Skip to content

GARY WEISS, COLUMBIA PROFESSOR, AND STEPHEN B SHEPHERD, DEAN OF CUNY SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM, COMMIT PERJURY

October 26, 2012

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

 

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

 

______________________________________________x              Index No. 103498/05

 

EDWARD MANFREDONIA,                                                          File No. 05TT006341

 

            PLAINTIFF                                                                            PLAINTIFF’S

 

            VS.                                                                                          SUPPLEMENTAL

 

GARY WEISS, THE MCGRAW-HILL  COMPANIES, INC.,      AFFIDAVIT IN

           

ROBERT PRITCHARD, HAROLD MCGRAW III, STEPHEN    OPPOSITION TO

 

SHEPARD, AND THE CITY OF NEW YORK                              SUMMARY 

 

                        DEFENDANTS                                                         JUDGMENT

 

________________________________________________x         

STATE OF NEW YORK       )

COUNTY OF NEW YORK   )   SS.:

  1. A.   On 25 August 2005 Plaintiff Edward Manfredonia spoke to the Court Clerk for the Honorable Michael Stallman, Mr. Kamper, and Plaintiff was told that Plaintiff could file a supplemental affidavit.  Plaintiff  informed the court clerk that Plaintiff wished to prove that Defendant Gary Weiss and Defendant Robert Pritchard, with the apparent consent of Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon and Robert Gifford, have willfully and maliciously misstated key facts in the supplemental affidavits of Defendant Gary Weiss and Defendant Robert Pritchard; have willfully and maliciously omitted key facts in the supplemental affidavits of Defendant Gary Weiss and Defendant Robert Pritchard; and have willfully, maliciously and wickedly lied in the supplemental affidavits of Defendant Gary Weiss and Defendant Robert Pritchard- thereby committing perjury before the court of the Honorable Richard Stallman.  And this perjury is incomprehensible to Plaintiff, unless Defendant Gary Weiss and Defendant Robert Pritchard believe with certainty that they shall not spend time in Rikers for perjury.
  2. B.    It is here that Plaintiff Edward Manfredonia wishes to asseverate most forcefully and state that the reason that the false police complaint of Defendant Gary Weiss, 2004-006-65950, was filed and acted upon in the Midtown North Precinct was because the police in the SIXTH Precinct would have laughed at the false police complaint of Defendant Gary Weiss.  If not for the influence of Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies in the Midtown North Precinct, the false and malicious police complaint of Defendant Gary Weiss would never have been investigated, but merely taken and the false police complaint would have died an ignominious death.
  3. C.    Furthermore, if this false police complaint of Defendant Gary Weiss had been taken in the SIXTH Precinct, Plaintiff would have been permitted, as is required under law, to file a police complaint against Defendant Gary Weiss for violating New York State Penal Code Section 210.45  Making a punishable false written statement.
  4. D.    Furthermore, Plaintiff wishes to state that Plaintiff has already proved that Defendant Gary Weiss is an inveterate liar, as Plaintiff proved in the affidavit of Plaintiff’s friend and business associate, in which affidavit Plaintiff’s source and friend stated that Plaintiff Edward Manfredonia was the source of information for the option price fixing section of the article, Scandal On Wall Street.  Plaintiff has also proved in Plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition to summary judgment that Defendant Gary Weiss lied completely in his false police complaint and Plaintiff is therefore amazed that Defendant Gary Weiss would continue to lie- only this time under oath.
  5. E.    It is here that Plaintiff wishes to asseverate most forcefully that in the entire United States Defendant Gary Weiss was the only reporter or writer to link the Italian Mafia to the murders of Al Chalem and Maier Lehmann and this lie was made by Defendant Gary Weiss to increase the prospects of having a book about the Italian Mafia and Wall Street published.  Every newspaper, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times; The Star Ledger (Newark, NJ); The Asbury Park Press (Monmouth County, NJ), the county where the murders of Chalem and Lehmann occurred; the  a newspaper in Naples, FL; etc. linked the Russian Mob to the murders.  When Plaintiff met with two reporters from The Wall Street Journal, Susan Pulliam and Charles Gasparino, a Pulitzer Prize finalist, Gasparino and Pulliam asked Plaintiff if he were the source of Weiss’ information because their investigations had shown no link to the Italian Mafia.  Furthermore, as Plaintiff recounted in his complaint, Index Number 103498/2005, after several articles had been published in The New York Times, which articles linked the murders of Al Chalem and Maier Lehmann to the Russian Mob, Warren Sulmasy, Chairman of Harbor Securities, which was the day trading firm that the Russian Mob via Chalem had taken over, telephoned Michael Frayler, who was friend, bodyguard, and computer technician for Chalem, and asked Frayler if Frayler had provided the information to The New York Times.  Defendant Weiss lied about the connection between the Italian Mafia and the murders of Al Chalem and Maier Lehmann and this was done so that Defendant Gary Weiss by defaming Italian Americans could have a book about the Italian Mafia and Wall Street published..  And here it must be stated most aggressively that Defendant Gary Weiss knew that Frayler had links to the Russian Mob; that Frayler had boasted of working with the Russian Mob; and that Harbor Securities had employed Frayler at the behest of Al Chalem.  Yet Defendant Weiss refused to interview Michael Frayler and Warren Sulmasy- as well as Feivel Gottlieb, an investor in the stock frauds of Maier Lehmann.  Defendant Gary Weiss willfully lied to advance the prospects of having a book about the Italian Mafia and Wall Street published.  And thus Defendant Gary Weiss willfully and maliciously covered up the murders of Al Chalem and Maier Lehmann.
  6. F.     The lies of Defendant Gary Weiss (supplemental affidavit, paragraph 11) are easily proved when Defendant Weiss stated that Plaintiff would sue Defendant Weiss for lying about the murders of Al Chalem and Maier Lehmann- if Defendant Weiss were to utilize Plaintiff’s information and sources to prove that Defendant Weiss had lied.  Can you imagine such stupidity.  Plaintiff  shall sue Defendant  Weiss if Defendant Weiss utilizes Plaintiff’s sources and information to prove that Plaintiff was correct when Plaintiff  stated that Defendant Weiss had lied about the murders of Al Chalem and Maier Lehmann.  What Plaintiff stated was that Plaintiff had provided information to Defendant Gary Weiss for the article (Scandal On Wall Street) and that if Defendant Weiss utilized Plaintiff’s sources and information for his book, Plaintiff would sue Defendant Gary Weiss in court.  It appears that someone is instructing Defendant Gary Weiss to lie in the affidavit of Defendant Gary Weiss.  And that is subornation of perjury.
  7. G.   In the supplemental affidavit, paragraph 8, of Defendant Gary Weiss, Defendant Gary Weiss lied when Defendant Weiss stated that he had a work telephone. Defendant Gary Weiss had no work telephone.  After Defendant Weiss was forced to resign from The McGraw-Hill Companies, if an individual dialed the general number for The McGraw-Hill Companies and requested to speak to Defendant Gary Weiss that individual received a voice mail message that stated that Defendant Gary Weiss could be contacted at his cell phone number.  No message could be left for Defendant Gary Weiss on his former work phone.  Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies wished to have nothing to do with Defendant Gary Weiss- not even providing him with the opportunity to receive voice mail.  An individual could not leave a message for Defendant Gary Weiss at McGraw-Hill or BusinessWeek. 
  8. H.   Defendant Gary Weiss utilized his cell phone as his business, as is readily evidenced by the fact that upon dialing Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies and requesting to speak to (Defendant) Gary Weiss one was connected to a voice mail message that only provided instructions for one to contact (Defendant) Gary Weiss by cell phone.  Thus, the cell phone was Defendant Gary Weiss’ business phone.  This statement in paragraph 8 of the supplementary affidavit of Defendant Gary Weiss by Defendant Weiss Defendant Weiss that the cell phone was his personal cell phone and not a business phone violates New York State Penal Code Section 210.15 Perjury in the first degree   A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree when he swears falsely and when his false statement (a) consists of testimony, and (b) is material to the action, proceeding or matter in which it is made.  Perjury in the first degree is a class D felony.
  9. I.      Other proof that Defendant Weiss’ cell phone was Defendant Weiss’ business phone is if (a) Defendant Weiss itemized his tax returns, and (b) deducted the cell phone expense as a business deduction.  Please note that the deduction of a cell phone for tax purposes is dependent upon filing of an itemized tax return.
