ROBERT C. CLOTHIER
MATTHEW R. SALZWEDEL
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
BETH L. DOMENICK
CARLTON A. SHERWOOD
IDENTIFICATION NOS. 57162, 201492, 93591
RED, WHITE AND BLUE
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
PRODUCTIONS, INC. AND
2000 MARKET STREET, TENTH FLOOR
VIETNAM VETERANS LEGACY
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-3291
FOUNDATION
(215) 299-2000
___________________________________
CARLTON
A. SHERWOOD, : PHILADELPHIA
COUNTY
235
Mumper Lane
: COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
Dillsburg,
PA 17019
: TRIAL DIVISION
:
:
RED, WHITE AND BLUE
: _______ Term, 2006
PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
:
123
State Street
: NO. _____________
Harrisburg,
PA 17104
:
:
AND
:
:
THE VIETNAM
VETERANS :
LEGACY FOUNDATION
:
P.O. Box 95000-1655
:
Philadelphia,
PA 19195
:
:
Plaintiffs : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
:
:
KENNETH J. CAMPBELL, Ph.D,
:
2601
Pennsylvania Avenue
:
Apartment
826
:
Philadelphia,
PA 19130
:
:
AND
:
:
JON BJORNSON,
:
6904
Wissahickon Avenue
:
House #3
:
Philadelphia,
PA 19119
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
Defendants :
___________________________________ :
|
NOTICE
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims
set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served,
by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections
to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment
may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim
or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE
THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
PHILADELPHIA
BAR ASSOCIATION
Lawyer Referral and Information
Service
One Reading
Center
Philadelphia,
PA 19107
(215) 238-1701 |
AVISO
Le han
demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estat demandas expuestas las páginas siguientes, usted tiene
viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificatión. Hace falta asentar una comparencia escrita
o en persona o con un abogado y entregar a la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra
de su personá. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomará medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contra suya
sin previo aviso o notificatión. Además, la corte puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas
las provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puese perder dinero o sus propiedades u ostros derechos importantes para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL
SERVICO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEPHONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE
SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
ASOCIACION DE LICENCIADOS DE FILADELFIA
Servicio De Referencia E Información Legal
One Reading Center
Filadelfia, Pennsylvania 19107
Telephono: (215) 238-1701 |
|
|
|
ROBERT C. CLOTHIER
MATTHEW R. SALZWEDEL
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
BETH L. DOMENICK
CARLTON A. SHERWOOD,
IDENTIFICATION NOS. 57162, 201492, 93591
RED, WHITE AND BLUE
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
PRODUCTIONS, INC. AND
2000 MARKET STREET, TENTH FLOOR
VIETNAM VETERANS LEGACY
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-3291
FOUNDATION
(215) 299-2000
___________________________________
CARLTON
A. SHERWOOD, : PHILADELPHIA
COUNTY
235
Mumper Lane
: COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
Dillsburg,
PA 17019
: TRIAL DIVISION
:
:
RED, WHITE AND BLUE
: _______ Term, 2006
PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
:
123
State Street
: NO. _____________
Harrisburg,
PA 17104
:
:
AND
:
:
THE VIETNAM
VETERANS :
LEGACY FOUNDATION
:
P.O. Box 95000-1655
:
Philadelphia,
PA 19195
:
:
Plaintiffs : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
:
:
KENNETH J. CAMPBELL, Ph.D,
:
2601
Pennsylvania Avenue
:
Apartment
826
:
Philadelphia,
PA 19130
:
:
AND
:
:
JON BJORNSON,
:
6904
Wissahickon Avenue
:
House #3
:
Philadelphia,
PA 19119
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
Defendants :
___________________________________ :
COMPLAINT – CIVIL ACTION
(WRONGFUL USE OF CIVIL PROCESS/OTHER – 2E)
Plaintiffs Carlton Sherwood,
Red White and Blue Productions, Inc., and the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation aver as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff
Carlton A. Sherwood (“Sherwood”) is an individual who resides at 235 Mumper Lane,
Dillsburg, PA 17109.
2. Plaintiff
Red, White & Blue Productions, Inc., (“Red, White & Blue”) is a Pennsylvania
corporation with its principal place of business at 123 State Street, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17104.
