Category Archives: Lawsuits

Bauman v. Butowsky et al, Dismissed, Circumstances surrounding Seth Rich’s death remain unresolved, Bauman “Democrat crisis management person”

Bauman v. Butowsky et al, Dismissed, Circumstances surrounding Seth Rich’s death remain unresolved, Bauman “Democrat crisis management person”

“On March 1, 2017, Wheeler told Butowsky that he (Wheeler) had independently acquired some “dynamic information” from one of his sources, the “lead detective” on the Seth Rich murder case. Wheeler also claimed that he had learned and knew who was “blocking the [murder] investigation”…Butowsky Vs Folkenflik, NPR, et al

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

The ruling by judge Richard J. Leon was filed on March 29, 2019 dismissing the case against Ed Butowsky.

Heard much about this from the fake news media?

Heard much in the fake news media about the lawsuits Ed Butowsky has filed against those making false allegations against him?

Perhaps they are too busy trying to keep the false Russian Narrative alive and trying to obfuscate the Seth Rich murder story and possible link to the DNC leaks to Wikileaks.

From the ruling by judge Richard J. Leon on Bauman v. Butowsky, et al.

“While there is, of course, no real comparison to be made between the public debate over the Kennedy assassination and Seth Rich’s murder, this case does share much with Lane. Like the Kennedy assassination, the circumstances surrounding Seth Rich’s death remain unresolved. Compl. at ¶¶ 2, 29. Perhaps this would be a different case if the murderer had been caught, tried, and convicted and the motive made public; the present state of play, however, effectively precludes a factual determination as to the falsity of Butowsky’s statement. See Campbell vCitizens for an Honest Gov’tInc., 255 F.3d 560, 577(8th Cir. 2001) (“[w]hile we are not aficionados of conspiracy theories, we suppose that if [defendant’s] assertions are true, there would be inherent difficulties in verifying or refuting such a claim”). To be sure, my decision in this case in no way condones Butowsky’s conduct. But our Circuit Court has said that “where the question of truth or falsity is a close one, a court should err on the side of non-actionability.” Moldea II22 F.3d at 317. I will heed that admonition.

The remaining statements—that Bauman is a “Democrat crisis management person” “assigned” by the DNC to act as the Rich Family spokesperson, Compl. at ¶ 53—are not defamatory. To be defamatory, a statement must not only be capable of injuring the plaintiff “in his trade, profession or community standing” but also goes beyond mere offensiveness to “make the plaintiff appear odious, infamous, or ridiculous.” Competitive Enterprise150 A.3d at 1241 (internal quotation marks omitted). As with falsity, whether a statement is capable of defamatory meaning is a threshold question of law for the Court. Jankovic vInt’l Crisis Grp., 494 F.3d 1080, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The pleadings in this case make clear that Bauman is a public relations specialist, see Compl. at ¶¶ 14, 22, 51, and Bauman does not appear to dispute that his work often relates to Democratic Party causes, see Def. Butowsky’s Mot. to Dismiss at 5-6 [Dkt. # 12]; Mem. in Supp. of Def. Heavin’s Mot. to Dismiss at 1 [Dkt. # 14-1]; see generally Pl.’s Opp’n to Def. Heavin’s Mot. to Dismiss; Pl.’s Opp’n to Def. Butowsky’s Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 23]. Thus, an accusation of being a “Democrat crisis management person” would hardly harm Bauman professionally. Indeed, it could be easily viewed by many as a badge of honor. Nor would the assertion that Bauman had been tasked by the DNC to handle communications on a matter of public interest that had quickly become politicized make him appear odious.

Of course, defamatory meaning need not be express. White vFraternal Order of Police909 F.2d 512, 518 (D.C. Cir. 1990). A statement may be defamatory by implication  if “a reasonable person could draw a defamatory inference” from the statement. Parnigoni vStColumba’s Nursery School681 F.Supp.2d 1, 15 (D.D.C. 2010). “In other words, defamation by implication evolves from what a statement reasonably implies.” Id. Here, the overarching defamatory inference that Bauman presents is that Butowsky’s statements form part of a larger narrative accusing him of working alongside the DNC to conceal criminality “at the highest echelons,” to cover up Seth Rich’s murder, and to impede law enforcement’s investigation into the murder. Compl. at ¶¶ 4, 59, 75, 129. But defamation by implication requires “an especially rigorous showing,” as the publication “must not only be reasonably read to impart the false innuendo, but it must also affirmatively suggest that the author intends or endorses the inference.” Guilford Transportation IndustriesInc., 760 A.2d at 596 (quoting Chapin vKnight-Ridder993 F.2d 1087, 1092-93 (4th Cir. 1993)). In the article on which Bauman relies, Butowsky certainly states his opinion that the DNC is engaged in nefarious activities, and he suggests that Bauman appeared at the DNC’s behest and that his role is deserving of suspicion. SeeCompl. at ¶ 53. But the facts alleged are insufficient to show that Butowsky intended, or affirmatively endorsed, the implication that Bauman’s job was, as the complaint puts it, to “execute the DNC’s plan to cover up Seth Rich’s murder.” Id. at ¶ 4; see also id. at ¶ 129(b) (“assigned and paid by the DNC to serve as the Rich family spokesperson so that he could obstruct the  investigation into Seth Rich’s murder”). Accordingly, Butowsky’s statements, although clearly hyperbolic, are not actionable in defamation.

 As Bauman has not met the first element of a defamation claim, I need not address Butowsky’s argument that Bauman is a limited purpose public figure under the First Amendment. ——–

b. Remaining Causes of Action

Bauman also brings claims for defamation per se and false light against Butowsky. For the reasons stated above, Bauman has not stated a claim for defamation per se, which occurs when a defendant falsely accuses the plaintiff of committing a crime or other unlawful act. Seee.g., Guilford TranspIndus., Inc., 760 A.2d at 600. Additionally, “[w]hen a false light claim is based upon the same factual allegations as a defamation claim, the two are analyzed identically.” Parisi vSinclair845 F.Supp.2d 215, 218 n.1 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing Blodgett vUnivClub930 A.2d 210, 223 (D.C. 2007)). Bauman therefore also has failed to state a false light claim.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Heavin’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and Butowsky’s 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim are hereby GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED as to those defendants. A separate order consistent with this decision accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.”

