Category Archives: Lawsuits

Thrivent changing to treat all people better? “we will change from within” or just trying to placate blacks, Admitting their “core Christian beliefs” a ruse?

Thrivent changing to treat all people better? “we will change from within” or just trying to placate blacks, Admitting their “core Christian beliefs” a ruse?

“You don’t need to be Christian to join our team.”…Thrivent job opening ad

“I worked at Thrivent Financial full-time (More than 8 years)”                      “Claims to be based on Christian values but does not adhere to them.”…Former Thrivent employee

“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

 

Is Thrivent changing their evil ways?

A good start would be to remove so many attorneys from key positions, quit using high powered law firms who brag about defeating claim filers, actually act out “core Christian beliefs” and reverse their retroactively changed contract to remove mandated and allow optional mediation and arbitration in the dispute resolution process.

From Each Story Told.

“As I read the following news release from Teresa Rasmussen, President and CEO of Thrivent Financial, I was reminded of Starbucks shutting down years ago to retrain their employees on making coffee.

I thought then how foolish it looked to be training employees on how to make coffee. If I was foolish enough to have not already been training my employees on how to make coffee, I am not sure I would admit it.

The same goes for Thrivent, formerly Aid Association for Lutherans.

Thrivent for decades has touted their Christian beliefs and concerns for members.

Are they finally admitting it was all a ruse, a clever wolf in sheep’s clothing scenario?

Are they willing to apologize to me and countless others for the fraud they have perpetuated and the shameless way they treated us?

For their corrupt mandated arbitration enacted retroactively?

Really care about economic insecurity?

Or are they just trying to placate blacks?

From Thrivent and Teresa Rasmussen July 10, 2020.

“Letter From Our CEO: Doing What’s Right As We Travel The Long Road To Change”
“Together we will take immediate action – and invest in long-term change – to help address racism, discrimination and economic insecurity.

At Thrivent we believe humanity thrives when people make the most of all God has given them. Yet the ability to thrive is fundamentally hindered for those who disproportionately face systemic inequities, racism and discrimination due to the color of their skin.

As we continue to grapple with the tragic killing of George Floyd and the resulting anger, frustration and sorrow in our communities, we know that what happened not only to Mr. Floyd, but many before him, calls for real change.

The issue is so deeply rooted that there is not one answer, one remedy or one solution. Bringing meaningful change to these problems will, at the very least, take deep soul-searching and personal growth from people and institutions. It will require investing in, and supporting, one another for Thrivent to be inclusive and diverse with abundant and equitable opportunities for all.

As an organization, we will change from within. We will seek, identify and hire diverse talent that clearly reflects the communities in which we operate and serve. We understand that Black, Indigenous, and people of color receive disproportionately less mentorship, growth opportunities and advancement in the American workplace. We will ensure this is not the case at Thrivent, and we will hold our leaders accountable to this mission.”

Read more:

http://eachstorytold.com/2020/07/28/thrivent-ceo-rasmussen-doing-whats-right-as-we-travel-the-long-road-to-change-address-economic-insecurity-we-will-change-from-within-all-lives-matter-treat-all-people-honestly-and-re/

My claims experience with Thrivent can be found here:

http://eachstorytold.com/category/my-claim-story/

George Tiedemann’s experience:

http://eachstorytold.com/2018/06/24/george-tiedemann-obituary-mr-tiedemann-featured-in-wsj-article-about-thrivent-some-life-insurers-play-by-different-rules-george-and-lucy-tiedemann-navigated-the-dispute-resolut/

Racism at Thrivent. You decide:

“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.”

In a written statement, Thrivent denied the allegations and predicted the company will win the court battle over the lawsuit filed this month in Hennepin County.”

“Within months, Smith had laid off about half of his 15-member staff, most of whom quickly found jobs with other Thrivent companies, according to Smith’s attorney, Clayton Halunen. In an interview, Smith said some of the workers lacked the skills he needed, while others were terminated because he was concerned about their “exorbitant” spending on business trips. He said all of the terminated workers were white.

“I was the only person of color when I came in,” Smith said in the interview. His lawsuit claims that the presidents of seven other Thrivent subsidiaries are all white.”

“To celebrate, Smith said in the interview, he took his team out for dinner at the Capital Grille in downtown Minneapolis after work one night in December 2016. About 6 p.m., while waiting for some of his workers to show up, Smith said he strolled into the bar area and overheard Huth talking about him with another member of the team.

