January 5, 2022 --

The sole Times editorial, unsigned, December 27, 2021, gave readers a distorted account of the opinion of New York State Supreme Court Justice Charles D. Wood (Westchester County) that ordered the paper to destroy and otherwise stop publishing  legal memoranda between counsel and client Project Veritas that was to be kept confidential pursuant to attorney-client privilege.  The editorial suggested that  the First Amendment shields the media from judicial scrutiny, that only newspapers are to be the arbiters as to what should be published as  news -- as if to say that in a baseball game between a media outlet and a plaintiff, the balls and strikes should be called by the media outlet, serving as both player and umpire.

LPR believes that the Times editorial should be read in conjunction with the opinion by Justice Wood, as evidence how far this paper has descended into the gully of "fake news."   The editorial is, in LPR's view, an example of what dishonest journalism is all about, and if dishonest journalists are not the enemy of democracy, what is?

Here is the link to the opinion by Justice Wood on the vitality of the attorney-client relationship in Project Veritas v The New York Times Co., et al.

CLICK TO VIEW LINK

And here is the link to the Times editorial that declares that it (and the rest of the media) are not accountable to the courts.  Stated more concisely:  according to The New York Times, the media are above the law.

CLICK TO VIEW LINK

Overarching The Times disregard of its adversary's right  to attorney-client privilege, is the libel action brought by Project Veritas against the newspaper for asserting that the Project Veritas video on voter fraud in Minnesota was "'probably part of a coordinated disinformation effort.'"   LPR would suggest that The Times has yet to disclose the "coordinated disinformation effort" popularly known as "Russiagate" -- the baseless claim that President Trump relied on Russia to win his first term in office, November 8, 2016.

Here, for the elucidation of LPR's visitors, is a ilnk to the brief filed by a Pharaoh's host of the usual media suspects in support of the position of The New York Times that the attorney-client privilege does not exist in civil actions between plaintiffs and the media.  Indeed, even further: that resort to the courts is NOT available should a plaintiff be so foolish as to try and sue The New York Times, because only The New York Times can rule on First Amendment issues, not the courts.

As LPR sees the  relevant legalities, the more-than-fifty amici curiae are transforming the "attorney-client privilege," which Justice Wood dates from 1577 England, into a baseless hollering of "Censorship, Censorship."   (Or are only the media outlets on the list of amici permitted to use such terms as "baseless," and "false" -- in a Trumpian context, of course?)

CLICK TO VIEW LINK