| ► Is Judge Shirley Saffold of Cleveland; “Defamation Proof?” Yes!! |
 |
 |
|
Is Judge Shirley Saffold of Cleveland “Defamation Proof?” Yes!! 
Judge Shirley Saffold of Cleveland and her twenty-three year-old daughter Sydney recently filed what can most charitably be called a sham/frivolous defamation lawsuit against the Cleveland Plain Dealer and its editor Ms. Susan Goldberg. As you’ll see below, Judge Saffold’s defamation claim doesn’t pass the “involuntary laugh test.”
While reading through Judge Saffold’s comical 22-page lawsuit, I was forced to take several “comedic-relief” breaks if ya know what I mean. In fact, I downed several Caronas along with several puffs on some “medicinal marijuana” (Hey, its legal here in California), is that like cool or what?
Judge Shirley Saffold’s Hyperbolic (aka, BS) defamation claims
Judge Saffold and her daughter Sydney allege that the Cleveland Plain Dealer invaded their privacy and defamed them when they published comments posted on the Internet under the moniker “lawmiss.” Some comments dealt with cases that Judge Saffold was or had presided over; the most sensational being that of accused serial killer Anthony Sewell.
After a forensic investigation of Judge Saffold’s court-funded computer (that’d be the one Clevelander’s paid for), the Plain Dealer investigator determined that many of the email comments occurred at or about the time Judge Saffold’s court-computer accessed the same websites). Despite this irrefutable evidence, Judge Saffold had the chutzpah to claim that the email commentary was authored by her daughter Sydney. Oh surely they were Shirley (pun intended)!
Judge Saffold and her daughter laughingly claimed in their specious lawsuit that the conduct of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, et al. constitutes fraud, defamation, casting one in a false light, which is analogous to asserting that the late Jeffrey Dahmer’s table manners were wanting, and invasion of privacy.
To put it charitably, Judge Saffold’s damage claims v. the Plain Dealer are akin to Madonna suing the New York Times for opining that she was promiscuous.
Watchdawg’s Pro Bono legal advice to Cleveland Plain Dealer attorneys
FYI: “pro bono means providing legal advice for “free.” With that said, I would offer the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s attorneys the following “pro bono/free” legal advice.
Subpoena Sydney Saffold’s (Judge Saffold’s daughter) computer hard-drive to determine the dates/times she posted commentary on the Internet re: cases involving Judge Saffold
In pre-trial discovery, ask Judge Saffold to provide evidence proving she was defamed (do the same as to her 23-year-old daughter Sydney)
Specifically, ask Judge Saffold and her daughter Sydney in the discovery process to provide specific evidence that they’ve suffered emotional distress (medical records from psychiatrist, psychologist and the like.)
As to Judge Saffold’s claim she suffered “emotional distress”
If I was the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s attorney, I would ask the following questions of Judge Saffold as to her claim she suffered “emotional distress.”
Q. What emotional distress if any did you suffer as a result of your divorce from your 1st husband?
A.
Q. What emotional distress if any did you suffer when you discovered that your first husband was sleeping around with other women in the Cleveland area?
A.
Q. Please state the names and addresses of each and every man you had sexual relationships with prior to and/or during your marriage to your first husband? (Can’t object – it goes to credibility).
A.
Q. What emotional distress and/or embarrassment did you suffer when the Plain Dealer reported in August 1999 that you advised a female criminal defendant in open court that “Men are easy, you can go sit at a bus stop, put on a short skirt, cross your legs and pick up 25. Ten of them will give you their money. It’s the truth.” “
A.
Q. State how old you were when you engaged in your first sexual encounter.
A.
Q. During your first marriage did you ever physically or emotionally abuse your husband?
A.
Q. Have you ever accepted and/or been offered a monetary bribe from a litigant to rule in his/her favor in a case assigned to you? If you’re answer is in the affirmative, please state the date, names of the persons involved and the specific amounts involved.
Q. State the specific names and addresses and phone number of each and every judge and/or attorney wherein you engaged in ex parte conversations about cases pending before you (ca. 1987-2010).
A.
Lord Have Mercy; what this ol” Dawg wouldn’t give to t he person questioning Judge Shirley Saffold and/or her daughter Sydney. Whew-wee, that’d make my day if ya know what I mean. Of course it would likely be quite discomforting to Saffold and her daughter, right?
I’m sure that Judge Saffold’s attorney would strenuously object to questions regarding her prior sexual conduct; however, the Plain Dealer is lawfully entitled to discover any and all facts that could have reasonably caused the “emotional distress” that she is claiming in her lawsuit. Put simply, any alternate source of distress like (a) engaging in extra-marital sex, (b) engaging in sex as a young teenager (13-years-old or younger) and/or (c)
The Plain Dealer’s attorney should take a “video tape” deposition of Judge Saffold and her daughter and then file a copy with the Court, thereby making it a public record. The Plain Dealer should then edit the video tape and post the relevant portions on the Internet.
Lastly, after taking Judge Saffold’s deposition, the Plain Dealer should file a motion to have her sham lawsuit dismissed. In addition, they should seek attorney fees from Judge Saffold and her so-called attorney. It’s time a message is sent to those who abuse the courts by filing sham/frivolous lawsuits by making them pay the litigation costs incurred by their victims.
Winning a lawsuit when the loser isn’t liable for your attorney fees is an unmitigated joke! There should be a financial cost when a lawsuit is summarily dismissed because it is patently frivolous!
Plain Dealer questions to Judge Saffold’s daughter Sydney
If I was defending the Plain Dealer against this sham lawsuit knowing that Judge Saffold and her daughter lied that Sydney was responsible for “all” of the Internet postings under the moniker “lawmiss,” I’d ask Sydney the following:
Q. How much money did your Mother Judge Saffold offer to pay you for falsely claiming you had authored “all” of the Internet postings with the moniker “lawmiss?”
A. We’ll assume that Sydney will deny that Judge Saffold offered her any money to lie. This would then lead to the following follow-up question.
Q. You mean you did it for free?
A.
|