In the lawsuit, Smith said Huth allegedly said to the other worker: “We are going to get rid of that black piece of shit,” referring to him. In the lawsuit, Smith said Huth noticed him standing there and looked at him “sheepishly … apparently scared that he had overheard” the remark.””

Read more:

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/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

Michael Bloomberg to pregnant employee “kill it”, Garrison v Bloomberg 1998, Lawsuit settled financially, Employee witness David Zielenziger,: “Mike came out and…. said, ‘Are you going to kill it?’ “

Michael Bloomberg to pregnant employee “kill it”, Garrison v Bloomberg 1998, Lawsuit settled financially, Employee witness David Zielenziger,: “Mike came out and…. said, ‘Are you going to kill it?’ ”

“and other female employees were subjected, on virtually a daily basis, by Bloomberg and his male executives, to repeated and unwelcome sexual comments, repeated and unwelcome sexual overtures, and repeated and unwelcome overt sexual gestures, including, upon information and belief, unauthorized touching and inappropriate acts.”…Garrison v Bloomberg

It is understandable why Michael Bloomberg could consider Hillary Clinton as a running mate. Birds of a feather flock together.”…Citizen Wells

 

From The Blaze February 15, 2020.

“Report: Woman who worked for Bloomberg claims he told her to ‘kill it’ after learning she was pregnant

She also accused Bloomberg’s company of having a racist work culture”

“The most explosive revelation, however, stems from a high-profile 1990s case where a former saleswoman sued Bloomberg and his company alleging she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex. According to the woman, Bloomberg told her to “kill it,” referring to her unborn baby, when he learned that she was pregnant.

The Post also interviewed a former Bloomberg employee, David Zielenziger, who said he witnessed the exchange between the business mogul and the woman and describes the candidate’s behavior toward the woman as “outrageous.”

“I remember she had been telling some of her girlfriends that she was pregnant,” Zielenziger said. “And Mike came out and I remember he said, ‘Are you going to kill it?’ And that stopped everything. And I couldn’t believe it.”

According to court documents, the plaintiff, whose name is Sekiko Sakai Garrison, claimed that Bloomberg was upset that several of his female employees were pregnant:

On April 11, 1995 at approximately 11:20 a.m., Bloomberg was having a photograph taken with two female Company salespeople and a group of N.Y.U. Business School students, in the company snack area. When Bloomberg noticed Garrison standing nearby, he asked, “Why didn’t they ask you to be in the picture? I guess they saw your face.” Continuing his penchant for ridiculing recently married women in his employ, Bloomberg asked plaintiff, “How’s married life? You married?” Plaintiff responded that her marriage was great and was going to get better in a few months: that she was pregnant, and the baby was due the following September. He responded to her “Kill it!” Plaintiff asked Bloomberg to repeat himself, and again he said, “Kill it!” and muttered, “Great! Number 16!” suggesting to plaintiff his unhappiness that sixteen women in the Company had maternity-related status. Then he walked away.

Garrison also alleged that Bloomberg berated other expecting mothers.

“What the hell did you do a thing like that for?” he is accused of saying to a pregnant employee.”

Read more:

https://www.theblaze.com/news/mike_bloomberg_kill_it_employee?utm_source=theblaze-dailyAM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__AM%202020-02-16&utm_term=TheBlaze%20Daily%20AM%20-%20last%20270%20days

Sekiko Sakai Garrison v Michael Bloomberg.

https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/147d68ac-ec77-493d-9de9-92b47e214f05/note/fd46d6a6-8734-4671-8dbc-edd5f5b93a35.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net

 

 

 

Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik et al Amended Scheduling Order means no revelations from this case before 2020 election, Seth Rich fake news media narrative

Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik et al Amended Scheduling Order means no revelations from this case before 2020 election, Seth Rich fake news media narrative

Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray

“Fox News news analyst Ellen Ratner relayed information from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to Texas businessman Ed Butowsky regarding Seth Rich’s role in transferring emails to Wikileaks, according to an amended lawsuit that I filed this morning on behalf of Mr. Butowsky.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizen Wells

 

Ed Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik, et al will be settled out of court, in mediation or at trial at such a late date that the major revelations from witness testimony will not be revealed before the 2020 election.

At least in this case, the fake news narrative perpetuated by NPR and the rest of the fake news media will prevail regarding Seth Rich and his alleged involvement in leaks to the DNC, until after the election.

