Judith Regan’s bizarre complaint against News Corp.
I can’t literally say that I’ve never seen a complaint like the one Judith Regan’s lawyers filed on her behalf two days ago against News Corp. (NWS), HarperCollins Publishers, and HarperCollins’s president, Jane Friedman.
When I first got out of law school and was clerking for a federal judge in Texas, I did see a few comparable pleadings, though those were usually filed “pro se” — i.e., by the plaintiff himself, without the assistance of a lawyer. One, I remember, was a civil rights suit naming as defendants the President of the United States, all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintiff’s ex-wife, and a local Pizza Hut.
Like that complaint, Regan’s reads like one of those humor pieces in The New Yorker, where it not-so-gradually dawns on the reader that the narrator is out of his gourd. Even though you’re hearing only one side of the story, that’s enough to make up your mind against the griper.
You’ll recall that Regan, who headed the ReganBooks imprint at HarperCollins, was fired in December 2006 for allegedly using anti-Semitic language in a telephone call with company lawyers, which Regan denied. The call occurred not long after the twin publicity fiascos surrounding Regan’s plans to publish O.J. Simpson’s quasi-confessional If I Did It book and, shortly thereafter, a first-person novel about Mickey Mantle in which the author assumed Mantle’s voice and described, inter alia, a tryst with teammate Joe DiMaggio’s wife, Marilyn Monroe.
Regan’s 70-page, 345-paragraph, 24-count complaint was filed in state court in Manhattan on Tuesday, and is available here. It mainly alleges defamation and breach of contract, but, almost in passing, it throws in a couple counts of sex discrimination, too. “Under Jane Friedman’s direction,” she alleges, “there is . . . a pattern within HarperCollins of firing high-level women in order to surround herself with men.” (She gives no examples besides herself.)
The complaint is signed by attorney Brian Kerr, of New York’s 175-lawyer Dreier firm, but it has an astoundingly unfiltered quality to it. Regan is also represented by famed Los Angeles entertainment lawyer Bert Fields, but the complaint doesn’t list him as counsel. (Through Regan’s spokesperson, both attorneys declined comment.)
Regan’s complaint boasts that she built a “publishing and media juggernaut,” whose recent publications have included, inter alia, “no fewer than three books related to the Scott Peterson case.” It quotes an article describing how Regan’s “early experience as a reporter for the National Enquirer was great training in the art of the popular,” and how her winter 2006 catalog featured a “cover illustration of Regan stretched across a pile of books,” prompting an “unprecedented” article in The New York Times. (The Times’s headline was, “She’s Not Just the Publisher, She’s the Cover Model, Too.”)
But what’s remarkable about the complaint is how far it ventures beyond merely disputing that she said anything anti-Semitic in that fateful phone call — a seemingly winnable, he-said-she-said squabble had her lawyers stopped her there.
Instead, they’ve allowed her to allege that News Corp. had actually been plotting her demise for at least five years before the Simpson debacle. “This smear campaign was necessary to advance News Corp.’s political agenda, which has long centered on protecting Rudy Giuliani’s presidential ambitions,” they write in paragraph 1 of the complaint. “Defendants knew they would be protecting Giuliani if they could preemptively discredit her,” the complaint continues.
As I understand it, Regan’s saying that News Corp. has been undermining her credibility for years because it feared she knew about unspecified skeletons in Giuliani’s closet that she had learned during her 2001 affair with then-Mayor Giuliani’s then-Police Chief Bernard Kerik and, further, that the company anticipated Regan might go public with if Giuliani ever ran for president. (Or maybe she is only saying she knew skeletons about Kerik, but those, by association, would have been harmful to Giuliani; I’m not sure.)
The company also needed to discredit her, she theorizes, in case she were ever to reveal that in December 2004 two senior News Corp. executives had allegedly advised her to lie to investigators and conceal evidence from them when they began probing Kerik.
A spokeswoman for News Corp. has called the suit “preposterous,” and a spokesperson for HarperCollins and Friedman echoed that sentiment to me.
The defendants’ first attempt to discredit Regan occurred in 2001, she alleges. (The timeline is puzzling, since Kerik did not first come under suspicion for criminal wrongdoing until 2004, and, as a consequence, it wasn’t publicly known until then that he might pose any problems for Giuliani, assuming Giuliani ever did announce for president, as he finally did this year. Kerik pled guilty to two state misdemeanor charges in 2006, and was charged in a 16-count federal indictment last week. He has pleaded not guilty to the federal charges.)
Anyway, the 2001 incident was one that Regan’s former close friend Michael Wolff wrote about in a Vanity Fair article in May 2007. As Wolff put it: “Judith lost a cell phone on the set of her TV show [and] she was able to have N.Y.P.D. detectives sent out to the homes of the production-crew members she suspected of having snatched it.”
In the complaint, Regan protests that this was a false, nasty rumor spread by, once again, an unnamed senior News Corp. official. The truth was, she explains, that she had not sent the detectives out to catch the guy who had stolen her phone — no, not at all. Rather, it had been her lover, Kerik, who “used his authority as NYC Police Commissioner to send detectives out to investigate” and “who caused the detectives to knock on the doors of Fox News employees.”
In Regan’s mind, evidently, she has now set the record straight. In like manner, she then proceeds, point-by-point, to give her side of a litany of highly embarrassing events, unwittingly confirming most of them in most key respects. (An exception is the anti-semitic remarks, which she consistently denies.)
Along the way, Regan also dredges up some stories I hadn’t previously heard about and which, had I been her lawyer, I might have chosen to let lie. She complains, for instance, that some unidentified person — it’s unclear from the complaint if it’s even a News Corp. employee — had attributed Regan’s success to her “golden vagina,” but that “when Regan complained about this sexist and insulting remark, nothing was ever done.”
