Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Constitutional Law Blogs -> Chris King's 1st Amendment Page

Constitutional Law

: Chris King's 1st Amendment Page

Joanna Marinova v. Boston Herald et al. Defamation case updates: Jessica Van Sack and Byron Barnett are in Big Trouble.

By Christopher King

Much more to come late night by way of a KingCast short film.

The back story part one and part two, along with KingCast audio from TOUCH 106.1 FM, with Plaintiff above. Part two is a direct response with three (3) different empirical DOC studies that I sent to an anonymous DOC poster who wrote in to the Boston Phoenix, ripped him but GOOD.

The bottom line is that Jessica Van Sack had direct knowledge before she wrote and published the story "Fox in the Hen House," that she was using illegally-obtained information. Why she did it, and why she thought she could get away with it is anyone's guess. That is why the Boston Herald Attorneys at Brown, Rudnick have embarked on a scorched-Earth policy in this litigation, going so far as to issue subpoenas to Plaintiff's mother, even though her Affidavit confirms that she had no knowledge of the events at hand. The Parties have also filed three (3) subpoena duces tecum to DOC/EOPSS' Information Tzar Terrel Harris, which were denied pending further specificity by Suffolk Superior Judge John C. Cratsley. Plaintiff moved to take the Depositions of EOPSS' Harris and Public Affairs Director Diane Wiffin and the Court granted this request but limited the scope of inquiry: The Parties may inquire as to what Mr. Harris or Ms. Wiffin or allegedly told WHDH reporter Byron Barnett.

As you can see from the Pleadings posted above at items two and three, Reporter Barnett is hanging his hat on Diane Wiffin or somebody telling him the Ms. Marinova engaged in sexual acts, but the emails from Ms. Wiffin to tend to refute such assertion. I have posted on such email from Ms. Wiffin, written on 14 May 2009 -- before Defendants Herald and Van Sack published the Defamatory allegations that Ms. Marinova had sex with an inmate(s) and that she was not permitted to be a visitor.

"Hi Jessica! In addition to CORI (MGL Chapter 6, Section 167-168 is the CORI statute that prohibits the DOC from disseminating information on anything pertaining to an inmates incarceration with the DOC), an immate move is a departmental security issue and we would not talk about it..... Diane."

Now exactly how what part of CORI privacy Reporter Van Sack failed to comprehend, I can't say. I have more from Ms. Wiffin to Defendant Van Sack, wait for the movie tonight.

The Defendants moved to Depose Superintendent Gary Roden, Sergeant David Malone, David Hockey, Co Janet Correia, CO JoEllen Gardner, Superintendent Stephen O'Brien, DOS Nelson Julius, CO Graham Trout and the hastily-departed DOC Director Harold Clarke. DOC/EOPSS filed timely Motions for Protective Orders.  In its ORDER of 5 October 2010 the Court ruled as follows:

1. Gary Roden -- Protective Order granted.
2. David Malone and all CO's -- Protective Order denied, Deposition inquiry limited to the events of 28 & 29 Nov. 2008, and 7 May 2009, and the Darrell Jones disciplinary report and hearing noting the dismissal of any inappropriate sexual contact charges.
3. Harold Clarke -- Denied, Deposition to occur before 31 Dec. 2010.
4. Mary Beth Heffernan -- Protective Order granted.

Darrell Jones' Deposition will be scheduled prior to year's end as well, and it should be fascinating. The Defendants and the DOC are about to publicly get their eyes opened to something that they might wish they never inquired about in the first place. I believe that Deposition my friends, is a public record and I will be posting it in its entirety. Well even if it isn't public record, Mr. Jones will give me first dibs and send me a copy anyway, so there you have it.

Full post as published by Chris King's 1st Amendment Page on October 12, 2010 (boomark / email).