From the Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik et al Amended Scheduling Order filed August 21, 2019.

“April 30, 2020 All discovery shall be commenced in time to be completed by
this date.
June 1, 2020 Deadline for motions to dismiss, motions for summary
judgment, or other dispositive motions.
July 27, 2020 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.

August 10, 2020 Notice of intent to offer certified records.
August 10, 2020 Counsel and unrepresented parties are each responsible for
contacting opposing counsel and unrepresented parties to
determine how they will prepare the Joint Final Pretrial Order
(See http://www.txed.uscourts.gov) and Joint Proposed Jury
Instructions and Verdict Form (or Proposed Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law in non-jury cases).
August 10, 2020 Video Deposition Designation due. Each party who proposes
to offer a deposition by video shall serve on all other parties a
disclosure identifying the line and page numbers to be offered.
All other parties will have seven calendar days to serve a
response with any objections and requesting crossexamination line and page numbers to be included. Counsel
must consult on any objections and only those which cannot
be resolved shall be presented to the court. The party who filed
the initial Video Deposition Designation is responsible for
preparation of the final edited video in accordance with all
parties’ designations and the Court’s rulings on objections.
August 31, 2020 Mediation must occur by this date.
August 31, 2020 Motions in limine due.
File Joint Final Pretrial Order. (See http://www.txed.uscourts.gov).
September 18, 2020 Response to motions in limine due.3

September 18, 2020 File objections to witnesses, deposition extracts, and exhibits,
listed in pre-trial order.4 (This does not extend deadline to
object to expert witnesses) (Provide the exhibit objected to in
the motion or response). If numerous objections are filed the
court may set a hearing prior to docket call.
File Proposed Jury Instructions/Form of Verdict (or Proposed
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law).
Date will be set by court. If numerous objections are filed the court may set a hearing
Usually within 10 days prior to to consider all pending motions and objections.
the Final Pretrial Conference.
October 2, 2020 Final Pretrial Conference at 9:00 a.m. at the Paul Brown
United States Courthouse located at 101 East Pecan Street in
Sherman, Texas. Date parties should be prepared to try case.
All cases on the Court’s Final Pretrial Conference docket for
this day have been set at 9:00 a.m. However, prior to the Final
Pretrial Conference date, the Court will set a specific time
between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. for each case, depending on
which cases remain on the Court’s docket.

To be determined 10:00 a.m. Jury selection and trial at the Paul Brown United
States Courthouse located at 101 East Pecan Street in
Sherman, Texas. A specific trial date will be selected at the
Final Pretrial Conference.5”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.183024/gov.uscourts.txed.183024.70.0.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik et al Agreed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order August 19, 2019, Additional time is necessary for completion of discovery

Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik et al Agreed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order August 19, 2019, Additional time is necessary for completion of discovery

Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray

“Fox News news analyst Ellen Ratner relayed information from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to Texas businessman Ed Butowsky regarding Seth Rich’s role in transferring emails to Wikileaks, according to an amended lawsuit that I filed this morning on behalf of Mr. Butowsky.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizen Wells

 

From the Ed Butowsky v. NPR Folkenflik et al Agreed Motion to Modify Scheduling Order dated August 19, 2019.

1. On March 21, 2019, this Court entered a Scheduling Order (Dkt. # 57), which set forth various deadlines up to an including a Final Pretrial Conference on January 31, 2020. Pending before the Court at that time were Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed on October 16, 2018 (Dkt. # 25) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, filed on March 15, 2019 (Dkt. 53). On April 17, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation, recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be denied (Dkt. # 58), and on August 7, 2019, the Court adopted that Report and Recommendation and denied the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and additionally granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint (Dkt. # 65).

2. The parties have exchanged written discovery, but have mutually agreed that in light of the number of witnesses who must be deposed, several of whom are non-parties outside the control of any party, additional time is necessary for completion of discovery, the deadline to file dispositive motions, and trial. In addition, Plaintiff wishes to further amend his pleadings, based on events which occurred after the current Scheduling Order’s deadline to amend pleadings. Accordingly, the parties jointly request that portions of the March 21, 2019
Scheduling Order be modified, as set forth below.”

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.183024/gov.uscourts.txed.183024.68.0.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Epstein prosecution continues, Civil suits continue against estate, Co conspirators will be prosecuted and sued, Bill Clinton accused and prosecuted?