In any case, Regan alleges, News Corp. and Friedman, in pursuit of their farsighted goal of undermining Regan’s credibility, set about poisoning the minds of a great many people, evidently with considerable success. The defendants allegedly disparaged her “to prospective and new employees at ReganBooks,” worked to “turn them against” her, tried “to get them to file complaints against her,” failed “to curtail the activities of HarperCollins insiders” who were constantly making “disparaging remarks” about her; and, all in all, “encourage[d] a culture of gossip, back-stabbing, negative leaks and hostility inside and outside the company.”
Moreover, they “plant[ed] employees within ReganBooks to ‘keep an eye on Regan,’ and report back to the HR department at HarperCollins,” she maintains, and “fail[ed] to investigate the serious security breaches that resulted in (among other incidents) an extremely heavy lighting fixture falling out of the ceiling and shattering Regan’s desk.”
Ironically, one of the accusations that Regan says was unfairly leveled against her, according to the complaint, was that she was “out of control.” Yet, of course, that’s precisely the impression left by the complaint itself.
Slackjawed after reading the complaint, I was struggling to put into words my reaction to it. Now more curious than ever about Regan, I read Wolff’s Vanity Fair piece for the first time. I soon found a description of how I was feeling that seemed to fit perfectly, though he was responding to a different document. He was describing his reaction to the O.J. Simpson book itself, when he finally read it in connection with his story. It was such a “run-amok, phantasmagorical marketing-and-merchandizing scheme,” he wrote, “that all you do, as you read it, is consider the psychopathology of how it ever came into being.”
I can’t improve upon that.
REPLY FROM JUDITH REGAN’S CAMP: (E-mail from Allan Mayer, of 42 West, the public relations firm representing Judith Regan, received Saturday, November 17, at 308 pm):
I write as a representative of Judith Regan. Hannah Arendt noted that it is characteristic of the totalitarian style to substitute questions of motive for questions of fact. This seems to be no less true in the blogosphere, though for “motive” one might substitute “tone.” Certainly, your musings on Judith Regan’s case seem singularly unconcerned with the facts of the matter – namely, that the defendants named in her lawsuit participated in a campaign to destroy her reputation and credibility because they were (and are) afraid of what she knows about Bernie Kerik and Rudy Giuliani. To make such an assertion without any evidence to back it up might indeed be “preposterous,” as News Corp. maintains. But that happens not to be the case here. There is hard evidence corroborating Ms Regan’s claims, and when it is introduced in court (as it will be at the appropriate time), I hope you will have the grace to apologize for your armchair psychologizing and gratuitous insults.
A 100 Million dollar lawsuit is about the minimum it takes to make a civil lawsuit worthwhile anymore. That is because the trial judges routinely make the wrong decisions on the law, and the only way to remedy it is to take a $100,000.00 appeal on each issue. Even in appeal, in many states, you are faced with elected appelate judges who couldn’t make a living in the private sector because they don’t know law. They are intellectually incapable of being competent in this complex system. A man’s got to know his limitations, but those who confiscate judicial positions do not know their intellectual and character limitations. Yet they are shrouded in honor because they were elected as judge, in many cases in an unopposed election. The judicial system is, in large measure, what is causing the demise of this country. It is responsible for the tremendous violence in this country. It is responsible for the economic disaster that is unfolding before us. It is, I argue, anti-american.
I read the first few pages of the complaint. You were being charitable, Mr. Parloff. I half-expected to read a rant on fluoridation. Regan seems to think she is king-unmaker.
You may call her accusations bizzare but the fact is this sort of “plotting” goes on all the Time particularly within News Corp- no surprise there really…
This woman generated about $120 Million a year for HarperCollins. To call her “crazy” or “nuts” is a bit laughable. Try “brilliant” and “savvy” and “effective”.
“I see some people are assuming I’m on the Fox payroll. For what it’s worth, I downloaded the complaint with high hopes of finding that Regan could throw something at News Corp. or FNC or Roger Ailes that would stick. Nothing would please me more.”
No, it’s clear you are on Fortune’s payroll Roger and that your claim of “nothing would please me more,” is a load of bull crap. That’s always Fortune’s/a Fortune writer’s response when the writer fails in their journalistic due diligence and readers/other journalists call them on it. Past is prologue with you lot. Fortune writers take the easy slam/low road time and again.
On another note, if News Corp found Regan so problematic over the years, such a wacko-nut like folks are calling her here, why did Rupert Murdoch give her carte blanche / her own imprint for so long? Why was she so enabled by Murdoch and for SO long Hmmm? Is it Because Murdoch is all about the $ and Judith delivered time and again? Or is it because he wanted to keep her happy for other more complicated reasons? Goodness gracious. There have been photos of Guiliani whispering into Murdoch’s attentive ears plastered all over any number of web sites lately. Regan’s no fool. She’s got more power at this point in time to go after them all. Timing is everything. She may well have enough to take any number of people down. Bernie’s going down for sure. She really doesn’t have a lot to lose at this point. The only reason Murdoch pulled the plug on the OJ book was due to the public outcry and disgust at both the project and HIM personally. He sure as hell signed off on it in the first place! If it’ll make $, Murdoch is there. Taste and class are not his strong suit.
I can’t wait til they release the phone tapes. Newscorp will be exposed! It’s just a matter of time.
Tea Party 08 December 16th, 2007 don’t forget to donate!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
BOOM!!! This story just got 100% hotter. If what they’re saying over at Salon is true and Judy does indeed have the goods…it’s Sally-bar-the-door-time, baby. Fox News is going down. Hard. BOOM!!!