  10. J.      Plaintiff is also growing very weary of reading the half-truths and lies of Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon and Robert Gifford.  Plaintiff has not sent his complaint to have individuals side with him- as Defense Counsel has stated and has lied in Defense Counsel’s reply memorandum.  Defendant Gary Weiss has lied in published article, in a police complaint, and presently in an affidavit.  Furthermore, the fact that Defendant Gary Weiss lied in the article, Offering Credence to the Crank, has been proved by a signed affidavit.  Let us remember that Defendant Gary Weiss boasted to Plaintiff that he falsified his expense account vouchers because of the special relationship Defendant Weiss had with Defendant Stephen Shepard.  (Note:  Plaintiff is always reminded of the special relationship that Dick Grass had with James Phelan- and look at the result for the New York Stock Exchange.)  And Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon is lying every time that she repeats her mantra, like a child learning a song, that Plaintiff is falsely maligning Defense Counsel’s clients.  If Plaintiff is falsely maligning the clients of Devereux Chatillon, then have the clients of Devereux Chatillon sue Plaintiff.  Surely money is no object to Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies- but remember that a lawsuit brings disclosure- and the clients of Devereux Chatillon shall be ruined with disclosure.  And it must here be stated that Plaintiff was threatened with legal action previously by Defendant The McGraw-Hill Company and the threat of disclosure stopped that threat.
  11. K.   Learned Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon has stated in the reply memorandum  of law that one individual or two individuals stating that they would sue another  individual for defamation and even theft was not threatening and was not libelous, Romer v. Potrick, 78 Misc. 2d 404, 406 (Cty. N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1974).  In this instance esteemed Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon has Defendant Gary Weiss and Defendant Robert Pritchard, her legal clients whom she is being paid to defend, stating that it is threatening when Plaintiff Edward Manfredonia notified Defendant Gary Weiss that Plaintiff shall sue Defendant Gary Weiss for defamation.  So, according to Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon, the case law can mean whatever Defense Counsel states it can mean.  What can Devereux Chatillon mean?
  12. L.    Plaintiff requests that the Honorable Michael Stallman have an investigation conducted into the perjury of Defendant Gary Weiss and the perjury of Defendant Robert Pritchard and into the blatant misconduct of Devereux Chatillon, whose idea of truth is what her client says and not what is factual.  Plaintiff also requests that those individuals, who have lied be sentenced to Rikers for several months.  Some respect for the law must be shown.
  13. 1.     Thus Defendant Gary Weiss has evolved, or rather, has escalated from being a mere liar, as when Defendant Gary Weiss lied in the article Offering Credence to the Crank, by stating that Plaintiff was not the source of information for the option price fixing and illegal trading by specialists sections of the one article, Scandal On Wall Street, about the American Stock Exchange, as is proved by the affidavit of Plaintiff’s friend and former co-worker and former member of the American Stock Exchange; and from stealing money from his employer, Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies, by submitting false expense vouchers, thereby claiming personal expenditures as business expenditures; to filing a false police complaint, a violation of New York State Penal Code Section 210.45  Making a punishable false statement, a class A misdemeanor; to the present instance when Defendant Gary Weiss knowingly, willfully and maliciously committed perjury in his supplemental affidavit.  This despite the lies of Devereux Chatillon, who has lied when Defense Counsel states that Plaintiff is falsely maligning Defense Counsel’s clients. 
  14. 2.     But perhaps the most interesting fact is that in paragraph 1 of the supplemental affidavit of Defendant Gary Weiss Defendant Gary Weiss stated that he has received a number of awards for journalistic excellence- and neglects to mention that the highest accolade, which Defendant Weiss has received, was the Deadline Award for Scandal On Wall Street- an article, which Defendant Gary Weiss could not have written without the assistance of Plaintiff Edward Manfredonia because 99% of the information in the story came from Plaintiff’s sources.  This is a fact that Defendant Gary Weiss always neglects to mention.  Also not mentioned is the fact that no one has come forward to Defendant Gary Weiss with information concerning illegal trading  at the stock exchanges since then.
  15. 3.     Plaintiff Edward Manfredonia shall first examine the misstatements, omission of facts, and willful and malicious lies, equivalent to perjury, in the supplemental affidavit of Defendant Gary Weiss.
  16. 4.     Plaintiff did telephone Defendant Gary Weiss at his home on several occasions.  Plaintiff remembers that on one occasion Plaintiff left a message concerning a clerk on the New York Stock Exchange, who corroborated some information Plaintiff had previously received from another source concerning the illegal trading of NYSE members, including illegal trading by James Johnston, President of the New York Stock Exchange.  But there were only a few telephone calls.
  17. 5.     In paragraph number 4 of Defendant Gary Weiss’ supplemental affidavit, Defendant Gary Weiss effectively lies by omitting the most important fact, namely, that Defendant Gary Weiss had lied in the article, Offering Credence to the Crank, when Defendant Gary Weiss stated that Plaintiff had not provided Defendant Weiss with information concerning the option price fixing and illegal trading by specialists parts of the article, Scandal On Wall Street.  And the only reason that Defendant Gary Weiss has not contested this charge of lying is that Plaintiff has a signed affidavit from the individual, who accompanied Plaintiff to the two meetings during which option price fixing was explained to Defendant Gary Weiss.  (affidavit, Exhibit E)
  18. 6.     Also in paragraph number 4 of the supplemental affidavit of Defendant Gary Weiss, Defendant Gary Weiss neglected to state that Defendant Gary Weiss  defamed Plaintiff by describing Plaintiff as a crank, an individual who wears baseball hats (even though the baseball hat is to prevent a recurrence of basal cell carcinoma), etc.  And as the Fourth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Hatfill vs. New York Times, the tenor of the whole article must be taken into account- a fact bypassed by esteemed Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon.
  19. 7.     Plaintiff finds Defendant Gary Weiss’ assertion that Defendant Weiss saw an on-line copy of the article, Offering Credence to the Crank, soon after publication of the print edition, implausible but possible only if Defendant Gary Weiss had special access to the on-line edition as a subscriber to the print edition of the magazine or as the author of the article.  So Defendant Gary Weiss has lied in his attempt to state that the on-line edition of Offering Credence to the Crank was available a few months later.  If the article had been readily available a google search of “Edward Manfredonia” by Plaintiff Edward Manfredonia  would have displayed the article- a fact known to Defendant Gary Weiss and Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon and Robert Gifford.  It was only recently that the IRE Journal was made available through the utilization of MyFind (www.findarticles.com).  And Plaintiff knows this as does Defendant Gary Weiss and Defense Counsel.  Defendant Gary Weiss has misled the court in his affidavit. So please no more half truths and lies.  Or is this perjury, once again committed by Defendant Gary Weiss?
  20. 8.     In  paragraph number 6 of the supplemental affidavit of Defendant Gary Weiss, Defendant Gary Weiss has stated that Plaintiff Edward Manfredonia sent an increasing number of letters to public and non-public figures concerning the fact that Defendant Gary Weiss had lied in the article, A Message From the Mob, when Defendant Weiss lied and attributed the murders of Al Chalem and Maier Lehmann to the Italian Mafia when Defendant Gary Weiss knew that Chalem and Lehmann had been murdered by the Russian Mob.  As a matter of fact, Defendant Gary Weiss is the only individual to have linked the murders of Chalem and Lehmann to the Italian Mafia and this was done to promote the chances of Defendant Gary Weiss having a book about the Italian Mafia and Wall Street published.  Please read Plaintiff’s complaint in which this matter is fully discussed.
  21. 9.     It must here be stated that Plaintiff was unaware of the publication of the article, Offering Credence to the Crank, or as Defendant Weiss has termed the article, Giving Credence to the Crank, until April 2004, when the article became available to non- subscribers of the IRE Journal.  It is only recently that the issues of the IRE Journal have become fully available on the Internet via on-line publication.  Even at present in August 2005, with the Internet utilized more widely and information disseminated more quickly than in 2000 only the January/February 2005 issue of the IRE Journal is available to non subscribers  in its on-line form, so it is readily apparent that Defendant Gary Weiss has lied when he stated that within a 3 month time period, prior to 31 December 2000, Defendant Gary Weiss was able to freely access the on-line edition of the September/October issue of the IRE Journal.  And this is perjury.  Furthermore Defense Counsel knows that Defendant Gary Weiss has lied and that the article was not freely accessible on the Internet, but available at most only to authors of article and subscribers- and then after December 31, 2000.  And this fact is known to Defense Counsel.  And this free on-line service  was not available n December 2000, so Defendant Gary Weiss has lied, or rather committed perjury, as Plaintiff has pointed out a violation of New York State Penal Code Section 210.15  Perjury in the first degree.

