Page 1
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/24/2017 12:30 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7
INDEX NO. 151179/2017
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
EXHIBIT A
Page 2
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017 FILED: NEW FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YOIU< Index No.:
William Moran II SUMMONS Plaintiff, v.
Newsweek LLC and IBT 1\<fEDIA, INC.
Defendants.
--------------------------X
To the above named Defendams:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONE D to answer the complaint of the plaintiff herein and to serve a copy of your answer on the plaintiff at the address Indicated below within 20 days after the service of this Summons (not counting the day of service Itself), or within 30 days after service Is complete If the Summons Is not delivered personally to you within the State of New York.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFI EO THAT should you fall to answer, a judgment will be entered against you by default for the relief demanded In the complaint.
VENUE Is appropriate because both Defendants- Newsweek LLC and I BT Media, I NC. - are residents of New York County Incorporated and headquartered at 7 Hanover Square, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10004. Oated: February 3, 2017.
WILLI.AM MORAN II
William Moran II (Pro Se) 1140 23'd St NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (208)242-8413 E mail: wm87@georgecown.edu 1 of 21
Page 3
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017 FILED: NEW FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------)( WilLIAM MORAN li Plaintiff, Inde." No:
v.
COMPLAINT
Newsweek LLC AND JURY DEMANDED and IBT Media, INC.
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------){ Plaintiff William Mor~Ln Il for his complaint against Defendants avers:
THE PARTIES
1.
The Plaintiff is a person and citizen of rhe District of Columbia. 2.
Defendant Newsweek LLC ("Newsweek'') is a limited liability company formed and existing under the Jaws of the State of New York. Newsweek is a print and online news publication. Newsweek's head office is located at 7 Hanover Square, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10004. The magazine claims over one dozen bureaus across d1e United Stares and internationally. Newsweek has been owned by co-Defendant IBT Media INC. in August of 2013.
3.
Defendant IBT Media, INC ("IBT Media") is a corporate entity formed and existing under the laws of the State of New York. IBT Media is the publisher and owner of Newsweek and the Imemational Business Times. IBT Media's headguarters is also at 7 Hanover Square, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10004. IBT Media exercises substantial control over Newsweek with the co-located entities sh~Lriog a common CEO and General Counsel.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.
Tllis Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to CPLR 301 and 310 by reason of the fact Defendants are corporate entities headguarrered in the state of New York, transact substantial business in the forum state, and are incorporated co do business by d1e State of New York.
5.
Tlus Court bas subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of twenty-five thOllSaod dollars ($25,000), exclusive of interest and costs, a 2 of 21
Page 4
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
substantial part of the evcms giving rise to the claims arose in the forum state, and the causes of action are under the laws or conun o n law of d1e State of New York. Venue is proper bcc.'luse a substantial part of the events giv ing rise to d1e clll im arose 6.
in rhis county and Defendants are residents of the County of New York in the Smtc of New York.
NATURE O F T H I S ACTI ON
PJ:~intiff seeks injunctive relief and mo nctacy damages fo r defamation and Libel Per 7.
Se.
A ltcmarively to libel Per Se, Plaintiff scel<s injunctive relief and monetary dmnagcs for 8.
Gencrnl Defamation and General Libel.
A lternatively to Libel Ptr Stand/or General Libel, Plllintiff seeks injunctive relief and 9.
monetary damages for defamation and libel by implication.
A lternatively to :LII o ther causes o f action in Libel and Defamation, Plaintiff seeks 10.
injunctive relief and monetary damages for Negligent Injury to Reputation. In addition to all claims of defamation, Libel or Reputational Harm, Plaintiff seeks 11.
injunctive relief and mo netary damages for Intentional Inflictio n o f Emotional Distress. Alternatively to Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Plllintiff seeks 12.
injunctive relief and monetary damages for Negligent Inflictio n of Emotional Distress. In addition to aU other claims, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetaty damages 13.
for Publicity G h•en to Private Life (Resmtcmcnt of Torts 2D, §6520). J'n association with d1e causes of actio n enumerated in paragt11pbs 7-13, D efendants 14.
caused actual damages as well as punitive damages - including continued and aggravated harm tO the P laintiff's professional, business and personal reputation and livelibood. T H E F ACfS Plaintiff is a 30-ycar-o ld son of a no w deceased disabled US Navy Veternn (service15. related gunshot wound to the spine) who held a to p-secret security clearance and of a retired US Postal Setvice worker suffering from renni.nal puhnonary fibrosis. Plaintiff began his collegiate educatio n at the Maricopa Commnnil:)' Colleges in o rder 16.
to stay near to his father who was in a co ma and suffered grear disability thereafter following Plaintiff's graduation from high school in 2004. Despite adversity, Plllintiff went o n to sn•dy at Northern Arizona University where he received a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science with a J:vlinor in E conomics graduating Magna cum Laude. Plaintiff also graduated from the prcs1:igious Georgetown UnivcJ:sity L'lw Cemer in 2014 and smdicd a single uncompleted term at Oxford's Said Business School before rernrning home for family medical reasons. Plllintiff co-founded a Liberal political consulting flnn d1at has held contracts in 17.
conjunction with labor unions in Nevada, a Democratic US Congressional candidate, and a shan-lived fundraising email contract on behalf of Hillary Clinto n's Arizona campaign. The firm also created two ballo t initiatives- one in Arrtooa and one in Idaho- to lower tuition at public universities.
In February o f 2016, Plaintiff began work as a web writer for Sputnik News - a 18.
controversial news outlet which receives funding, in whole or in part, from the Russian govemment. The oudct provides news content in addition ro liberal news radio talk shows
3 of 21
Page 5
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
attending to issues of race relations and economic inequality. Plaintiff worked 40 hours per week and received a salary of $50,000.
In July of2016, Plaintiff received a promotion ro weekend editor at Sputnik News 19.
where he was responsible for finding and assigning stories, writing content, managing social media, and dcte.rrnining the placement of stories on the front page of the website. On average, plaintiff assigned and edited 5-6 stories to remote writers, wrote and published 12"14 stories wid10ut a last look editor, posted on Facebook every 20 minutes, posted on T witter every 10 minutes, and managed the front page display for the website. Pl:1intiff worked 24 hours per week and holidays and received a salary of $50,000. As a result of PlaintifPs diligent work, in September, he was informed by his 20.
supervisor llfindia Gavashcli that he would be recei,.Wg a second promotion scheduled for some time in lace-October or early-November of 2016 with the expected departure of the Assistant DC Bureau Chief and would receive a salary of $65,000 at that time. BACKGROU ND- D efendants T um Honest Mistake Into Modern-Day Lindbergh Baby On October 10,2016, while the sole employee at the DC Bureau for the Columbus 21.