BARRETT: FOX NEWS CHIEF ROGER AILES WILL BE NAMED AS EXEC WHO TOLD REGAN TO LIE – COULD GET 5 YEARS
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/16/ailes/index_np.html
Well, I just git conected up to this here intanet. Mama she went in to town last week and wall mart was a havin a BIG sale. Then I git conected to Cnn and start a reading storys and stuff. This here story look to be like one of them city slicker lawyur jobs to me. cant imajine what this lady Judy done what was so bad to get wrote up like this and then have everbody type in about it and get all bothered. Just dont seam natual to me. Hell, let the woman alone sounds like she got in enough truble for one day.
Yeah Roger, it’s time to put up or quiet down. Will you apologize to Judith if it turn out she’s got a smoking gun and makes it public? After writing such a nasty piece (IMHO), I think you owe an answer to Judith, her fans, and your own readers. Or are you just a chicken?
Let’s see, she lost her career, she lost her reputation, she lost her married boyfriend, she lost the limelight, she lost her sense of what makes “good” reading with this lawsuit she obviously wrote. I think she is hoping and praying that this will get her a quick but small settlement … although I the News Corp have enough lawyers on retainer to keep this out of the Courts for as long as necessary. After the election, it will be worth zero.
Hey Roger! Please go on the record here. If it turns out Regan does indeed have the hard evidence that she claims (that News Corp started a campaign to destroy her reputation and credibilty because they were afraid of what she knows about Bernie Kerik and Rudy Giuliani) and she makes it public, will you appologize to her? Given what you wrote about her legal complaint, I think it’s a very fair question to ask you and one I hope you have the courage to answer.
HOW ABOUT THIS: this is the first blitz on a PR Campaign on her new expose! A book!!!!with the publication date around election time.
Isn’t there more than a whiff of extortion in a complaint seeking money that alleges that the defendant is afraid that the plaintiff will reveal certain information, information that is only coyly alluded to in the complaint?
Certainly the parties must have negotiated before Regan filed her lawsuit in court. Since News Corp has a lot of money with which to settle claims like these before they are publicized and since they didn’t settle with her but allowed her lawsuit to be filed, we can probably conclude that New Corp isn’t too worried about it. Whatever negotiating power Regan and her lawyers had BEFORE the lawsuit was filed, that power or bargaining position is now gone. I think News Corp’s attorneys will drag it out, make it miserable and expensive for her with tons and tons of discovery, and she’ll rue the day she ever filed it. Lawsuits aren’t fun. Now that a formal complaint has been filed, the work and the incurring of law fees begins. You also have to wonder what her damages are, if any. If she really has no damages, her lawyers certainly aren’t taking it on a contingency basis and it will cost her a lot of money to prosecute. It also remains to be seen whether News Corp will respond with counterclaims of its own. If they do, she’ll be paying her lawyers a lot of money to defend those as well. All in all, as I see it at this point, I personally wouldn’t want to be in her shoes. News Corp has a lot more money to pay lawyers than she does.
She wanted to spend more time with her family.
She made anti-semitic remarks.
Pick one.
Don’t like these?
How about
She’s crazy!
A tabloid journalist is fired and files a tabloid lawsuit.
They should have hired Bozo the Clown. At least when they fire him he would simply hit them in the face with a pie.
Sir, I’m quite “slackjawed” from reading your vitriol. Query the psychopathology of how ever this blog came into being.
Fair and balanced? I think not. Look up a case (1997) where Fox went after an employee for bringing up information about Fox looking into the privacy of their employees. Of course, he got hosed for trying to help them clean their own house. Hmmm.
Judy’s lawyer said: “There is hard evidence corroborating Ms Regan’s claims, and when it is introduced in court (as it will be at the appropriate time), I hope you will have the grace to apologize for your armchair psychologizing and gratuitous insults.”
OMG! This is gonna be good!!! Gotta remember to pick up some popcorn before the trail! Sounds like Judy’s gonna bring New Corp to its well-heeled knees!!! LOL!!!
As cognizanti involved with the judicial system recognize, the legal system is too intellectually complex for the vast majority of individuals operating and using it. It is merely a mockery of its former self full of individuals who win by carefully circumscribed lies. The modern day judiciary is but a circus comprised of courts of men, not laws — no one has the time or the money to know what the law is. Legion of incompetent, elected judges are the star clowns. Snap judgments are the norm. If a lawsuit has no entertainment value, it has no value whatsoever. The case at hand is a perfect fit for the judiciary to which it pleads.
Did I just read a resume or a complaint? Unfortunately for the plaintiff, documenting her accomplishments will not establish any legal credibility. I get that it’s trying to demonstrate how successful she was, but I can’t see that being worth much in a court of law.
Maybe she’s trying to establish some underlying craziness in order to make it look like she won’t settle, which might lead NewsCorp to make a higher settlement offer than it otherwise would have.
So you went to law school and yet I really don,t see the fair and balanceness of your peace. You read like you fantasy about the consitition, to writ: (Thier is some kind of nobleness to life when it comes to Love & Money.) Shouldn,t this be the real basis of Judith redress. I mean let,s look, at those who make you shake in your boots. Murdock, Giuliani, Your Boss after all were talking about N.Y. they don,t call that place the Big Apple for nothing. If this was a past decade with N.Y. this would read Ploice comm.and grifriend brutally shot, as they leave Alfonso reataurant. I like guys like you who play it safe, it just let,s me know that their a real world out their and there is some real meat to this story. Lets, go with the Love story frist, Bernie & Judith: She waited to see what would unfold, after 911 the world changed. But it changed before that with the Supreme Ct. ie. 2000 election. everyone in the apple has a motive. I would Love to hold your notion about the Justice System, is looking out, for are best interest here, But I am a little more sketical now and why do I mention this well,There character like Guliani and an assortment of other,s that play around with Big Business and the lives of other,s Other means ie. MEDIA! This brings us to the Money: To writ, just listen to some of these people that respone to your peace, That alone should make your ears stand up! I mean some of it is just so uninformed but more importantly, it,s immaturity except for a small few. The Big Fish Murdock or should it read: the KINGFISH in this story and his underling aren,t really protecting Guliani are they, they are just friends who are at one time were supporter,s of a little town Mayor,s race. No big deal right, until the town whore comes in and get her dress hooked on someone,s zipper. Well folks this isn,t a small town here. This is plainly the Justice system and the Media in cahoots of some sorts and guess, who the leading story on this little mess? of course O.J. Well how will this all shake out. Like Hilliary said, only the shadow knows. But like this writer would have you belive you should move on, this women is crazy like Hillary and their are Bigger Fish to Fry. Well maybe, maybe not! So my good friend show me this nobleness that you want me to believe in again in the the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, because unless you and people like you speak the Truth or get to the Truth as close as one can then Justice for her or you or me for the matter rings reaaly hollow! A few points for you to follow up on: FBI, Ricco, Guliani, Kerik, Media, Election, if your worth your salt in N.Y. then I suggest you get to checking out a few things here. Beside I here a song from time to time that say If you can make it there you can make it anywere it,s up to YOU!