Epstein prosecution continues, Civil suits continue against estate, Co conspirators will be prosecuted and sued, Bill Clinton accused and prosecuted?

“Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the “Lolita Express” — even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.”…Fox News May 13, 2016

“If This Story Gets Out, We Are Screwed”…Wikileaks: Doug Band to John Podesta

“Willing to help. Fantastic lawyer. Kept me out of jail.”…John Podesta, Wikileaks email

 

From the Jeffrey Epstein indictment.

“4. In creating and maintaining this network of minor victims in multiple states to sexually abuse and exploit, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, worked and conspired with others, including employees and associates who facilitated his conduct by, among other things, contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with EPSTEIN at the New York Residence and at the Palm Beach Residence.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.518649/gov.uscourts.nysd.518649.2.0_1.pdf

From the Manhattan U.S. Attorney.

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, August 10, 2019

Statement Of Manhattan U.S. Attorney On The Death Of Defendant Jeffrey Epstein

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Earlier this morning, the Manhattan Correctional Center confirmed that Jeffrey Epstein, who faced charges brought by this Office of engaging in the sex trafficking of minors, had been found unresponsive in his cell and was pronounced dead shortly thereafter of an apparent suicide.  Today’s events are disturbing, and we are deeply aware of their potential to present yet another hurdle to giving Epstein’s many victims their day in Court. To those brave young women who have already come forward and to the many others who have yet to do so, let me reiterate that we remain committed to standing for you, and our investigation of the conduct charged in the Indictment – which included a conspiracy count – remains ongoing.

 

We continue to urge anyone who feels they may be a victim or have information related to the conduct in this case to please contact 1-800- CALL FBI.”

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/statement-manhattan-us-attorney-death-defendant-jeffrey-epstein

From NBC News.

“Accused child sex predator Jeffrey Epstein wired a total of $350,000 to a pair of possible co-conspirators just days after the publication of a newspaper story alleging he sexually abused dozens of underage girls, federal prosecutors said Friday.

The prosecutors said the payments, which were made last November after the bombshell Miami Herald story came out, demonstrate Epstein’s willingness to tamper with witnesses.

“This course of action, and in particular its timing, suggests the defendant was attempting to further influence co-conspirators who might provide information against him in light of the recently re-emerging allegations,” the prosecutors wrote in court papers arguing that Epstein should remain behind bars until his trial.

Epstein wired $100,000 to one of his associates two days after the story was published, the court papers say. Three days later, he sent $250,000 to someone identified as one of his employees, prosecutors said. Neither of the two were named, but both were said to be possible co-conspirators in the alleged sex crimes that were the subject of the Miami Herald article.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jeffrey-epstein-tampered-witnesses-sent-350k-2-people-prosecutors-n1029381

From CBS News.

“An attorney who has represented more than a dozen women accusing Epstein of sexual abuse called the apparent suicide “unfortunate and predictable.”

“We will continue to represent his victims and will not stop in their pursuit of finality and justice,” Edwards said. In a statement on Twitter, Lisa Bloom, who represents three accusers, said civil cases would continue.

Epstein’s alleged victims said through their attorneys they are angry they won’t get a chance for justice since the criminal case will end with his death.

“I don’t blame them for being very angry,” said CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman. “They have lived with shame – either privately or publicly – they deserve their day in court to show that they are survivors. They deserve their day in court to show that they are survivors. ”

Klieman said the spotlight could now turn to Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstien’s one-time girlfriend who has been accused of procuring girls for him.

Civil cases against him can proceed against his estate, Klieman said.”

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

FBI FOIA response to Attorney Ty Clevenger suggests Obama White House pressured intelligence agencies to blame Russia, Rybicki transcript, FBI still balking on Seth Rich records

FBI FOIA response to Attorney Ty Clevenger suggests Obama White House pressured intelligence agencies to blame Russia, Rybicki transcript, FBI still balking on Seth Rich records

Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray

“Unfounded links between Clinton and the Rich killing predate the July 13, 2016, “bulletin” and coverage of it by a sketchy site called WhatDoesItMean.com. What’s more, the “hit team” story, which Sines says was repeated several weeks later, wasn’t the primary Rich-related conspiracy that gained traction.”…Washington Post July 9, 2019

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizen Wells

 

Just in from Attorney Ty Clevenger  and LawFlog.