Day holiday, Plaintiff wrote a story titled 'Hillary Confidante: Benghazi was "Preventable," State Deparuoent Negligent' published at 3:23PM EDT. The story was inspired by Plaintiff searching the Twitter hasht:ag #PodestaEmails2 at approximately 3:05PM EDT and noticing a series of viral rweets attributing words in a WilciLeaks docwnent to Sidney Blumenthal. Plaintiff went to WikiLeaks webpagc, searched for and found the document. Plaintiff typed in the operative term "prcvemable" into a ctrl-f search of the 75-pagc document and determined rl1e phraseology was accumtc. Plaintiff then proceeded to scan the document for attribution in a rush. Plaintiff did not receive any instruction co write this piece by his supervisor Mindia Gavasheli, any employee of Sputnik News, anybod)' affiliated with the Russian government, or anybody at all. Plaintiff found the content for rlus piece, wrote it in a short roughly 20 minute period, and published it without edit or input. At approxin1arely 3:42PM EDT on October 10, 2016, Plaintiff deleted the story from 22.
the website, from Twitter, and from Facebook after running a fuU quote into a Google search box as a precautionary second look at which point he realized the phraseology used in the article was written not by Sidney Blumenthal, but by Newsweek Senior Writer Kurt E ichenwald. Plainriff did not receive any instruction to delete it from nor was he infom1ed of any error by Ius supervisor Mindia Gavasheli, anybody affiliated with the Russian government, anybody affiliated with Newsweek, or anybody at all.
From 3:42PM EDT to roughly 9:00PM EDT Plaintiff interrninemly searched 23.
Twitter, Facebook and Googlc for any references to the short lived Sputnik article that received approximately 1,000 page views- Plaintiff saw no such activity until stwnbling upon an article written by Newsweek's Kurt E ichenwald aod published ~t 7:45PM EDT tided "Dear Vladimir Putin, I aon Not Sidney Blumenthal" Newsweek's Kurt Eichcnwald alleged in the aforementioned article that Sputnik had 24.
written the piece "probably already kn[owing] about [the PodestaEmails2 release] before the WikiLeaks dump."
ewsweek's Eichenwald furdter alleged in the aforementioned article that ''Putin 25.
and his Kremlin cronies must have been dancing with delight."
4 of 21
Page 6
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
Newsweek's Eichenwald further aUeged in the aforementioned article that the 26.
Russians are "presenting complete misrepresentations of them [the emails)- falsifying them
- in hopes of setting off a cascade of eventS that might change the omcomc of the presidential election."
Newsweek's EichenWllld further stated in the aforementioned article that "So no, 27.
Mr. Purin, I'm not Sidney Blumenthal. A nd now that you have been exposed once again, get the hell out of our election."
On October 10,2016, DefendantS updated the article after Donald Tnamp repeated 28.
the inaccurate claim that Sidney 131umcnthal had said that Benghazi was preventable during a r11 lly at Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania on October 10,2016 - titling the amended piece "Dear Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, I am Not Sidney Blumenthal."
In addition to the statements in paragraphs 24-28, Newsweek's Eichenwald alleged 29.
in the amended article the incident was an example of".Moscow's aucmpcs to manipulate this election."
Newsweek's Eichenwald further stated in the amended article that "'Ibe Russians 30.
engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufacrured srory as tntth. How did this happen? Who in the Tntmp campaign was feeding hi.m falsel10ods straight from the Kremlin?"
Newsweek's E ichenwald further stated in the amended article that "The big 31.
question, of course, is why are the Russians working so hard to damage Clinton and, in the process, aiding Donald Tnunp?"
At 9:17PM EDT Plaintiff sent an email to his supervisor Mindia Cavasheli, upon 32.
reading Mr. Eicltenwald's article, tiLled "An Apology ...". The contem of that email is reproduced in full in this pleading as it bears direct.ly to why this complaint should survive a review of the merits:
I misread one of the emails from today's Wikileaks dump mistaking words in an email from Sidney Blumenthal for his own words when be was quoting very anti-Russian (and kind of nuts) Newsweek journalist Kurt Eicbenwald.
'Tlus was b:tSed on a number of social media posts on the link, the presence of the story, and my itutial read of the email's conc:cnts. I realized the error within literally ten minutes of posting the aniclc when it struck me that the scoop was too good to be m1e. I took the quotes from tbe email, entered them into Google, and saw that they lined up with a story from Eidtemvald. At that time, immediately deleted the story and any social medi.a references to it.
For how:s I s.~w no reference to it on social media and I was very relieved thinking that the error was just that -- an error -- and it would amoum to nothing.
5 of 21
Page 7
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
Unfortunately, that did not last very long as it has become a Newsweek story and somehow I have morphed (at least in the sick and disroned mind of Kurt [!.ichcnwald) into Vladimir Putin.
http:/ / www.newsweck.com/vladimir-putio-sidney-blumenthalhillary-clinton-donald-trurnp benghazi-sputnik-508635 I understand dus absolutely (sic) no good and I offer my sincerest apology to you and the company. Whatever comes as a result of th is, I understand. The mistake was an honest one and a reasonable o ne -but still a cosdy one io1 terms of publicity for us. The negative article by Eichenwald does note that we deleted the article quickly, but it became a new tableau for psychotic anti-Russian rantiogs by the US press which is beconting increasingly unrecognizable.
Just so soay man. I reaUy do feel like I let you and the company down o n this one.
On October 10,2016, m 8:24PM EDT Buz:tfeed Deputy News Direcwxjon 33.
Passantino posted one of tl1e viral tweets that inspired Plaintiff's erroneous and short-lived Sputnik story and wrote: "Re the Newsweek stmy, how do we know Twmp was reading Sputnik StOl)' & not this viral tweet with tho usands of RTs (.Retweets)?" On October 11, 2016, P laintiff wrote to Defendants' employee Kurt Eichenwald via 34.
T\vitter to explain that far from a nebulous plot to subvert dte US election, the short-li\•ed mistake was me product of human error and was corrected as soon as the mistake was realized. Newswee~'s employee Kurt Eichenwald immediately blocked Plain riff upon receiving this competing version of facts.
On October II, 2016, Washington Post's Philip Bump wrote a piece tided ''The 35.
Trump-Putin Lirlk that Wasn't'' questioning the veracity of me narrative by Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald. The operative paragraph was: "How could T rump have gotten that (the wo rds incorrecdy attributed to Sidney Blumenthal)? He could have gotten a secret message from a KGB agent posing as a hot dog vendor in the rally arena, the two suuepciciously meer.ittg after Trump gave the appropriate hand signal. Or maybe one of his allies, who follows Sputnik, snw the article and was like, "Hey, Donald, check this o m." On October 12, 2016, wrir.ittg for Bellingcar - a fierce critic of Sputnik News well36. known for its accurate research countering the Kremlin's narrative o n the downing ofMHI 7 over Eastern Ukxaine, documenting potential Russian war crinles in Syria and recording ilie use of Russian artillery in the summer o f 2014 against Ukrainian Villages - the Adantic Council's Aric T oler published a piece titled: " Russia was not Behind Donald Trump's False Blumenthal-Benghazi CL1in1" pointing instead to the half-dozen pro-Trump Twitter accounts that had made identical errors and each received thousands of Retwcets. Aric Toler subsequently info rmed Plaintiff ,.ja Twitter Direct Message that 37.
Eichcnwald 'emailed me soon after l published that story [criticizing Eichenwald's article[,
6 of 21
Page 8
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
uying to lecture me abom whu !his thing called "Russian disinfonnatioo" is' and further that "[News,veek's] ediror-in-chief cmailcd me too, but I don't dtink anyd1ing ever came of it when I told him my issues about !he story" - the attempt to silence this field expert shows that Defendants puiSucd a p:llh of reckless disregard for the truth wilh this story. In the week of October 101h, 2016, Newsweek's story was picked up by NPR, CNN, 38.
MSNBC, Keith Olbcrmann's progrnm wilh GQ "The Resistance" and numero us other news outlets duoughout !he country wirh N ewsweek's Kurt Eichcnwald appearing before fawning coverage to spout the wild-eyed conspiracy lhemy.