3. Plaintiff
Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation (“VVLF”) is a Delaware non-profit
corporation, established for charitable and educational purposes relating to documenting the history of the Vietnam war and
developing educational and charitable programs related thereto.
4. Defendant
Kenneth J. Campbell is an individual who resides at 2601 Pennsylvania Avenue, Apartment 826,
Philadelphia, PA 19130.
5. Defendant
Jon Bjornson is an individual who resides at 6904 Wissahickon Avenue,
House #3, Philadelphia, PA 19119.
6. At
all times relevant to this action, Campbell and Bjornson were acting within the course and scope of their employment, authority,
or apparent authority as well as by and through the acts of their authorized agents, lawyers, servants, employees, apparent
agents and ostensible agents, including but not limited to James E. Beasley, Jr., Esquire and The Beasley Firm, and any others
whose identities are presently unknown to plaintiffs, all of whom were acting under the control or right of control of Campbell
and/or Bjornson and within the course and scope of their employment, authority, or apparent authority, in furtherance of the
business and purposes of the defendants.
VENUE
7. Venue
is proper because Campbell and Bjornson may be served in Philadelphia County,
because the cause of action arose in Philadelphia County,
and because a transaction or occurrence out of which the cause of action arose took place in Philadelphia
County.
FACTS
A.
Stolen Honor
8. Plaintiff
Carlton Sherwood is a newspaper and TV investigative reporter who has performed award-winning work and been honored with the
Pulitzer Prize and the George Foster Peabody Award, journalism’s highest honors in print and broadcast news.
9. Sherwood
also is a decorated Marine Corps combat veteran who served as a sniper-scout in Vietnam. During his service, he was wounded three times and was honorably discharged from the
Marine Corps in 1968.
10. In June 2004, Sherwood
established plaintiff Red, White & Blue Productions, Inc. (“Red, White & Blue”), an independent film company
which produced the documentary “Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal”
(“Stolen Honor”).
11. Stolen Honor tells the story of the war crimes and atrocity allegations made at the so-called “Winter Soldier
Investigation” that the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (“VVAW”) held in Detroit,
Michigan in January-February 1971. John Kerry,
in his testimony before the United States Senate in April 1971, publicly endorsed and repeated those war crimes allegations,
claiming that the alleged war crimes were “not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with full
awareness of officers at all levels of command.” Those allegations were
then used by the North Vietnamese to threaten, mistreat and demoralize United States
prisoners of war being held captive in North Vietnam.
12. Stolen Honor told this history through interviews with former POWs—all highly decorated and two of whom
are Medal of Honor recipients. These were men like Col. George E. “Bud” Day, Medal of Honor recipient, who had
been held as a POW for 5 years, 7 months and 13 days, who had served in World War II, Korea
and Vietnam, and who is the Air Force's most highly decorated
combat veteran.
13. In all, Sherwood
interviewed 17 former POWs who had spent a combined 109 years and three months in captivity.
These men explained that, during their years of captivity—which ranged from five years to almost eight years—they
had been subject to extreme torture by their captors and forced to write false confessions to war crimes and to condemn the
United States Government’s actions in Vietnam.
14. The purpose of Stolen Honor was, in part, to set the record straight regarding the service of American
soldiers in Vietnam.
Contrary to the war crimes allegations made by some in 1971, American soldiers were not “baby killers”
and did not kill civilians or torture POWs on a regular basis and/or pursuant to official United
States policy.
15. Stolen Honor’s statements regarding these war crimes allegations were based, in part, on scholarly research
by historians such as Guenther Lewy, who authored America in Vietnam, as well as B. J. Burkett’s Stolen Valor. In these books, Lewy and Burkett questioned the truthfulness and legitimacy of those
who claimed that American soldiers committed war crimes on a regular basis and pursuant to official United
States policy. They pointed out that some of
those involved in war crimes allegations were frauds; others refused to provide details sufficient to permit any corroboration
of their allegations; still others wholly refused to cooperate with government investigators.
While conceding that atrocities did happen in Vietnam (e.g., the My Lai massacre), they concluded that the allegations
were largely politically motivated and had little, if any, factual support.
16. Stolen Honor received its initial funding entirely from Pennsylvania
veterans. No political campaign, candidate or political party was involved in
any way in the financing or production of Stolen Honor.