10. Alternatively, this lying by Defendant Gary Weiss in a sworn statement might be construed as a violation of New York State Penal Code Section 210.10  Perjury in the second degree   A person is guilty of perjury in the second degree when he swears falsely and when his false statement is (a) made in a subscribed written instrument for which an oath is required by law, and (b) made with intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official functions, and ( c) material to the action, proceeding or matter involved.  Perjury in the second degree is a class E felony.

11. Plaintiff was unable to access the on-line editions of the IRE Journal for free until August 2005, so it is once again obvious that Defendant Gary Weiss has lied- and this time under oath.  Furthermore, Defendant Gary Weiss’ lies have been stated by Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon as true when Defense Counsel has known that it is a lie.

12. It is mandatory that Defense Counsel not merely parrot the testimony of Defendant Gary Weiss, but that Defense Counsel verify the sworn statements of Defendant Gary Weiss because Plaintiff has already proved that Defendant Gary Weiss has lied and has violated New York State Penal Code Sections 210.45  Making a punishable false statement and 210.10  Perjury in the first degree.

13. Furthermore in pertaining to paragraph Number 6 of the supplemental affidavit of Defendant Gary Weiss, Plaintiff’s references to Defendant Gary Weiss as a liar because Defendant Gary Weiss lied in the article, Offering Credence to the Crank, and defamed Plaintiff in this article and also because Defendant Gary Weiss lied in the article, A Message From the Mob as well as stole money from Defendant Gary Weiss’ employer, Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies, are not ad hominem attacks , but are mere statements of fact in a lawsuit charging defamation, harassment and ethnic bias.  Just as Plaintiff’s statements concerning Devereux Chatillon are not ad matronam attacks, but are a recitation of facts.

14. The assertion by Defendant Gary Weiss in paragraph Number 6 of the supplemental affidavit of Defendant Gary Weiss that Defendant Gary Weiss brought the letters Plaintiff had written to Defendant Weiss’ superiors at McGraw-Hill is a lie because Plaintiff Edward Manfredonia had addressed these letters to the superiors of Defendant Gary Weiss, including Defendant Stephen Shepard, at that time editor in chief of BusinessWeek; Ken Vittor, Chief Counsel of Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies; and Harold McGraw, Chairman of Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies, each of whom  willfully covered up the lies and misrepresentations of Defendant Gary Weiss.