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.196850/gov.uscourts.dcd.196850.35.0_1.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Advertisements

Seth Rich murder and possible involvement in DNC leaks to get witness testimony?, Butowsky Vs Folkenflik and NPR, et al scheduling order revelations

Seth Rich murder and possible involvement in DNC leaks to get witness testimony?, Butowsky Vs Folkenflik and NPR, et al scheduling order revelations

“On March 1, 2017, Wheeler told Butowsky that he (Wheeler) had independently acquired some “dynamic information” from one of his sources, the “lead detective” on the Seth Rich murder case. Wheeler also claimed that he had learned and knew who was “blocking the [murder] investigation”…Butowsky Vs Folkenflik, NPR, et al

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From Citizen Wells May 5, 2019.

“Seth Rich murder investigation lives, Ed Butowski lawsuits Ty Clevenger efforts, Court docs ref Seymour Hersh statements Fake News Media lies, Wild cards: Assange knowledge & Barr investigations”

https://citizenwells.com/2019/05/05/seth-rich-murder-investigation-lives-ed-butowski-lawsuits-ty-clevenger-efforts-court-docs-ref-seymour-hersh-statements-fake-news-media-lies-wild-cards-assange-knowledge-barr-investigations/

From the Scheduling Order.

EDWARD BUTOWSKY v. DAVID FOLKENFLIK, ET AL.

“DEADLINES

March 27, 2019 Deadline for motions to transfer.

May 1, 2019 Deadline to add parties.

July 1, 2019 Disclosure of expert testimony pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
26(a)(2) and Local Rule CV-26(b) on issues for which the
party bears the burden of proof.

July 15, 2019 Deadline for parties to file amended pleadings.
(A motion for leave to amend is required.)

September 16, 2019 Deadline for motions to dismiss, motions for summary
judgment, or other dispositive motions.

September 30, 2019 Disclosure of expert testimony pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
26(a)(2) and Local Rule CV-26(b) on issues for which the
party does not bear the burden of proof.

6 weeks after disclosure Deadline to object to any other party’s expert witnesses.
of an expert is made Objection shall be made by a motion to strike or limit expert
testimony and shall be accompanied by a copy of the expert’s report in order to provide the court with all the information necessary to make a ruling on any objection.

October 6, 2019 Deadline to file any evidence that is solely contradictory or
rebuttal evidence to another party’s expert disclosure.

October 6, 2019 All discovery shall be commenced in time to be completed by
this date.2

November 29, 2019 Date by which the parties shall notify the Court of the name,
address, and telephone number of the agreed-upon mediator,
or request that the Court select a mediator, if they are unable
to agree on one.

December 13, 2019 Notice of intent to offer certified records.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.183024/gov.uscourts.txed.183024.57.0.pdf

The final pretrial conference is scheduled for January 31, 2020.

The Ed Butowsky lawsuit filed June 21, 2018 is loaded with facts and allegations regarding Seth Rich and his possible involvement in the DNC leak.

From the lawsuit:

“65. On March 1, 2017, Wheeler told Butowsky that he (Wheeler) had independently acquired some “dynamic information” from one of his sources, the “lead detective” on the Seth Rich murder case. Wheeler also claimed that he had learned and knew who was “blocking the [murder] investigation”. Wheeler texted Butowsky as follows:

Wheeler told Butowsky that he was meeting with “2 inside contacts” on March 2, 2017.”

“69. In the interview, Wheeler claimed that he had been investigating the murder of Seth Rich over the “past three weeks”.
“[T]here has been a lot of reward money that’s been offered for any information. No one has come forward. So here is the thing that is so important to realize whenever you have a lot of reward money, in this case it is over $125,000, and you don’t have anyone coming forward with information. Then what that tells you as an investigator is that maybe you need to start looking at another cause or another reason as to why this guy was killed and that’s what we’re doing now. We’re looking at uh possibly of course a street robbery, but it could, and I underline the word could, it could have been related, his death to his job, it could have been related to something else. what I don’t think it was related to though Allison is this Russian hacking thing.”
(Emphasis added). After the interviewer pointed out to Wheeler that people were “hinting at the fact that perhaps Seth Rich may have given some documents [to Wikileaks]”, Wheeler, voluntarily and of his own free will, stated as follows:
“Well a lot of people have made that same observation and you have to ask yourself what is the motivation behind a person wanting to get involved and offer reward money, maybe he’s just a good guy and he has a lot of money laying around so this how he wants to spend his money, but you have to be careful though when you start throwing out these conspiracy theories, they actually don’t help the investigation at all… I haven’t found one shred of evidence at all that indicates that Seth’s death is the result of any Russian hacking or anything like that. I do think it’s possible and I underline the word possible that it could have been related to his job to some degree or relationships with the job, don’t know that for sure but for investigators we have to go down every path until we can determine who was responsible for his death”.”

“WHEELER: Absolutely, yeah, and that’s confirmed. Actually, I have a source in the police department that has looked at me straight in the eye and said ‘Rod we were told to stand down in this case and I can’t share any information with you’. Now that is highly unusual for a murder investigation, especially from a police department. Again, I don’t think it comes from the Chief’s office, but I do believe there is a correlation between the Mayor’s office and the DNC, and that’s the information that is going to come out tomorrow.”
(Emphasis added). When asked by a Fox 5 DC anchor whether there would be “evidence” to prove the statements made by Wheeler, Marraco stated as follows:
“MARINA MARRACO: … Rod Wheeler, the investigator, assures us Fox 5 and assures Fox News that there’s a full report that contains information that will show how many times Seth Rich made contact with Wikileaks and will show exactly when this communication took place.””

