The Details of Dan Snyder's Complaint Against Washington City Paper
by Kevin Ewoldt on Feb 2, 2011 5:01 PM EST
in Redskins News
Email
Print
Update 5:44pm: The Washington City Paper has responded on their own.
As reported earlier, the Washington Post broke the news that Dan Snyder was seeking legal action the Washington City Paper for an article that was written listing dozens of the Redskins' owner's gaffes over the years. Many fans took to Twitter and Facebook to blast the owner, but the complaint against City Paper has nothing to do with those mistakes. The paragraph that had Snyder fuming and prompted the legal train was:
...That's the Dan Snyder who got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications...
The reason Snyder and his legal counsel are so upset is because a.) Snyder never once forged names, and b.) forgery is a federal offense. The Redskins asked The City Paper to remove this comment months ago, and they refused - hence the legal action. Interestingly, Snyder never asked for the WCP journalist to be fired (that was falsely added in by the Washington Post). When I spoke with Tony Wyllie, he assured me that any money that is awarded to the Redskins from this will go to charity.
The last straw that pushed Snyder over the top was the City Paper's attack on his wife, Tanya, who is in remission for breast cancer and has been regularly out there promoting health and breast care awareness:
His wife, Tanya Snyder, is out selling the transformation, too. Last week she went on local TV to tell an interviewer that he is now surrounded by "better people," and that he's "grown and he's evolved."
That's a low blow. If you watch her interview with Channel 8, Mrs. Snyder is simply doing a health promotion in front of 100 children, and at the very end they asked the off-topic question on the Redskins. Is that selling out?? Come on. The theory here applies, "You can go after me, but don't drag in my wife or kids." Completely classless on McKenna's part.
In my opinion, it's fair for Snyder to take action. People believe things so it's important that the truth is told, which is all Snyder wants. All of this could have been avoided if Dave McKenna would have returned the Redskins calls from the beginning. The fact that the City paper is vehemently defending the forgery line is eye-raising. Stay tuned.
55 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
oh nos
U linked the story.I guess no HDH follow up interview this year. Seriously though, let’s let the facts shake out before making judgement. Like many, I’m inclined to think of snyder as the nefarious villian but sounds less like it now. Anyway, 24 of 26 on the list ain’t bad
OTLs are worthless in the playoffs
WCP took it down I guess. A cached version is here...
http://mirror.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/40063/the-cranky-redskins-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder.html (I downloaded a copy of it just in case this one goes too)
Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.
You know what?
I’m glad I reserved judgment on this one.
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
His wife, Tanya Snyder, is out selling the transformation, too. Last week she went on local TV to tell an interviewer that he is now surrounded by “better people,” and that he’s “grown and he’s evolved.”
how is this a low blow?
if she’s going to speak publicly about Snyder, he can’t get mad at a reporter for reporting this FACT.
His wife was not slandered. She was not insulted. It was a perfectly reasonable thing to report.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
and it may have nothing to do with the complaint in court
I think what was implied was that snyder may have been willing to let the alledged lies get a pass had the list not involved his wife
OTLs are worthless in the playoffs
by TJL on Feb 2, 2011 6:05 PM EST up reply actions
he cares more about a questionable "insult" to his wife than the accusations of a felony?
hmm
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
you must not be married
OTLs are worthless in the playoffs
by TJL on Feb 2, 2011 6:08 PM EST up reply actions
haha great comment lol i dont see any slander in it or even anything negative about his wife. they r facts
by les boulez bomber on Feb 2, 2011 8:54 PM EST up reply actions
facts they are. . . .however McKenna presented them in a way that leads one to believe she held some sort of press conference to defend her husband. She didn’t go “on local TV to TELL an interviewer that he is now. . . .” She went on TV to talk about something completely different and was asked a question that she answered. So no, the facts are not inaccurate but they were presented in a suspect context.
When someone gives you a truth serum and asks you a question, couldn't you just say, "I do not want to answer that."?
by Lunatic Fringe on Feb 3, 2011 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
not sure what the Red Rider reference means.
When someone gives you a truth serum and asks you a question, couldn't you just say, "I do not want to answer that."?
by Lunatic Fringe on Feb 4, 2011 11:15 AM EST up reply actions
misleading yes…lawsuit ??? again, you are missing the forrest for the trees. the man had 61 bulleted points, individually identified and highlighted. your comment and the others are buried in introductory text.
by les boulez bomber on Feb 4, 2011 3:24 PM EST up reply actions
would you say she's "selling" it?
Why even bring her into the equation? Everyone was happy when Cerrato was out and Shanahan was in…incl Snyder.