15. In paragraph 7 of the supplemental affidavit of Defendant Gary Weiss, Defendant Gary Weiss stated that he was not terminated from Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies, but it is true that Defendant Gary Weiss was forced to resign from Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies for lying in articles, or as Defendant Gary Weiss has stated, misrepresentations.  In April 2004 Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies was notified that Defendant Gary Weiss had lied in the article, Offering Credence to the Crank, and that Plaintiff  could prove that Defendant Gary Weiss had lied in the article, Offering Credence to the Crank,- and Plaintiff has proved that Defendant Gary Weiss had lied in the article, Offering Credence to the Crank.  Furthermore the defalcations of Defendant Gary Weiss from Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies resulted in a change of venue for entertainment- presently all business meals by employees of BusinessWeek must be undertaken in the restaurants in the McGraw-Hill building and not at Defendant Gary Weiss’ favorite restaurants, including I believe a Japanese restaurant.  Defendant Gary Weiss has stated that he departed willingly from Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies on 31 July 2004- but his includes severance time, vacation, etc.  Defendant Gary Weiss had not published an article in BusinessWeek since 17 May 2004- so unless Defendant Gary Weiss was imparting wisdom to the unlettered masses at BusinessWeek, he was effectively unemployed in June 2004, when Plaintiff was notified of this in a letter, and Defendant Weiss was probably forced to resign in May 2004. 

16. In paragraph 8 of the supplemental affidavit of Defendant Gary Weiss we find another lie, Plaintiff did not leave a threatening message nor did Plaintiff state that Defendant Gary Weiss was ‘dead meat’ because he covered up murder and rape.  The exact quote is “The prosecutors (New Jersey Prosecutors, specifically Monmouth County where Chalem and Lehmann were murdered) know that you covered up the murders.  They know you and Zucker (Seymour Zucker, Weiss’ senior editor and a friend of Feivel Gottlieb, who profited from the stock frauds of Maier Lehmann, unlike the investors who lost money in the stock frauds of Lehmann)knew about the murders (Chalem and Lehmann).  You’re dead meat in other words.  No one’s ever going to believe you and its’ going to get out.”  And Defendant Gary Weiss knows that the expression ‘dead meat’ was frequently applied to Wall Street traders, who had made a bad trade from which the trader could not extricate himself or sufficiently hedge against.  Furthermore, there is another meaning to the term ‘dead meat’ and it pertains to a lack of ability to perform in sexual situations.  Defendant Gary Weiss frequently lamented to Plaintiff, the inability of Defendant Weiss to have a successful relationship with a woman.  When Plaintiff related this to a female American acquaintance, the woman remarked that perhaps it was a case of ‘dead meat.’  So many uses of the term ‘dead meat’ are applicable to Defendant Gary Weiss.

17. And truthfully Defendant Gary Weiss is ‘dead meat,’ because he has been forced to resign from his position at BusinessWeek as a senior writer, in which position, as a favorite of Defendant Stephen Shepard, Defendant Gary Weiss had an easy life.

18. And the court should take notice of the fact that despite various obfuscations, Defendant Gary Weiss has not denied in his supplemental affidavit that Defendant Gary Weiss was forced to resign from BusinessWeek.  Nor has Defendant Gary Weiss denied that he lied in the article, Offering Credence to the Crank.  And if Defendant Gary Weiss should lie and state that Defendant Gary Weiss was not forced to resign from BusinessWeek and if Defendant Gary Weiss should lie and state that Plaintiff was not the source for the option price fixing section of the article, Scandal On Wall Street, Plaintiff shall request that Defendant Gary Weiss be charged with perjury.

19. Now we can examine one main reason why Defendant Gary Weiss should be charged with perjury, lying in this affidavit and in the police complaints.  In paragraph 8 of the supplementary affidavit of Defendant Gary Weiss Defendant Gary Weiss stated that “It was also his (Manfredonia’s) first call to me at my cellular telephone, and it disturbed me both because of the content and, and because of the fact that Manfredonia had moved from using my work telephone to using my personal telephone.”  Now Defendant Gary Weiss has lied in this instance and willfully committed perjury.  Defendant Gary Weiss had no work telephone.  When Plaintiff dialed the main telephone number of Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies and requested Gary Weiss, Plaintiff was connected to the voice mail message of Defendant Gary Weiss.  The message stated that I (Gary Weiss) have left BusinessWeek after 18 years and I can be reached at my cell phone number and the cell phone number was provided.  Any caller was not permitted to leave a voice mail message because the message merely stated that I (Gary Weiss) can be reached at my cell phone number.  It was impossible to leave a voice mail message.  So when Defendant Gary Weiss stated that Plaintiff had moved from Defendant Weiss’ work telephone to Defendant Weiss’ personal telephone, Defendant Gary Weiss lied because his work phone was his cell phone- at least that is where he could be reached and not at his McGraw-Hill number.  No message could be left at McGraw-Hill because Defendant Gary Weiss was no longer employed at McGraw-Hill (BusinessWeek).  And this is perjury.  Furthermore, Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon knows that no message could be left at the former business phone number of Defendant Gary Weiss, so why did learned Defense Counsel permit her client to perjure himself?

20. Furthermore, Defendant Gary Weiss has neglected to repeat his lie as told to Detective Friscia, who along with Detective Sergeant James Duke of the Midtown North Precinct, stated that Defendant Robert Pritchard had accompanied Defendant Gary Weiss to the Midtown North Precinct, and the lie is this:  Defendant Gary Weiss stated that Plaintiff had never called Defendant Weiss on his cell phone, but gave the impression that Defendant Weiss had never spoken to Plaintiff on the telephone, thereby, lying by omission when Defendant Weiss did not state that Plaintiff and Defendant Weiss had engaged in more than 100 conversations.

