Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!Highlights Hair Salon Threatened with Letter from Wendy McCaw's Attorney Barry Cappello
It appears that News-Press employees, City Hall,
The Indy, Vanity Fair, the American
Journalism Review, the Teamsters, public access laws, and
former boyfriends are no longer the only ones being targeted by
Wendy McCaw on her legal brief-lined warpath. 
Now Santa Barbara's small business
owners are under attack: McCaw's hired bulldog/superstar lawyer
Barry Cappello is now sending intimidating letters to
stores who post anti-Wendy signs in their windows.
In
Cappello's December 13 letter addressed to "Highlight Hair
Salon" (come on Barry, it's Highlights, with an "s"!), the store's owner is told to
remove the "McCaw, Obey the Law" poster from the window. 
The legal logic is that the sign
implies McCaw is violating the law, which she believes is not true,
and that makes it defamatory. Writes Cappello, "California law
prohibits any false and unprivileged publication that exposes a
person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy and injures them
in respect to their business and occupation."
It seems that charges of hatred, contempt, and ridicule might better describe his client than the poor little hair salon getting bullied around by high-priced lawyers. And why a small shop on West Alamar was targeted first and not the dozens of other stores also displaying signs closer to the News-Press headquarters remains a mystery.
Congrats to Matt Cota on KSBY, who first reported this story over the weekend. Since then, rumors are trickling in that other stores have been sent similar letters.
In response, Teamsters attorney Ira Gottlieb sent out letters to the Lawyers Alliance for Free Speech, the group of S.B. attorneys supporting the N-P newsroom in their fight to return fair reporting, ethical journalism, and professional standards to the newspaper. That letter is reproduced in its entirety below:
Dear Colleagues,
I am a partner in the union-side labor firm of Geffner & Bush, in Burbank, and first, want to thank all of you for joining in the Lawyers Alliance to help those people who are aggrieved by the overreaching and oppressive approach to journalism and labor relations taken by the Santa Barbara News-Press. You may have seen my name, or even my picture, in the local media, in my continuing efforts to represent the Teamsters Union that represents the newsroom employees at the SBNP, notwithstanding frivolous election objections that the NLRB will consider in a hearing beginning January 9 in Santa Barbara.
If for any reason you are interested in more information about me or my firm, please consult our website at geffner-bush.com, or I would be happy to accept a call from any of you. I am also happy to share any of our public NLRB filings if anyone is interested.
As you are aware, the News-Press saga exploded on July 6 with the resignations of several editors from the paper, followed by massive resignations and firings because of the questionable ethical and professional standards extant at the paper these days. That led to the Union's overwhelming electoral victory (33-6) in a secret ballot election conducted by the NLRB on September 27, but has also led to retaliatory firings (e.g., senior writer and prominent organizer Melinda Burns), a fusillade of threatening letters issuing from Mrs. McCaw's phalanx of lawyers, including David Millstein, Wallace Doolittle and A. Barry Cappello, and retraction demands and lawsuits filed against those who dare to publish critical statements about the News-Press.
To date, the paper has sued the Santa Barbara Independent in federal district court in Los Angeles, and just this past week, filed suit against Sue Paterno, the author of "Santa Barbara Smackdown", the American Journalism Review's deconstruction of the situation at the paper, in Orange County Superior Court. The paper also issued a retraction demand to Vanity Fair in response to its recent article, but to my knowledge, has not filed suit.
Continuing on the theme of suppression, the News-Press has astonishingly threatened the union for its sponsorship of its "gripe website" savethenewspress.com, and just yesterday, Associate Editor Scott Steepleton attempted to inhibit the newsroom staff's sharing of a McCaw "be loyal or else" memo with the employees' representatives and the media, though such disclosure is protected lawful activity.
Of course, the Alliance itself has received at least two letters from News-Press attorneys apparently characterizing Alliance members as unable to reach a fair judgment, which of course only means the judgment reached is to some degree not in accord with that of the paper's management.
I write today to ask your help on a related matter. No doubt many of you have seen the "McCaw, Obey the Law" signs carried and buttons worn by News-Press employees and their supporters. The signs have been appearing in the windows of business owners in town. The exhortation signifies at least the facts that the NLRB has found reason to prosecute the News-Press for certain unfair labor practices (e.g., the cancellation of Starshine Roshell's column, and the threat of disciplinary suspension against employees who engaged in a lawful attempt to deliver a demand letter to McCaw on August 24), that there is good reason to believe the News-Press has violated the law in other respects still under investigation by the NLRB, and that the News-Press is untenably resisting its collective bargaining obligation through its pursuit of frivolous election objections.
