114drymPFG dudffiBb otncil:y lwdate 6 n@ f@ Mrd il th m!& o

lcnt rcpuHi nd r8.

ntic

il

ib.

aidq whose referl fsfrom lw

tr6ft

Co{t Jtdka

3s

e ll.Crltr, i 2008 with vi Lse (pF, hs ahef tkaret ssue. u&!r&Eor/9tus&,

tb" uy ri

Rs6s Sd it fom oleffi of Rp?o, dting b vhs ehe i pvatc ptulice, eght her out

rFoliw

ferybsadMtlydeed
sBong rlo chargd j!ry, and

uvowenl {e

s rot

tion to tel litigntr boqt

the

te idimenbin.

by

rofcr fe6. fn the E

in M$h

tbckcF iuitfy ar. ed E4*or.go ly h the @miry, the @cd thei siehE m polie d

Th nd

fte I 6l wil @ in e fouovlrg daF dd wkq Repubicr s. b ofs d!n6 tb?

soyddftlthbill
by

ed ro

$$ 6iy

l{ccaffry

sffiry &16 s@bl.d b cotd! rb vlolq blockiDg a key ad i . e Fe ad iptltc a fm6 Su. 'dw in tb"3lehold of ri iwt
Mosul afte the bls

afy p6b d

s@t.

d a lw

t ofl

in lrq

h6

in favor. So@ uay p$; orh6 alMdysbeisdir

Ei$d

en th

thry

@t

blcd tb.t a cou Mld bc @dig it a judi-

{'sa
led

6& ffipb Hl ii
(he of
e

e b$b sppdm-

Cory(&,lbs)loadd

!dMt

M@ Fbio (R, fb.)' h6 sid te meauo @ds ngs boer @!r. Ie h bd stporve of
by Sn, Jole

U! audF,

oo.

tolble scbirn vio.

fq rb6

drd I{

bout of

Ritig h*dg s@n'

AP

quiM@bo{9" rity befd 4! @ ob6n pe@t Bide

lrry Reid (E, Nd) dis 56d d a 'ispU"ine inwiw

misd F

d.lraj*ity ldd

bMddqlr[M.dq@ Itrc rceq4 - /AP

BP:Oildeanup

endsinSstds
ffie
thil rdic

hit
aa.

ied Fbd
On

ffi d @dMsBirrldidg fcisii t br@,

Hoo l ig, a
ol

I 20io, F rsred 6r d tbeapaE

motldw@F

Jud8c

bp

nld o ddFlalt
M@ilyPdCcld

rhe

dom i ec

iE Egubr clulD wbrl

eito wvry_ raachiu tDpiDa poht i {'it!h b. cryrry syr ddg ft ryiri3 lrac6 of oil muld e& E@ lM

laidq,

E t[

boweq,

G'
dv

tle

8pod,

c @0.y

& ot
o ctug of 6rint d& Iio hrt y!ri, r @utrlt' ud! E?od @Biold hyodl!ofrbe lhiladd.
phir

citd

of

dalto

LA.

Ttu

ScEfsnq lsd n H!lbry, ich lso

Ssm6
R

nlml fs.

onc w

d gifrn hk w& ilaflwlcjpd CM

.C.ty

@t luf,il tht hd lt. dti.ljudgB

thi n c.

Justimb0* raisingom
d l.lodry f6 CrJford 6ii3ffidllw t. diMi$tt'oli D pGrionan fmiE hw tutqriG th fp M oar.bir.Mud ry olt dE ilrl{ By *o, ji6 cqF{ thc wy lor Xin rd lNfmlhmo qxthirmiy ta! ffi" mn trkt ri Ffib FFtty @tti. llG rul Mr rh{ q* het ro rhr &u of Ap. F ro d<ld. sder rhl lo(nt rld f Fn tl rh.rr r.rif cp ir u[ drr!d. tll pnmc Co oFnad thc
WSIINGITON

hrmfrmlFotrloltt

fom l!)94

2003,

1lr$

Flrdtwilhd
sdu ft.4 l{.