Hogs Haven. On Twitter. And Facebook.
"Selling it" as in promoting the idea that Dan's management style has changed
I think interpreting the word “selling” as insulting is reading too much into it. He isn’t misinterpreting her quote or anything, either.
"DOWN GOES RODGERS!" -Brian Orakpo
I think the tone of the article is what is insulting
Not to mention it implies the idea that Snyder is using his wife’s media time to support his agenda. The comment isn’t needed and brings nothing to the article.
by Nobetterthenbob on Feb 2, 2011 7:08 PM EST up reply actions
are you suggesting snyder would not welcome his wife using her media time to support his agenda? thats a stretch! lol his agenda is her agenda…they are married! she owns a larger chunk of the redskins or a larger share of their revenues every year they are together! thats how the marriage laws work
i think the whole part of her is much ado about nothing. it is a couple lines in a long article. all husbands want the support of their wives. pointing it out should not send out shock waves and lawsuits
by les boulez bomber on Feb 2, 2011 9:04 PM EST up reply actions
What I mean is
I don’t think she would use a children’s health promotion to “sell the image.” Especially when there was only one question asked about it. Not saying she hasn’t done so in the past, but it was hardly a place for that to really come up. Not to mention, if that was really a pressing point to be made, another quote would have been used in an event where it was painstakingly obvious she was selling an image. This is not that case and it is absurd to suggest that that was her motive behind that quote.
by Nobetterthenbob on Feb 3, 2011 6:05 AM EST up reply actions
Selling is an entirely appropriate verb to use there.
It has many different contexts and you decided to pick one and add your own spin. In essence doing what you are accusing McKenna of doing. Now if he had said Snyder was pimping his wife out to sell it then there would be a problem.
by BayAreaBullet on Feb 3, 2011 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
i think she is married to a public figure, was asked about him, and gave an expectedly positive reply. if i wrote the article, i would not have included her comments. having said that, she benefits financially everytime the redskins benefit. so yes, anything she does that can contribute to help the team financially is a benefit to her.
what are your thoughts on the 61 highlighted bullet points???
by les boulez bomber on Feb 4, 2011 3:33 PM EST up reply actions
Further, the fact that she’s put herself in the public eye by doing charities for “health promotions” and appearing on TV for those charities allows the media to criticize her for her actions and gives the Snyders very little ground for recourse.
I’m not sure what anyone expected her to answer…she could have deflected, she could have been even more vague I suppose…it probably would have been best if she redirected the conversation to her charity, but even that would have been seen as a negative for Snyder if she wouldn’t have been willing to talk about it. It’s lose-lose for the Snyders if she’s asked a question about Dan.
Most importantly, however, is the fact that what was said couldn’t be construed as defamation. It’s weak commentary at the worst.
Suspend Colin Campbell!
the redskins sell a product…many products…in fact it is a brand with many products for sale. any endorsement that contributes to more products being sold is implicitly selling it. she is compensated indirectly for sure. other words could have been used, but selling is accurate. do you think she said what she said so people will not buy redskin products lol
by les boulez bomber on Feb 2, 2011 8:56 PM EST up reply actions
even more so....
it says she on local TV to tell an interviewer this…..as if that was her reason for talking to the reporter in the first place. Tainted journalism….he asked the question purely to to find something to use…….she was doing a “health promotion” for 100 children, and makes the comment that her husband has surrounded himself with better people, and he uses his “talents” as a wordsmith to make this come off as a negative thing. EVERYBODY knows Snyder has made bad decisions, and made some questionable business decisions in the past…..he has said so himself, in public. Hell the reporter is using sensationalsm and is, at least, treading into very questionable ethics to gain popularity and increase his salary…….does nobody smell hypocrisy here?
no …you zeroed in on one item and balloned it up acting like the 61 bullet points underneath dont exist lol
by les boulez bomber on Feb 4, 2011 3:35 PM EST up reply actions
Why bring her into the equation?
because she spoke publicly about the team and about Dan Snyder
jesus, the reporter broke no unwritten rules. He didn’t invade anyone’s privacy.
If he had actually insulted her that would be one thing, but stating the TRUE fact that she did talk about Snyder in public is completely legit.
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
Snyder is the one who is using his wife inappropriately
Small man, manufacturing insults and then cowering behind his wife.
by BayAreaBullet on Feb 3, 2011 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
Really guys?
I’ve been a Skins fan for years, but I don’t wear rose-colored glasses.