“128. In an audio recording published on July 11, 2017, Hersh provided the following statement:

“What I know comes off an FBI Report … The kid [Seth Rich was] … a nice boy, twenty-seven. He was not an IT expert, but he learned stuff. He was a data programmer … Here’s what nobody knows … when you have a death like that, DC cops … have to get to the kid’s apartment and see what you can find … so they get a warrant … They go in the house and they can’t do much with his computer … They have a cyber unit in DC, and they’re more sophisticated. They come and look at it. The idea is that maybe he’s had a series of exchanges with somebody who’s said ‘I’m going to kill you, you motherfucker’ … and they can’t get in … So, they call the FBI cyber unit. The DC … Washington Field Office is a hot shit unit … There’s a cyber unit there that’s excellent … The Feds get through and here’s what they find. This is according to the FBI Report … What the Report says is that sometime in late Spring … early Summer, he [Seth Rich] makes contact with WikiLeaks. That’s in his computer … They found what he had done. He had submitted a series of documents … juicy emails from the DNC … He [Seth Rich] offered a sample, an extensive sample … of emails, and said I want money. Later, WikiLeaks did get the password. He had a … protected dropbox … He also, and this is in the FBI Report, he also let people know with whom he was dealing … The word was passed, according to the FBI Report, ‘I also shared this box with a couple of friends, so if anything happens to me, it’s not going to solve your problems’ … WikiLeaks got access before he was killed.””

Read more:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/EdButowsky.pdf

This lawsuit will probably be settled out of court.

However, it is significant because in a legal document, filed with the court, unsealed, in the light of day, we have extensive allegations of the attempts made by the Fake News Media, the DNC, et al to cover up the truth behind the murder of Seth Rich and his possible involvement in the DNC leaks.

Heard much about this from the Fake New Media?

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Seth Rich murder investigation lives, Ed Butowski lawsuits Ty Clevenger efforts, Court docs ref Seymour Hersh statements Fake News Media lies, Wild cards: Assange knowledge & Barr investigations

Seth Rich murder investigation lives, Ed Butowski lawsuits Ty Clevenger efforts, Court docs ref Seymour Hersh statements Fake News Media lies, Wild cards: Assange knowledge & Barr investigations

“The Mueller report perpetuates the Russian narrative, states “Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks “implied falsely” that Mr. Rich had been the source of the emails” and did not investigate it.
The fake news NY Times participates in the charade (Lie) by regurgitating the Mueller statement.”…Citizen Wells

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

From the Gateway Pundit May 4, 2019.

“Fake News Media Suffers Body Blow on Case Linked to Seth Rich Murder

A big, old, giant Sequoia has been knocked down in the mainstream media forest of lies and none of the fake news media are commenting on this development. Ok. Got your attention? The anti-Trump media playbook is to smear anyone who dares deviate from the Trump hatred meme. Up to this point the media has not been punished or held to account for their reckless use of lies to besmirch good people. Now meet Ed Butowsky, a Texas financial advisor ruthlessly attacked by NPR reporter, David Folkenflik. A Texas Judge has ruled in a case Mr. Butowsky brought against Folkenflik and NPR:

This is an action for defamation, business disparagement, and civil conspiracy filed by Plaintiff Ed Butowsky (“Plaintiff” or “Butowsky”), a Dallas investment advisor, against National Public Radio, Inc. (“NPR”),1 its senior media correspondent, David Folkenflik (“Folkenflik”), and certain former and current executive editors at NPR.2 According to Plaintiff, the defendants published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff online and via Twitter between August 2017 and March 2018 – statements Plaintiff alleges injured his business and reputation.

NPR and Folkenflik filed a motion to dismiss. The Judge said no. The case will go forward:”

Read more:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/05/fake-news-media-suffers-body-blow-on-case-linked-to-seth-rich-murder/

(Thanks to commenter hapnHal for the heads up.)

Why is this important to the ongoing resolution of the Seth Rich murder and who leaked the DNC files to Julian Assange and Wikileaks?

First of all, straight out of the playbook of “1984”, Mueller, despite evidence to the contrary, perpetuated the false narrative of Russian Hacking and Fake News Sites like the NY Times regurgitated the lie and the lie that Mueller’s report ruled out Seth Rich as a leaker.

From the Ed Butowsky lawsuit against David Folkenflik, NPR et al:

1. Folkenflik Misrepresented Butowsky’s Involvement
57. Before he wrote his first Article, Folkenflik knew that Butowsky’s role
and involvement in the investigation of Seth Rich’s murder was limited.
58. In early 2017, Butowsky contacted the family of Seth Rich to help the
family investigate their son’s unsolved murder. Butowsky graciously offered to pay for a private investigator. [https://soundcloud.com/siriusxm-news-issues/ed-butowsky-sethrichs-death].17
59. On February 23, 2017, Butowsky contacted Wheeler via text message to
see if Wheeler would be interested in investigating the murder. Butowsky did not know Wheeler, but had seen him on television. Wheeler appeared to be a competent investigator.
60. Wheeler entered into a contract with the Rich family (specifically, with
Aaron Rich, Joel Rich and Mary Rich) to investigate the murder of Seth Rich. As
Wheeler stated to FetchYourNews on May 22, 2017: ”

“61. Butowsky was not a party to the contract between Wheeler and the Rich
family. He has never seen the contract.
62. Although Folkenflik made it appear that Butowsky orchestrated and
directed Wheeler’s murder investigation, in truth Butowsky did not participate in Wheeler’s investigation and had very little communication with Wheeler. Folkenflik knew that Butowsky’s involvement was limited.
63. Wheeler publicly confirmed Butowsky’s limited involvement in the
investigation. On May 16, 2017, Wheeler represented to Sean Hannity that “I was hired by the family, Joel and Mary Rich. They signed the contract. Now, the financial benefit, if there were any financial benefit and by the way there wasn’t much, that was actually paid for by a third party [Butowsky] that I have had very little communication with at all, Sean”. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuRJDKEVxHY (emphasis added)].
64. Folkenflik misrepresented Butowsky’s actual involvement in Wheeler’s
investigation. Folkenflik made it appear as of Butowsky was at the center of the
investigation, directing Wheeler and telling him what to do. Folkenflik falsely portrayed Butowsky as a puppet master, feeding “tips” to Wheeler and telling Fox what to do. Far from the truth.”