“Transcript suggests Obama White House pressured intelligence agencies to blame Russia

Newly released documents from the FBI suggest that the Obama White House pushed intelligence agencies to publicly blame the Russians for email leaks from the Democratic National Committee to Wikileaks.

This afternoon I received an undated (and heavily redacted) transcript of an interview of James Rybicki, former chief of staff to former FBI Director James Comey, that includes this excerpt: “So we understand that at some point in October of 2016, there was, I guess, a desire by the White House to make some kind of statement about Russia’s…” and then the next page is omitted.

The comment is made by an unidentified prosecutor from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel or “OSC,” not to be confused with the office of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller (the OSC is a permanent office that investigates Hatch Act violations, and Mr. Comey was under investigation for trying to influence the 2016 Presidential election).

The context of the statement makes it all the more interesting, because the OSC prosecutors were noting that the FBI publicized its reactivation of the Clinton email investigation shortly before the 2016 election, and they were wondering why the FBI did not counterbalance that by publicizing the “Russian collusion” investigation into Donald Trump. In that setting, one of the prosecutors then commented that the White House wanted some kind of statement made about Russia.”

“In other words, it looks like the Obama White House put its thumb on the scale, pressuring intelligence agencies to adopt the Democratic National Committee’s talking points, i.e., to blame the stolen emails on Russian hackers rather than an internal source (like Seth Rich). Thanks to Roger Stone, we now know that neither the FBI nor anyone else from the U.S. government actually examined the DNC servers that supposedly were hacked. Instead, the FBI, et al. relied exclusively on a redacted report from CrowdStrike, a private security company with strong Democratic affiliations that was hired by Perkins Coie, the same firm that hired Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS.

As I noted in my July 23, 2019 post, CrowdStrike and the DNC are both fighting subpoenas that I issued (on behalf of Ed Butowsky) for information about the servers and the purported Russian hacking.

The Rybicki transcript was part of 55 additional pages that the FBI belatedly produced in response to my Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, Ty Clevenger v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al., Case No. 18-CV-01568 (E.D.N.Y.). (The FBI is still refusing to search its Computer Analysis and Research Team (“CART”) files for records related to Seth Rich, and that’s were any relevant records most likely would be found. I’ll be battling the FBI in federal court next month to make it search for records in CART).”

Read more:

Transcript suggests Obama White House pressured intelligence agencies to blame Russia

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Seth Rich saga: Butowsky v. Gottlieb et al amended complaint, Fox News Ellen Ratner relayed information from Julian Assange to Ed Butowsky regarding Seth Rich role in transferring emails to Wikileaks

Seth Rich saga: Butowsky v. Gottlieb et al amended complaint, Fox News Ellen Ratner relayed information from Julian Assange to Ed Butowsky regarding Seth Rich role in transferring emails to Wikileaks

Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray

“Unfounded links between Clinton and the Rich killing predate the July 13, 2016, “bulletin” and coverage of it by a sketchy site called WhatDoesItMean.com. What’s more, the “hit team” story, which Sines says was repeated several weeks later, wasn’t the primary Rich-related conspiracy that gained traction.”…Washington Post July 9, 2019

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizen Wells

 

From Attorney Ty Clevenger July 15, 2019.

“Fox News news analyst Ellen Ratner relayed information from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to Texas businessman Ed Butowsky regarding Seth Rich’s role in transferring emails to Wikileaks, according to an amended lawsuit that I filed this morning on behalf of Mr. Butowsky.

Although Ms. Ratner appears on Fox News, she is by no means a Republican or a conservative, and her role in the Seth Rich saga (like that of journalist Sy Hersh) obliterates the Democratic narrative that right-wing zealots fabricated the story about Mr. Rich leaking emails from the Democratic National Committee.”

“45. Mr. Butowsky stumbled into the RCH crosshairs after Ellen Rattner [sic], a news analyst for Fox News and the White House correspondent for Talk Media News, contacted him in the Fall of 2016 about a meeting she had with Mr. Assange. Ms. Rattner’s brother, the late Michael Rattner, was an attorney who had represented Mr. Assange. According to Ms. Rattner, she made a stop in London during a return flight from Berlin, and she met with Mr. Assange for approximately six hours in the Ecuadorean embassy. Ms. Rattner said Mr. Assange told her that Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron, were responsible for releasing the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Ms. Rattner said Mr. Assange wanted the information relayed to Seth’s parents, as it might explain the motive for Seth’s murder.