This lawsuit is borderline frivolous, and a court may levy sanctions against the attorneys who bring it. Dan Snyder is a public figure, and this is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence media criticism and chill free speech (note the line in the original letter to WCP’s parent fund; Snyder’s lawyer states that the costs of litigation will “quickly outstrip” the value of the WCP asset as an intimidation tactic). Snyder’s threatened litigation is a salvo not just against WCP and McKenna, but any Washington journalist who would speak or write poorly of him.
While DC doesn’t have a statute banning strategic lawsuits against public participation that would allow for immediate dismissal, Snyder’s libel claim is laughable at best. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s NYT v. Sullivan case, Snyder’d have to show “actual malice” or “reckless disregard for the truth” by WCP to prove libel. Based on this link, WCP and McKenna had no reason to believe that the forgery allegation was false. To the contrary, Snyder’s company was involved in a settlement for just such an forgery and his company settled for actions attributable to Snyder’s subordinates. McKenna just extrapolated the outcome of that litigation to its arguably logical conclusion, placing the WCP’s allegation far from the necessary “reckless disregard for the truth.” Snyder will probably argue that McKenna didn’t do adequate research into the truth/falsity of the statement, but I think the above link is enough to shield him from relatively hard-to-prove libel allegations. Because Snyder’s a public figure, he’d also have to prove that the statement was made with “intent to do harm” to Snyder – and proving a newspaper’s intent is notoriously difficult (hence the reason most celebrity libel plaintiffs lose in the US).
If this suit actually manages to get to trial, McKenna would get on the stand, perhaps use a journalist shield law to protect human sources, and then testify to his belief in the truthfulness of all he wrote – effectively vindicating his libel defense. Simply put, the chance Snyder wins on the merits is astronomically low. My hunch is that Snyder spends a ton of money forcing some sort of pre-trial settlement or some other similarly pyrrhic victory (a concept that is familiar to every Skins fan who’s ever seen the team “play hard” and lose).
Having read the original WCP article, the subsequent letters, and several follow-up pieces, I’m excited to see the complaint Snyder files tomorrow so I can marvel at the creative lawyering his counsel will have to demonstrate just to state a claim.
On a human level, I can understand why Snyder is angry (but only with the thing about his wife – the other criticism is the sort of thing anybody who buys an NFL franchise should expect). Still, this lawsuit comes off as petty and abusive. Snyder comes off as a bully who had his pants pulled down and is now exacting revenge on the insignificant prankster to make an example of him.
HTTR. So sad that this is what we’re known for around the league now.
by KiranBhat on Feb 2, 2011 7:40 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
I agree, it’s hard to see how the article could be construed as actual slander, considering that Snyder is a public figure (and so is his wife, not that the article actually says anything offensive about her). It seems like Snyder is pretty clearly trying to use the litigation process itself as a weapon. He probably knows that WCP would have nothing to fear from a judge’s ruling, but plans to make winning very expensive for them.
If somebody wrote an article detailing all the stupid, unethical, or egotistical things I’d ever done, I’d be pissed too. But that doesn’t change the fact that I did them, and I (and most people, I think) wouldn’t try to use intimidation to keep people from talking about them.
"DOWN GOES RODGERS!" -Brian Orakpo
bottom line…if i were fortunate enough to own a billion dollar football team…my childhood favorite, home town team…shit like this would not bother me. i think he worries more about what he doesnt have (respect) and not appreciate enough what he does (the abilitty to positively impact others lives while entertaining himself and living very comfortably)…such a shame
by les boulez bomber on Feb 2, 2011 11:21 PM EST up reply actions
no question about it
shit like this would not bother me
this whole episode proves yet again that Snyder is petty and an ego maniac
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
Here’s some breaking news – Snyder filed his suit.
The complaint itself demonstrates exactly what you said – Snyder’s using the litigation process itself as a weapon. He filed in New York state court (probably to avoid federal Rule 11 sanctions for frivolous litigation – but I don’t know NY’s rules). T
he big rub for Dan is that NY has a “SLAPP” statute that specifically punishes people who try to use litigation as a weapon to chill free speech.
WCP could recover attorney fees from Dan if they prove that the suit was “continued without a substantial basis in fact and law,” and could even get compensatory/punitive damages if they can prove Snyder “commenced [the action] for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, punishing or otherwise maliciously inhibiting the free exercise of speech” (NY Civil Rights Law § 76-a). It’s a tough sell, but Snyder might end up paying dearly for all this.
Since you seem to be well informed on the law in this case, here is my questions: Does it not matter that in the opening section McKenna makes it seem like Snyder himself, and not his company, was forging signatures. Only later, in the “slamming” section, does he mention that it was the company as a whole that was fined.