I’m not a lawyer, but when I read the complaint even I knew that it sounded as if it were written by a teenager. She’s one pissed off lady, whether she has a chance at winning anything is still to be seen.
Yawn. This is the typical Fortune article. All sarcasm and flagrant pandering to the corporate powers that be. Mr. Parloff is obviously seeking favor with those at News Corp/Harper Collins. It is the odd piece one will find in Fortune that goes against the grain to take on big business. When a writer does so, it’s only in obvious cases of corporate fraud and malfeasance. Heaven forbid they do some real investigative work on their own. No doubt Ms. Regan’s case has merit on any number of levels. If Fortune finds it a questionable law suit, that’s enough for this reader to want to hear more of the facts. End of Story. Besides, history seems to speak to Ms. Regan’s claims from all I’ve seen so far, regardless of her personal behavior on occasion. Frank Rich’s pieced in today’s NY Times actually takes the time to look deeper at the issues. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18rich.html?n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Frank%20Rich&_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
Is it just me or do these comments seem mostly fabricated? The article itself seems to be trying to portray a powerful woman as a lunatic.
This almost makes me want to buy into the ‘crazy’ idea that somehow CNN and Fox News want us to believe the Hillary Company and Rudy Inc. are the only ones to vote for..
This is what happens when you mix meglomania, paranoia, anti-Semitism and PMS in equal parts. Result: 100 percent nut-case.
So, let’s get this straight; A woman who learned her “craft” from the National Enquirer and then blatantly pimped herself for years, is suing the world-king of tabloid papers because of a conspiracy.
With the loss of Murdoch’s empire and subsequent contacts, her career is over. So Regan is looking to take what she really knows – yellow journalism – and parlay it into becoming a cause celeb of the left as she was for the right.
Look at all the high water marks she hits – News Corp/GOP Incest, Victimized Powerful Female, Jewish Cabals, Moral Hypocrisy and, (most important), a Greater Conspiracy which
can morph with events to keep it alive. That wasn’t a complaint, it was a PR release.
The right should be ashamed they have not held Newscorp’s feet to the fire when it comes to embracing tabloidism, and the left should realize the higher ground MSNBC/NYT et al stand on, is actually horizontal.
Are they going to submit her golden vagina as exhibit A? Will she have to prove that her vagina is indeed not “golden” in order to win her case?
Definitely a woman looking for money. And paranoid to boot.
There’s enough ‘there’ there to get the ball rolling — and what a vehicle for delving into the dark minds of Newscorp. I believe Regan is a woman scorned here, an ally when they used her and flattered her — but now they’ve turned on her and unleashed hell. From Murdoch to Ailes — and I fear for Regan’s safety based upon the interests involved here.
I’m not so sure that this reflects what Judith Regan did, early on (i.e. being Rush Limbaugh’s publisher), but what she did later, once she was drunk on her own success (Mickey Mantle New Journalism). It seems like she definitely overreached and is now trying to make a stink to get some kind of money out of it. However, she comes across as a PMS-ing female, which will win her accolades in some quarters (i.e. feminists) but which damages her credibility. The whole connection with Guliani I find to be less-than-plausible. Kudos on the article.
It’s odd to see so many people defending this woman. Haven’t we all had a job where a coworker is constantly complaining about how he/she’s being secretly and exclusively getting screwed by every other worker?
It looks remarkably like my first job. My manager was constantly suspicious of us and she claimed on my first day that the other employees would try to “corrupt” me and turn me against her. What she failed to realize was that it was precisely her paranoia and accusations that we began to REALLY dislike her!
I am a trial lawyer of more than twenty-six years experience, AV rated and listed in Best Lawyers. Looking at Mr. Parloff’s degrees, I assumed he knew what he was talking about. I’ve seen the kind of pro se complaints he describes, the fringe and kooky complaints that name the judge as a defendant. When I read the complaint filed by Regan’s lawyers, however, it was not remotely as Parloff advertised. It was a well-pleaded and clear statement of the type we often see in wrongful termination and defamation cases handled by experienced litigators. Frankly, I was so struck by the contrast between Parloff’s characterization and the way the complaint actually reads that I had to wonder whether Parloff is one of the Fox “footsoldiers” that Regan’s complaint refers to. It’s true that Regan goes overboard in linking a lot of potentially embarassing past history to the present defamation, but if there is viable evidence things happened that way, that’s just good lawyering to up the ante. The Fox executives undoubtedly live in a world where they make a lot political calculations and maneuvers that they don’t expect (and hope won’t) see the light of day. That’s why you should always treat your employees with respect, even in showing them the door. Stones and glass houses. Regan’s lawyers have stones, certainly. . . .
