Samuel J. Lieberman
212.573.8164
slieberman@sglawyers.com

SadiSGoldbergup ww?eglawyersegm
November 21, 2017

 

By Email and Federal Express

The Tufts Daily

c/o Gil Jacobson, Editor-In-Chief
474 Boston Ave.

Medford, MA 02155-5584
Email: 
Email: business@tuftsdailucom

Camilo Caballero
Emails: camiIo.eaballero@tufts.edu

Re: Demand to Immediately Retraet Defamatory Public Statements About Anthony

Scaramucci and to Cease and Desist from Ongoing Defamation

Dear Messrs. Jacobson and Caballero:

Sadis Goldberg LLP has been retained by Anthony Scaramucci (?Scaramucci?) to
pursue claims arising from blatantly false and defamatory statements by Mr. Caballero in a
November 6, 2017 Op-Ed published by The Tufts Daily (the ?Article?). Before Scaramucci
pursues such claims, we urge Mr. Caballero and The Tufts Daily to retract several false
and defamatory allegations of fact about Mr. Scaramucci, and to issue an apology. In particular,
the Article makes the following egregiously false statements attacking Mr. Scaramucci as:

man who is irresponsible, inconsistent, an unethical opportunist and who exuded the
highest degree of disreputability.? (Ex. A hereto (emphasis added).)

0 man who makes his Twitter accessible to friends interested in giving comfort to
Holocaust deniers.? (Id. (emphasis added).)

0 ?the man who sold his soul in contradiction to his own purported beliefs for a seat in that
White House.? (Id. (emphasis added).)

I Calling Mr. Scaramucci ?unethical? and someone who ?cares about gaining attention and
nothing more,? in a November 13 Op-Ed that The Tufts Daily again published with such
false factual allegations. (Ex. hereto (emphasis added).)

Under Massachusetts law, even statements that ?contain some amount of opinion? are
?false and defamatory where they refer to lies, backroom deals, con?icts of interest? and ?ethics
violations,? as matters of ?fact.? Liew v. Eliopoulos, 92 Mass. Ct. App. 114, 84 898
(Mass. App. Ct. 2017), appeal denied, N.E. 2017 WL 5257084 (Mass. Nov. 6, 2017) (Ex.
hereto at 11). In Liew, the court upheld a defamation verdict arising from false statements that
?a public of?cial? a local selectman committed ?ethical violations? and acted as a lawyer in
contradiction to his own ?Voting record.? (Ex. at 10-11.) Despite the statements being

551 Fifth Avenue, 215t Floor New York, NY 10176 212.947.3793 212.947.3796

presented with some amount of opinion, the court found them to be defamatory statements of
fact because they purported to represent factual events of ethical and dishonest conduct. (See id)
The Court found ?actual malice? because the defendant knew the plaintiff ?was never charged or
found to have committed an ethics violation? and lacked evidence of dishonesty. (Id)

Liew is directly on point and proves defamation by Mr. Caballero and The u?s Daily.
As in Liew, the Article accuses Mr. Scaramucci of ethical impropriety as an ?opportunist? who
exuded the greatest ?disreputability,? as a matter of historical fact. (Ex. A at 2.) And, as in
Liew, the Article presents as historical fact that Mr. Scaramucci is dishonest because he ?sold his
soul? by contradicting his prior beliefs for a job at the White House. (Id) But, just like the
plaintiff in Liew, Mr. Scaramucci has never been charged nor found to have committed any
ethical violation, nor has he been formally alleged or found to be dishonest. Accordingly, the
Article?s false statements support liability for defamation under Liew.

Neither Mr. Caballero nor the Tufts Daily can credibly hide behind shield of opinion,
because the Article plainly presents as fact alleged Scaramucci conduct as unethical and
dishonest. The Article?s allegations are not presented as opinion but rather as false facts,
claiming Scaramucci ?is an unethical opportunist? who ?sold his soul? and ?makes his
Twitter accessible to giving comfort to Holocaust deniers.? And your repetition of the
?unethical? charge in the November 13, 2017 follow-up article is further proof of malice.
Having published these false allegations, you cannot escape liability for these baseless
allegations unless you retract them.