f.T*'alflrTlrfJ!!::
ffi nm{r. hd 5i ^.(mr$lir[, qHrffi
'!lnnr. th@
'h,-b,. r-; -,.,i r.*,-,lr!tr$,
J,

- lh8tc hrgirq .redd Etrfat* *l6ccd oodt b I c d iip{, @rt 20 w f Fi& Ce.ailla aeld EllD6 b f d.ida toab r d Frdd rc $e d gu t.l @ ,F tioil udd thc t Eth- rirtrllyFp. icr Ac IrF fron t. B . nohrlIy, Li nrp'@! ol nhl oiqbrm Fn w$ wot{drg ,hd 8gld. bddilaDbdffi d of SD' ot d lty lddol C.ne, d rb@! !. G l&lbd ca b 9tr6lv.d r nfd. l, i$ ruiirl FFty,'ctoIG rt nd hld tpto.r . Jo - C6 drc fda - vloLt on ol E Ettlc. d."
R.tls
.t 2rt-09,{21 s
dilr c.de n, Hccry

wc dtr

ti6 lt -il

!ho
ONDO,

Si Bddt

oqba

.trcot@rfsm, a

Case ID: 140203044

EXHIBIT P-4
Case ID: 140203044

srclrE

wtKtilsoil

B $rnrrte @r Jrd$ fit'htnsq 4 gtrplols {r trerv) in hischarnbe 16...

SIGNE WILKINSON

The Philadelphia lnquirer (wilkins@phillynews.com)

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT

P. 4

Case ID: 140203044

EXHIBIT P-5
Case ID: 140203044

INOUIRER EXCLUSIVE

mhhwfrrms
The Supreme Court justice and fees paid to his wife are the subject of federal subpoena^s.
By Ctnig

hrobeof

R ll{c0oy

INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

nnsylvada Justlce Seamus McCaffery. Authorities seek information from law firms on
referral fees and campaign donations. roM GRALTsH / Stan

In the ongoing federal investigation of Sate Supreme Court Justice Seamus P. Mcaffery
pmsecutons have seryed zubpoe-

nas on numerous law frms, seeking detailed infomation

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT

about referal fees paid to McCaffeds wife. Vetemn defense lawyer John \il. Moris, who represents one of the eight frrms refemed cases by McCaffe4/s wife, Lise Rapaport, said his client turned over records liast montth. The federal grand jury subpoenas to law frrms.also dernanded information about campaign donations to McCaffery according to Morris and Charles E. Schmidt Jr., a top attorney n'ith
See

]trClffiT on 418

?.5

Case ID: 140203044

-..

t,

was
dis-

law-

Phila.

to li

f:

the in
forfri intervffi

with TIre

this

ye

In-

2oA3;,

ecomat least

oe

consideran auto,

cases by Rapa. preme federal

one of

the lawyer'

Caffery and

to identi-

over to cochair of

did dis-

over

of years
a dient

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, first class mail, postage prepaid, and/or hand delivery upon: Richard A. Sprague, Esquire Joseph R. Podraza, Jr., Esquire Brooke Spigler Cohen, Esquire Alan Starker, Esquire Neal R. Troum, Esquire Christopher P. Spina, Esquire Sprague & Sprague The Wellington Bldg., Suite 400 135 South 19th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendant Intertrust GCN, LP Amy B. Ginensky, Esquire Michael A. Schwartz, Esquire Michael E. Baughman, Esquire Raphael Cunniff, Esquire Eli Segal, Esquire Kaitlin M. Gurney, Esquire Pepper Hamilton, LLP 3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Attorneys for Defendants William Marimow, Craig McCoy, Signe Wilkinson and Michael Days Interstate General Media, LLC 801 Market Street, Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19107

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

DATED: March 25, 2014

Case ID: 140203044