“Whoa, what a weird article, full of personal venom to an almost creepy extent. Yikes, if I were Ms. Regan and somebody had written something like this about me, I’d seriously be thinking about getting a restraining order against that person. He seems more than a little obsessed here and very upset, although I can’t imagine why. Very weird.”
Whoa, what a weird comment, full of personal venom to an almost creepy extent. Yikes, if I were Roger Parloff and somebody had written something like this about me, I’d seriously thinking about getting a restraining order against that person. She seems more than a little obsessed here and very upset, although I can’t imagine why. Very weird.
I suppose we could just keep doing that recursively, but it’s not very illuminating.
So, we can believe Mr. Parloff, a person I gather has some professional expertise here, or we can believe Peggy’s assessment, a nobody. Yeah, she’s real clever, Rick.
I am a liberal Democrat and would not, for a moment, defend this skeezer or use this “issue” against Republicans. National politics aside, she is what she is – before or ever since her “National Enquirer” days.
I like Judith Regan. She has a good talk show on Sirius radio. She’s very witty and quite frankly, sexy. Some of you have forgotten there was quite an outcry over the OJ Simpson book. I assumed she was jettisoned because News Corp needed a scapegoat after approving the book. This is standard operating procedure in any corporation. She has the right to take revenge in this free country. However, I predict the suit will be dismissed if it is not settled.
I’m not a lawyer, but when I read a copy of the complaint I wondered, is this what passes for legalese these days? It sounds more like a press release than a complaint.
“Maybe they thought that would be enough to get a settlement.”
Yeah, just like the one Andrea Mackie got from Bill O’rielly when he talked fifthy talk to her on the phone and she taped it because she didn’t like her boss talking to her like that and so he then had to buy her silence for 2 million dollars so the tapes wouldn’t get out. Conservative nutbags need to treat women better while they work for them; it’ll save them a lot of money later on when the women have finally had enough.
Watch the republican-haters crawl out of the woodwork to defend this nutbag. What a weird story. My guess is, that her lawyers realized that they don’t need the courts or truth, or even a coherent argument to harm NewsCorp. The smell of a possible conspiracy by NewsCorp will get all of the crazy libs frothing at the mouth. Maybe they thought that would be enough to get a settlement.
LOL! I remember when “Grand Dame” Judith Regan, as Rush Limbaugh called her, was the heroine of the right-wing’s wacked out universe, risking life and limb to publish books the leftist establishment in New York was desperately trying to keep surpressed. So funny to see all these right-wingers in the comments section wanting to burn her at the stake now, for daring to stand up against Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Hey right-wingjobs, here’s an idea: Why don’t you burn your copies of Limbaugh’s “The Way Things Out to Be” and “See, I Told You So” instead? That’ll fix her! LOL!
“Whoa, what a weird article, full of personal venom to an almost creepy extent. Yikes, if I were Ms. Regan and somebody had written something like this about me, I’d seriously be thinking about getting a restraining order against that person. He seems more than a little obsessed here and very upset, although I can’t imagine why. Very weird.”
Now that, my friends, is what you call giving somebody a taste of his own medicine. Expertly done, Peggy.
Whoa, what a weird article, full of personal venom to an almost creepy extent. Yikes, if I were Ms. Regan and somebody had written something like this about me, I’d seriously be thinking about getting a restraining order against that person. He seems more than a little obsessed here and very upset, although I can’t imagine why. Very weird.
To Roger Parloff–
I meant you provided no quotes of Ms. Regan claiming the smear has for years been motivated by a desire to protect Mr. Giuliani. Now that you pointed it out in the comments section, I see that paragraphs 31-32 support your interpretation of Ms. Regan’s argument. Thanks for responding.
So at Life’s end, what will be her legacy? What will be on her tombstone? Who will grieve when she is gone?
I’m not a psychiatrist, but it looks a lot like a case of paranoid schitzophrania.
Anyone with half a brain knows what this is– a shake-down! The timing is meant to produce maximum slime for Clintonesque operatives to hurl at Rudy. It is pathetic, and emblematic of what has happened to our politics (ever since we go a whiff of how it’s done in Arkansas).
What is more disappointing is the way the press will handle this. I guarantee you that all you will hear about this case from the CNNABCNBCMSNBCCBS, NYTimesLATimes will be “how damaging these accusations are to the Giuliani campaign,” and not one word about how ridiculous they are.
Mr. Parloff is the rare exception, and I am thankful he exists. This kind of frank, honest discussion is all too rare in today’s media.
In the end, this case may well boil down to the use of pretexting to fire Regan, specifically the improbable allegation that she used the term “Jewish” when she described her detractors and adversaries as a “cabal.”
What makes Regan’s case a very winnable one is the fact that, in civil lawsuit, the burden of proof is only the preponderance of the evidence. This means that Regan need only show that it is more likely than not that she never combined the two word “Jewish” and “Cabal” in her telephone conversation with the HarperCollins lawyer who provided this as a pretext for Regan’s firing.
As a trial consultant and formerly as forensic psycholinguist, I have followed Regan’s work and taken note of her speaking style, i.e., her personal linguistic patterns. I suspect that if one were to analyze various samples of Regan’s writings, it would become quickly apparent that a woman of her background and accomplishment, who has spent that last 30 years in the publishing industry, is not very likely to have combined the terms “Jewish” and “Cabal” in the context of the conversation with the HarperCollins lawyer simply because, if for no other reason, it does not fit with the thoughts she was expressing.
To wit, Ms. Regan was complaining about the actions of a small group of people who acted like a cabal, i.e., like a coalition, in barring her from things she wanted to do and/or pursue. Outside of her boss, Friedman, is it not clear how many of the members of this cabal are actually Jewish. But, even if all of the individuals referenced as members of a cabal are Jewish, it is no more anti-Semitic to refer to them as a “Jewish” cabal, than it would be to refer to Michael Jackson’s family as a “Black family,” (with, of course, the possible exception of Michael himself.) Making a reference to a group of people by virtue of a characteristic they all share (e.g., tall people, Asian people, fat people) is part of what we all do in our daily activities.