It is unfathomable that a court of law would find the posting of this slogan in shop windows (or in people's vehicles, or anywhere else) to be the basis for a valid libel suit. Nevertheless, as the attached threatening letter from McCaw attorney A. Barry Cappello to at least one local business owner shows, the News-Press is obviously not above bullying tactics which may achieve the desired end of forcing the shop owner to remove the sign from his window (see http://www.ksby.com/home/headlines/4933286.html ) but which in my view, is questionable both legally and ethically.
Rule 3-200 of the California State Bar Association's Rules of Professional Conduct provides: 'A member shall not seek, accept, or continue employment if the member knows or should know that the objective of such employment is: [¶] (A) To bring an action, conduct a defense, assert a position in litigation, or take an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; or [¶] (B) To present a claim or defense in litigation that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of such existing law.'"
Also attached is a California case in which a union adversary * a hotel * brought a libel lawsuit against a union representative who made a statement about legal proceedings against that hotel (i.e., tha the NLRB had found it guilty of an unfair labor practice, when there had only been a decision to prosecute, not an adjudication), only to have that suit rejected through an anti-SLAPP motion.
It appears to this experienced labor lawyer that Mr. Cappello is on much shakier legal ground than was the hotel in the attached case, but he is probably banking on the fact that most shop owners would prefer to give in to the bully than take the risk of hiring a lawyer who may be able to prevail on such an anti-SLAPP motion and thus have the News-Press and not the shop owner, pay the owner's litigation costs (assuming Cappello would actually bring such a meritless action). Thus, the News-Press silences people who are its adversaries not on the merits of its position, but on the sheer perceived amount of legal resources that the newspaper brings to bear.
What I am asking the Alliance to do, to level the playing field a bit, is respond to Mr. Cappello in writing, to perhaps deter him from further interference with small business owners' freedom of speech, and to show folks like Hair Salon owner Eric Zahm that they have backup in the event the likes of Barry Cappello issue further unsupportable threats, or actually file suit. It would be helpful for the Alliance as a body to respond with a strong letter telling Mr. Cappello he's 'way off base, perhaps using some of the law discussed above for support.
I would be happy to speak to any representatives of the Alliance to pursue this course further. This issue is of course important to my client, the Teamsters, and the newsroom employees the union represents.
But as the very establishment of the Alliance demonstrates, the issues raised in this overall journalistic struggle with the News-Press and this latest threat from Mr. Cappello, implicate broader concerns for the community. I look forward to speaking with you, and for arranging for a suitable response to Mr. Cappello's threatening letter.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this.
Very truly yours,
Ira L. Gottlieb Geffner & Bush
So what will happen next? Will the Lawyers Alliance come to the aid of Santa Barbara's small businesses? Who's next to be sued by Wendy McCaw? And how much of this does the town have to endure before the anti-SLAPP suit can be used?
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Video of the KSBY TV news story:
McCaw’s Lawyer Threatens Hairstylist
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
As the top story at 6 pm Friday night (15Dec.2006), Matt Cota reports in an exclusive story how Barry Cappello, the lawyer for Wendy P. McCaw, has sent a threatening letter to Eric Zahm, the proprietor of Highlights Hair Salon, a small business in the Uptown area of Santa Barbara www.highlightshairsalon.com
The text of this KSBY news story is here
http://www.ksby.com/news/headlines/49332...
A prior KSBY story about the News-Press-Fence and the same signs is here
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
In this TV news story (the first link above), the hairstylist was displaying a locally-familiar sign in his salon window with the words “McCaw Obey The Law” in reference to the argument by the Teamsters union that the owner of the beleaguered News-Press is refusing to negotiate a labour contract as the law now requires, the Teamsters say. The newsroom employees voted 33-6 (85%) late last September to join the union, as described here
http://www.independent.com/opinion/2006/...
As reported in the KSBY news story, the letter from McCaw’s attorney to the hairstylist claims that the sign in the salon window exposes the News-Press owner to “hatred, contempt and ridicule”.
This incident with the hairstylist raises questions about freedom of expression and speech, and the apparent subjectivity or inconsistency about why a sign in the window of an Uptown hair salon is apparently damaging to the person named on the sign, in comparison with the same signs displayed on motor vehicles, placed in residential and other windows elsewhere, and/or carried in the hands of street demonstrators speaking out about the situation with the Teamsters union and the newspaper.
Are all of these and other displays of the same sign and the utterances of the same words also exposing the News-Press owner to “hatred, contempt, and ridicule”?? This seems to have a tremendous potential for the issue to balloon precipitously and apply to other instances, signs, posters, stickers, T-shirts, publications, news stories, Plaza orators, blog subjects, and various comments that also easily might be considered an expression of “hatred, contempt and ridicule” to the same person and organization.