I think WCP can credibly make the case that they didn’t knowingly or recklessly publish a falsehood. The fact that Snyder’s company settled in the forgery lawsuit, and that the settlement attributed responsibility to Snyder’s direct subordinates, are strong enough grounds for McKenna to say that he believed the allegation to be true (particularly if he has good research). The fact that McKenna later acknowledged that Snyder’s company as a whole was fined cuts both ways – on one hand it indicates that he had some knowledge that Snyder may not have personally forged signatures, but on the other is demonstrates that maybe the initial reference to Snyder forging signatures was part of a general caricature/satire that didn’t make the accusation seriously or directly.
That said (and I think Kevin’s original post highlighted this well), the forgery claim is Snyder’s best bet in this entire suit by a mile.
The fact that he owns the company and his employees utilized the practice for at least two years implicates him. he also evidently didn’t have any processes in place o prevent this from happening either. I worked for a utility company for a few years and we had to take classes on this stuff even though I had nothing to do with signing people up for service or even working for the customers…I was a contracted IT person. I’d say he’s as liable for this as Madoff and Skinner were.
Suspend Colin Campbell!
to be clear…i think when people see two small paragraphs of text followed by a list highlighted with bold text and alphabetized with large alphabetic characters…they skip the text to see what is highlighted … i read a lot of newspapers…these types of list, as exhaustive and long as this one is, do not make it into print often. dan snyder may very well have been the only person to read the text before his lawsuit drew attention to it
by les boulez bomber on Feb 4, 2011 3:40 PM EST up reply actions
frivolous...exactly
I can’t bring myself to care about this topic…can we move on?
Rectastic...
And right now I can honestly say y'all are getting a paycheck for nothing. - Josh Howard
by TerroristFistJab on Feb 3, 2011 9:45 AM EST up reply actions
the bottom line was this story was dead…until now. i didnt even know about the article lol
by les boulez bomber on Feb 2, 2011 8:59 PM EST reply actions
the funniest thing is
an extra 1 million people read this article because of the litigation
Which automatically make it one of the stupidest decision made by Snyder
by a hay on Feb 2, 2011 11:43 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Snyder made a dumb move based on egotism?
truly shocking
"By far the worst performers on the team are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
Outside counsel
I figured out why Dan Snyder hired high price talent from Los Angeles to file this suit.
The local attorneys told Snyder to save his money by shutting up and moving on with his life. No one remembers the line. No one cares.
Snyder will have to prove the line damages his reputation. Good luck, with that Danny Boy. The WCP attorney will discuss the Tom Cruise deal, the Six Flags Over Red States, the Deon Sanders signing (hell, pretty much your entire tenure as Redskins owner will suffice) to show that you have no reputation that can be sullied. Danny Boy, everyone knows you got lucky once. You have no business acumen to speak of.
As to your wife, Danny Boy put down the quiche, turn off the Kenny G., and take off the estrogen patch. Danny Boy, your wife is a public figure. She is fair game. You grew up in Washington. You know the rules of the game.
Now, go eat some red meat, put on some Metallica, and drop a pair. Start acting like a man. Do you think your man Jerry Jones gives a fig about what people say about him? Hell, no. Jerry Jones farts journalists in the morning.
Milevin - I do think Dan's lawyers have a rough road to hoe
proving McKenna or the WCP knew the stuff was false, but proving malice might be pretty easy. I am not a lawyer, but I don’t think they have to prove that the article hurt Dan’s reputation, so all the stuff you mentioned in paragraph three is irrelevant and immaterial. Basically, Dan’s troops have to show it was a malicious lie. In fact, the two statements mentioned (“marketing agent’s representative…” and “the Dan Snyder caught forging signatures…”) may be enough to win the case, because the characterization – that Dan personally forged signatures – is outrageous and patently false, and the writer must have known it was false.
I disagree
I think WCP and McKenna have a strong case against libel (see above) – and it’s damn hard for a celebrity plaintiff to win a libel case in this country.
Honestly, WCP and Atalaya’s lawyers are probably chomping at the bit right now. After reading the complaint, I doubt it’ll get past a motion to dismiss and Snyder and his lawyers might get sanctioned.
haha i just re-read the article…the guy provided at least 61 examples and snyder protests two of them and calls it malicious slander. i cant see him winning more than a retraction or clarification on what is not accurate. i mean…if the redskins went 59-2…id feel pretty confident we were conclusively a very good football team…without a doubt lol dan obviously argue it is not conclusive and we are over rated lol
by les boulez bomber on Feb 2, 2011 11:33 PM EST reply actions
I'll just put on my kool aid flavored glasses.....
and say, fine, I don’t really give a fuck…….if it keeps him busy enough to stop tinkering around with the inner workings of what “we” put on the field on Sunday, have at at it Danny, he can go try to have sex with sheep in Arkansas, and sue the feisty ones for insubornination ….wait for it…..screw ewe Danny, but I digress, often,
Sweet owner
R.A. Dickey "I do have thoughts on that. I don’t want to make them public."
