Wire In The Blood

But just what will these new circulation figures mean to ME? Now that the Teamsters unionization vote is done, all the new rookie hires no longer will be needed for padding.

Do short-term subscriptions based on a 75% discount count?

Do home and business deliveries count even if the paid subscription expired weeks or months earlier?

Do papers from the racks that are never purchased and then sent back also count?

Do the stacks of free papers dispersed to institutions but sent directly to the blue bins count?

Do internet web site subscriptions also count when the hits were just outsiders looking into the freak show, paying once or twice but hardly subscribed?

How much of this all is puffing the numbers, versus plain old fraud?

The FREEBIE WEEKLY certainly could do some investigative audits of its own to answer these questions.

How many paid subscriptions are delivered daily to homes?

How many papers are actually purchased daily from the news racks?

These are the two real numbers that count. The rest is fluff and advertisers know it.

The sum of these two figures should be your contest.

Here are some facts:

The first link is to March, 2006 Publisher's Statement

http://www.box.net/public/eknfl7p2e0

The second is the ABC Audit Statement from 2004:

http://www.box.net/public/kl1690vzpx

How to lemons affect circulation??

http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?id=...

The latest Puff Piece:

October 25, 2006 04:09 PM Eastern Time

Santa Barbara News-Press Continues to Be Target of Teamsters Union Pressure Tactics

SANTA BARBARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Santa Barbara News-Press issued the following statement today:

The Teamsters Union continues to target the Santa Barbara News-Press with ongoing pressure tactics to force the paper to give in to its demands. Escalating workplace actions have included filing marginal unfair labor practice charges for routine management and personnel decisions, publicly disparaging management's actions, as well as making threats to further escalate the dispute against the paper.

The paper is deeply disappointed that the union wants the paper to give in to their demands without allowing for the proper National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) process to take place. The NLRB guidelines outlined in the Act intend to respect the rights of both the employer and the union. Each side has a right to invoke their rights, including the right to appeal those issues that are believed to be unfair. In light of past union initiatives, the News-Press will do everything within its power to protect itself from any further damaging course of union action.

As part of that regulatory procedure, the NLRB advised the News-Press that a hearing has been set to resolve the substantial and material factual and legal issues raised by the News-Press regarding its election objections. This hearing is scheduled on November 8, 2006.

Contacts

Agnes Huff Communications Group
Agnes Huff, PhD, 310-641-2525

Fuentes Quits; N-P Drops Suit

October 25, 2006 10:00 PM Eastern Time

Santa Barbara News-Press Withdraws Petition Filed on Behalf of Threatened Employee

SANTA BARBARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, the Santa Barbara News-Press filed legal papers to withdraw the petition it filed in Santa Barbara Superior Court on behalf of News-Press photographer Ana Elisa Fuentes. The case involved Ms. Fuentes’ claim that fellow employee Michael Todd made death threats against her. Mr. Todd claimed the statements were jokes.

Ms. Fuentes has resigned. Since Ms. Fuentes is not currently employed at the paper, pursuit of a workplace violence injunction prohibiting future wrongful conduct against Ms. Fuentes at the work site would serve no purpose and the petition is being dismissed.

The News-Press continues to be vigilant about potential workplace violence to ensure the safety of all employees.
Contacts

Ágnes Huff Communications Group, LLC
Ágnes Huff, PhD, 310-641-2525
E-mail: ahuff@ahuffgroup.com

An excerpt from a story today from Canada about rich people buying newspapers.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/s...

“The move to local ownership is a throwback to the days when proprietors used their newspapers to push personal agendas. Some of that appears to have re-emerged with today's owners.

In California, for example, Wendy McCaw, ex-wife of telecommunications billionaire Craig McCaw, has caused a furor at the Santa-Barbara News Press, which she bought in 2000.

Ms. McCaw is embroiled in a bitter confrontation with reporters who have accused her of interfering in the newsroom.”

N-P Sues SB Independent for Copyright Infringement

October 26, 2006 08:13 PM Eastern Time

Ampersand Publishing Initiates Legal Action against The Santa Barbara Independent

SANTA BARBARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Ampersand Publishing, LLC, owner and operator of the Santa Barbara News-Press, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court against The Santa Barbara Independent. The filing charges The Independent with copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair business competition, and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage and contract.

According to the complaint, The Independent obtained two different confidential unpublished articles belonging to the News-Press and published one of them, in violation of the copyright laws. The Independent was not authorized to possess or publish either article. The News-Press has alleged that these articles constituted trade secrets that were misappropriated by The Independent.