21. In paragraph 10 of the supplemental affidavit of Defendant Gary Weiss, Defendant Weiss once again skirts the truth.  A police complaint can be filed in any precinct, but only the precinct where the alleged incident occurred can investigate the alleged incident- and in this instance that is the SIXTH Precinct.  And Defendant Weiss and Defendant Pritchard lied when they stated that Defendant Gary Weiss was employed by Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies, and not that Defendant Gary Weiss had been forced to resign from BusinessWeek for lying in articles.  Note:  Forced to resign and not terminated.  So let us understand that fact.  Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies wished to cover up the lies of Defendant Gary Weiss and Defendant Weiss’ enabler, Defendant Robert Pritchard, has assisted in this cover up.  Detective Peter Friscia and later Detective Sergeant James Duke stated that Defendant Gary Weiss had stated at the time of Defendant Weiss’ complaint, 6 October 2004, that Defendant Gary Weiss was employed by Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies, and  on the date of the initial telephone call, 25 September 2004, Defendant Gary Weiss was employed by Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies and that this information was confirmed by Defendant Robert Pritchard.  This lie by Defendant Gary Weiss that Defendant Weiss was employed by Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies was necessary to provide some excuse for the Midtown North Precinct to investigate the complaint- so that  Plaintiff could be illegally harassed by the police- with some semblance of legitimacy.

22. In paragraph 10 of the supplemental affidavit of Defendant Gary Weiss, Defendant Gary Weiss continues to lie when he states that he “listed my McGraw-Hill address as further contact information.”  This is a lie.  How could Defendant Weiss in October 2004 be contacted at Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies when Defendant Weiss had been forced to resign from BusinessWeek in June 2004 and had no office and could not receive messages at Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies.  There was no telephone number at which one could leave a message, which is why Defendant Gary Weiss provided the general telephone number of Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies and not his former direct number.  Defendant Weiss could not be contacted by mail at Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies because Defendant Weiss had been forced to resign from BusinessWeek, a subsidiary of Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies in June 2004.  Any mail sent to Defendant Weiss would have been forwarded to his home address.  So, once again Defendant Gary Weiss has committed perjury to cover up the lies, which Defendant Weiss made in his false police complaint, 2004-006-65950.  And all of this is known to Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon.

23. The telephone call Defendant Gary Weiss received on 1 December 2004 was not threatening.  And Defendant Gary Weiss lies once again.  Here is a copy of the transcript of the call as provided by Defense Counsel:  “Now you can’t use any information that I gave you.  That was only for the article (Scandal On Wall Street) and since you lied and you said that you had your own source and I did not provide you, my sources are willing to testify in court.  So when you write your book, it can’t be a lie.  An attorney will definitely sue you..”  Then “I am not lying.  I can prove it in court.  You will lose desperately so my advice to you is you should apologize which you haven’t done.”  Now all references to Defendant Gary Weiss being sued are related to the fact that Defendant Gary Weiss cannot utilize any information that Plaintiff had provided to Defendant Gary Weiss for the articles, Scandal On Wall Street and A Street Scandal That May Not Die.  Plaintiff has once again reiterated that Defendant Gary Weiss lied about Plaintiff and his sources.  Plaintiff as always, as in the original message in September, had stated that his sources were willing to testify in court.  To even suggest, as Defense Counsel and Defendant Gary Weiss would have you believe, that Defendant Gary Weiss would utilize Plaintiff’s sources for an article about the murders of Al Chalem and Maier Lehmann so that Defendant Gary Weiss could prove that Defendant Gary Weiss himself had lied about the murders of Al Chalem and Maier Lehmann in the article, A Message From the Mob, is ludicrous beyond the pale.  If Defendant Gary Weiss wishes to utilize Plaintiff’s sources to prove that Defendant Gary Weiss lied in Defendant Weiss’ work of false article, A Message from The Mob, Plaintiff shall gladly assist Defendant Gary Weiss in his endeavor to prove that Defendant Gary Weiss is an inveterate liar.  But attorneys will countenance any type of lie to win a case- even a lie as absurd as this.  So if learned Defense Counsel wishes to utilize Plaintiff’s sources abut the murders of Al Chalem and Maier Lehmann to prove that Defendant Gary Weiss has lied, the esteemed Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon can do this in court.  So it is obvious to anyone but an inveterate liar and the Defense Counsel, who represents and enables  this inveterate liar that this conversation concerns the article in which Plaintiff’s source has provided the affidavit.  Furthermore, it is impossible for Plaintiff to sue Defendant Weiss concerning Defendant Gary Weiss’ lies in the article, A Message From The Mob, because Plaintiff has no standing with respect to the murders of Al Chalem and Maier Lehmann. Much as Defendant Robert Pritchard has no standing with respect to Defendant gary Weiss- except to cover up the lies of Defendant Gary Weiss.  And any attempt to say that Plaintiff stated Plaintiff would sue Defendant Weiss over the article, A Message From The Mob,  about the murders of Al Chalem and Maier Lehmann is not only perjury, but also for Defense Counsel a major problem.  And that a jury shall decide.

24. Defendant Gary Weiss continues the lies even further.  Defendant Gary Weiss cannot desist from lying.  Defendant Gary Weiss stated that Plaintiff had never telephoned Defendant Weiss at home, but Plaintiff had telephoned Defendant Weiss at home.  On one occasion Plaintiff left a message about illegal trading on the New York Stock Exchange.  Furthermore, when Plaintiff dialed Defendant Gary Weiss at McGraw-Hill prior to this telephone call, Plaintiff was informed that Defendant Gary Weiss was no longer at Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies, so Plaintiff could not telephone Defendant Gary Weiss on his cell phone because Plaintiff did not have the cell phone number of Defendant Gary Weiss.  Plaintiff had misplaced the cell phone number.  And that is why Plaintiff had telephoned Defendant Gary Weiss at home.  And this was explained by Plaintiff to Detective Friscia.

25. Plaintiff had not escalated his letter-writing, Defendant Gary Weiss had lied about Plaintiff and Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies had covered up the lies of Defendant Gary Weiss.  The employees of BusinessWeek, a subsidiary of Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies had a right to know that Defendant Gary Weiss had lied in published articles and that Defendant Stephen Shepard, Defendant Harold McGraw and Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies had covered up the lies of Defendant Gary Weiss.

26. Plaintiff has proved that Defendant Gary Weiss is an inveterate liar, thief and perjurer.  Defendant Weiss did not feel threatened.  Defendant Gary Weiss sat smugly in his apartment with the knowledge that his lies about Plaintiff would be covered up by Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies and by the attorney whom Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies would hire. 