THE WALTER REED 3 - Terrible Teammates, Worse Human Beings.
What was written about Snyder’s wife is not insulting or defaming to Snyder’s wife at all. I’ll be damned if he didn’t put something in her ear to say that he’s growing up if asked. She could have brushed off the question and/or not said anything at all. Further, it was such a small part of the article I’d forgotten about it by the time I’d gotten to the first point. If that’s a low blow Snyder must have grown a few feet and jumped into the punch. Additionally, criticisms like this leveled against people in the public eye — like Dan Snyder and Tanya Snyder (who, let’s face it, is only in the public eye because she put herself there through her husband and some horrible misfortune) — are extremely difficult to prove defamation against because they are opening themselves up to such criticisms by putting themselves in the public eye. He would have to commit libel which he didn’t do.
Further, regarding the Slamming case here’s an article from St. Petersburg times from 2000: http://www.sptimes.com/News/071200/Business/Slamming_fine_for_Ver.shtml. From the article, the slamming occurred between 1997 and 1999 during which times Snyder owned the company and was previous to Snyder even being interested in selling the company. Information on slamming is here: http://www.fcc.gov/slamming/. It’s the practice of either fraudulently changing telephone service for someone without consent or creating unreasonable delays in changing telephone companies. According to the list on the bottom, Florida does not involve the federal government in their prosecution of slamming cases.
A little research and analysis goes a long way.
Suspend Colin Campbell!
Also, McKenna said Tanya is out selling…not selling-out. You’re literally twisting his words around to spin the article worse than it sounds. She did try to market the fact that he’s surrounding himself with different people and that he’s evolving. He didn’t imply she was taking any money or receiving anything from doing this. Ironically, by filing this lawsuit he’s showing that he hasn’t evolved at all and is still a petty little man.
Suspend Colin Campbell!
Kevin
Facts from your article are wrong and misleading. Check out Steinbergs recent post. You should have done a little fact checking before presenting Snyder’s spin as fact. I realize a certain amount of carrying water is necesarry for any access journalist covering the Skins but you mislead people on this site. I think your great but you messed up and owe Dave McKenna an apology. Seriously this was a shameful post on your part.
by BayAreaBullet on Feb 4, 2011 11:37 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I agree, when a public figure like a sports team owner sues a non-tabloid newspaper for libel you have to look at the situation with quite a bit of scrutiny. It’s rare that any news paper would publish something without fact checking. Additionally it’s extremely difficult to prove defamation on public figures. Even Snyder’s wife is a public figure in this situation and nothing said concerning her is a blatant lie, merely opinions, commentary and nothing that will win someone a court battle. I used to think Snyder was some genius with a plan and several backup plans but I can’t see this working out for him in any way, shape or form. Even if he wins the case I don’t see him being vindicated, he’s still a bully. If he drives the paper to bankruptcy because of this it’s even worse. Best thing he can do right now, unless he has some massive trump card is to drop the lawsuit, donate $2 million to the homeless and post a response to the article and apology for the lawsuit.
Suspend Colin Campbell!
a.) Snyder never once forged names, and b.) forgery is a federal offense.
Here’s Florida Attorney General, back in ‘01: ""In the case of Snyder Communications, our investigation revealed thousands of instances in which the marketing agent’s representatives forged customers’ signatures to switch them to GTE long-distance," Butterworth said." This happened while Snyder owned the company.
The company settled the case for $3.1mm (though Snyder didn’t own it at that point). If they had proof that they were not forging signatures, they would not have settled. Obviously, they do not.
So if Snyder personally did not forge signatures and therefore McKenna “lied,” he still has to prove that this lie has somehow damaged him. That’s practically impossible at this point. And by the way, if it’s true that he did not personally forge, he can still be held personally criminally liable as the CEO. Prosecutors already chose not to pursue this, and settled. McKenna’s statement has no bearing on Snyder’s criminal liability.
Mother of God – why on earth are you buying Snyder’s B.S.? KhiranBat is right: this lawsuit is so laughably groundless on its face that these lawyers could be sanctioned. And they ought to be.
The keyboard is mightier.
so who the hell gets to use snyder’s jet…his lawyers or our free agent prospects??? this is a disaster lol
by les boulez bomber on Feb 4, 2011 3:42 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Hogs Haven
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