Therefore, even if Regan had used the term “Jewish Cabal”, no firing would be called for unless, in her employment contract, there is some bizarre clause that specifically prohibits HarperCollins employees from using the term. And even if there was, Regan’s firing probably would not hold up because (a) using the term is not evidence of anti-Semitism; (b) nor does it violate any law or regulation touching on racial discrimination.
To win this case, Regan’s lawyers need only show how she was trashed and continues to be trashed by her own company and the parent companies. This establishes a pattern of behavior by them which the complaint makes pretty indisputable.
In a court of law, HarperCollins will not be able to control the discourse as they did in the media. Regan’s team get the ball first and they have a veritable treasure trove of points they can score on, including the fact that Murdoch and Friedman approved all of Regan’s work and then set her up as the fall-person when there was a backlash.
Personally, I would very much enjoy working with Regan’s trial team. I’m not saying they have a slam dunk here.—They don’t, if only because the other side has so many levers of influence they can pull before, during and after the trial. This would be a very challenging case, given the resources and long reaches of Regan’s adversaries. It would be a very good test of the effectiveness of our new, hi-tech trial intelligence system, the JuryZoom MRI. But then, we have taken on giants before, as when we helped win a $250 million verdict against Wal-Mart last year in Philadelphia.
Jack M. Honeycutt, Ph.D. – Denver
Why in God’s name is “inter alia” used more than one time in this very short article? You need an editor. Or a thesaurus.
Go, Judith, go! I’m glad she’s not taking any of this (including Parloff’s baseless smears) lying down! She did indeed build a publishing empire for News Corp, putting out the best-selling books they’d ever seen, and THIS is the thanks she gets?! I hope she sues them into the stone age! Judith rocks!!!
Posted By Jim, San Antonio, TX : November 16, 2007 7:09 pm
WOW….what a sad sad little person. Almost as pitiful as Judith herself.
Sin is a reproach to any people or nation, and Roger Parloff wrote this sinful piece, Judith Regan promoted sinful conversations and actions through her alleged anti-semitism,and News Corp has a staff of gutter mouths. The whole of the world of this industry is a lowering moral decay and a sign of the times in which we live.
This is all about Giuliani. Just trying to keep a lid on his corruption, but there is simply NO WAY to change New York as much as he did(some say for better, some say worse) without deep mob ties and money as lubricant
I am always somewhat suspicious, when CNN and Fox News (Newscorp), are somehow involved in a story concerning a third party. In this instance, Ms Regan,with a fair amount of preesidential politics thrown in for good measure. I’m not at all sure that the author did not have a much more personal motive, i.e. (presidential politics perhaps), in this instance taking a stab at Mr. Guiliani. Just an old man’s opinion!
I hear a rumble. Could this be the Clinton machine?
Regan is a sad creature who is apparently infatuated with herself. She marketed books and herself. Big deal.
Regan’s looking for a retirement package. News Corp will pay something under the table to make her go away, as they have done so many times before. However, there may be some truth to the complaint, as Murdoch does roll his politics into his business in a shameless way.
To Jeff Norman–
i may not understand your question. why no examples of the ‘unspecified skeletons’? because she doesn’t provide any. that’s what i meant by ‘unspecified.’
Are you asking, instead, where does she claim to know about any skeletons about Giuliani? that’s what i understand her to be saying when she says “Defendants knew they would be protecting Giuliani if they could presumptively discredit her.”
Where does she say the smear campaign’s been going on for years? That’s paragraph 3, where she says “defendant’s laid the groundwork for their smear campaign beginning in 2001,” referring to the cell phone incident. (See also paragraph 31-32.)
Obviously Ms.Regan is busy promoting herself while in the throes of memopause.
Dan Abrams on MSNBC did show after show on this ridiculous allegation, which must have wowed the three people who actually watch his show. NBC News in investing hard that this will “bring down” Fox News.
This will only bring down MSNBC, the comedic news network.
Mr. Parloff, you mock Ms. Regan for supposedly claiming News Corp. has been smearing her “for years because it feared she knew about unspecified skeletons in Giuliani’s closet…” But you fail to quote Ms. Regan making such an assertion about News Corp. and Giuliani. Why no examples?
I don’t have time to read a 70 page complaint unless I’m getting paid to do so, but one thing about Judith’s firing does grab my attention. She made a lot of money for News Corp. and HarperCollins. It’s unusual for big moneymakers, no matter how quirky, to get unceremoniously dumped. I have no idea if she really has a cause of action, but I do know she’s going to be in state court where lots of dubious claims are filed and make it past the dismissal stage. This could cost News Corp a lot of money, even if they win eventually. Her chances of getting a settlement look pretty good.
Bizarre is the only word for Ms. Regan’s suit. Bizarre.
Hard to believe the number of fools that buy into her drivel. Same idiots who believe the government brought down the twin towers.
It’s amazing the author of this monstrosity was actually graduated from law school.
By coming out swinging with both fists she is really opening herself up to more verbal attacks from the so-called “unnamed News Corp. employee” and you know they are going to skewer her royally in ways she’s never been skewered before. That’s the danger of playing gutter politics…it can come back to haunt you very quickly (just ask Hillary).
Parloff writes: “She complains, for instance, that some unidentified person — it’s unclear from the complaint if it’s even a News Corp. employee — had attributed Regan’s success to her “golden vagina,” but that “when Regan complained about this sexist and insulting remark, nothing was ever done.””