On October 12, 20"1 6, P laintiff was called to the office on a day off by his supen•isor 39.
and was informed that he was fired due to the hysteria surrounding Gavasheli Mindia Eichenwald's srory which turned an approximately 19-minute human error into the modernday equivalent of !he Lindbergh Baby. On October 12,2016, Plaintiff wrote to Kurr Ei.cheowald,Jim 1mpoco, Kennem Li 40.
and Bob Roe - each employees of ewsweek - an email tided "Request for Retraction/ Cease and Desist/ Legal Notice" explaining !he bUfllJlo error !hat bad occurred, that P laintiff bad been fired as a result of the false hysteria caused by the story, and mat P laintiff would consider taking some sort of legal action if the story was not removed. Plaintiff acknowledged in dus email chat the resultant loss of income was particularly untimely because he was closing o n an apartment wilh his wife.
O n October 12, 2016, Plaintiff wrote on Twitter to Jus former co worker Cassancha 41.
Fairbanks !hat he was fu:ed and explained to her he had written to E ichcnwald the previous day on Twitter attempting r.o explain what had occurred, but was blocked. Miss Fairbanks r.hen reached out to Eicbenwald via Twitter.
On Ocoober 12,2016, Kurt Uichenwald claimed mat me blocking of Plaintiff was by 42.
accident and sent him an email tirJed - "A question" -- asking whelher Plaintiff was just in a rush or wbemer Plaintiff pulled "unattributed junk off the internet." Plaintiff responded to Newsweek's Eichenwald to look at !he cease and desist letter. At !hat point Eichenwald wrote "Let me give you a call later t:his evening. We can talk duough your situation (not an interview, a helping band)." This phone call was delayed until !he following day at the request of Plaintiff.
On October 13, 2016, P laintiff reached out to E ichenwald by email urging !he phone 43.
caU. In a response email Newsweek's Eichenwald wrote, among other things, "[H]ow does someone like me who is deeply wired imo the intelligence commwury know so fast you had posted this? It's not like Twas sitting around reading Sputruk. Olhers are lhougl1, and they are not reading it 24-hours a day in real time for the purpose of keeping abreast of me news" In the same email referenced in paragraph 43, Newsweek's Ei.chenwald also wrote "r 44.
guarantee you one thing: tl1erc is aheady a file on you in one of !he security intelligence divisions of the FBI. You have been playing in a sandbox surrounded by very large, and mosdy unseen, players, engaged in games you do not recognize." The statementS by Eicbeowald in !his email show he wanted to silence Plaintiff tO prevem him from direcdy countering me accuracy of his story his biggest piece in yeaiS.
At 5:02PM on October 13, 2016, Newsweek's employee Kurt Eichenwald wrote in a 45.
separate email mat: "I did not lie about trying to contact Sputnik. Titerc is no indication of
7 of 21
Page 9
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
where internet contacts go; I do not know if they are in Washington or nOL" Plaintiff has repeatedly asked his former employer Sputnik whether an email was received by Newsweek and has been rold that no such email was ever received.
Minutes later on October 13,2016, Pla.i ntiff had a one hour and six minute 46.
conversation with Newsweek's Eichenwald. During this conversation Eichcnwald: A) reiterated his claim that the FBJ likely has a file on Plnintiff; B) asked Plaintiff if he had made any foreign phone calls; C) suggested by analogy to a friend of his who was in Italy who "did the wrong dling" that Plaimiff may have trouble returrling to the country if he spoke out and/ or maintained employment at Sputnik; D) asked Plaintiff what he had previously done professionally and E) offered to, being a prominent two-time Polk Award winning journalist, reach out to news oudets to help Plaintiff find a job at a differenr news outlet. On October 15,2016, P laintiff was infonned by his former supervisor Mindia 47.
Gavasheli that the outlet intended to publish a rebuttal piece on Monday, October 17, 2016 using the tweets Plaintiff scm Eichenwald explaining the situation. 'This plan was even though Plaintiff was no longer an employee. Plaintiff made a direct complaint to Sputnik's EditOr-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan requesting his name and tweets not be used as he was no longer an employee. She agreed that Plaintiffs name and tweets shou.ld not be used for rebuttal purposes against h.is wishes because Plaintiff desired at the time to remain private about the incident. Miss Simonyan also weighed in d1at it was her opinion that the ftring of Plaintiff was inappropriate.
On October 16,2016, Plaintiff was asked to have coffee by his former supervisor 48.
Mindia G<tvasheli at DC's C hinatown Coffee Company where he was informally offered to be rehired bur with a demotion LO tl1e weekday web writer position where he would be slnted to work 40 hours per week for a salary of $50,000. Plaintiff informed Gavasheli that he did not wish to be offered this position in light of the hysteria and stress caused by Newsweek's false and hapless reporting on Plaintiff's short-lived mistake.
P laintiff D ecides to go P ublic, Eichenwald Tries to Silence Him On OctOber 17,2016, Plaintiff wrote to Kurt Eichenwald and DefendantS' General 49.
Counsel Rosie McKimroie tltat he had decided after great reflection to go public with the true rendition of facts unless Newsweek retracted or substantially corrected its story. Plaintiff also offered to physically meet a representative of Newsweek to conftrm his identity and explained that the reason for wanting to correct Newsweek's story was to limit false hysteria in furd1erance of the public intcresc.
Shordy thereafter l\·fr. Eichcowald wrote a long, hysterical email amounting to a 50.
threat and (at least in tl1e opinion of Plaintiff) a bcibe to stay silen t and not wreck his biggest story in years. The portion tha t appeared to be a bribe was (as modified by statements in paragraph 52):
William. I will start off by sa ring that as I promised, I rook you at your word rhat the events were as you described and read1ed out tO The ew Republic on your behalf. 'They have a political reporter's job open. But at this point, I can't attest to your wisdom anymore nor do I completely trust you. So I'm washing my hands of being a gobetween with the New Republic
8 of 21
Page 10
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
51.
In the same email referenced in the preceding paragraph, Newsweek's Eichenwald (with Defendants' General Counsel o n the email no less) threatened to publish a defamatory paragraph if Plaintiff continued to challenge his narratiw~ - the paragraph's defamar01y nature openly acknowledged by Eicbenwald and obvious when inserted into a broader uncorrected piece - that read as follows:
"William Moran [II], d1e writer for Sputnik, said he based his article no t on directives from the Russian government but on an anonymous tweet that used a clip of the image of the document. He said he accepted the anonymous tweeter's description d1at this was from Blumend1al, and did so because he was rushed. However, as the government official with knowledge of the intelligence inquiry said, the original altered d ocument d1at was tweeted onto the internet came from a location that has been identified as being connected to the Russian disinformation campaigns, and only the news outlet controlled by me Russian government published an article based on it .. ."
So, tell me what to do: I will write the above statement into the article if that is what you want. The only reason I haven't is because I want to believe you are telling the truth, and did not want to destroy your ability to get another job by identifying you as the person who made a gargantuan error that reflects terrible journalistic practices merely so you could clear Sputnil;.'s name. Or you can go forward yourself, announce iliis, destroy your reputation, and I will be compelled to print the above paragraph.
Ms. McKimmie - if your client is telling the truth, please urge him not to force me to print that paragraph, something that will destroy his reputation forever. But if everyone insises, I will do it. (Note: McKi.mmie was Defendants' General Counsel, not Plaintiffs) 52.
