River Vale, NJ , Assemblywomen Holly Schepisi has had enough ,on Facebook she says , “Sometimes you have to fight back. When you have no platform, positions or plans, you lie about pretty much everything. This isn’t “politics” as usual. It’s intentionally and maliciously defaming someone in an effort to destroy a person’s reputation.”
Schepisi Attorney Gibbons PC Director Thomas J. Cafferty fired off a letter on behalf of the incumbent Republican Assemblywoman to the Committee to Elect Linda Schwager, Jannie Chung and Annie Hausmann.
Cafferty stated in the letter that the Democrats have published, or have caused to be published, various political advertisements containing false and defamatory statements about Schepisi, including: (1) an advertisement dated October 13, 2017, which contains fictitious quotes regarding the Sandy Hook shooting that are falsely attributed to his client; and (2) an advertisement dated October 27, 2017, which depicts images of men with machine guns and includes the statement “Auth and Schepisi have headlined events hosted by the head of a domestic terrorist militia.”
“On behalf of Ms. Schepisi, I hereby demand that you and any and all of your employees, representatives and/or agents, immediately cease and desist the publication of the above-referenced advertisements and any and all other false and defamatory statements about Ms. Schepisi,” Cafferty wrote. “I also insist that you retract the above-referenced advertisements and any and all other false and defamatory statements that you have published about Ms. Schepisi in at least as prominent a location and in the same manner as the original advertisements were published, with a copy to me.”
The attorney also warned about the sanctioning of an unprivileged, false and a defamatory statement concerning his plaintiff, communicated to a third party with the requisite level of fault and which causes damage. See Govito v. W. Jersey Health System, Inc., 332 N.J. Super. 293, 305-06 (App. Div. 2000).
“he level of fault when the statement concerns a public official or public figure, like Ms. Schepisi, is actual malice, which is the knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth,” Cafferty said. “Durando v. Nutley Sun, 209 N.J. 235, 249 (2012). In other words, the actual malice standard is satisfied when the publisher of the statement entertained serious doubts as to the truth of that statement. St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968).”
The attorney noted that Schepisi advised the Democrats on multiple occasions that the statements contained in their advertisements are false.
“You have, however, ignored Ms. Schepisi. Consequently, you have published these advertisements with reckless disregard for the truth of the statements contained therein and with the requisite knowledge of falsity,” Cafferty wrote. “If you do not cease publication of any and all false and defamatory statements about Ms. Schepisi, I will have no choice but to advise my client of all legal remedies available to her including, without limitation, instituting a lawsuit against you.”
District 39 is Bergen and Passaic counties; Bloomingdale, Closter, Demarest, Dumont, Emerson, Harrington Park, Haworth, Hillsdale, Mahwah, Montvale, Norwood, Oakland, Old Tappan, Park Ridge, Ramsey, Ringwood, River Vale, Saddle River, Upper Saddle River, Wanaque, Washington (Bergen), Westwood, Woodcliff Lake .
RE: Cease and Desist Letter and Demand For Retraction
Dear Mr. Patrick J. Monaghan, Jr. Esq.
the Ridgewood blog takes theses issues very seriously .Your unsubstantiated threats and accusations seem a stretch at best .
As you are aware :
Publishing the Statements and Content of Others
“If you have web forums, allow reader comments, host guest bloggers on your site, or if you repost information that you receive from RSS feeds, you generally will be shielded from liability for defamatory statements made by your users and guests under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act(“Section 230″). This important federal law protects you from certain types of liability, including defamation, associated with the statements and other user-submitted content you
publish on your site.
Section 230 grants interactive online services of all types, including blogs, forums, and listservs, broad immunity from liability so long as the information at issue is provided by a third-party. You will not lose this immunity even if you edit the content, whether for accuracy or civility, and you will be entitled to immunity so long as your edits do not substantially alter the meaning of the original statements. However, if you alter someone else’s statement so that itbecomes defamatory (e.g., changing the statement “Bob is not a murderer” to “Bob is a murderer”), you would be responsible for the
content of the edited statement; and if it turns out to be untrue, you could be liable for defamation. In addition, if you add your own commentary along with the user-submitted content, you will only be shielded from liability for the material created by your user, not for your own statements. For more on this important protection, see the section on Immunity for Online Publishers Under the Communications
Decency Act.”
In the case of your client , Ridgewood blog received information from a source that was corroborated by a police report and at lest one witness.
Next in your letter you referenced the well know conflict between your client and Mrs McWilliams .
To paraphrase your own words Mrs Taddei and Mrs McWilliams have a well know history of conflict , that would render any reporting non defamatory since even according to you, only “minimal investigation” would have made us aware of that fact .So the Ridgewood blog reported on what everyone already knows.