I cannot believe that the fellow who wrote this dosen’t find it insulting or serious. I cannot believe that he feels it’s something that should be “left out” of her legal complaint. Dude — if your WIFE had to face comments like these in her place of work, would you just let it slide? If you would, you’re a weak and unmanly guy. This entire piece was disgusting!
Go, Judith, go! I’m glad she’s not taking any of this (including Parloff’s baseless smears) lying down! She did indeed build a publishing empire for News Corp, putting out the best-selling books they’d ever seen, and THIS is the thanks she gets?! I hope she sues them into the stone age! Judith rocks!!!
hilarious to listen to some of the comments defending this Regan lunachick. The fact alone that she tried to cash in on the dead horse that is OJ publicity should be reason enough to wave any reasonable doubt that she’s retarded.
Reading the article above and all of the subsequent comments, this is pretty darn good example why most Americans are cynical about celebrities (Regan), lawyers (inter alia, Parloff), and media companies.
Perhaps the main parties are irredeemingly steeped in the OJ culture which Regan tried to perpetuate, with media companies, lawyers, and celebrities all benefiting from the limelight and related pecuniary interest, all to the ad nauseum of the American public.
Dear “JoJo” – your ad hominem attack quickly communicates to everyone: “I have no facts or argument, so instead I will try belittling Julia.” You also evidently know little about civil pleading rules in state court, which require only nominal facts to sustain a motion to dismiss the pleadings. Not sure what is “first rate” legal product (I guess OJ’s Dream Team qualifies?), but her Complaint goes far beyond satisfying civil pleading requirements denominating 23 well-pled causes of action. Trust me, this case will trudge along in the endless mire of discovery, compelling depositions of top News Corp. execs (Murdoch, Ailes & Co.), and, yes, likely Messrs. Kerik and Giuliani. Regan has already won, and she’ll continue publishing best-sellers.
I’m saving this article in my favorites.
ON the chance that rudy is the nominee, I have little doubt that Regan will suddenly become the new Valerie Plame.
The left will have to revisit the accusations, glossing over substance.
Are you missing the big picture? She alleges that a high-level executive at News Corp, very high, urged her to lie to the FBI to protect Rudy Giuliani.
Do you doubt this?
Julia, where did you go to law school, Joe’s Law Shack and Burger Hut? The complaint is not what any decent lawyer would call first rate work, or anything even close to that. And if you think this litigation will do anything other than make Judith Regan someone that no other media company would touch, you are mistaken. Will News Corp. pay her off because of it? I doubt it. She’s clearly pretty nuts, and if she really had any integrity, she would have brought up these issues long before she was fired. Since she doesn’t, she waited until News Corp. couldn’t handle her ridiculous shenanigans and finally couldn’t bear it anymore and fired her.
The mental picture of her banging Kerick is brutal!!!!! Save the USA from more details in the trial!! I can only imagine what bernie did to mine that gold!!! The unwatchable TV show should have been a clue at the power she had.
In employment law, there is a concept called “pretext” — which means that the employer has concocted a convenient (but false) reason to hide the real reason for the employee’s discharge. Here, the pretext was Judith Regan’s alleged “anti-semitic” comment to Mark Jackson. Upon evaluating that alleged comment, it can fairly be interpreted as Regan’s attempt at analogizing her plight to the historical mistreatment of Jewish people by reason of false propaganda to which Jewish people should be particularly sensitive. If that rises to the level of “anti-semitic”, then we live in a sad, fearful society.
Say hello to ‘1984 Orwellian’ America with Big Media setting parameters of acceptable commentary.
I wonder if the Parloff is blinded by Regan’s cabal statement.
Just becasue ths former New Corp employee seems to have lost her marbles does not mean News Corp is not continuing to do WHATEVER it can to protect it’s presidential candidate….RUDY. Its certainly seems plausible that Kerik would share with his squeeze the skeletons that Roger Ailes is surely helping Rudy hide.
As a lawyer, I am impressed with the factual detail of this complaint and the underlying legal theories. It should very easily survive an inital motion to dismiss, and will result in protracted litigation only to Regan’s benefit. Ms. Friedman & Co. messed with the wrong gal!
Bob of Sunnyvale –
Yes, you might have an explanation of the timeline, assuming that Regan, as soon as she learned about the unspecified skeletons about Giuliani, immediately shared them with the senior News Corp exec, who then, instantaneously, appreciated the need to start discrediting Regan. (Given that Regan does not seem like the soul of discretion, and senior News Corp. execs can be devilishly machiavellian, both assumptions sound fair.) But that still leaves another problem: How does leaking the cell phone anecdote hurt Regan any more than it hurts Kerik? It suggests that both were ‘out of control.’ If the senior NWS exec wanted to protect Giuliani, by not letting him get tarnished by Kerik’s bad judgment, he’d deep-six the whole thing, wouldn’t he?
Somehow I feel like I’m giving this more thought than is deserved and, quite possibly, more thought than Regan or her lawyers have ever given it.
Anyone who who goes to bed with that repulsive creature name Kerik has a big problem.
I just assume journalists will lie, and they have to prove otherwise. This kind of snarky biased piece just validates my approach.
This incident just shows why the National Institutes of Health just stopped using rats in all experiments and substituted lawyers a subjects. They found out that there are some things even a rat won’t do.
This complaint was drafted by a friend of Regan’s who is writing a book entitled “If I really were Judith”
I worked with her at both Simon & Schuster and HarperCollins. The wowan did edit/promote some great books but she’s a ranting self-centered psycho hiring then firing people at will and treating individuals as objects. As to the “golden vagina” comment, thats a well known fact which had something to do with her success and mgmt tolerating her behaviour.
“Regan’s saying that News Corp. has been undermining her credibility for years because it feared she knew about unspecified skeletons in Giuliani’s closet that she had learned during her 2001 affair with then-Mayor Giuliani’s then-Police Chief Bernard Kerik and, further, that the company anticipated Regan might go public with if Giuliani ever ran for president.”
