The Jaffe Defamation Lawsuit – The Settlement

 Ralph Jaffe’s Defamation Lawsuit Against the Baltimore Sun, CBS-Channel 13, and the Maryland Democratic Party

On July 31, 2018, I kept my word and filed a defamation lawsuit against the Baltimore Sun, CBS-Channel 13, and the Maryland Democratic Party.

In good faith, I made a proposal for an out of court settlement. Thanks to the highly skilled lawyers for the defendants, they agreed to accept my proposal. This came to fruition on December 6, 2018, in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City when I officially, voluntarily agreed to drop the lawsuit.

I am pleased with the outcome. I believe that this settlement will have a significant impact on the Jaffe Movement as it continues to try to get rid of corruption in Maryland government.

Advertisements

The Jaffe Defamation Lawsuit – Follow-Up

In The District Court Of Maryland
For Baltimore City

Ralph Jaffe
Plaintiff,
v.

Baltimore Sun
CBS -WJZ
Maryland Democratic Party
Defendants

Civil Case No. 01010 -018769 -2018
_____________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF’ S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS THE BALTIMORE SUN AND CBS BROADCASTING INC.’S MOTION TO CONTINUE AND POSTPONE THE TRIAL DATE AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I am the plaintiff in this action, and I respectfully submit opposition to the Defendant The Baltimore Sun and the CBS Broadcasting INC.‘s Motion to Continue and Postpone the Trial Date dated November 20, 2018; Defendant The Baltimore Sun’s Motion For Summary Judgment; Defendant CBS Broadcasting Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

I request their motions be denied for several reasons.

Timing of the motions set forth by defendants
The timing of the defendants’ motions submitted is unfair because I received copies of their motions by FedEx on Thursday, November 22, 2018 – Thanksgiving Day. Additional copies arrived on Friday, November 23, 2018, and courts were closed on November 23, 2018. Nevertheless, I am ready to proceed with the trial date as scheduled for December 6, 2018.

The defendants refer to the inconvenience caused for some witnesses to appear for trial. I am sorry the defendants feel it’s an inconvenience to have to appear in court. However, I need their testimony to try to determine their intent for refusing to take my campaign seriously and why they tried to belittle the principles for which I stand.

Of even more importance for opposition to the motions of the defendants are the following points of information.

They request the case be dismissed or summary judgments be granted because I, as a candidate in the Democratic Primary, was unhappy with the results and my performance. and therefore filed the lawsuit.
Quite to the contrary, I was more than content with the results because my campaign was conducted with a strong commitment to my principles.

My budget amounted to $495, by design. This money came from my sister and myself. I believe that campaign contributions are disguised bribes. Not only did I talk the talk, but I walked the walk and kept my word. I refused to take any campaign contributions. While this has been a major thrust of my campaign, it has been repudiated by Channel 13 and the Baltimore Sun – with the claim of insufficient funds to run a statewide campaign,
Furthermore, I have said that if elected, among other principles, I will serve one term and will not run again for any office. because I believe career politicians are slowly but surely ruining our country.

I can assert that I have won each campaign I have conducted because for me
winning is defined in the following way. If one has a goal in life and succeeds by lying and/or cheating and/or taking disguised bribes then one might have reached the goal but is immoral. Yes, it is my opinion that morality counts and one should be morally bound. Unfortunately, currently we do not have ethical politicians in our state or in our country. Therefore, I would not trade any of the votes I received for all of the votes received by the other candidates who ran for governor because I conducted myself with a sense of ethics.

I maintain the defendants deliberately misrepresented what I stand for and that is defamation.
The job of a newspaper or TV reporter is to present the information to the readers and viewers. And, the information should be accurate. When Channel 13 and the Baltimore Sun deliberately omit pertinent information, they are not reporting but rather opining with subjectivity and bias. Therefore, the readers and viewers are the ones who suffer.

The legal cases cited by the defendants do not support their right to deny citizens the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And that is what Channel 13 and the Baltimore Sun have done when they refuse to inform the readers and viewers of the principles that I stand for. I never asked for any endorsement. I did not ask for coverage that is favorable to me, as the defendants stated. All I asked for was that all of the information be given to the readers and viewers and that the information be accurate.

There is a clear difference between a reporter and columnist or analyst. If the analyst or editor wants to critique my movement, that is fair. What is not fair is for a reporter to report inaccurately and then refuse to correct the misinformation delivered to the readers and viewers. In the case of the Ben Jealous statement that he was the first Democratic candidate for governor to announce a running mate – that was a blatant piece of misinformation.

This is the way the Baltimore Sun and Channel 13 have treated the Jaffe Movement for the last 16 years. The ones who suffer are the readers of the Baltimore Sun and the viewers of Channel 13.

When Channel 13 and the Baltimore Sun continue to present slanted, biased, incomplete, misinformation under the guise of “reporting the news” – I refer to that as journalistic malfeasance. And that’s why we continue to have so much corruption in government office.

I want to point out I am a teacher, not a politician. My teaching career as a political science teacher, started in 1964 at Ridgely Junior High School in Baltimore County. In 1969 I pioneered a new teaching philosophy called Activism in the Classroom. The philosophy entailed an idea to be born in the classroom with ardent effort to develop it into a bill in the real world of the US Congress. After an 11 month grass roots campaign, our idea was actually signed into legislation by the former President of the US, Richard Nixon (Documentation – Item A). This story was documented in the 1970 edition of The Reader’s Digest ( Documentation – Item B). The philosophy has become the keystone of my work ever since.

In the 7 campaigns I have conducted, this methodology has been used to show my students where the corruption is. Then they can decide on a volunteer basis if they want to vote for what I stand for.

I have earned a good reputation as a teacher ( Documentation – Items C, D, E, F). Therefore, I resent the Baltimore Sun and Channel 13 trying to damage my reputation by not providing the readers and viewers with the real picture of the Jaffe Movement.

As for exclusion from the debate, mention is made of criteria used to determine who would appear in the debate sponsored by the Baltimore Sun and WJZ.
The defendants claim that viewpoint-neutral criteria were used. But, who is to say that a large amount of “campaign bribes” is necessary to be a serious candidate? Already a note of subjectivity enters the picture, so how can it be viewpoint-neutral? To me, a serious candidate is someone who has good character and good ideas.

Please note the additional document, “The Sun’s selective outrage over debates.” As the letter points out, “the power to deny coverage is the power to veto candidates.” (Documentation – Item F)
I am fighting not just for myself, but for any candidate who has proven to be honest and ethical, running for office, to be the subject of fair and honest reporting by the Baltimore Sun and WJZ.
Respectfully submitted
Ralph Jaffe