27. Defendant Gary Weiss has stated Plaintiff’s acknowledgment that Defendant Gary Weiss had “saved my life,” but that acknowledgment does not give Defendant Gary Weiss the right to ruin Plaintiff’s life by defaming Plaintiff in an article, Offering Credence to the Crank, and also to destroy Plaintiff’s credibility with lies by stating that Plaintiff did not provide him with information concerning option price fixing and illegal trading by specialists.  And Defendant Gary Weiss was amply rewarded in assisting Plaintiff in exposing crime at the American Stock Exchange.  Defendant Gary Weiss won the Deadline Award for the article, Scandal On Wall Street, which was the highest award that Defendant Gary Weiss has won.  Not even Defendant Gary Weiss’ stories on the Italian Mafia and Wall Street, had won him such an honor.  Furthermore, the Italian Mafia and Wall Street is such a tiny sliver of crime on Wall Street that even Defendant Gary Weiss admitted to Plaintiff that price fixing in options cost the American public more money than stock fraud by the Italian Mafia.

28. In paragraph 13 Defendant Gary Weiss has exhibited a copy of a letter and attachments that Plaintiff had sent to Morton Janklow, who is not only the agent for Defendant Gary Weiss but who is an attorney who negotiates contracts for his clients- including Defendant Gary Weiss.  Plaintiff felt that it was his duty to provide Morton Janklow with conclusive proof, including a copy of the signed affidavit of a third party, as proof that Defendant Gary Weiss  is an inveterate liar.  (Note: It is this signed affidavit that Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon willfully and maliciously neglects to mention.)  Defendant Gary Weiss lied.  In this manner Plaintiff hoped that Morton Janklow, who is an attorney, could not claim ignorance of the lies of Defendant Weiss and avoid any liability for assisting Defendant Gary Weiss in publishing lies.   Plaintiff also wrote to Morton Janklow because Defendant Robert Pritchard had threatened Plaintiff with legal action in Defendant Pritchard’s letter of 27 January 2005 if Plaintiff were to write letters and state in these letters that Defendant Gary Weiss is a liar- and truth is a defense against libel.

29. Plaintiff has proved that Defendant Gary Weiss, who has stated that he has received a number of awards for journalistic excellence has lied in his sworn affidavit.  And that is perjury.  Furthermore, Defendant Gary Weiss would be ruined if it were known that Defendant Gary Weiss had lied in articles, especially about murder and his sources.  Or has everyone forgotten the episode of Janet Cooke and The Washington Post, when she lied.  Janet Cooke was black, like Jayson Blair, and her career was effectively over.  Yet, when a white reporter lies about murder and his sources, the white press unites and covers up his lies.  And it must be remembered that Defendant Gary Weiss lied in two publications:  BusinessWeek and the IRE Journal.  One rule for African-Americans and another rule for Caucasians.

30. So Defendant BusinessWeek took the low road, and the low road for its racist articles concerning Jayson Blair and the ethnic bias against Italian-Americans in the articles of Defendant Gary Weiss about the Italian Mafia.  Defendant Weiss lied about the Italian Mafia being involved in the murders of Al Chalem and Maier Lehmann and this would call into question the accuracy of those two cover stories authored by Defendant Gary Weiss in 1996 and 1997 about the Italian Mafia and Wall Street.

31. As the rabbis say:  Once begun the lies never stop.  In the case of Defendant Gary Weiss the lies have segued into perjury.

32. Plaintiff must now examine the signed supplemental affidavit of Defendant Robert Pritchard.

33. Plaintiff feels relieved to know that Defendant Robert Pritchard was a detective sergeant who finished his career as part of the FBI Joint Terrorist Task Force- the same task force that failed to detect the attacks upon America on 9-11.  That is not something to brag about.

34. Plaintiff now wishes to remind the court of the 27 January 2005 libelous letter that Defendant Pritchard sent to Plaintiff.  In this letter Pritchard states:  “In addition McGraw-Hill has incurred significant costs instituting security measures to address your conduct.”  What security measures?  Rockefeller Center is responsible for security at 1221 Avenue of the Americas, the corporate address of Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies.  So what did Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies do?  Did Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies engage a private security to learn the movements of Plaintiff?  What security measures?  Or did Defendant Robert Pritchard lie in an attempt to frighten and harass Plaintiff- with the approval of Defendant Harold McGraw and Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies- and that is illegal and the basis for a civil action.

35. The first lie by Defendant Robert Pritchard is in paragraph 3 of the supplemental affidavit of Defendant Robert Pritchard.  Defendant Robert Pritchard lied and stated that Plaintiff “commenced a letter-writing campaign against Weiss concerning disagreements he had with articles Weiss had authored and which appeared in BusinessWeek and the IRE Journal.”  The lie centers on stating that Plaintiff initiated a letter writing campaign in 2000 with disagreements Plaintiff had with articles authored by Defendant Weiss in BusinessWeek and the IRE Journal.  In 2000 Plaintiff was unaware of the existence of the article, Offering Credence to the Crank, which appeared in the IRE Journal.  That article, Offering Credence to the Crank, was not publicly available on the Internet until circa April 2004- contrary to the lies of Defendant Gary Weiss and which lies are seconded in the supplemental memorandum by Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon, who knows that Defendant Gary Weiss lied. 

36. In paragraph 4 of the supplemental affidavit of Defendant Robert Pritchard, Defendant Robert Pritchard stated that there was a significant escalation in Plaintiff’s letter writing in 2004.  Yet Defendant Pritchard neglects to mention the reason for the letter writing, namely, that Defendant Gary Weiss had lied in the article, Offering Credence to the Crank, about Plaintiff being the source of information for the option price fixing and illegal trading by specialists sections of the article, Scandal On Wall Street.  And there is an affidavit to prove that Defendant Gary Weiss had lied.  It is now accepted by Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies that Defendant Gary Weiss is a liar and Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies forced Defendant Gary Weiss to resign because of these lies.  Furthermore, Defendant Gary Weiss defamed Plaintiff in this article and even mocked Plaintiff for wearing a baseball cap to prevent the glare of the sun and sun cancer.

37. In paragraph 4 of the supplemental affidavit, Defendant Pritchard once again lied when he stated that Plaintiff’s letters had increased in vehemence.  There was no vehemence in Plaintiff’s letters, but Defendant Pritchard lies because he is paid to lie.

38. If Defendant Gary Weiss wished the letters to stop all that was required was for Defendant Gary Weiss to admit that Defendant Weiss had lied in the article, Offering Credence to the Crank.  Plaintiff has proved that Defendant Gary Weiss is a liar, thief and perjurer, so Defendant Gary Weiss should just admit that Defendant Gary Weiss lied in the article, Offering Credence to the Crank.  But Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies shall not permit this because Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies has willfully and knowingly covered up the lies of Defendant Gary Weiss.  Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon knows that Defendant Gary Weiss is a liar- so let us stop the lies about falsely maligning and the other lies.