It is the intent of Ampersand Publishing to protect its confidential materials and trade secrets. Ampersand is seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees.

Contacts

Ágnes Huff Communications Group, LLC
Ágnes Huff, PhD, 310-641-2525

Trade Secret: Definition (from Wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secre...

A trade secret is a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information used by a business to obtain an advantage over competitors within the same industry or profession. In some jurisdictions, such secrets are referred to as "confidential information", while in others they are a subset or example of confidential information.

A company can protect its confidential information through non-compete non-disclosure contracts with its employees. The law of protection of confidential information effectively allows a perpetual monopoly in secret information - it does not expire as would a patent. The lack of formal protection, however, means that a third party is not prevented from independently duplicating and using the secret information once it is discovered.

The sanctioned protection of such type of information from public disclosure is viewed as an important legal aspect by which a society protects its overall economic vitality. A company typically invests time and energy (work) into generating information regarding refinements of process and operation. If competitors had access to the same knowledge, the first company's ability to survive or maintain its market dominance would be impaired. Where trade secrets are recognised, the creator of property regarded as a "trade secret" is entitled to regard such "special knowledge" as intellectual property.

The precise language by which a trade secret is defined varies by jurisdiction (as do the particular types of information that are subject to trade secret protection). However, there are three factors that (though subject to differing interpretations) are common to all such definitions: a trade secret is some sort of information that:
is not generally known to the relevant portion of the public;
confers some sort of economic benefit on its holder (where this benefit must derive specifically from its not being generally known, not just from the value of the information itself);
is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.

Trade secrets are not protected by law in the same manner as trademarks or patents. Probably one of the most significant differences is that a trade secret is protected without disclosure of the secret.

** Methinks the Wendy is playing fast and loose with the concept of "trade secrets." Maybe she and Millstein should spend more time exploring the definition of "frivolous lawsuit."

INDY ACCUSED OF THEFT

From Wikipedia - Theft

In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the illegal taking of someone else's property without that person's freely-given consent. As a term, it is used as shorthand for all major crimes against property, encompassing offences such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, trespassing, shoplifting, intrusion, fraud (theft by deception) and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny; in others, theft has replaced larceny.

Someone who carries out an act of or makes a career of theft is known as a "thief".

Theft was codified into a statutory offence in the Theft Act 1968 which defines it as:

"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".
The five elements of the offence are defined sequentially in the Act:

Section 2 dishonesty;
Section 3 "appropriation" which occurs when the defendant wrongfully asserts the rights of ownership over the property. This can be by physical taking, but it will also include many different situations in which a person may have lawfully come into possession of the property and then keeps (i.e. a failure to return or omission or uses the property in an unauthorised way;
Section 4 "property" includes all personalty, i.e. land itself cannot be stolen but anything severed from the land (with the exception of wild flowers) can be stolen, as can intangible property such as a chose in action;
Section 5 "belonging to another" requires a distinction to be made between ownership, possession and control:
ownership is where a person is not legally accountable to anyone else for the use of the property:
possession is where a person is only accountable to the owner for the use of the property; and
control is where a person is only accountable to two people for the use of the property.
So if A buys a car for cash, A will be the owner. If A then lends the car to B Ltd (a company), B Ltd will have possession. C, an employee of B Ltd then uses the car and has control. If C uses the car in an unauthorised way, C will steal the car from A and B Ltd. This means that it is possible to steal one's own property.
In R. -v- Turner (No 2) (1971) 1 WLR 901, the owner removed his car from the forecourt of a garage where it had been left for collection after repair. He intended to avoid paying the bill. There was an appropriation of the car because it had been physically removed but there were two issues to be decided:
did the car "belong to another"? The garage had a lien i.e. a "proprietary right or interest" in the car as security for the unpaid bill and this gave the garage a better right than the owner to possess the car at the relevant time.
what was the relevance of Turner's belief that he could not steal his own property? The defence of mistake of law) only applies if the defendant honestly believes that he has a right in law to act in the given way. Generalised and non-specific beliefs about what the law might permit are not a defence.
Section 6 "with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it" is sufficiently flexible to include situations where the property is later returned. For example, suppose that B, a keen football fan, has bought a ticket for the next home match. T takes the ticket, watches the match and then returns the ticket to B. In this instance, all that T returns is a piece of paper. Its value as a licence to enter the stadium on a particular day has been permanently lost. Hence, T steals the ticket. Similarly, if T takes a valuable antique but later repents and returns the goods, T has committed the actus reus with the mens rea. The fact that T's conscience forces a change of mind is relevant only for sentencing.
The maximum sentence in the Crown Court is seven years (section 7).