“7. Folkenflik Disregarded Seymour Hersh’s Recorded Statement
128. In an audio recording published on July 11, 2017, Hersh provided the
following statement:

“What I know comes off an FBI Report … The kid [Seth Rich was] … a nice boy,
twenty-seven. He was not an IT expert, but he learned stuff. He was a data
programmer … Here’s what nobody knows … when you have a death like that,
DC cops … have to get to the kid’s apartment and see what you can find … so
they get a warrant … They go in the house and they can’t do much with his
computer … They have a cyber unit in DC, and they’re more sophisticated. They
come and look at it. The idea is that maybe he’s had a series of exchanges with
somebody who’s said ‘I’m going to kill you, you motherfucker’ … and they can’t
get in … So, they call the FBI cyber unit. The DC … Washington Field Office is
a hot shit unit … There’s a cyber unit there that’s excellent … The Feds get
through and here’s what they find. This is according to the FBI Report … What
the Report says is that sometime in late Spring … early Summer, he [Seth Rich]
makes contact with WikiLeaks. That’s in his computer … They found what he
had done. He had submitted a series of documents … juicy emails from the DNC
… He [Seth Rich] offered a sample, an extensive sample … of emails, and said I
want money. Later, WikiLeaks did get the password. He had a … protected
dropbox … He also, and this is in the FBI Report, he also let people know with
whom he was dealing … The word was passed, according to the FBI Report, ‘I
also shared this box with a couple of friends, so if anything happens to me, it’s not going to solve your problems’ … WikiLeaks got access before he was killed.””

Read more:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/EdButowsky.pdf

The lawsuit is loaded with examples of media dishonesty and lies as well as references to Seth Rich.

This could lead to testimony and witnesses to corroborate statements made about possible Seth Rich involvement.

Furthermore, Attorney Ty Clevenger, a counsel for the plaintiff in the above, filed another lawsuit for Mr. Butowsky on March 12, 2019.

Edward Butowsky v Michael Gottlieb, et al.

“1. Late in the summer of 2017, the lives of Edward Butowsky, his family, and his
co-workers were upended by false allegations that he conspired with White House officials to divert attention away from earlier (and equally false) allegations that President Donald Trump “colluded” with the Russian government to “steal” the 2016 Presidential election from Hillary Clinton. On August 1, 2017, New York attorney Douglas Wigdor and his partners filed a bogus lawsuit alleging that Mr. Butowsky, Fox News reporter
Malia Zimmerman, and Fox News itself had fabricated a false story that a former
Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) employee – not the Russian government – was responsible for stealing DNC emails and giving them to Wikileaks.
2. The bogus lawsuit portrayed Mr. Butowsky as a ruthless political operative of
President Trump when, in reality, he never had (and never has) met President Trump nor spoken with him. In fact, Mr. Butowsky supported three candidates other than Mr. Trump in the primary, and in 2007 he donated $2,700 to the campaign of President Barack Obama.
3. Mr. Wigdor, et al. nonetheless made the false allegations because they knew
that most American journalists were (and are) consumed with hatred of President Trump, and they knew that most American media would publish or broadcast nearly anything – with little concern for accuracy – so long as it portrayed President Trump (or anyone tangentially connected to him) in a negative light. As detailed below, Mr. Wigdor, et al. planned to use the false allegations and the resulting negative publicity to extort money
from Fox News.
4. Mr. Butosky is by no means the only victim of the anti-Trump confirmation
bias in American media. On February 20, 2019, for example, the parents of 16-year-old Nick Sandmann sued The Washington Post for $250 million in damages because the newspaper smeared him with false accusations of taunting an elderly Native American veteran following a pro-life rally. The high-school student had made one unforgivable mistake: he wore a “Make America Great Again” (or “MAGA”) hat that is affiliated with President Trump’s political campaign. Based on that alone, the Post and other media comfortably assumed that he was a prejudiced white elitist. Within a day of the incident,
however, video emerged that proved Sandmann had not taunted or harassed anyone, and on March 1, 2019 the Post belatedly admitted that its previous coverage of Sandmann was inaccurate. Similarly, left-wing media breathlessly trumpeted allegations from actor Jussie Smollett that he had been assaulted on January 29, 2019 by men wearing MAGA hats and uttering anti-gay and racial slurs. Because of their confirmation bias, most journalists ignored immediate and obvious evidence that Smollett was lying, i.e., they
were so eager to believe that Trump supporters would assault a gay black man that they forgot to ask why it would have happened at 2 a.m. during a blizzard in overwhelmingly Democratic Chicago. Smollet’s story soon unraveled and on March 8, 2019 was indicted on 16 felony counts for lying to police and fabricating a hoax.
5. In Mr. Butowsky’s case, the disinformation campaign has taken much longer to unravel. Unscrupulous left-wing journalists and attorneys have perpetuated a myth about a myth, i.e., that Mr. Butowsky pushed a fictitious story about the stolen emails in order to divert attention from the fictitious story about “collusion” with the Russian government. In reality, the “Russia collusion” conspiracy theory is the only myth, and Mr. Butowsky’s statements about the stolen emails were accurate.
6. As a result of the lies fabricated and perpetuated by the Defendants, Mr.
Butowsky and his family received death threats, he lost one third of his business clients, rocks were thrown through the windows of his home, his automobiles were burglarized, his computers were hacked, he lost friendships, and he lost the opportunity to host a planned television program. Left-wing extremists even posted a clock on the internet counting down the time until Mr. Wigdor’s son would return for classes at Vanderbilt University, implying that Mr. Butowsky’s son would be harmed when he returned. As a result, Mr. Butowsky had to hire a bodyguard for his son.
7. The Defendants’ smear campaign never should have begun, and it has lasted for far too long. Now it’s time for the Defendants to answer for the lies that they spread and the harm that they caused.”