39. In paragraph 5 of the supplemental affidavit of Defendant Robert Pritchard, Defendant Robert Pritchard cannot desist from lying.  Defendant Pritchard stated that Plaintiff had left an angry threatening message on the personal cell phone of Defendant Gary Weiss.  Plaintiff’s message was not angry and threatening, so let Defendant Robert Pritchard and Defendant Gary Weiss stop lying.   And by the way, if this were Defendant Gary Weiss’ personal cell phone, how could Plaintiff have obtained the personal cell phone number of Defendant Gary Weiss unless Defendant Gary Weiss and Defendant The McGraw-Hill Company had provided Plaintiff with the cell phone number of Defendant Gary Weiss.

40. Defendant Robert Pritchard is a former detective sergeant.  As such Defendant Robert Pritchard knows that, while a complaint can be filed in any precinct, only the precinct in which the alleged incident occurred can investigate the alleged incident.  Plaintiff telephoned Defendant Gary Weiss on his cell phone and Defendant Gary Weiss was at home.  That means that the incident had to be investigated by the police of the SIXTH Precinct and not the police of the Midtown North Precinct.  So Defendant Robert Pritchard in order to have the police of the Midtown North Precinct investigate the false complaint of Defendant Gary Weiss lied to Detective Friscia and stated that Defendant Gary Weiss was employed by Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies.  Plaintiff was informed of this lie by Detective Friscia and Detective Sergeant James Duke, both of the Midtown North Precinct.

41. So Defendant Pritchard willingly lied when Defendant Pritchard informed Detective Friscia that Defendant Gary Weiss was employed by Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies in order to have Defendant Pritchard’s and Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies’ friends at the Midtown North Precinct investigate the false complaint of Defendant Gary Weiss.

42. Plaintiff must always remind the court that when Plaintiff was called “a fu*kin’ Jew,” and “a Jew bastard;” and was threatened with violence the NYPD refused to even investigate the matter.  So, Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies utilized its vast influence to have Plaintiff illegally harassed by the Detectives of the Midtown North Precinct.

43. In paragraph 6 Defendant Robert Pritchard stales that a police complaint for Aggravated Harassment was generated.  But Defendant Pritchard was notified that this was not a complaint for Aggravated Harassment and that the Police Computers had not been changed to reflect this.  So Defendant Robert Pritchard lied.  Furthermore Detective Friscia stated to Defendant Robert Pritchard that this was not aggravated harassment.  So Defendant Pritchard continues to lie. 

44. While Plaintiff’s letters may be termed prolific, these letters were written over a four year span- and were directed at individuals, including the SEC, FBI, legal counsel for McGraw-Hill, etc., who had a vested interest in knowing that Defendant Gary Weiss had lied about the murders of Al Chalem and Maier Lehmann.  Plaintiff also wrote to Vartan Gregorian and other members of the Board of Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies and stated that Defendant Gary Weiss had lied in articles and that Defendant Gary Weiss had stolen money via false expense account vouchers from Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies.  And these facts are essential for members of the Board of Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies to know.  And Plaintiff must remind Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon that it is a crime to steal money from one’s employer by submitting false expense vouchers.

45. Ken Vittor, Chief Legal Counsel of Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies chose not to investigate the lies of Defendant Gary Weiss and the cover up of these lies that was orchestrated by Defendant Stephen Shepard because it would harm the reputation of Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies if it were known that Defendant Gary Weiss had lied in articles- considering the self-generated publicity of BusinessWeek concerning the articles authored by Defendant Gary Weiss concerning the Italian Mafia and Wall Street.

46. Defendant Robert Pritchard knows that Defendant Gary Weiss lied in articles falsely attributing the murders of Chalem and Lehmann to the Italian Mafia, and by not providing Plaintiff’s information to the investigative authorities in essence covered up the murders of Chalem and Lehmann because of the involvement of Feivel Gottlieb in the stock frauds of Lehmann.  Defendant Robert Pritchard also knows that Plaintiff Edward Manfredonia only discovered in April 2004 that Defendant Weiss had defamed Plaintiff in the article, Offering Credence to the Crank, and that Defendant Gary Weiss had lied in this article about Plaintiff not being the source of information for the option price fixing and illegal trading by specialists sections of the article, Scandal On Wall Street.  Defendant Robert Pritchard also knew that Defendant Gary Weiss had stolen money from Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies by submitting false expense vouchers.  So Plaintiff did not escalate his letter writing.  If the IRE Journal had a circulation of 15,000 then Plaintiff had a right to notify those individuals with direct knowledge of Defendant Gary Weiss that Defendant Gary Weiss was a liar. 

47. Furthermore, Defendant Gary Weiss, BusinessWeek and the IRE Journal never printed a retraction of the lies of Defendant Gary Weiss in BusinessWeek and the IRE Journal.  Even with apodicitic proof that Defendant Gary Weiss had lied, the members of the Board of the IRE Journal have refused to print a retraction of the article, Offering Credence to the Crank, in which article Defendant Gary Weiss lied as is his custom.

48. Plaintiff has provided several members of the Board of the IRE Journal with proof of the lies of Defendant Gary Weiss that were published in the IRE Journal, specifically that Defendant Gary Weiss lied when Defendant Weiss stated that Plaintiff was not the source of information for the option price fixing and illegal trading by specialists sections of the one article, Scandal On Wall Street.  Plaintiff enclosed a copy of the signed affidavit that proves that Defendant Gary Weiss lied about Plaintiff being the source of information for the option price fixing section of the article, Scandal On Wall Street.  Plaintiff wrote these letters to several  members of the Board of the IRE Journal and included with these letters, a copy of the signed affidavit, which affidavit proved that Defendant Gary Weiss lied, and a copy of the verified lawsuit, sworn to under oath, Index Number 498/2005, of Plaintiff Edward Manfredonia.  These letters were addressed to Professor Brant Hosuton, Professor Len Bruzesse, both of the University of Missouri; Shawn McIntosh, Deputy Managing Editor of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution; and, James Grimaldi, reporter for The Washington Post (Exhibits A-D).  Obviously, the news industry wishes to treat a lying, thieving white reporter differently than African-American reporters for the same transgressions- even when the lies of Defendant Gary White, the white reporter, are far greater than the transgressions of the African-American reporters.  A usual it is lynching time by the press in covering up for its favorites.