Your baseless accusations of Mr. Scaramucci being an ?unethical opportunist? and
dishonest have caused particular damage to Mr. Scaramucci?s businesses in the investment
adviser and journalism industries both of which rely on professional trust. It is well-settled that
allegations of ?dishonesty or lack of ethics? is defamation per se creating ?damage to
professional reputation? for professions like an investment adviser, which involve relationships
of trust. Cordell v. PICC Lines Plus, LLC, 2016 WL 4702654, at *7 (N .D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2016)
(citing Garcia v. City of Merced, 637 F. Supp. 2nd 731 (ED. Cal 2008)); Goulmamine v. VS
Pharmacy, Inc, 138 F. Supp. 3d 652, 659 (ED. Va. 2015) (accusations that ?plaintiff is guilty of
unethical and unprofessional conduct? is ?defamatory per Courts have also recognized that
alleging that a joumalist?s ?conduct is unethical? can give rise to an actionable defamation claim.
Houlahan v. Freeman Wall Aiello, 15 F. Supp. 3d 77, 83 (D.D.C. 2014); Savage 12. Pacific Gas
Electric Co., 21 Cal. App. 4th 434 (1993) (charging journalist with conduct that was generally
regarded as unethica had ?tendency to cause professional injury?).

Even worse is your disgustingly baseless claim that Mr. Scaramucci is man who
makes his Twitter accessible to friends interested in giving comfort to Holocaust deniers.? (Id)
There is no factual basis for this claim whatsoever. In fact, Mr. Scaramucci and his friend Lance
Laifer made very clear that they vehemently opposed Holocaust dcniers over two weeks before
you published the Article.

On October 17, 2017, Mr. Scaramucci?s Twitter account noted that a poll about the
number of deaths in the Holocaust ?was put up by @lancelaifer without consulting @Scaramucci
who is travelling in London? and ?has been taken down.? See ?Scaramucci?s Firm Pulls Online

Poll Asking How Many Jews Were Killed in the Holocaust,? (N .Y. Post, Oct. 17, 2017).1 Mr.
Laifer (who is Jewish) apologized for posting the poll, after an explanation that the intent of the
poll was to ?highlight ignorance of the basic facts of the Holocaust.? (Id)

Indeed, both Scaramucci and Laifer publicly stated their antipathy towards Holocaust
deniers on October 22, 2017, when they tweeted: ?Do not let Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites
control this poll.? ?Anthony Scaramucci Twitter Account Doubles Down on Holocaust Deaths
Poll,? (Jewish Telegrahic Agency, Oct. 22, 2017).2 Scaramucci and Laifer made abundantly
clear their intent to combat Holocaust denial, by stating: ?We are extremely worried about the
disinformation campaign about the genocidal tragedy, the Shoah, which took the lives of
6,000,000 Jews We are putting the poll back up because if it helps educate even just one
person it will have been . (Id) Accordingly, the November 6 Article asserting
that Mr. Scaramucci ?makes his Twitter accessible to friends interested in giving comfort to
Holocaust deniers,? was both false and made with actual malice.

Courts have recognized that the false ??at assertion of facts? that a person engaged in
conduct that was ?anti-Semitic? or of Jews as a class? itself gives rise to liability
for defamation. Herlihy v. Metro. Museum of Art, 608 770, 774 (NY. Sup. Ct.
1994), a?'d as modified, 214 250, 633 106 (1St Dept. 1995). As Herlz'hy held,
?under contemporary standards, the accusation of hating Jews is at least as much of an assault
upon reputation as statements that charge commission of a crime, impute a loathsome disease,
[or] affect a person in his business, trade, profession or (Id. (citation omitted).) Thus,
the Article?s false allegation of Scaramucci giving comfort to Holocaust deniers made with
public knowledge of his anti-Holocaust denial stance was an actionable false claim of ?anti-
Semitic? support that ?provide[s] the basis for a defamation claim.? Tech Plus, Inc. v. Ansel, 59
Mass. App. Ct. 12, 24, 793 1256, 1266 (2003).

In sum, the Article has made seVeral objectively false statements about Mr. Scaramucci
that constitute actionable defamation. Mr. Scaramucci is ready to take legal action to correct
these false and defamatory statements and to prevent any further damage to his reputation but
will refrain from litigation if you retract the false statements and issue a public apology.
Accordingly, please let me know within ?ve (5) business days if you plan to retract the
defamatory statements identi?ed above and to issue an apology, or Mr. Scaramucci will be
forced to take further legal action.

Very truly yours,

Samue ieberman, Esq.

 

1 Available at 17710? 
killed-in-the-holocaust/

2 Available at I