“33. As indicated above, this case is the consequence of a conspiracy theory,
namely that President Trump “colluded” with the Russian government to swing the 2016 Presidential election in his favor. That conspiracy theory (hereinafter be identified as the “Russia Collusion Hoax” or “RCH”) has been crumbling of late, as U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr admitted in early February that there is no evidence to support it. That has not deterred unscrupulous political activists like the Defendants herein, however, because they are emotionally invested in the RCH. Most of them have spent more than two years demonizing and defaming anyone who dares to question the RCH.
34. A key date in the Russia Collusion Hoax is July 22, 2016, when Wikileaks
began publishing thousands of email that had been stolen or leaked from the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”). Those emails showed how the campaign of Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton had corruptly taken control of the DNC for the purpose of sabotaging her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. The email release proved damaging to Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and, in an effort to shift blame, Mrs. Clinton, the DNC, and the administration of President Barack Obama soon alleged that
Russian hackers had stolen the emails to help the Trump campaign.
35. According to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, however, the emails were not procured from Russian hackers. Mr. Assange plainly inferred that the emails came from Seth Rich, a DNC employee who had been murdered on July 10, 2016 in what Washington, D.C. police described as a “botched robbery.” Wikileaks offered $20,000 for information leading to the capture of Mr. Rich’s killers. This deeply offended antiTrump activists like the Defendants herein, because it undermined the Russia Collusion Hoax.”

Read more:

http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019.03.12-Original-Complaint-stamped.pdf

Mr Clevenger, though busy with his full time job, has maintained his blog, LawFlog and has filed FOIA requests with the DOJ, NSA, etc. He has received a limited response from the NSA regarding files On Seth Rich and others.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Thrivent Financial vs Perez Department of Labor Acosta DOL, Status of lawsuits, Defense of alternative dispute resolution with mandated arbitration

Thrivent Financial vs Perez Department of Labor Acosta DOL, Status of lawsuits, Defense of alternative dispute resolution with mandated arbitration

“The MDRP is the sole means for presenting and resolving grievances, complaints, or disputes between Members, insureds, certificate owners or beneficiaries and Thrivent or Thrivent’s directors, officers, agents and employees. The MDRP reflects Thrivent’s Christian belief system and strives to preserve Members’ fraternal relationship.”…Thrivent v. Perez Sept. 29, 2016

“Thrivent contends that its commitment to individual arbitration is ‘”important to the membership because it reflects Thrivent’s Christian Common Bond, helps preserve members’ fraternal relationships, and avoids protracted and adversarial litigation that could undermine Thrivent’s core mission.’”…Thrivent v. Acosta Nov. 3, 2017

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

 

From Bloomberg  Sept. 29, 2016.

“Thrivent Financial for Lutherans is accusing the Department of Labor of exceeding its statutory authority by attempting, with its new fiduciary rule, to force all disputes into federal court rather than allowing for alternative dispute resolution methods (Thrivent Financial for Lutherans v. Perez, D. Minn., 0:16-cv-03289, complaint filed 9/29/16).

Thrivent’s lawsuit, filed Sept. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, takes aim at the rule’s “best interest contract” (BIC) exemption”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/employee-benefits/thrivent-financial-joins-fray-in-challenging-dols-fiduciary-rule?context=article-related

From the lawsuit.

“Thrivent’s Member Dispute Resolution Program
42. Thrivent’s MDRP is incorporated into all of Thrivent’s fraternal insurance contracts through the open contract provision by which Thrivent’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws are incorporated into all Thrivent insurance contracts, as required under state law. The MDRP Bylaw was adopted by Thrivent’s Member-elected Board of Directors as a part of Thrivent’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws in 1999 (at which time Thrivent was known as AAL). In so doing, Thrivent’s Board of Directors determined that the MDRP is in the best interests of Thrivent’s Membership.

43. The MDRP Bylaw, which is Section 11 of Thrivent’s Bylaws, requires binding, mandatory arbitration for any Member disputes with Thrivent. Section 11 “applies to all past, current and future benefit certificates, members, insureds, certificate owners, beneficiaries and the Society. It applies to all claims, actions, disputes and grievances of any kind or nature whatsoever. It includes, but is not limited to, claims based on breach of benefit contract[.]” Bylaws, § 11(b). “No lawsuits or any other actions may be brought for any claims or disputes covered by” Section 11. Id. § 11(c).

44. The MDRP is the sole means for presenting and resolving grievances, complaints, or disputes between Members, insureds, certificate owners or beneficiaries and Thrivent or Thrivent’s directors, officers, agents and employees. The MDRP reflects Thrivent’s Christian belief system and strives to preserve Members’ fraternal relationship.”

“47. A key benefit of the MDRP is that it preserves the fraternal relationship between Thrivent and its Members by avoiding adversarial litigation that could threaten to undermine the organization’s core mission. Thrivent’s Bylaws provide that no lawsuits or other actions are permitted for claims or disputes covered by the MDRP. Thrivent’s MDRP provides for resolution of disputes on an individual basis, involving Thrivent and the Members. Representative or class actions are not permitted under the MDRP Bylaw, which provides that “no disputes may be brought forward in a representative group or on behalf of or against any ‘class’ of persons, and the disputes of multiple members, insureds, certificate owners or beneficiaries (other than immediate family) may not be joined together for purposes of these procedures.” See Bylaws, § 11(e).
48. The MDRP is consistent with Thrivent’s fraternal nature, consistent with the Christian belief system of its Members, and reflects the careful balancing between Thrivent’s and its Members’ desire for a prompt, fair and efficient resolution of disputes, on the one hand, and the protection of the interests of all Members on the other. As such, the MDRP is an integral part of Thrivent’s governance structure. Experience has shown that the MDRP not only provides a fair and efficient process for dispute resolution, but is also in the best interest of Members.”

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Thrivent_Financial_for_Lutherans_v_Perez_et_al_Docket_No_016cv032?1552582945

DOL temporarily stopped enforcing anti-arbitration provision.

“Thrivent Financial for Lutherans convinced a federal judge in Minnesota to temporarily stop the Labor Department from enforcing the fiduciary rule’s anti-arbitration provision against the nonprofit financial entity.