46. Upon her return to the United States, Ms. Rattner asked Mr. Butowsky to contact the Rich family and relay the information from Mr. Assange, apparently because Ms. Rattner did not want her involvement to be made public. In the two months that followed, Mr. Butowsky did not attempt to contact the Rich family, but he grew increasingly frustrated as the DNC and #Resistance “journalists” blamed the Russian government for the email leak. On December 16, 2016, Mr. Butowsky sent a text message to Ms. Ratner:

BUTOWSKY [7:10 a.m.]: “Why don’t [sic] you speaking up about email hack?”

RATTNER [9:28 a.m.]: “I have”

Ms. Rattner subsequently told Mr. Butowsky that she had informed Bill Shine, who was then the co-president of Fox News, about her meeting with Mr. Assange in London. Ms. Rattner also informed Fox News producer Malia Zimmerman about her meeting with Mr. Assange.

47. On December 17, 2016, at the instigation of Ms. Rattner, Mr. Butowsky finally contacted Joel and Mary Rich, the parents of Seth, and he relayed the information about Ms. Rattner’s meeting with Mr. Assange. During that conversation, Mr. Rich told Mr. Butowsky that he already knew that his sons were involved in the DNC email leak, but he and his wife just wanted to know who murdered Seth. Mr. Rich said he was reluctant to go public with Seth’s and Aaron’s role in leaking the emails because “we don’t want anyone to think our sons were responsible for getting Trump elected.” Mr. Rich said he did not have enough money to hire a private investigator, so Mr. Butowsky offered to pay for one. Mr. Rich accepted the offer and thanked Mr. Butowsky in an email.

48. On December 29, 2016 at 1:51 p.m., Mr. Butowsky sent an email to Ms. Rattner from his iPad: “If the person you met with truly said what he did, is their [sic] a reason you we aren’t reporting it ?” At 3:48 p.m. that afternoon, Ms. Rattner responded as follows: “because— it was a family meeting—- I would have to get his permission– will ask his new lawyer, my sister-in-law.”

The complaint also mentions an interesting development in my ongoing Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the FBI. The feds claimed they had no information pertaining to Seth Rich, but they appear to be changing their tune.”

Read more:

http://lawflog.com/?p=2210

WOW!

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Joel and Mary Rich v. Fox News appeal, Seth Rich murder investigations and reporting, Appeal of Rich’s failed lawsuit almost unreported

Joel and Mary Rich v. Fox News appeal, Seth Rich murder investigations and reporting, Appeal of Rich’s failed lawsuit almost unreported

Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray

“Unfounded links between Clinton and the Rich killing predate the July 13, 2016, “bulletin” and coverage of it by a sketchy site called WhatDoesItMean.com. What’s more, the “hit team” story, which Sines says was repeated several weeks later, wasn’t the primary Rich-related conspiracy that gained traction.”…Washington Post July 9, 2019

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizen Wells

 

This is possibly the most unreported important news story I have ever encountered.

Joel and Mary Rich lost their lawsuit against Fox News in 2018 and on September 27, 2018 filed an appeal.

First, their lawsuit results.

From the Federalist Papers.

“Fox News Wins Seth Rich Lawsuit; Judge Dismisses

A New York City judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the parents of murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich on Thursday that asserted Fox News Channel colluded with the White House to propel a false, politically-biased narrative about Rich’s death.”

“It is understandable that plaintiffs might feel that their grief and personal loss were taken advantage of, and that the tragic death of their son was exploited for political purposes,” but Fox evidently did not intend to inflict emotional distress, Judge George Daniels wrote in his decision.”

“Daniels also dismissed a second and separate lawsuit brought forth by Rod Wheeler, a private detective who was also a Fox News contributor and hired by the Rich family to investigate their son’s death. In it, Wheeler accused Fox News and Zimmerman of misrepresenting his analysis of Rich’s death in their story, and Butowsky of defaming him on Twitter after the story was published, according to reports by The New York Times.

“My investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” Wheeler was quoted in the Fox News article.”

Read more:

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/fox-news-wins-seth-rich-lawsuit-judge-dismisses

The appeal.

From Jennifer Taub, law professor and author.