With such myriad potential venues for expression by so many people, how many threatening letters, and to whom, can these lawyers send out?? And just what could be “appropriate action” as noted in the lawyer letter to the hairstylist and now others??
And more broadly, is a sign displayed in an Uptown hair salon the actual reason why the Santa Barbara community and the broader public –local and national– may feel such hatred, contempt, and/or ridicule?? Or has anything else happened that may have brought about these feelings??
I’m just asking...
David Pritchett
December 18, 2006 at 11:54 a.m.
Where can I get one of those signs? I'd like to wallpaper the entire town with them. Maybe a bumper sticker?
Dr. B
December 18, 2006 at 1:57 p.m.
A way to order the signs is given at their web site, an email link by the photos of the signs.
http://savethenewspress.com/
Ms. T
December 18, 2006 at 2:15 p.m.
Word has it that the "Italian and Greek Deli" also got one of the cease and disist letters for putting up a sign. Not smart in my opinion - the owner of the deli knows way too many people in this town. One of these days Spendy will realize that the "six-degrees-of-separation" is maybe "two dgrees" or less in this litte corner of paradise.
a friend of the people
December 18, 2006 at 2:31 p.m.
Word has it that the "Italian and Greek Deli" also got one of the cease and disist letters for putting up a sign. Not smart in my opinion - the owner of the deli knows way too many people in this town. One of these days Spendy will realize that the "six-degrees-of-separation" is maybe "two dgrees" or less in this litte corner of paradise.
a friend of the people
December 18, 2006 at 2:34 p.m.
With actions like those attacks on local businesses, seems like a true boycott is now justified.
First grapes, then newspapers?
Si, Se Puedes
December 18, 2006 at 2:35 p.m.
BOYCOTT! Letters to Wendy,Arthur,Laura advertisers. And WALLPAPER THE TOWN!
anonymous
December 18, 2006 at 2:48 p.m.
The nastygram to the hairstylist referred to
a "Ms. McCaw."
Didn't Cappello get the memo last June?
Read the Memo
December 18, 2006 at 2:54 p.m.
Just cross out McCaw and write in Wendy with a magic marker..there must be lots of Wendys in town! Keep your signs in the windows! Cappello looks like Travis!! HO HO HO
Santa
December 18, 2006 at 2:55 p.m.
silly me, I thought the "McCaw" in question was just an outlaw parrot steathly stealing bird food from around town...LOL
lol
December 18, 2006 at 3:27 p.m.
Has anyone thought about also boycotting the businesses that still do business with the N-P? Maybe it would be too harsh, because some probably have long-term contracts they'd be stupid to get out of early, but it might also send the right message to those who still give the newspaper money. Thoughts?
Boycott advertisers?
December 18, 2006 at 3:46 p.m.
I am an attorney who for the past week or so has had a "McCaw, Obey the Law" sign prominently displayed on my vehicle, and I will continue to do so for as long as it may be supportive of the embattled present and former staff at the News-Mess who, I believe, have been subjected to unlawful conduct for which she is responsible. The particulars of such conduct are the subject of current proceedings.
I find utterly contemptable her/her lawyer's threats of legal action against those who display "McCaw, Obey the Law" signs for such reasons.
Marc McGinnes
December 18, 2006 at 4:42 p.m.
this one makes me want to say,
`I am Spartacus'
moteofdust
December 18, 2006 at 5:05 p.m.
Here is the video of the original KSBY story where this store first broke
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
The associated original text there points out some interesting questions about the practicality of the lawyer letters to the local businesses.
David Pritchett
December 18, 2006 at 5:19 p.m.
In addition to a News-Press boycott, might I suggest an Amish-style shunning? That is, for Santa Barbara's businesses to refuse to acknowledge and serve Ms. Wendy McCaw or take her money, within the realm of the law, until she cleans up her act. Post one of those plastic signs that say "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone," and use it.
One of Wendy's main weapons, aside from lawyers, is her pocketbook. Denying her the services and other things she is accustomed to purchasing would send a real message about the way she is treating the local community and businesses.
Just say, "Sorry, your money is no good here."
not me
December 18, 2006 at 5:43 p.m.
Ch. 3 let me know about the anti-AJR lawsuit. Read the whole article online. Google the words "Santa Barbara Smackdown" and you see how far this has spread. Cac she sue me? As is the duty of a former newsboy, I gave my carrier the Christmas tip. Wendy does not rate a lump of coal.
calexile
December 18, 2006 at 6:33 p.m.
So, why hasn't Capello been reported to the CA Bar association's Ethics committee??
margaret
December 18, 2006 at 6:35 p.m.
McCaw and Ampersand break the law every day by littering on the property of every residence that cancelled their subscription but is still being sent a newspaper.
SBCitizen
December 18, 2006 at 7:13 p.m.
Actually, the saying "your money is no good here" means that the item is free to whomever. It does not mean that it is not for sale.
Still, for a public relations spin campaign by Agnes Huff n Puff that supposedly is trying to convince us that All Is Well, Move Along, These Are Not the Droids We Are Looking For, the efforts by the Wendy Warriors are doing the opposite if their hope that it all calms down and the Teamsters lose support and no one then cares.
In a town becoming gobbled up by Starbucks and Gap, picking a fight with local small businesses does not garner the power of The Force to cause of The Wendy.
Jedi Wannabe
December 18, 2006 at 10:58 p.m.
In case the kids do not get that cultural reference to Spartacus, here is the story and significance:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph...
Or, for a more contemporary film reference, the 1997 film In and Out included a closing scene where the entire school student body declared they were gay in order to protect a teacher who was gay and going to lose his job.
Kirk Douglas
December 19, 2006 at 12:37 a.m.
The Daily Sound had a blurb in their "Sound of the Town" yesterday about Sam Tyler, a documentary film maker who is making a documentary on the News Press Mess. Maybe this is old news and I just missed it, but it sounds intriguing. When does Mr. Tyler receive his letter (or summons) from Mr. Cappelo?
Schadenfreuder
December 19, 2006 at 6:01 a.m.
Wendy can't possibly be enjoying all that wealth she has, if all she does is sue people and get into various conflicts with people. Even while she is on another one of her vacations, she must be thinking about all this negative stuff. It's true money can't buy everything, but what it can buy is greedy people to tell you are right when your not. It buys lawyers who want your money, and ditto for boyfriends. Screw that.
Are we having fun now
December 19, 2006 at 12:05 p.m.
Here is the KEYT-TV3 news story chasing the KSBY story three days earlier. Link on the video-high icon.
http://www.keyt.com/news/local/4950631.h...
In this video story, one can hear news co-anchor Joe Gehl refer to a "Wendy McCole" a day after he said "Wendy MacKay". He is enthusiastic, but obviously needs to get out more....
David Pritchett
December 19, 2006 at 1:17 p.m.
"McCaw and Ampersand break the law every day by littering on the property of every residence that cancelled their subscription but is still being sent a newspaper.
Posted by SBCitizen | December 18, 2006 07:13 PM"
What irks me in the good land of Goleta is the now trashy "valley Voice" that they toss into the gutter - anouther paper they have destroyed - and imediatly gets tossed in the recycle bin. Same with the junk mail piece that comes each week. Does anyone know how to stop these "things' from being sent?
goodneighborinthegoodland
December 19, 2006 at 1:27 p.m.
I'm still receiving the news-Mess every morning even though the subscription expired last September.
in the past, when I was negligent in renewing, the paper promptly ceased being delivered after a grace period of a week or so.
I noticed many other posts from people who still have the paper being delivered after not renewing. Are this free papers (litter) being counted as part of paid circulation? If so, is this legal?
SBHS Don
December 19, 2006 at 1:45 p.m.
To SBHS Don: There's not much illegal about throwing a free paper, if it free. Where the NP can get in trouble is if the "Audit Bureau of Circulation" were to do a full Circulation audit (at the expense of the NP) and find that many cancelled subscriptions are still in the system, and by counting those subscriptions, the NP is giving out false Circulation numbers to national advertisers which would inturn increase advertising revenue under false pretense. The NP could then be liable for repaying that increase back to advertisers.
Since the NP had their last audit in March of 06, they would not be scheduled for their next audit for another year. Unless, the Audit Bureau of Circulations found it in the best interest of advertisers to conduct another audit now. But the issues would have to be brought to their attention.
Paperboy
December 19, 2006 at 2:13 p.m.
to paperboy: actually new audit numbers should be released this week (I just talked with ABC). The numbers are supposed to be for the period of March - September '06 with the specific break-outs regarding home delivery, complimentary, educational, news rack etc...