If the act of stealing is already complete before another comes into possession of the goods, this may be handling. For alternative charges involving deceptions, see the deception offences and the Theft Act 1978 which may overlap with s1 Theft.

Vexatious Litigation (From Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_l...

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. It is considered an abuse of the judicial process and almost always brings down sanctions on the offender.

Repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in their eventual disbarment.

Some jurisdictions have a list of vexatious litigants: people who have repeatedly abused the legal system. Because lawyers could be disbarred for participating in the abuse, vexatious litigants typically represent themselves in court. Those on the list are usually either forbidden from any further legal action or required to obtain prior permission from a senior judge before taking any legal action. The process by which a person is added to the list varies between jurisdictions.

Examples by locality:

California, United States

Under California law (Code of Civil Procedure, section 391(b)) a vexatious litigant is someone in at least one of the following categories:

* In the immediately preceding seven-year period has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (i) finally determined adversely to the person or (ii) unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing.

* After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined.

* In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

* Has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based upon the same or substantially similar facts, transaction, or occurrence.

Frivolous litigation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_l...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Frivolous Lawsuit):

Frivolous litigation is any legal claim or defense that is presented even though the party and the party's attorney had reason to know that it had no merit, either because it had no underlying justification in fact, or because it did not argue for a reasonable extension or reinterpretation of the law. In the United States, Federal Rule 11 and similar state rules require that an attorney perform a due diligence investigation concerning the factual basis for any claim. Jurisdictions differ on whether a claim or defense can be frivolous if the attorney acted in good faith. Because a frivolous defense or claim wastes the court's and the other parties' time, resources and legal fees, it may result in sanctions being levied by a court upon the party or the lawyer who presents the frivolous defense or claim. The law firm may also be sanctioned.

Lawyer Daniel B. Evans writes:
[W]hen a judge calls an argument "ridiculous" or "frivolous," it is absolutely the worst thing the judge could say. It means that the person arguing the position has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone's time. It doesn't mean that the case wasn't well argued, or that judge simply decided for the other side, it means that there was no other side. The argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. The judge is not telling you that you were "wrong." The judge is telling you that you are out of your mind. [1]

Litigants who represent themselves (in forma pauperis and pro se) often make frivolous arguments due to their limited knowledge of the law and procedure. The particular tendency of prisoners to bring baseless lawsuits led the Congress of the United States to pass and President Bill Clinton to sign the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which strictly limits the ability of prisoners to bring actions.

The more common use of the term "frivolous" in political discourse refers to lawsuits that are based on a theory that seems absurd or where the claim results in damages that greatly exceed what one would expect from a brief summary of the case. Awards for medical malpractice are frequently derided as frivolous, notwithstanding the fact that damages to the victim in medical malpractice cases are almost always long term and expensive requiring long term care which means by necessity high awards.

However, if a jury and a judge decided in favor of the plaintiff in such cases, the plaintiff's claim was technically not frivolous, though it might be considered frivolous colloquially. Because of the ambiguity in the term, calling these lawsuits "frivolous" can lead to confusion because opposite sides of the tort reform debate can both say they oppose "frivolous" suits, with the tort reform supporters referring to the colloquial understanding, and tort reform opponents referring to the narrower technical definition.

** I still fail to see how two news "articles," ostensibly placed on the N-P's news budget and slated for eventual publication in the newspaper, can constitute "trade secrets". I am not a lawyer, hovever, I believe the term "trade secret" is more appropos to the formula for Coca-Cola or Teflon than a news article that was originally intended for public dissemination, at least at a newspaper run by professionals as opposed to poseurs. I also find it risible that someone is applying the term "theft" to the publication of an account of a newspaper staff walkout that was printed in scores of national and international newspapers, and widely disseminated in trade publications and over the wire services.

Wendy's antics would play better if we were living in a dictatorship (although we're getting close), or some sort of pissant tiny monarchy. As it stands, it just doesn't wash.

The "trade secret" argument is most amusing, because for an unpublished article to be a Trade Secret it must be something that the newspaper would consider an asset that got ripped off. So if that article were so valuable, why did not Newspress publish it on their own, especially because their own staff at the time wrote it?

Besides, all the details in that unpublished article about the events in the newsroom when Armstrong gave Roberts the perp walk were details told in way more detail in several other news articles in other publications through a few days later. It was no secret.

This is all about the text (a scanned page) of an unpublished draft Newspress article that appeared for a couple of days as a file link at the Indy web site. That page was spread all around and hardly was any secret. The Indy just put it at their web site.