Law Oce

Mulvihill & Rushie LLC

Attorneys and Counselors at Law
2424 East York Street, Suite 316
Philadelphia, PA 19125
Jordan@FishtownLaw.com
p. 215.385.5291 f. 215.525.0909
www.FishtownLaw.com
Licensed in PA and NJ

August 1, 2014
Randolph E. White, Esquire
White & Wolnerman, PLLC
110 East 59th Street, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10022

re: Johanna Francis
Dear Mr. White:

I am in receipt of your August 1, 2014 letter. Please allow me to conrm
that I have the pleasure of representing Christopher Sawyer.

On a preliminary note, I must start by commending you on your letter. It
sounded very lawyerly. At the end, it even reserves your clients rights or
remedies. I am not sure what that means, but when Mr. Sawyer and I read
it we were certain of one thing - this letter was written by a lawyer. So you
have my assurance we will be guided accordingly.

In any case, I am not too fond of legal lingo, so you will have to bear with
me. Pennsylvania law has a one year statute of limitation on defamation
claims, arising fom the date of publication. 42 Pa. C. S. 5523(1); Cole v.
Ferranti, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17794 (3d Cir. 2013). The discovery rule
does not apply to internet defamation claims. Wolk v. Olson, 730 F. Supp. 2d
376, 377 (D. Pa. 2010).

Given that is the law, your letter confuses me. Mr. Sawyers article was
published to the internet on July 3, 2012. If my calculations are correct, any
potential claims your client has fall well outside the statute of limitations.
Meaning a legal action against Mr. Sawyer for defamation would be
completely fivolous and probably sanctionable on those grounds alone.



Re: Christopher Sawyer
Page of 2 2
Friday, August 1, 2014


Also, I know that no one likes being called a deadbeat. So I can
understand why your client probably found Mr. Sawyers comment to be
mean, and deeply hurtful. To that end, we are sorry if Ms. Franciss feelings
were hurt. However, Pennsylvania law is settled that your clients hurt
feelings do not trump Mr. Sawyers right to fee speech. The Superior
Court explained in Bobb v. Kraybill, 354 Pa. Super. 361, 365-366 (Pa. Super.
Ct. 1986):
However uncomfortable the publication of a story might prove to such
an individual, we cannot abridge a publisher's First Amendment
rights to placate the peculiar sensitivities of a party. Thus, courts of
this Commonwealth do not grant relief to a plainti in a defamation
action simply because he found the publication personally
objectionable.

There is no legal basis to pursue an action against Mr. Sawyer, and ling
one would expose you and your client to liability.
That said, we have an oer for Ms. Francis. If she writes Mr. Sawyer a
hand-written note politely asking him to take down the posts, along with
two dozen New York bagels, he will take them down. The bagels must be
authentic (not the supermarket kind), and delivered to my oce by August
15th.
Something very lawyerly.
Sincerely,

A. Jordan Rushie

CC: Christopher Sawyer
Marc J. Randazza, Esquire