49. Defendant Robert Pritchard is paid to do whatever McGraw-Hill orders him to do and in paragraph 8 of the supplemental affidavit of Defendant Robert Pritchard, Robert Pritchard continues to lie again. 

50. It is here that Plaintiff wishes to dissect the illogical reasoning and intentional misstatements of Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon.

51. Devereux Chatillon lies when she states that “Plaintiff has attempted to use the mere existence of his lawsuit to influence non-parties to side with him against Gary Weiss and the other Defendants and to heap more utterly unsubstantiated invective upon all the McGraw-Hill Defendants.”  Defendant Gary Weiss lied. Plaintiff has presented an affidavit, signed by the individual who accompanied Plaintiff to the meetings at which option price fixing was explained to Defendant Gary Weiss.  This affidavit proves that Defendant Gary Weiss lied.  So how could Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon lie and state that Plaintiff heaped more utterly unsubstantiated invective upon the McGraw-Hill Defendants.  Devereux Chatillon has lied.  Plaintiff and his source are men of integrity and do not lie. 

52. Plaintiff has proved by means of a sworn affidavit that Defendant Gary Weiss lied in published articles.  Plaintiff has proved that Defendant Gary Weiss and Defendant Robert Pritchard lied in the false police complaint of Defendant Gary Weiss. 

53. Defense Counsel has even repeated the lie of Defendant Gary Weiss that he could easily access the on-line publication of the article, Offering Credence to the Crank, when the article did not become available freely on the Internet until April 2004.  So Defendant Gary Weiss lied.  If Defendant Gary Weiss could access the article, Offering Credence to the Crank, on the Internet it was only because Defendant Gary Weiss was a subscriber to the IRE Journal or because Defendant Gary Weiss authored the article, Offering Credence to the Crank.  This is known to Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon and the lie must end.  Defendant Weiss has lied in articles.  Defendant Weiss has lied about murder.  Does the court believe that Defendant Weiss shall not lie in court when Plaintiff has proved that Defendant Gary Weiss has committed perjury- and that Defense Counsel is ignoring this perjury.

54. Furthermore, Defendant Gary Weiss did not find the telephone calls threatening.  Defendant Weiss lied so that Defendant Weiss could stop Plaintiff from further exposing the lies of Defendant Gary Weiss.

55. Plaintiff only sent letters to the employers of Defendant Gary Weiss when Defendant Gary Weiss was speaking ill of Plaintiff- and Plaintiff was told this by a reporter.  There was no invective against Defendant Gary Weiss.  Plaintiff merely stated the truth that Defendant Gary Weiss was a liar in two articles.

56. Devereux Chatillon obviously feels that individuals can be freely libeled by Defendant Gary Weiss and even be the subjects of murder investigations because Defendant Gary Weiss can lie with impunity- and the real killers go free so that Defendant Gary Weiss can write books.

57. Defense Counsel once again lies when she stated that Plaintiff had moved beyond letter writing to leaving threatening messages on Weiss’s personal telephone.  First the messages were not threatening- as Defense Counsel so willingly stated when she quoted Potruck.  Also Captain Beuadette of the Midtown South Precinct has stated that ‘dead meat’ is a meaningless phrase.  Secondly, Weiss’ personal telephone was being used by Weiss as his business phone- witness the fact that Weiss’ cell phone number was disseminated by Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies if someone wished to contact Defendant Gary Weiss.  And what about that itemized tax deduction.  So please, Defense Counsel stop this charade of misinformation and lies.

58. Unfortunately Defense Counsel once again lies.  Informing someone that you shall sue them for libel is not threatening- and if it is threatening Defense Counsel should find another means of employment.  Plaintiff has proved that the two telephone calls were not threatening.  But Defense Counsel states that whatever her client says is true- and Defendant Gary Weiss is a proven liar and Plaintiff has proved that Defendant Gary Weiss lied substantially in Defendant Gary Weiss’ false and malicious police complaint, 2004-006-65950.

59. Furthermore as Plaintiff has proved in his lawsuit and affidavit, Defendant Robert Pritchard lied in his 27 January 2005 letter to Plaintiff and lied in Defendant Pritchard’s affidavit.  Lying in an affidavit is perjury, so nothing that Defendant Pritchard states can be believed.  And Defense Counsel knows that Defendant Robert Pritchard is lying.

60. Furthermore, Defendant Gary Weiss and Defendant Robert Pritchard lied to the police at the Midtown North Precinct.  Both Defendant Gary Weiss and Defendant Robert Pritchard stated that Defendant Gary Weiss was employed by Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies. 

61. The police officer, who wrote the complaint, and please remember that complaints of this nature are handled by non-police employees, stated to Plaintiff that Defendant Gary Weiss and Defendant Robert Pritchard stated that Defendant Gary Weiss was employed by Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies.  And it must here be noted that police complaints for minor matters, such as this, are processed by civilian personnel of the NYPD- not by police officers and most assuredly not by detectives.

62. And the most important fact is that contrary to police regulations and procedure, Plaintiff was harassed by Detectives of the Midtown North Precinct.  The SIXTH Precinct, which was supposed to investigate the false complaint of Defendant Gary Weiss did not investigate the complaint- and this is fully explained in Plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition to summary judgment.

63. Even learned Defense Counsel Devereux Chatillon and Robert Gifford are attempting to mislead the Honorable Michael Stallman.  Yes, a complaint can be filed in any complaint.  But Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies had utilized its political influence to have the false and malicious police complaint of Defendant Gary Weiss, 2004-006-65950, investigated by the Midtown North Precinct, where McGraw-Hill wields considerable influence due to the fact that the World Headquarters of Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies is situated within the confines of the Midtown North Precinct, rather than the SIXTH Precinct where the alleged incident occurred.  Somebody put in a fix- and that somebody was Defendant The McGraw-Hill Companies.

64. And it must always be remembered that if Defendant Gary Weiss had not lied in the article, Offering Credence to the Crank, Plaintiff would never have telephoned Defendant Gary Weiss.

65. Please remember that it is the affidavit of a third party (Exhibit E)which affidavit proves that Defendant Gary Weiss is a liar.

66. The case must be permitted to proceed because the lies and perjured affidavit of Defendant Gary Weiss and Defendant Robert Pritchard negate any effect that their affidavits would have on any decision by the court.

 

 

                                                                        ___________________________________x

 

Sworn to before me this

        day of August, 2005

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: