Subscription preferences


Loading icon Loading...


Christopher King

Joanna Marinova v Boston Herald Opening Arguments Part 1

1,027 views 1 month ago

25 February 2014

KingCast Presents: Herald Lawyer Joseph Lipchitz Gets a First Amendment Schooling in Joanna Marinova v. Boston Herald and Jessica Van Sack Trial Opening Arguments.

Hallway and short Opening Statement video coming around 1p 26 Feb, Opening Argument and other video coming soon. Basically the Court ruled that Damages are inherent if Ms. Marinova is a private figure but that damages must be proved, along with a higher threshold of actual malice if she is a limited purpose public figure, which I frankly don't believe she is. More on this later; I have some things on the mortgage front to handle back home. Here's a bit about foreclosure fraud and the CFPB that involves East Coast Senator Kelly Ayotte; did you know NH has the highest per capita complaints to the CFPB? Yep. I warned about that 3 years ago. Her own constituent said "[S]he's full of shit." Yep.

Anyway, in a continuing series of camera-dodging antics (watch the first one) the Boston Herald attorneys alternately avoided and laughed at my question "What does 'bagged' mean to you in a professional context counselors?" As you will soon see in KingCast video I asked the question of Defendant Van Sack, the Boston Herald brass and their Mintz Levin attorneys. For some strange reason I find that relevant given the fact that I have an idea about what is germane given that I was a major press reporter before law school and given the fact that their own client said the Joanna Marinova was indeed "bagged" for engaging in sexual acts with Darrell Jones, who is working to expose the corruption that resulted in him being found guilty of murder two decades ago. Read the Boston Phoenix story, excerpt at bottom. Listen to my original radio show with Marinova here in the Beat the Press journal entry. Hither, Beat the Press.... I haven't seen hide nor hair of them in years on this case. More on this later but just know I have never lost a First Amendment criminal defense trial and I've settled several First Amendment Civil Actions so I'm not apt to tolerate any nonsense from these guys.

Anyway my line of inquiry compelled them to run back to the Court to bitch about the reasonable exercise of my First Amendment Rights, whereupon the Court, by and through Judge James F. Lang found no violation of First Amendment principles, in much the same fashion as the Apple Computer litigation, with my pal Kevin McCrea....watch this. I need to order the oral argument on my presence in that trial for shits and grins, because I like to laugh just as much as Attorney Lipchitz, pictured, above. I'll get to the substance of the arguments on Defamation, private person and limited purpose public figure soon, I am having a busy day and I'm traveling but as the only ongoing media source with video I felt compelled to post this as soon as possible because it demonstrates the relative animus these guys have for small press that dares to do the job major press won't. Show less
Read more
to add this to Watch Later

Add to