“NEW: I just attended oral argument for the appeal brought by Seth Rich’s parents against Fox News

1/

The Riches sued Fox for intentional inflection of emotional distress. This case is related to a conspiracy theory broadcast by Fox News that in 2016 Seth, a DNC staffer, had leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks prior to being shot and killed”

“4/

At oral argument today, Judge Calabresi told Rich’s counsel Arun Subramanian “You have to convince us that this is outrageous to the parents. .not to the son. The defamation case died with the son.” Also that the propensity for parents’ vulnerability and defendants’ awareness

5/

Judge Calabresi suggested that the outrageous conduct here involved interfering with the parents’ investigation including by planting a person from Fox News (Wheeler) to pretend he was working solely for them “

“11/

Judge Calabresi interrupted and said that if Seth Rich were in a coma, then couldn’t a defamation suit brought by Seth proceed regardless of first amendment claims. And then also, couldn’t this separate cause of action be brought by parents?

12/

Judge Calabresi added that the only question then would be whether New York recognizes this separate cause of action — whether there was “outrageous conduct” by Fox with respect to the parents

13/

Attorney Terry says New York Court of Appeals has rejected claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress with more outrageous facts (Note that NY CT App is the highest court in the state of New York and though this case is in federal court, New York law applies)”

“18/

Attorney Terry returned to the main argument he is making on behalf of Fox News “a defamation claim cannot be restyle as an intentional infliction of emotional distress case.” He also said, that the conduct should not be recognized as outrageous as a matter of law

19/

Terry said that NY courts have dismissed intentional infliction of emotional distress cases e.g where reporters told rape victims their names would not be published then publishing them. He said that wasn’t treated as outrageous conduct, so this should not

20/

Terry added that Seth’s parent must also prove that Fox’s conduct was INTENDED to cause them harm

21/

Judge Calabresi said that in order to prove intent, “wrecklessness” would suffice. He also suggested that perhaps given this “odd situation” the 2nd circuit could certify to the NY Court of Appeals this question of whether these facts amounted to “outrageous conduct.””

Read more:

https://threader.app/thread/1092478914998484994

It would be nice to have the appeal outcome stated explicitly.

If anyone has this reference, please supply as a comment.

By inference and the fact that it has not been shouted from the rooftops by the fake news media, it could be assumed that the outcome did not favor the Rich Family.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

Seth Rich FOIA status update, Ty Clevenger v USDOJ Dept. of Justice June 7, 2019 defendants request for extension of time granted, Clevenger request for records concerning murder of DNC employee Seth Rich

Seth Rich FOIA status update, Ty Clevenger v USDOJ Dept. of Justice June 7, 2019 defendants request for extension of time granted, Clevenger request for records concerning murder of DNC employee Seth Rich

“The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was not a victim of robbery.”…Retired Admiral James A. Lyons March 1, 2018

“Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray May 9, 2019

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

 

On September 1, 2017, Attorney Ty Clevenger made a FOIA request to the U.S. Department of Justice:

“I request the opportunity to view all records and correspondence pertaining to
Seth Conrad Rich (DOB: January 3, 1989), who was murdered in the District of
Columbia on or about July 10, 2016. This request includes, but is not limited to, any records or correspondence resulting from any investigation of his murder.”

http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017.09.01-Seth-Rich-FOIA-request.pdf

On March 14, 2018 Attorney Clevenger filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

“This morning I filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that asks a federal judge in Brooklyn to order the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice to release records concerning the murder of former Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich.

Back in October, I wrote about the U.S. Department of Justice ordering the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. to release records about the murder, but since that time not a single record has been produced.  Around the same time, the FBI refused to search for records in its Washington Field Office, even though that is where the records are most likely to be found.  The lawsuit notes that the FBI has a history of trying to hide records from FOIA requestors and Congress.”

http://lawflog.com/?p=1912

From the lawsuit:

“The Plaintiff submitted the FOIA request electronically and/or via facsimile to the following specific components of DOJ: the FBI, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys(“EOUSA”),the Criminal Division,and the Office ofInformation Policy(“OIP”).

7. In a September 13, 2017 letter, the EOUSA indicated that it would not release records without proof of Mr. Rich’s death. The Plaintiff immediately filed an administrative appeal, and OIP reversed EOUSA’s decision on October 2, 2017, directing EOUSA to search for responsive records. As of the date of this Complaint, however, EOUSA has failed to:(1) produce the requested records or demonstrate that the requested records are lawfully exempt from production; or(2) notify the Plaintiff of the scope of any responsive records EOUSA intends to produce or withhold and the reasons for any withholdings.