The preliminary numbers show a total printed downturn(from what ABC calls a FAS-FAX report)
Weekday 39,323 (this sept) v. 41,262 (last sept)
Sunday 40,801 (this sept.) v. 43,161 (last sept)
These numbers to not specify the afore mentioned break-outs. Word on the street has it that the news Press continued to drop their educational (free)copies to the schools even during the summer school break; thus padding the overall numbers...should be interesting to see the final breakouts.
audit boy
December 19, 2006 at 2:30 p.m.
to Audit boy: You are talking about the every 6 month Publisher Statements that newspapers report on each March and September which compiles the Fas-Fax which was out last month. I was noting their latest audit which was an 18 month audit, rather than their normal yearly audit (which one would question anyway). Most national advertisers go by the ABC audits and not the Fas-Fax as the Fas-Fax is more of an internal 6 month audit and can be skewed to the operations needs.
Paperboy
December 19, 2006 at 2:57 p.m.
to paper boy: You are correct, but the quarter audits will show the decline from 2nd to 3rd quarter. I just got the COMPLETE audit/publisher statement for the quarter ending Sept. 6 with all the break-outs: Sundays, June '06 (41,959) ; Sundays September '06 (39,641) -- 5.5% drop in circ.
It will be interesting to see what happened after Sept. 6, but I guess we will have to wait. I am trying to send a copy to the Indy so they can post the PDF, but as of now, my email is down. Hopefully soon. Keep checking back.
audit boy
December 19, 2006 at 3:24 p.m.
It would be very interesting to know how much of the decline is a direct impact from the issues as of July.
Paperboy
December 19, 2006 at 3:58 p.m.
Page 26, Business Week, December 25-January 1, "The New Sport of Billionaires"
Excerpts:
- Moguls are drawn to newspapers like moths to a flame.
- As one Wall Streeter cracks, newspapers' newest suitors are billionaires trying to become millionaires.
- There is no easier way for a rich dude to get his name in the paper than to announce he wants to buy it. Actually operating the thing - well, that's another story.
- ..the value of a newspaper won't increase as financial indicators tank. And the pool of greater fools is drying up.
macaw is a bird
December 19, 2006 at 4:01 p.m.
Just a coincidence? My guess is most if not all of it.
audit boy
December 19, 2006 at 4:06 p.m.
From "Editor and Publisher"
"Paper's Lawsuit Against 'AJR' Reporter Draws Criticism
By Joe Strupp
Published: December 19, 2006 1:50 PM ET
NEW YORK A lawsuit filed by publishers of the Santa Barbara News-Press claiming that an American Journalism Review writer defamed the newspaper's owners in a recent article has drawn harsh criticism from newspaper industry leaders, who said such an approach is counter to journalistic practices.
"I am surprised that any publisher would do this," said Gene Roberts, the legendary former editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer and part-time instructor at the University of Maryland, where AJR is published. "It's pretty clear that there is an owner there with no sense and no respect for newspaper traditions and for the First Amendment."
Alex Jones, director of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University, agreed. "It is outrageous," he said. "It is especially a betrayal of the principles that most journalists understand for a libel suit of this kind to be filed. It is apparently a grudge."
Some observers noted that it was unusual for the newspaper to target the writer of the story and not the publication. "It is colossally odd," said Charles Tobin, former in-house counsel for Gannett and currently a media lawyer in Washington, D.C. "She is really trying to chill the journalist personally. It is atypical to go after the journalist alone -- they don't have deep pockets."
Susan Goldberg, executive editor of the San Jose Mercury News, called the lawsuit "pretty ridiculous....It has been very, very sad to see the destruction of this newspaper," she said. "The community is being ill-served by this."
Google “Editor and Publisher” for remainder of story, including comments in McCaw's latest lawsuit about Jerry Roberts.
Can the Independent post a pdf of the complaint? Sounds like interesting reading. It's a public document, so McCaw wouldn't be able to add such a posting to her lawsuit against the Indy.
McCaw won’t be interviewed but then sues? Is there a psychological explanation?
Something in her childhood?
December 19, 2006 at 4:13 p.m.
Type "Wendy McCaw" into Google News and narrow the search to today's date. McCaw's AJR lawsuit is being reported around the world in over 70 publications, including national media such as BusinessWeek and the CBS News website.
Embattled and Controversial
December 19, 2006 at 4:28 p.m.
Somebody needs to print T-shirts that simply say:
Boycott the Santa Barbara News Press.
Wendy obey the law.
(There will be two-legged billboards all over town. Everywhere the woman would go the sign would be in her face. She'll go nuts, and they will cart her off to the feed farm.)
Raul Hernandez
December 19, 2006 at 7:04 p.m.
ACLU Stepping in on "McCaw Obey the Law" Dispute
See, Editor & Publisher article posted today.
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/arti...
obloquy-colloquy
December 21, 2006 at 2:34 p.m.
Post a comment