Later on October 17, 2016, Newsweek's E ichemvald - after Plaintiff responded " I read your email. 1 will think about what you wrote and check back in soon. Thank you" wrote to P laintiff, "One last friendly piece o f advice: I wouldn't wast[e] time o n the New Republic job. You're qualified for it and these jobs disappear fast" and 'Wait.. . I dropped a word in my last email. When I say I wouldn't wast(e) lime on New Republic" it was supposed to say "I wouldn't waste tin1e on applying for" - 1 mean do apply soon, because tlle job is great and it will disappear fast.' Titis grammatically incorrect word salad by Newsweek's Eichenwald implied d1e jo b in return for silence was still on the table (modifying paragraph 50).
53.
Later on October 17, 2016, prior to publishing a piece regarding the attempts by Newsweek's Eicbenwald to conceal d1e trntll from the public, P laintiff reached out to The Nation and The Intercept asking if they would pick up the story.
9 of 21
Page 11
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
54.
Late.r on October 17,2016, Plaintiff attempted to stall Newsweek's Eichenwald by sending an email stating "Note: If you are wondering on the delay to respond more fullymy wife decided to give me an errand at really the most god awfully bad time. Sort of funny, really."
55.
Later on October 17, 2016, Plaintiff spoke to a former classmate at Georgetown University Law Ccme.r who works for the US government and is a dose relative of a thenSenior Advisor to then-US President Barack Obama asking if he had any journalistic contacts and suggestions. Plaintiff info1med hi.tn d1at Plaintiff sensed there was a time pressure and feared that Eichenwald would preempt Plaintiffs story by including the libelous paragraph (See ]>aragraph 51). The friend first suggested that Plaintiff take the job at The New Republic and let truth be damned and that, in the alternative, Plaintiff should get Sputnik to publish the piece - even though Plaintiff no longer worked there - as they would publish fastest.
56.
At d1at point Plaintiff wrote a piece for Sputnik tided "I am Vladinllt }>utin: Tbe First Victim of McCacthyism" apologizing to readers about Plaintiffs error and e:'tplaining Defendants' employee Kurt Eichenwald's attempts to silence the txuth. The story was published at 3:08PM EDT on October 17, 2016.
57.
At some time on October 17, 2016, Plaintiff also sent Sputnik the original emails between Plaintiff and Newsweek staff w confirm the veracity of the information clainled in Plaintiffs article.
58.
On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff appeared on the Radio Show Loud & Clear- a production by Sputnik News- to go over the details of the story.
59.
O n October 18,2016, Plaintiff was invited and accepted an appearance on the controversial RT news channel to further e.'<plain the story.
60.
Later on October 18,2016, a journalist from Paste Magazine named Walker Bragman reached out co Plaintiff to ask about the story and Plaintiffs communications with Kurt Eichenwald from Oct. 12 to Oct. 18. P laintiff sent Walker Bragtnan and Paste Magazine editor Shane Ryan all emails between Plaintiff and Kurt Eichenwald as well as notes from the phone conversation. l>aste Magazine inter,•iewed Plaintiff as well as Kurt Eichenwald going so far as to ask for Plaintiffs college transcripts to confirm his identity. 61.
On Octobe.r 19, 2016, Paste Magazine published a piece tided "Did Newsweek's Kurt Eicheowald Use Threats and Bribery to Silence a Young Journalist?" [Hereinafter "The Paste Magazine 1\rtide'l 62.
In The Paste Magazine Article Bragman and Ryan wrote: "The central question of this strange odrssey is this: Was Eichenwald guilty of using threats and bribery to coerce Moran i.nto staying silent, fearing that the true story of plain human incompetence at Sputnik would undermine his own conspiracy theories."
63.
Also in The Paste Magazine Article Bragman and Ryan wrote: "[I]t is Paste's opinion that [Eichenwald's] language cleacly meets, and exceeds, the standard of intimidation and coercion, from the sinister talk of an FBI intelligence ftle on Moran, to the redemptive possibility of a job at The New Republic. In fact, it reads ve.ry much like a classic interrogation tactic- scare the subject by painting a dark picture of the future, and then, when the outlook is sufficiendy bleak, offer salvation."
10 of 21
Page 12
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
Kurt E ichenwald's "T weet Storm" in Response to the Paste Magazine Article 64.
On October 20, 2016, Defendants' employee Kurt Eichenwald launched a tirade of over 70 Tweets at Plaintiff. This erratic behavior towards Plaintiff, >tnd the failure by D efendants' to take corrective action upon being notified, shows Defendants' acmal malice and reckless disregard for the truth in l~ter publishing libelous claims about Plaintiff. 65.
In one tweeted sentence in the over 70 tweet tirade Eicbenwald replied to Plaintiff: "ur lie that u never said anything about possibly losing your house is in writing"- referring to the story by Paste Magazine - who Pla.intiff gave all emails with Defendants' staff tO. 66.
In another tweeted sentence in the tirade Eichenwald replied to Plaintiff that he (Plaintiff) lied about the writer offering the carrot of a job at The New Republic and says that this "shows [Plaintiff] for the fi:aud (he is]."
67.
In another tweeted sentence in the tirade Eichenwald replied to Plaintiff that he (Plaintiff) was not really fued and that he was telling a series of lies in a "desperate attempt to save Spuullk."
68.
In another tweeted sentence in the tirade Eichenwald replied to Pl:tintiff that he should "go ahead and bring the lawsuit you threatened so many times. The first discovery request will be going to Sputnik." Apparently, Defendants belie\'es this matter should move beyond pleadings as their employee has already entertained visions of the discovery phase. 69.
In several other tweeted sentences in dte tirade Eichenwald called Plaintiff a " fraud." 70 .
In another tweeted paragraph in the tirade Eichenwald replies to Pl:tintiff "Why wuld u say u were fma.ncially mined then refuse 2 start at Sputnik when they offered u ur job back? . .... . did u never lose your job? Was tbe financial wreckage line (which got my sympathies for you) the lie? How are u ... .. . making a living if u were going to be ruined bm now have no job? Let's go bill. File ur lawsuit. Or explain why u wont." 71.
In another tweeted paragraph in the tirade, Eichenwald replies to Plaintiff, "You think dus is over, you fraud? U think, now that I know what u are, I'm going to walk away? Sorry dude. Ur wrecked."
72.
In anotl1er tweeted sentence in the tirade, Eichenwald replies to Plaintiff, "HAHAHA!!! Dumbass, you wrote u got your job back (It's magic!) and instead chose to go on a long ''acation. So wluch is it?"
73.
In another tweeted parag111ph in the tirade, Eichenwald replies to Plaintiff, "How does that line up with u writing in . . . .. . Sputnilc that u got ur job "back" two days later? Did u get fu:ed again in the last two days? And if u were in such dire financial straits, why did u rum down tlte job?"
74.
In another tweeted paragraph in the tirade, Eichenwald replies to Plaintiff, '1 though u were just one of Spu tnik's useful idiots who didn't know what he was involved in. So I took pity on you, So.. . .. . yah, u tricked me. Tricked me good. When's your next "I'm not Putin" :uticle Bill? Since Sputnik took the last one . .. . .. down (1 still h>tve it) will they take this one down the next time you step forward to say it again?'
75.
In another tweeted paragraph in dte tirade, Eichenwald replies to Plaintiff, "I am drooling with anticipation about tbe discovery requests for Sputnik. Yah, my words do speak for themselves. We had a discussion tlus morning with all the evidence. Don't think u .... . . will fool them either. Let's dance, u liar. Newsweek is aU set to mke u on . . .. and sputnik
11 of 21
Page 13
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
too." The Coun must be made aware of Defendants' C>.'J>ress intent to misuse disco\•er:y in these proceedings to further harass and libel Plaintiff as made clear: by Defendants' employee Kun Eichenwald openly saying as much and the failure of Defendants tO take corrective action upon being notified of this threat (See Paragraph 77).
In another tweeted paragraph in the tirade, Eichenwald replies to Plaintiff, " Why did 76.
u just now lie bout losing ur job when u got it back? \'(lhy lie about no t saying u told me u suffered fmancially? ... .. . and then we found it in writing. Not only a liar, a bad o ne. Cam keep up with the lies u tell in writing, can u bill?"
At 2:22PM EDT on Octo ber 20,2016, P laintiff wrote an ema il to Newsweek editor 77.
Jim Impoco, General Counsel Rosie McKimmic, Kenneth Li, Bob Roe, and Kun Eichenwald listing the threatening and libelous tweets from Defendants' employee along with a tweet that Plaintiff had posted on October 18, 2016 with a fuU Lrl\nscript of all emails between Plaintiff, Eichenwald, and ewsweek. Newsweek offered no reply to tltis message.
PRINCIPAL ACfS O F LIBEL/INFLIC fiON OF E MOTIONAL DISTRESS Later on October 20, 2016, ewsweek published an update to Kurt Etchenwald's 78.
article "Dear Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, I Am Not Sidney Blumenthal" (Hereinafter "The Eichenwald Article'~ to include in relevant pan the ducateocd paragraph (See Paragraph 51 of Complaint) that Defendants' employee Eichenwald acknowledged wolLid ruin Plaintiffs career in substanti:tl part:
William Moran [II], rhe writer for Sputnik, said he based his article not o n directives from the Russian government but on an anonymous tweet be saw o n the internet that used an altered lmage of the document He sa id he accepted dte anonymous tweeter's description mat this was from Blumenthal, and did so because he was rushed. However, as the government official with knowledge of the intelligence inquiry said, !he ociginal altered docwnent that was tweeted onto the internet came from a location that has been identified as being connected to the Russian disinformation campaigns, and only the news outlet controlled by !he Russian government publlshed an article based on it.
O n October 20, 2016, Defendants' published an update to T he Eicbcnwald Article 79.
to include reference to an intelligence source. The intelligence source had not been included in the original story. Given the intelligence source was only referenced in the sto ry after P laintifPs name was added in reroliation for the Paste l\fagazine article, it begs the question whether this intelligence source actually exists or is merely Defendants' making libelous claims while hiding behind a possibly im.1ginary, anonymous imeUigence source. The anonymous (llllJlginary?) intelligence source in The Eichenwald Anicle update, 80.
again an article mat only named Plaintiff, assened that "[T)he original altered document that was tweeted onto the internet came from a location that has been identified as being connected to !he Russian disinfoonation campaigns, and o nly tl1e news outlet controlled by the Russian government published an article based on it."
12 of 21
Page 14
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
The anonymous (imaginary?) Intelligence source in The Eichenwald Article update 81.
also allegedly assened that the "theory'' by odter news outlets that "the misrepresentation of the email may have merely been an error by an overworked Russian news agency" was "absurd."
The anonymous (imaginary?) Intelligence source in The Eichenwald Article update 82.
also allegedly asserted thm "because of its important role in the Russian effort, Sputnik does not simply publish whatever it chooses, the go"ernment official tells Newsweek." The anonymous (imaginary?) Intelligence sourced in The Eichenwald Article update 83.
also allegedly asserted dtat " no article directly related to Ametican politics wotdd just be sloppily duown into public view wi1hout careful consideration."
In The Eichenwald Article update, Defendants' employee Eichcnwald asserts the 84.
following libelous claim against Plaintiff - in light of the fact dtat Plaintiff was n.1med as the author of the piece in question - "Articles pertaining to policies in rhe United States and Europe require high level review (by the Kremlin whether official or unofficial]" In The Eicbenwald Anicle update, ewsweek's employee Eichenwald asserts the 85.
following libelous claim against Plaintiff - in light of the fact that Plaintiff was named as the author of the piece in question - 'Based on dte informacion from the government official with knowledge of the intelligence inquiries, Sputnik would never base a story it portrayed as the "October surprise" in the American election on a tweet with which it had no connection to."
Tbe assertions in paragraph 78-85, in conjunction with the body of l'he article and 86.
the inclusion of Pbintiff as the wrir.er of d1e piece, allege with rhe utmost cl:1rity the false and libelous claim dtat Plaintiff was nor only a participant, but a knowing particiJ:x~nt, in a specific effort to spread a false swry at the behest of high-level Russian operatives with d1e purpose of w1dermining Hillary CliniQn's candidacy in favor of Donald Trump - espionage, treason, election law violations, you name it and Plaintiff was accused of it in the updated article in retaliation for questioning the original Newsweek story.
At 5:47PM EDT on October 20, 2016 in dear retaliation for The Paste Magazine 87.
Article, Defendants published a second article by Kurt Eichenwald tided "How I Got Slimed by Russian Propagandist Site Sputnik" (Hereinafter "The Slimed Article''). In The Slimed Article, Defendanu;' employee Eichenwald alleges in libel that 88.
Pla intiff " altered" a Wi.k.iLeaks document (as opposed to misread it). ln The Slimed A rticle, Defendants' employee Eichenwald alleges in libel that the 89.
initia l redacted Sputnik article was not the product of human error and that he added "as m uch as [he] could to show that wasn'l I he case."
In The Slimed Article, Defendants' employee Eicheowald alleges in libel by 90.
enumeration that Plaintiff is eirher a useful idiot, crazy, or a knowing propagandist in the statement: "I did not know what Moran was-A useful idiot? Crazy? A knowing propagandist?'' In The Slimed Article, Defendanu;' employee Eicbenwald alleges in libel "1 91.
(Eichenwald) knew, because of what I had beard from the government official, that Moran had printed Russian propaganda, whether by accident or noL"
13 of 21
Page 15
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
In The Slimed Article, D efendants' employee Eichenwald alleged in libel that he was 92.
"revealing what [Plaintiff] claimed was his innocent- and incompetcO!- role in this Russian propaganda campaign."
ln The Slimed Article, Defendants' employee E ichenwald acknowledged that he was 93.
actively trying to desuoy Plaintiff's reputation with other journaUsts stating that "I decided I had to make sure no other reporter swallowed his poison, so I scot a Twitter-storm at him, inform.iog him I knew of his deceptions."
In T he Slimed Article, Defendants' employee Eicbenwald alleged in libel that 94.
Pla iJltiff ued abom initially losing hi~ job at Sputnik and then having turned down an offer to be rehired · In reality, P laintiff's last day of employment was 10/ 12/2016. Tn The Slimed Article, Defendants' employee Eicbenwald implied in libel that 95.
Plaintiff had nefarious "motives" in coming forward to contest Eichenwald's original article and that Plaintiff was was unwilling to speak to his motives. In reality, Plaintiff explained in numerous emails that he was coming forward out of concern abom public hysteria and the falsity of Eicbenwald's original story.
In The Slimed Article, Defendants' employee Eichenwald alleged in libel that 96.