Thrivent showed the threat of irreparable harm to its business model, both now and in the future, was sufficient to have its request for a preliminary injunction granted, Judge Susan Richard Nelson held Nov. 3 (Thrivent Fin. for Lutherans v. Acosta, 2017 BL 396118, D. Minn., No. 0:16-cv-03289-SRN-DTS, order granting preliminary injunction 11/3/17″

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/employee-benefits/thrivent-financial-wins-battle-over-labor-dept-arbitration-ban?context=article-related

Status report January 2, 2018.

“While the administrative process continues forward, it is not yet complete. On November 29, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a final rule extending the transition period and delay of applicability dates for the relevant prohibited transaction exemptions from January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019. See 82 Fed. Reg. 56545 (Nov. 29, 2017). The Department believes that this administrative delay will provide the Department time to complete its review of the underlying Fiduciary Rule and related exemptions and its intended proposal of “a new streamlined class exemption.” Id. at 56548. The Department believes that both its review and any proposed changes can be implemented before July 1, 2019. See id. at 56552 (explaining the Department’s belief that the additional time “is sufficient to complete review of the new information in the record and to implement changes to the Fiduciary Rule and/or PTEs, if any, including opportunity for notice and comment and coordination with other regulatory agencies”) ”

https://www.dolfiduciaryrule.com/portalresource/ThriventvPerez2018-01-02ECF112JointStatusReport.pdf

Status report July 2, 2018.

“Pursuant to the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 3, 2017, the parties submit this joint status report to address whether a continued stay of proceedings is necessary. The parties agree that a continued stay of proceedings is appropriate and anticipate providing a subsequent report to the Court on September 4, 2018.

In its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the “implementation and enforcement of the BIC Exemption’s anti-arbitration condition against Thrivent . . . until the conclusion of this litigation or such time as the Court so orders.” ECF No. 111 at 19. The Court also stayed the case, concluding that “[s]taying this matter will allow the administrative process to fully develop, possibly resolving this dispute, and thereby promoting judicial economy.””

https://www.napa-net.org/sites/napa-net.org/files/uploads/thrivent-dol-status-report.pdf

A status report for September 2018 has not been located.

However, the following suggests the Department of Labor is continuing to work on the “Fiduciary Rule and Prohibited Transaction Exemptions.”

RIN Data

DOL/EBSA RIN: 1210-AB82 Publication ID: Fall 2018
Title: Fiduciary Rule and Prohibited Transaction Exemptions
Abstract:The Department of Labor in 1975 issued a regulation defining who is “fiduciary” under section 3(21)(A)(ii) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) as a result of giving investment advice for a fee or other compensation.  On April 8, 2016, the Department replaced the 1975 regulation with a new regulatory definition.  The new regulatory definition was vacated in toto in Chamber of Commerce v. Department of Labor, 885 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2018).  The Department is considering regulatory options in light of the Fifth Circuit opinion.
Agency: Department of Labor(DOL) Priority: Other Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Stage
Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
EO 13771 Designation: Deregulatory
CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined     (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations.)
Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1002 (ERISA sec. 3(21))    29 U.S.C. 1108 (ERISA sec. 408)
Legal Deadline:  None
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
Request for Information (RFI) 07/06/2017 82 FR 31278
RFI Comment Period End 08/08/2017
Final Rule 09/00/2019

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201810&RIN=1210-AB82

How will this play out? Who knows.

The NAIC in 2016 stated: “pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”

Hopefully justice will prevail.

***  Update Mar 15, 2019  ***

According to a USDOJ attorney who worked on the lawsuit, it has ended.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Insurance company intimidation tactics, Fraud allegations bullying, Manipulate situation by choosing what information is relevant, NC Statutes on unfair claim settlement practices

Insurance company intimidation tactics, Fraud allegations bullying, Manipulate situation by choosing what information is relevant, NC Statutes on unfair claim settlement practices

“For members who have found themselves in disputes with Thrivent, the retroactive change rankles. “You’re wondering how Lutheran organizations can treat their own customers that way,” says Mr. Tiedemann, an 83-year-old retiree who navigated the dispute-resolution process for more than two years before giving up.”...WSJ May 30, 2006

“The insurance companies understand that if they deny and deny claims, then many of the claimants will never pursue their claim,”…ABC News Good Morning America April 25, 2008

“pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions are inappropriate in insurance policies and incompatible with the legal duties insurers owe policyholders when handling their claims.”…NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, August 15, 2016

 

How Do Insurance Companies Use Intimidation Tactics?

“One of the ways an insurance company may try to manipulate the situation is by choosing what information is relevant. If they discover some key information that wasn’t previously communicated to them, they might choose to punish you for not telling them, instead of simply assuming you had made a mistake and asking you to supply the missing information.”

“Unsubstantiated Fraud Allegations: Many insurance providers will allege that their policyholder is engaged in fraud by inflating the value of items in their claim, fabricating events resulting in loss or claiming loss of items that do not exist or were not lost or damaged. Sometimes these allegations will be loosely based on mistakes on a proof of loss form or be completely without any factual support. The objective is to intimidate a policyholder into accepting a lowball offer because of fears that the insured will face potential civil or criminal liability as well as having his or her claim completely denied.”

http://eachstorytold.com/2018/06/30/fraud-accusation-insurance-company-intimidation-tactic-common-intimidation-techniques-tactics-by-insurance-companies-are-unethical-illegal-obligation-of-good-faith-and-fair-dealing-toward-policyh/

From AcomHealth.

“It is a very common device for claims adjusters to allege “fraud” as a means to drive a minimal financial settlement with a provider. The claim by some insurance company employee that “overutilization” has taken place and that somehow, based on self-serving and unreal “guidelines” they are exploring legal action against the provider is, indeed, sobering and probably as intimidating as it is intended to be. As absurd and unethical as this behavior is, it is frequent and it is effective in driving low-dollar settlements by providers even for the most legitimate of claims.”