8. In a September 19, 2017 letter, the FBI indicated that its search produced no responsive records: Based on the information you provided, we conducted a search of the Central Recordf System. We were unable to identify main file records responsive to the FOIA. If you have additional information pertaining to the subject that you believe was ofinvestigative interest to the Bureau, please provide us the details and we will conduct an additional search.

9. On September 30, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an electronic appeal of the FBI’s decision with OPI, writing as follows: The September 19, 2017 letter that I received from the FBI indicates that it only searched the “Central Records System” and that it was unable to identify “main file records” responsive to the FOIA. My request was not limited to the Central Records System nor to main file records. Any responsive records likely would be found in emails, hard copy documents, and other files in the FBI’s Washington Field Office. In my experience, the FBI often does not search email accounts in response to FOIA requests, and it appears that it did not search email records in this instance. The FBI should be directed to conduct a thorough search, to include emails and other records in the Washington Field Office. The administrative appeal was denied on November 9, 2017. As of the date of this Complaint, other DOJ components have not responded to the Plaintiffs FOIA request.

10. In response to an unrelated FOIA request submitted by the Plaintiff, the FBI produced documents on January 12, 2018 indicating that Peter Baker, the former general counsel for the FBI, attempted to hide certain records from FOIA requestors. In that request, the Plainiiff sought records concerning laptop computers examined by the FBI as part of its investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. According to the records produced on January 12, 2018, the FBI agreed to take custody of the laptops from two lawyers for purposes of the investigation, but it further agreed to deny that it had custody of the devices for purposes of FOIA requests. See Ty Clevenger, January 12, 2018,”Document dump provides more evidence that FBI was playing politics,” http://lawflog.com/?p=l832. Also during Mr. Baker’s tenure, the FBI withheld records sought by another agency until that agency signed a non-disclosure agreement to prevent the records from being released to Congress. See September 25,2017 Letter from Senator Charles Grassley to FBI Director Christopher Wray, https://www.grasslev.senate.gov/news/news-releases/watchdog-agencv-made-sign-nQn- i disclosure-agreements-get-information-fbi.

11. With respect to Mr. Rich’s murder, the Plaintiff is reliably informed that FBI agents assisted the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department in its investigation, specifically assisting the local police as they sought information from Mr. Rich’s electronic devices. Given the FBI’s history of trying to conceal information from FOIA requestors and Congress, the Plaintiff must wonder whether the FBI entered an agreement with the Metropolitan Police to withhold records related to Mr. Rich’s murder.

12. On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a FOIA request with NSA that sought, among other things, the following: All correspondence received from or sent to any member of Congress (or anyone representing a member of Congress or Congressional committee) regarding Seth Rich, Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Kim Dotcom, Aaron Rich, Shawn Lucas, Kelsey Mulka, Imran Awan, Abid Awan, Jamal Awan, Hina Alvi, and/or Rao Abbas.

13. In a letter dated February 14, 2018, the NSA indicated that it searched for responsive records but was still reviewing the records to determine whether to release them. As of the date of this Complaint, NSA has failed to:(1) produce the requested records or demonstrate that the requested records are lawfully exempt from production; or(2) notify the Plaintiff of the scope of any responsive records EOUSA intends to produce or withhold and the reasons for any withholdings.”

http://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018.03.14-FOIA-lawsuit.pdf

The last court record in the lawsuit was Friday, June 7, 2019.

“ORDER: Defendants’ counsel writes, with plaintiff’s consent to request an extension of time for service of defendants’ summary judgment motion. ECF No.24 . This is defendants’ second request. The request is granted. The Court adopts the parties’ proposed briefing schedule. Defendants’ counsel shall serve their motion for summary judgment on plaintiff by July 22, 2019. Plaintiff shall serve his response on defendants’ counsel by August 22, 2019. Defendants’ counsel shall serve their reply on plaintiff and file the fully briefed motion for summary judgment by September 12, 2019. A courtesy copy of the fully briefed motion for summary judgment shall be delivered to chambers by that same date. Defendant is reminded that Local Rule 56.2 requires special notice to a pro se litigant regarding a motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on 6/7/2019. ”

You can view the lawsuit’s progress through the court and status here:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23965120/Clevenger_v_US_Department_Of_Justice_et_al

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

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/