“The defendants’ first attempt to discredit Regan occurred in 2001, she alleges. (The timeline is puzzling, since Kerik did not first come under suspicion for criminal wrongdoing until 2004, and, as a consequence, it wasn’t publicly known until then that he might pose any problems for Giuliani, assuming Giuliani ever did announce for president, as he finally did this year. Kerik pled guilty to two state misdemeanor charges in 2006, and was charged in a 16-count federal indictment last week. He has pleaded not guilty to the federal charges.)”
You first mention unspecified skeletons Guiliani’s closet. Then you question the timeline because of when Kerik’s criminality was first charged. What does the date of Kerik’s criminality becoming known have to do with Kerik telling Regan about the skeletons in Guiliani’s closet? Guiliani hadn’t officially announced his candadicy for President in 2001 but he had already had a run for the Senate aborted in 2000 by prostate cancer. It was safe to assume he’d be trying for that office again, or the governor or the Presidency. It’s unknown what dirt there is, if any, but Guiliani would not want it to come out regardless of what office he was seeking and it’s naive to suggest that he didn’t have aspirations for another office in 2001.
I see some people are assuming I’m on the Fox payroll. For what it’s worth, I downloaded the complaint with high hopes of finding that Regan could throw something at News Corp. or FNC or Roger Ailes that would stick. Nothing would please me more. After reading the complaint, though, I just think there’s what I’d call a Brett Kimberlin problem — referring to that inmate who claimed he’d sold marijuana to Dan Quayle decades earlier. No matter what she wants to tell us, the credibility issue is going to be close to insuperable.
you guys are not judging this properly….This is about asking her to lie to protect an ‘interest’ of a supposed media company – news doesn’t slant, or at least shouldn’t
You are so off the mark that you should already be on the Fox News payroll!
I read the full complaint, and had the exact same reaction as you…. that Regan is nuts.
But then i thought about what this lawsuit really represents — Judith Regan showing Murdoch and NewsCorp exactly how well she understands the media; she wants satisfaction — and a big settlement — ASAP, and a “sane” lawsuit (one that concentrated on the defamation and wrongful termination charge) would have gotten very little media attention.
So she comes up with the completely absurd “vast five year conspiracy theory to discredit her to prevent her from discrediting Rudy indirectly by directly discrediting Kerik” charge… and it gets massive media play.
IMHO, Regan is telling Murdoch that its “pay-up or pay-back” time… that she is willing to sling attention getting mud toward Murdoch and NewsCorp on the slightest of pretexts, and that with her reputation already in ruins, Murdoch has a lot more to lose if this lawsuit is “tried in the media.”
Nice try but, uh, no… if you think this lawsuit is trivial, or going away, you’re either a) not terribly bright b) invested in a vain effort to undermine its implications.
What ever happened to getting fired because you screwed up? Why do you have to make something up to fire someone?
It’s insane. She sounds like a wack job and she did cause the company to get some bad press so FIRE HER! I would guess she’s got a couple dollars socked away and won’t be hurting so her filing a lawsuit sounds like she’s drinking out of the same cup as Dan Rather!
Mr. Parloff, I haven’t read the entire file – only what was available on the Smoking Gun. However, I can certainly buy in to her claim about News Corp. wanting to shut her up regarding Bernie Kerik and Rudy Giuliani. Please don’t think I’m a nut case. I’m just a regular person living in Indiana, but for months now, I have noticed a giant step to the left at Fox News. I suggest it is to create a new normal in the minds and hearts of the loyal Fox News viewers. All this designed to make Rudy Giuliani more acceptable to the viewers. I have said this for MONTHS to my friends, and I feel Judith Regan’s claims seem plausible. All along I simply thought the Fox/Rudy lovefest was due to Rudy’s friendship with Roger Ailes. Seems there’s more to the story!
My bet. This is not about Regan at all but powerful money looking for a way to tarnish Rudy. Classic Clinton attack machine politics.
When did you join the conspiracy against her? I don’t remember seeing you at the meetings.
Parloff, when is the last time you actually practiced law?
This is the best article I have ever read on CNN Money. It is funny and analytical at the same time. Congratulations.
She sounds nuts and probably paid a hefty retainer to her lawyers for their services before anything was written. They are not stupid, lawyers will take your money if you offer it up to them.
- Law and economics 2.0
- A no-fly zone to protect Linux from patent trolls
- Did big patent ruling doom software patents?
- Google and Yahoo fight with the feds
- Google and Yahoo fight with the feds
- Russia v Bank of New York: How weak can a case get?
- eBay rulings relating to counterfeiting — English translations
- Russia is a no-show in its suit against the Bank of New York
- U.S. prosecutors refute Russian claim in suit against Bank of New York
- Cloud of uncertainty over non-profit HMOs
- I am willing to pay for value. When I... More
- I plan to auction a house from govern... More
- The recession is far from over. There... More
- I'll believe the recession is over wh... More
- No, I do not think the recession is o... More
- Interesting article, and commendable ... More
- I switched careers at age 57 from the... More
- Interesting that the primary focus fr... More
- as a homedepot "home service" custome... More
- Nice article - BUT - Carol Tome is li... More
This blog is about legal issues that matter to business people, and it's geared for nonlawyers and lawyers alike. Roger Parloff is Fortune magazine's senior editor (legal affairs). He practiced law for five years in Manhattan before becoming a full-time journalist.
To J. Cooper of Austin, Texas, and Jack, of Rockford, Illinois:
The WordPress blogging tool we use provides the Internet Protocol addresses of commenters. Each of your comments emanated from the same IP address — i.e., the same broadband account.
In the future, when you engage in a dishonest astro-turfing scheme, you should be sure to type in each of your comments from a different account. Borrow a friend’s or go to a Kinko’s.