“While the exact language in the law regarding fraud may vary from state to state, the common elements necessary to prove fraud might be summarized as follows:

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements:

  1. A false statement of a material fact,
  2. Knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,
  3. Intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,
  4. Justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and
  5. Injury to the alleged victim as a result. Source:  Farlex Internet Free Dictionary”

Read more:

https://acomhealth.com/steps-prevent-defend-claims-insurance-fraud/

NC Statutes.

“§ 58-24-165. Unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices. Every society authorized to do business in this State shall be subject to the provisions of Article 63 of this Chapter relating to unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices”

https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_58/GS_58-24-165.pdf

“(11) Unfair Claim Settlement Practices. – Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice of any of the following: Provided, however, that no violation of this subsection shall of itself create any cause of action in favor of any person other than the Commissioner:
a. Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue;
 b. Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies;
c. Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims arising under insurance policies;
d. Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information;
e. Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof-of-loss statements have been completed;
 f. Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear;
g. Compelling [the] insured to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by such insured;
h. Attempting to settle a claim for less than the amount to which a reasonable man would have believed he was entitled;
 i. Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured;
 j. Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by [a] statement setting forth the coverage under which the payments are being made;
k. Making known to insureds or claimants a policy of appealing from arbitration awards in favor of insureds or claimants for the purpose of compelling them to accept settlements or compromises less than the amount awarded in arbitration;
 l. Delaying the investigation or payment of claims by requiring an insured claimant, or the physician, of [or] either, to submit a preliminary claim report and then requiring the subsequent submission of formal proof-of-loss forms, both of which submissions contain substantially the same information;
 m. Failing to promptly settle claims where liability has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage; and

n. Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.”

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thrivent buys ethics awards?, Touts Christian values, The ethics of firms paying to be honored for ethics, Ethisphere Institute “World’s Most Ethical Companies”, Thrivent touts these “ethics” awards”

Thrivent buys ethics awards?, Touts Christian values, The ethics of firms paying to be honored for ethics, Ethisphere Institute “World’s Most Ethical Companies”, Thrivent touts these “ethics” awards”

“Committed to honesty, integrity and fairness
Insurance companies are subject to a lot of rules. National and state governments and other regulatory organizations have established a vast array. At AAL, we recognize the importance of these rules and work diligently to follow them. Then we take an extra step.
We choose to hold ourselves to a higher ethical standard than the regulations demand. We’re part of the Insurance Marketplace Standards Association–more commonly known as IMSA.”…AAL (Thrivent) Correspondent January/February 2002

“the awarding of an ethics accolade to a company that gives you money just doesn’t pass the smell test.”…LA Times October 27, 2014

“The secret of life is honesty, and fair
dealing. If you can fake that you’ve got it made.”…Groucho Marx

 

Thrivent, a Lutheran connected fraternal organization has been in the news for the past several years trying to maintain it’s dispute resolution, MDRP, contract dictate in lieu of litigation, despite challenges from the DOL.

It claims it’s approach of appeal, mediation and arbitration is in the best interest of its members.

It also touts its Christian based approaches and ethics awards.

Is it buying the ethics awards?

From a recent lawsuit against Thrivent:

“Executive sues Thrivent, saying he was fired because he is black”

“A black executive claims he was fired as president of a Thrivent Financial subsidiary because he accused a co-worker of racial discrimination, according to a lawsuit he filed against the financial services firm.

Gregory M. Smith, who said he was recruited by Thrivent in 2016 to help grow its network of independent insurance brokers, said he was stunned to encounter discrimination at a Fortune 500 company whose mission is “helping Christians be wise with money and live generously.”

“I was shocked,” said Smith, 56, who has worked at some of the largest insurance companies in the U.S. “I have never been treated so badly in my life.”

http://eachstorytold.com/2018/05/26/thrivent-executive-fired-gregory-m-smith-lawsuit-says-he-was-fired-because-he-is-black-represented-by-attorney-clayton-halunen-we-are-going-to-get-rid-of-that-black-piece-of-shit/

“Thrivent Financial, which manages more than $100 billion in assets, boasts of its corporate culture, noting on its website that it has been named one of the world’s “most ethical companies” six years in a row by the Ethisphere Institute.”

http://www.startribune.com/executive-sues-thrivent-saying-he-was-fired-because-he-was-black/451920593/

From Thrivent:

“Thrivent, a not-for-profit membership organization that helps Christians be wise with money and live generously, announced today it has been recognized by the Ethisphere Institute, a global leader in defining and advancing the standards of ethical business practices, as one of the 2018 World’s Most Ethical Companies.”

“For the last seven years, Thrivent has been honored to be named a World’s Most Ethical Company,” said Brad Hewitt, CEO of Thrivent. “As we serve our members and carry out what it means to be an ethical company through our actions and business practices, we are pleased to be recognized as leaders in setting a standard that we hope will continue to develop within the business community.”

https://www.thrivent.com/newsroom/for-7th-year-in-a-row-thrivent-named-a-worlds-most-ethical-company.html

From Slate.

“Sometime in the next week or so, something called the Ethisphere Institute is scheduled to announce this year’s list of the “World’s Most Ethical Companies.” If past years are any indication, the winners will have their press releases ready to go, and news outlets across the country will eat it up. There’s just one hitch: These ethics awards—let’s call them the Ethies—may have ethics issues of their own.

The Ethisphere Insitute, which describes itself as “a leading international think-tank dedicated to the creation, advancement and sharing of best practices in business ethics, corporate social responsibility, anti-corruption and sustainability,” is actually a for-profit company. The institute also lends itself credibility with an “advisory panel” of ethicists, yet several former members say they’ve had little if anything to do with it. Finally, the institute and an affiliated company sell services to and collect fees from some of the same companies Ethisphere extols.”

“The scoring is based mostly on information provided by the companies themselves, and Ethisphere says its questionnaire should take 30 to 40 minutes to complete. Ethisphere then asks companies for documentation to support survey answers and reviews other sources, such as news articles, court records, and Consumer Reports. Ethisphere says it reviewed more than 10,000 corporations for last year’s list.