"According to US government o fficials, a Moscow propagandist fed the altered document o nto the internet through Reddit, which was then picked up and retweewd by other suspect accounts until it went viral, then appea1:ed in Sputnik, which later took the story down. Seven days later, a person who identified himself as the writer of that Spumik article sacrificed his career to proclaim Sputnik independent, lied that I bad offered him a bcibe (for wh:1t, Tstill don't know), lied to other reporters that he had never raised any issues of being in financial trouble, then spread more lies about me to further defend Sputnik, a known tool of Moscow's propaganda machine." · The false and libelous allegation based o n now multiple anonymous (unaginary?) sources who only appear in the retaliation piece is that Russia passed the information along through Reddit, then Twitter, and then Plaintiff spread a series of lies in order to . the implication is · protect a specific concerted disinformation open~tion at the behest of the Russian government.
To The Slimed Article, Defendants' employee Eicbenwald alleged in libel that 97.
Plaintiff was both still working at Sputnik and knowingly attempting to deceive the public with the statement . "T don't know what your role is at Sputnik, but you've proven yourself willing to push propaganda to multiple news organizations in defense of a site controlled by the Russian govemmem .. ." .
In a nutshell, in the Slitned Ar1jcle (as detailed in paragraphs 87-97) Defendants' 98.
employee Eichenwald falsely aU.eged in libel that Plaintiff knowingly participated in an effort to push a false story o n orders from the Russian government to alter the outcome of the US election in favor of Donald Trump, that P laintiff's attempts to get Newsweek to correct their anicle were instead a series of false st;~temeots designed to discredit :--lewswcck and Eicbeowald at the behest of the Russ~1n govemmem and that Plaintiff was doing tltis all while still secretly an employee at Sputnik.
On Octobe.r 21, 2016, lhc Raw Story, a publication boasting over 11 million readers 99.
per month, republished the Newsweek piece " I got slimed by Russian propagandist site Sputnik" with the aforementioned false and libelous statements against P laintiff. The Raw
14 of 21
Page 16
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
Stocy's editor Roxanne Cooper infoaned Plaintiff that they accessed d1c stocy through a third-parcy "serviced called RcpublluB" wbicb Newsweek made me stocy a\•ailable on to maximize me audience for its libelous claims. The Raw Story relied upon me republishing exception to libel, but removed the story anyways on January 24, 2017 upon receiving evidence from Plaintiff showing the falsity of Defendants' libelous claims.
100. On December 14,2016, in his capacity as Newsweek's Editor-in-Chicf, J.im Impoco tweeted Kurt Eichenwald's libelous story " Dear 'Mr. T nunp and Vladimir Puc.in, I am not Sidney Blumenmal" with me following conu:ncnt line: "Th.is story helped the @F'BI identify individuals spreading Russian disinfotmation during the campaign." - Again, Pill in tiff Moran was the only individual named in 1'11 c Mticle and dus tweet amounts 10 libel by implication that Plaintiff was not only invoh•cd in criminal or disloyal acts, but i.nstead 1l1at d1e FBI had acrually identified specific criminal wrongdoing or acts of disloyalty to the United States by Plaintiff. In reality, Plaintiff was not engaged in criminal wrongdoing or acts of disloyalty nor has he been contacted by the FBI or other officials.
RETRACTION LETfERS TO DEFENDANI'S On December 16, 2016, In response to Jim lmpoco's tweet that Kurt Eichenwald's story led to me FBI identifying individuals, Moran requested that he remove it- wh.ich the Newsweek editor has not- and wrote to lmpoco that "If you are going tO float around such incendiacy and frankly dangerous accusations with my name attached there wiU be legal consequences, sir. Really, I could get attacked or killed by somebody r~ding your rubbish articles. It's been so far beyond the pale for quite some time now. E nough. How much more of mis torment must I go through with you people? E nough. Let me live in pe.'lce for God's sakes."
102. PlaiJ1tiff Moran sent additional requests for both Mticles by Newsweek to be retracted. Those retraction leuers were sent on December 16,2016 and December 19,2016 by email Newsweek's editor Jim lmpoco responded to one: "Back in your box now, Bill, and do please stop pestering us" and to the other ''Rosie, is mere anydl.ing we can do to make this spam stop? Best, Jim" tO which Defendants' General Counsel Rosie McKimmie responded: "Not re<>lly legally. I believe we can block bis email address though so it doesn't hit the inbox." N ewsweek's Editor Jim Impoco responded: " Good idea. Thanks!"
ADDITIONAL ACTS GIVING RISE TO CAUSES OF ACTION
101.
Tn The Slimed Article, D efendants' employee K urt Eichenwald quoted a section of Plain tiffs initial retraction letter · " I've lost my job at a time when my wife and I are in the le.1 d up to dosing on a new home." five minutes after writing the .initia iJ:etraction letter (and days before this story), Plainti ff expressly stated "The coments of d1e preceding email shall be confidential and apply to legal/ editorial recourse solely without furmer pemlissiollS requested." The publication of Plaintiffs econonlic circumstances to thousands, if not nllllions, across the world after becoming unemployed is plai.oly Publicity Gi\•en to Private Life and causing Plaintiff embarrassment
104. In The Slimed Article, Defendants' employee Kurt Eichenwald went on to write that Plaintiff told bim mat he was in "dire straits" and in "financial trouble" wh.ich apart from being ao egregious exaggeration is again Publicity Given to Private Life bringing embMrassroent in front o f d1ousands if not nlillions upon Plaintiff.
103.
15 of 21
Page 17
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
105. On)anuaxy 31, 2017, in his capacity as Newsweek Editor, Jim Irnpoco wrote to investigative journalist VictOria Balfo ur - a 30+ rear veteran of the profession in her own right - that Plaintiff "has been stalking Kurt Eichenwald in a bizarre campaign for months that has led many of us to question his sanity." Stalking is a serious crime which Plaintiff has not committed and this publicatioo to a third party constirutcs Libel Per Se. For purposes o f !Ius instance of Libel, P laintiff was a private indi\oidual whe reas for o!l1er iterations claimed he was a limited -purpose p ublic figure. Impoco's claim carne because Victoria Balfour sought to fact-check clairns by K urt E ic henwald that he: (1) Was exposed to anthrax in fro nt o f T o m Daschle's office (despite it never being reported and Eiche nwald appemi ng to serve at the NY Bureau, no t !l1e DC Bureau, of Lhe NY Tinles at the time); (2) Saw "crushed bodies" on 9/11 despite saying he was 110t at Ground Zero u ntil afterwards and said that he saw Police and Fire bringing mese bodies out despite tbe unlikelihood he'd be witllin the perimeter; and (3) Was tlueatencd f.'\ce-to-face b y a terrorist despite hinl never writing a story to this effect. Plaintiff, as a private citizen, independent journalist and litigant, bas researched, using Google, and bloggcd about prior acts of journalistic malfeasance by Kurt Eichenwald, a public figure. ·n,ese arc legal and legitimate activities that arc neither signs of insanity nor elements of "st.~Lking." Plaintiff has reason to believe that similar libelous statements abo ut Plaintiff were em ailed by Defendan ts' employees to other journalists and media o utlets.
106. In the alternati,,e, if Plaintifr s sanity has become inlpaired as a result of the egregious, Libelous claims rendered against him by Defendants - as Newsweek's editor jin1 l m poco alleges - let this go to p roof of dam~Lgcs.
107. O n January 31, 2017, l'laintiff issued an email to Newsweek's editor Jim lmpoco and Defendan ts' G eneral Counsel Rosie McKimnue requesting l11ey do all that is reasonable to retract or recant me false and libelous claims tbat Plaintiff has coouniued me criminal act of stalking and refrain from any funher si.nlllar libelous activities.
Similar Acts of Journalistic M a lfeasance by D efendants' Employee Kurt Eic henwald
108. O n August 9, 2007, journalist Daniel Radosh wrote mat Kurt E.ichenwnld bad reviewed his own books on Amazon clainling even to have been a rhird person who had met Kurt Eichenwald - under the name Andrew McDonald. J\s Andrew McDonald, E ichenwald also made paymen ts to sources in a story without disclosing .it ro his editors.
109. It bas been detenn.ined that Defend ant's employee Kurt Eiche mvald proffered facially false or inconsisten t testimo ny a nd court subnlissions in the cases of Ken Gourlay a nd Tim o thy Ryan Richards that a source in o ne of Ius stories did not know who he was until 6/30/2005 despite the p resence of a $2000 check written to that source da1·ed 6/ 8/ 2005 with Kurt Eichenwftld's name written on it. That source received and cashed that check on 6/ 9 / 2JXJS.
110. It has been determined thM Kurt Eichenwald clainled - when his sratemems in regards to that story were called into question - that he has frequent mernory !Japses and did not remember payments to sources due. Plaintiff sympathizes with Eichcnwald's condition. However, given Eichenwald's past history of aUegedly gross memory lapses, pretending to be other people, and his vindictive Twitter tirade before a tracking P laintiff, tl1c failure by Newsweek's editorial staff to follow up o n leads co untering their E ic hcnwald 's story o r
16 of 21
Page 18
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
otherwise exercising due care before subjecting Plaintiff to false public condemnation for infamous ctimes and misdeeds amoums to reckless disregard and acrual malice.
111. It bas also been determined that Kurt Eicbenwald has made up claims out of whole cloth in recent months - most notably d1at Donald Trump was in a mental hospital - telling Good Morning America that the false claim was made as a "sigrlal to a source."
112. DefendantS' employee Kurt Eichenwald's claim th.at he suffered a seizure as a result of a flashing inlage sent to him. Eichenwald responded
113. On January 29, 2017, after receiving a non-public correspondence from the Daily Caller repor ter A lex Pfeiffer attempting to fact-check Kurt Eichenwald's claims that he: (1) Was exposed to Aothrl•x; (2) Saw "cmshed bodies" on 9/11; and (3) Was threatened face-toface by a terrorist, Kurt Eichenwald unleashed a Twitter tirade against Pfeiffer accusing hin1 of being a "propagandist" working for "Pravda" - those tweets remain up and he has not been censored or sanctioned by his employer as a result.
Paste Magazine Writes a 2nd Piece Addressing Key Issues in This Case
114. On October 21, 2016, Paste Magazine wrote another article tided: "Kurt Eichenwald's Deception, and Newsweek's Failure to Restrain: A Follow-Up" (Hereinafter "The Paste Follow-Up Article").
115. In The Paste Follow-Up Article, Walker Bragman and Shane Ryan ask: 'If Eichenwald is so "deeply wired" into the intelligence community, should he be bragging about it, or revealing the extent of his knowledge" (to somebody he alleges is involved in a subversi,, e Russian plot no less).
116. In The Paste Follow-Up Article, Bragtnan and Ryan ask: "If Eichenwald believes Monul is either a Russian spy or a Russian patsy, as he implies several times in his articles, why does he offer to get him a job at The New Republic? Is that publication so low in his esteem that it's a good place to foist off suspected foreign agents"?
117. In The Paste Follow-Up Article, Bragman and Ryan state: 'What does fed ricliculous is the assertion that Moran engaged in a "disinformation campaign." It should be pointed out dtat Eichenwald, with his theory about Moran's actions, purports to know about the daily operations of Sputnik's D.C. bureau without ever having gone tO their offices, or even asked anyone' • Paste Magazine finnly pointS out Defendanr.~' systematic failure tO follow-up on the lead of a possible alternative explanation in articles that falsely condemn Plaintiff, an American journalist, for a treasonous, subversive, and/ or act of disloyalty to the US.
118. In The Paste Follow-Up Article, Bragman and Ryan state: "Eichenwald and Newsweek ignored Moran's fu-stband account... Eichenwald-and now Newsweek-have hitched their wagons to what is litde more than a poorly researched conspiracy theory--an accusation of disloyalty and potential treason by a young American journalist whose only crime was taking a job at Sputnik in the worst job market in generations." -Again, after having imenriewed and spoken with Eicbenwald and Impoco, Paste Magazine comes to the conclusion that Newsweek exhibited reckless disregard as to the accuracy of its libelous sraten1ems towards Plaintiff.
119. In The Paste Follow-Up Article, Bragman and Ryan state: T hat Newsweek's Eichenwald cold Paste that he "didn't believe Moran was a spy." Yet in the update to Eichenwald's original article and in The Slimed Article Newsweek falsely asserts just that -
17 of 21
Page 19
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017 FILED: NEW FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 that Moran wrote Ius quickly redacted story on orders from high-level Russian officials o r operatives and that Plaintiff only contested Newsweek's nawotive and wrote about the etnails ro smcM Newsweek in retaliation for unde rmining the Russian cffon to subvert the election.
120. In 'The Paste Pollow-Up Article, Bragman and Ryan stare: "Perhaps the most disappointing twist of the entire affair was the fact that Newsweek, after reviewing the evidence and witnessing Eichenwald's Twitter rant, allowed him tO publish this rebuttal." This statement again goes tO Newsweek's reckless disregard for the truth and/ or actual malice in writing clearly libelous claims against Plaintiff in a clear act of retaliation foe Mor:cn coming forward w contest Newsweek's article.
FACT S ATTESTING TO ECONOMIC DAMAGES
The American Bar Association E mployment Survey for Georgetown Law graduates in the class of 2014 shows that the median private sector salary is $160,000 - an income level attained by over 70% of gr~duates. Another 11o/o of grad uates reported an income leve l between $100,000-$155.000. In the wake Newsweek's false and .libe lous claims (whic h bear repeating) - that Plaintiff altered a document, is a rampant liar, was taking orders fro m highlevel Russians to push o ut a false story with a view towards a ltering the outcome of the US Presidential election to the delight of Kremlin cronies, and that Plaintiff has been identified b y the PlH in co nnection tO this- the prospects o f Plaintiff ever attaining that salary level even during his peak income years is now impossible.
O n November 21, 2016, a Sputnik editor reached out to Plaintiff Moran via Skype 122.
chat suggesting that there was an opetl.ing at the office- at d1at point P laintiff had been unemployed for 6 weeks with no follow-up responses to his employment applications to other news oudets and for other professional work Plaintiff said he did not wish to be offered a position explaining that he was too terrified in the wake of the libelous claims leveled against him and did not feel safe working for d1e oudet ever again as a res ult. G iven the permanence of the internet and Newsweek's dereliction or malice in 123.
failing to limit d amages by maintaul.ing their stories so they could be copied by blogs, other news o udets, and social media users, Plaintifrs caroing potential seems to be compromised for rhc n ext 35-years until he reaches the age of retirement in his chosen fields o f journalism, 121.
Democratic and liberal politics, and the legal profession.
FACTS ATTEST ING T O EMOTIONA L AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
On October 22, the birthday of both Plaintifrs farhcr and himself, Plaintifrs sister 124.
Jessic:l wrote in the commcms section o f The Raw Story rep ublication: Bill Moran is m y younger brother. Insinuating tbat he has any ties to the Russian government mther than as an Editor for the paper is totally irresponsible. You have singlchandedly smeared a hard working American that we spent years uying to support getting through community college, then NAU d1en Georgetown. H e is m y brother, you piece of shit. How dare you. HOW DARE YOU!
i\s of righr now, he needs to get on a p lane because his farhe.r is in h ospice. You h:wen't just help ruin his professional reputa tion, but you've smeared him to the point of stealing the one rhing our family hold most d ear- our American Excellence. You have not just s ullied one man, you have smeared an entire family. And for that, you are a 18 of 21
Page 20
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
McCarthyis m piece of shit." This statement goes to both economic and specia l damages.
Plaintiff was not able tO fly back ro Arizona to be with his father at his deathbed because Pbintiff was still attending to the fallout of Defendants ' libel. Further, Plaintiff additionally feared, based on the libelous statements made abo ut him by Newsweek, that he would be wrongfully arrested for an infamous cl'ime at the ai1:port On Ocrobcr 23, 2016, in a conversatio n in which Plaintiff was informed his father 126.
had died hours earlier, PlaintifPs sister Jamie rather than being able to grieve properly was fuming about what Newsweek had written. She said: "You're going to have tO change your mod1erf-i ng name, you arc going to have ro change your f-ing name, you arc going to have to change )'Our name from Dad's name, I can't believe these lying f-s did dus. They ruined your life. I'm sorry kiddo. Anybody who does a Googlc search of you will see what
125.
was written about you. Motherf.-r s."
On November 30, 20'1 6, PL1intiff's physician diagnosed him with situational 127.
depression attributing dus condition in part to the misfortune dealt upon him by Defendants in addition to the recent death o f his father.
128. Plaintiff has lived in fear since the October 20 article and amendmen t to the preceding anicle that he would face a search of his home, arrest or false prosecution due to the libelous claims made by Newsweek and its employees.
129. .Many of Plaintiff's law school friends and former po litical colleagues have shunned him in response to dte article written by Newsweek.
Plaintiff has not been able to sleep more than 2-3 houcs per night since the incident 130.
and often wakes up with nightmares of being arrested or killed for treason based on the false and libelous articles and statements by Newsweek and its employees.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM
Declarator y Relief PL'lintiff repeats and rcavers the avermentS of paragrnph 1 through 130 as is fully set 1.
forth herein.
By reason of the foregoing, Defendams ' willful and malicious defamatory statements 2.
about Plaintiff for wlucb they are answerable for damages and the provision of injunctive relief under New York State law.
That this Coun order Defendants and its employees to inlmediatcly remove suclt 3.
statements from all web-sites under their control; and Defendants be enjoined from contintting to issue libelous and defamatory stau:ments about the Plaintiff.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM
D amages for L ibel Claims Pbinriff repeats and reavers the averments of par.tgraph I through 130 as is fully set 1.
forth herein.
By reason of the foregoing, Defendants ' malicious and willful defamatory published 2.
statemen ts have damaged the Plaintiff and arc actionable for damages under the Jaws o f the State of New York.
Accordingl y Defendants should be held liable for damages to the Pbintiff for a sum 3.
of no less than $3.5 million for nll clainls of Libel or reputatiooa l damage.
19 of 21
Page 21
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017
FILED: NEW
FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017
AS AND FOR A THIRD CLAIM
D amages for Imemionallnfliction of Emotional Distress Plaintiff repeats and reavcrs the averments of paragraph 1 through 130 as is fully set 1.
forth herein.
By reason of the foregoing, Defendants' egregious published statements made as an 2.
act of blatant retaliation for Plaintiff challenging the veraciry of their story have caused emotional disttess to Plaintiff and aJ:c actionable under the law of rhc State of New York. Accordiogly Defendants should be held liable for damages to the P laintiff for a sum 3.
of no less than $1.5 million for the claims of Infliction of Emotional D imcss.
AS AND FORA FOU RTH CLAIM
D amages for Publicity Given to P rivate Life Plaintiff repeats and rcavers the averments of paragraph 1 through 130 as is fnlly set 1.
forth herein.
By reason of the foregoing, Defendants' egregious publishing of PlaintifPs personal 2.
economic circumstances infringed upon his privacy interest bringing cmbarassmcnt to him in front of thousands if not millions across the world.
Accordingly Defendants should be held liable for damages to the Plai.Jltiff for a sum 3.
o f no less than $1 million for infringing upon his privacy interests .
PUN ITIVE DAMAGES
Plaintiff repeats and reavers the averments of Paragraph 1 through 130 as is fully set 1.
forth herein.
By reason of the foregoing, Defendants' unprecedented action of rctaliaring against a 2.
journalist for challenging their swry by aUeging that Plaintiff was engaged in infamous crimes inc.luding and up to espionage and ueason while further alleging by impbcation t1tat the FBI had "identified" Plaintiff raises the specter of gross misuse of media to quell and silence dissent as well as to persecute those who disagree or challenge. In order to deter such perversion of the Fourth Esmte, punitive damages are appropriate and are allowed under the laws of the State of New York.
J\ccordiogly Defendants should be held liable for damages to the Plaintiff for a sum 3.
of no less than $100 million for Punitive Damages associated with rctali.1tory libelotts all~gations and implications that Plaintiff committed acts of tteason, espionage, disloyalty or other bad acts in subversion of the 2016 and that Plaintiff had been "identified" by the FBI. Tlus is necessary as a deterrent against such abuses of the press.
PRAYER F OR REUEF
WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully demands this counter enter judgrnem in its favor against Defendants as follows:
Enjoini.Jlg permanently the Defendants from making any future defamatory 1.
Statements about the 'Plaintiff and imme<liately removing any remaining defamatory statements from their websitcs.
20 of 21
Page 22
INDEX NO.
INDEX
NO. 151179/2017
151179/2017 FILED: NEW FILED:
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 12:30 08:45 PM PM NYSCEF DOC.
NYSCEF
DOC. NO.
NO. 7
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF:
RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 03/24/2017
02/03/2017 2.
Awarding o n the Second Claim for such compensatory damages for loss of reputation of at least $3.5 million, o r any s um as the jury may impose. 3.
Awarding on d1e Third Claim for such compensatory damages for emotional distress of at le>lSt $1.5 million, or any sum as d1e jury may impose. 4.
Awarding on d1e Fourth Claim for such compensatory damages for infringement upon Plaintiffs pri,•acy interests of at least $1 million, or any swn the jury may inlp ose. 5.
I \ warding on th e matter of punitive damages in the amount of$100 million in order to deter malicious and reraliato1y uses of media co condemn and persecute others without cause except for disagreement, dissent or the offering of a correction of facrs. 6.
Granting such other and further relief as the Court seems just an d proper, including the costs of mis action.
JURY DEMAND
Pu.rsuant to CPLR 4102(a), Plaintiff hereb y respectfully dema nds a tria l by jury o f a ll issues triable of right by a jllly.
Dated: February 3, 201 7 WILLIAM MORAN IT By:
~ ~!UnJlA4>£'~ William Moran II Plaillti/fRepmmlit'l, ProSe 11 40 23rd St. NW Washington, DC 20037 Em ail: wm87@~eoq:etown.edn T elephone: (208)242-8413 21 of 21
Back to 