As for damages you have presented none at all and according to your own words Mrs Taddei does not work.
As for your claim of “maliciousness “, it would be hard to argue that fact given that the Ridgewood blog approved comments that contradicted the post and took a comment from Mr Taddei that contradicted the
entire account and turned it into a post that received a similar amount of attention.
Interesting to note that we were contacted by Mrs Taddei about the parking situation on Bogart on March 15th and published a post she crafted about that very issue.
In fact it has also come to our attention that some negative comments posted anonymously appear to be the work of the same posters who under their own name voiced strong support for Mrs.Taddei . We would have to
confirm this of coarse but it does appear to be the case.
Now we get to the “cyberbullying” claim and the “harassment “claim.
1. The definition of cyber-harassment is very broad.
New Jersey’s cyber-harassment statute defines the crime as making a communication online or through a social media site with the purposed to harass another and then threatens another in one of the following
ways:
Threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to any person or the property of any person; Knowingly sends, posts, comments, requests, suggests, or proposes any lewd, indecent, or obscene material to or about a person with the intent to emotionally harm a reasonable person or place a reasonable person in fear of physical or emotional harm to his person; or Threatens to commit any crime against the person or the person’s property
No such language exists in the mentioned blog article.
2. Intent is key
Cyber-harassment has two elements to the crime — the action or conduct constituting harassment, known as the “actus reus,” and the intent to harass the victim, or “mens rea.”
Seton Hall law professor John “Kip” Cornwell said the “actus reus” covers a “wealth of conduct” under the statute, but “an individual is only guilty, however, if his or her conduct is undertaken with the
intent to harass or to place a reasonable person in fear of physical or emotional harm.”
According to Cornwell, “if person A sends a sexually provocative photo to person B in which person C is pictured, there is no liability if A was doing so merely because she thought the photo was funny and/or
never expected word to get back to C.”
“As such, it seems to insulate those who carelessly harm others, focusing instead on those who truly intend to cause harm,” Cornwell said. “If that intent is present, on the other hand, the potential for liability is great, in light of the breadth of qualifying misconduct.”
Clearly there is absolutely no evidence that the Ridgewood blog had any “intent” to engage in “cyberbullying” and or “harassment” . And you have presented no evidence of any “intent” or any actions that would meet even the most lenient definition .
However there is ample evidence to suggest that Mrs Taddei and her co-conspirators colluded to engage in “cyberbullying” and “harassment” against myself and the Ridgewood blog .
Blitzing the Ridgewood blog with hundreds of comments many threatening in nature by Mrs Taddei’s supporters fits the very definition of ” cyberbullying” and “harassment” as well as cyberstalking .
Key factors to identifying cyberstalking cases include:
False accusations. A cyberstalker often tries to damage the reputation of his victim by posting false information on social media websites or blogs. A perpetrator may even create fictitious websites or other accounts for the purpose of spreading false rumors and allegations about the victim.
Gathering information about the victim. A cyberstalker may try to gather as much information as possible about the victim by interacting with the victim’s friends, family, and colleagues. In serious cases, a cyberstalker may hire a private investigator.
Monitoring victim’s activities. A cyberstalker may attempt to trace his victim’s IP address, or hack into the victim’s social media accounts and emails to learn about his online activities.
Encouraging others to harass the victim. The offender may encourage the involvement of third parties to harass the victim.
False victimization. It is not uncommon for a cyberstalker to claim the victim is harassing him, taking the position of victim in his own mind.
Many of the above mentioned factors have clearly been met by Mrs Taddei and her co-conspirators as evidenced in this “Cease and Desist” letter along with the comment section on the Ridgewood blog.
Also this “Cease and Desist ” letter appears to be nothing more a blatant attempt to bully the Ridgewood blog to post only articles in support of Mrs Taddei position in her feud with Mrs McWillaims in violation of the 1st amendment and in an attempt to influence public opinion in her favor.
Finally ,we noticed the address on the letterhead was to :James J Foytlin 144 South Maple Ave ,Apt C-2 Ridgewood NJ 07450. This address is not my address.It was the address of my long deceased
father and frankly its in very poor taste sending things there and demonstrates clear intention of an attempt to harass, intimidate and bully me .
The Ridgewood blog does not take kindly to anyone telling us what we can of can not post .We also have no interest in getting dragged into a “cat fight ” between Mrs Taddei and Mrs McWilliams. We hope that
the two parties can work out their differences .
Make no mistake however, the continued attempt by your client and her co-conspirators to use the Ridgewood blog to further their advantage in this situation will be met with a VERY AGGRESSIVE LEGAL ACTION.