Brigham acknowledges that the system is imperfect. “Could they be lying to us?” he says. “Sure, they could. … Over time, we’re going to have to figure out how to verify that. And no one is going to pay us to verify it, and if we try to charge them to verify it, we’re going to have reporters like you make it sound like we’re getting paid off.”

Ethisphere says its methodology was developed with the help of a panel of independent experts. But as I dialed up half a dozen of the 20 committee members, I found only one (George Ash) who said he actually contributed to shaping the methodology. Others said they made a suggestion that wasn’t heeded (Thomas Donaldson), or didn’t seriously analyze the methodology (Patrick Barwise, John Dienhart, Chris MacDonald), or didn’t know they were on the panel (Karen Paul). Ethisphere says that it assumed panel members who didn’t respond to its queries simply agreed with the methodology and that each member explicitly agreed to be on the panel. Since my inquiries, Ethisphere has named a new, smaller panel, and none of the people I spoke to are still on it.”

“It’s tempting, of course, to dismiss all this as just corporate window-dressing, and in fact Canadian ethicist Chris MacDonald, who until recently was on Ethisphere’s advisory panel, warned me to take such awards “with a grain of salt.” And then there are people like Gretchen Winter, former ethics officer for “World’s Most Ethical” winner Baxter International and current director of the Center for Professional Responsibility in Business and Society at the University of Illinois. Winter says the institute’s conflicts of interest and reliance on self-reported information make its awards “less credible.” At the same time, she says, the awards help in “advancing the conversation about ethics and compliance programs in the executive suites and boardrooms.”

They may just as easily be used, however, to squelch conversation. Last year, while working on another story, I was interviewing a corporate spokesman about allegations of fraud against his company and government fines for a radioactive waste spill. He sent me a press release trumpeting the news that Ethisphere had named his engineering and construction firm, CH2M Hill, one of the “World’s Most Ethical.” It “speaks for itself,” he said. If only he knew.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2010/03/its_all_good.html

From the LA Times.

“The ethics of firms paying to be honored for ethics

“It’s apparently a point of honor among some corporations to be named one of the World’s Most Ethical Companies. There already are rankings, after all, for the World’s Most Admired Companies and the Best Companies to Work For.

Blue Shield issued a press release in March saying that it had been recognized as one of the World’s Most Ethical Companies for the third year in a row. The company said the honor had been earned because of Blue Shield’s “strong culture of ethical behavior and integrity.”

Dozens of other companies issued similar press releases around the same time. Waste Management, the garbage-disposal company that in 2011 paid $7.5 million to settle charges that it broke Massachusetts environmental laws, touted its inclusion among the World’s Most Ethical Companies.

So did Eastman Chemical, which faces lawsuits alleging that it did not adequately warn of the dangers of a chemical that spilled into a West Virginia river earlier this year, leaving more than 300,000 people without water for days.”

“Apparently, Blue Shield and Ethisphere haven’t quite grasped that the appearance of a conflict can be just as troubling as an actual conflict.

Nor do they seem to understand that the awarding of an ethics accolade to a company that gives you money just doesn’t pass the smell test.

Hey, remember when things like ethics mattered?

Blue Shield doesn’t. Neither does the Ethisphere Institute.”

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20141028-column.html

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

NPR alleges Wheeler lawsuit alleges Fox News and Trump supporter created fake news story, Same day as Seth Rich murder reenactment, Damage control?

NPR alleges Wheeler lawsuit alleges Fox News and Trump supporter created fake news story, Same day as Seth Rich murder reenactment, Damage control?

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

The Seth Rich murder reenactment is scheduled for today, August 1, 2017.

Damage control in play?

From NPR August 1, 2017.

“Lawsuit Alleges Fox News And Trump Supporter Created Fake News Story”

“Behind Fox News’ Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale”

“The Fox News Channel and a wealthy supporter of President Trump worked in concert under the watchful eye of the White House to concoct a story about the murder of a young Democratic National Committee aide, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.

The explosive claim is part of the lawsuit filed against Fox News by Rod Wheeler, a longtime paid commentator for the news network. The suit was obtained exclusively by NPR.

Wheeler alleges Fox News and the Trump supporter intended to deflect public attention from growing concern about the administration’s ties to the Russian government. His suit charges that a Fox News reporter created quotations out of thin air and attributed them to him to propel her story.

Fox’s president of news, Jay Wallace, told NPR Monday there was no “concrete evidence” that Wheeler was misquoted by the reporter, Malia Zimmerman. The news executive did not address a question about the story’s allegedly partisan origins. Fox News declined to allow Zimmerman to comment for this story.

The story, which first aired in May, was retracted by Fox News a week later. Fox News has, to date, taken no action in response to what it said was a failure to adhere to the network’s standards.

The lawsuit focuses particular attention on the role of the Trump supporter, Ed Butowsky, in weaving the story. He is a wealthy Dallas investor and unpaid Fox commentator on financial matters, who has emerged as a reliable Republican surrogate in recent years. Butowsky offered to pay for Wheeler to investigate the death of the DNC aide, Seth Rich, on behalf of his grieving parents in Omaha.

On April 20, a month before the story ran, Butowsky and Wheeler — the investor and the investigator — met at the White House with then Press Secretary Sean Spicer to brief him on what they were uncovering.

The first page of the lawsuit quotes a voicemail and text from Butowsky boasting that President Trump himself had reviewed drafts of the Fox News story just before it went to air and was published.

Spicer now tells NPR that he took the meeting as a favor to Butowsky, a reliable Republican voice. Spicer says he was unaware of any contact involving the president. Butowsky now tells NPR he was kidding about Trump’s involvement.

“Rod Wheeler unfortunately was used as a pawn by Ed Butowsky, Fox News and the Trump administration to try and steer away the attention that was being given about the Russian hacking of the DNC e-mails,” said Douglas Wigdor, Wheeler’s lawyer.”

Read more:’

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540783715/lawsuit-alleges-fox-news-and-trump-supporter-created-fake-news-story

Coincidence with Seth Rich murder reenactment?

Why no link to lawsuit text?

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/