17. Stolen Honor was released for distribution on or around September 8, 2004. The documentary was made available online at www.stolenhonor.com.
18. The New York Times
published a review of Stolen Honor that stated: “It should be shown in its
entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television.”
19. Shortly after Stolen Honor’s release, Red, White & Blue entered into an agreement with
Sinclair Broadcasting, through which Sinclair agreed to show Stolen Honor in its
entirety on all of Sinclair’s 62 stations nationwide on October 22, 2004. Those broadcast stations had the potential to reach 24 percent of the nation’s
television audience.
20. Red, White &
Blue also entered into a contract with Baederwood Movie Theatre, Inc. for the rental of the Baederwood Theatre in Abington,
Pennsylvania, for the purpose of showing Stolen
Honor on October 19, 2004.
Red, White & Blue paid for the theatre rental in advance and had furnished Baederwood with a copy of the documentary.
B. Campbell’s Improper Efforts to Stop Stolen Honor From Being
Shown
21. According to Campbell,
he was told about Stolen Honor by Jan Barry Crumb, one of the original founders
of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (“VVAW”). Crumb did not tell
Campbell that he (Campbell) appeared in Stolen
Honor, nor did Crumb recognize Campbell in Stolen Honor when he first saw it.
22. On or around September 9, 2004, Campbell, on his own
initiative, appeared on the television show “Hardball with Chris Mathews” along with Sherwood. While Campbell criticized Stolen
Honor on “Hardball,” he never stated that he was depicted in, or defamed by, Stolen Honor. Indeed, Campbell,
by his own admission, did not even know that he appeared in Stolen Honor until
much later.
23. According to Campbell,
over a month after the release of Stolen Honor, he was told by a friend and former
VVAW member, Chris Gregory, (“Gregory”) that he appeared in Stolen Honor. Until Gregory told him, Campbell was purportedly unaware
that he was in Stolen Honor, even though the documentary had been released over
a month before and even though Campbell had appeared, a month before, on “Hardball with Chris Matthews” to debate
Stolen Honor with Sherwood, among others.
24. Gregory, a longtime
friend and aide of John Kerry, was deeply involved in the Kerry 2004 campaign and had previously recruited Campbell
to work on the Kerry campaign. Gregory was a member of the “Doghunters”
– a group of veterans who over the past 20 years have defended Kerry’s Vietnam
service.
25. According to Campbell,
only two people – Gregory and a man named Gene Piatkowski – told him that they thought they recognized him in
Stolen Honor. Both men were Campbell’s
friends who had known him since the late 1960s or early 1970s. Piatkowksi, however,
learned about Stolen Honor only because Campbell
had filed a lawsuit, as described below. In other words, Piatkowski saw Campbell
in Stolen Honor only because Campbell
had publicly disclosed in his lawsuit that he, Campbell, was depicted in Stolen Honor.
26. Campbell,
on the other hand, himself told numerous people – family, friends, work colleagues, students, etc. – that he was
depicted in Stolen Honor. Campbell
voluntarily did so despite his contention that he was defamed by, and his reputation ruined by, Stolen Honor.
27. Campbell
spoke about Stolen Honor with several old friends who also were members of the
Vietnam Veterans Against the War, including Scott Camil, Jon Bjornson, John Beitzel and Bill Perry. In those conversations, Campbell told them that he was depicted
in Stolen Honor.
28. Camil, Bjornson and
Perry also were volunteers for the Kerry campaign in 2004.
29. None of the people
with whom Campbell spoke regarding Stolen
Honor told Campbell that he thought less of him as a result of Stolen Honor.
30. Upon hearing from
Gregory, a Kerry campaign advisor, that he appeared in Stolen Honor, Campbell
purportedly contacted David Kairys, a professor at Temple University,
whom Campbell had apparently known
from their anti-war activities in the 1970s. Kairys believed that a lawsuit should
be filed immediately because Stolen Honor was scheduled to be shown on TV across
the country in about a week. Kairys referred Campbell
to James E. Beasley, Jr., Esquire, of The Beasley Firm.
31. Kairys was interested
in a lawsuit against Stolen Honor for another reason. He felt that the lawsuit would provide an educational opportunity for Temple
law students to work directly with The Beasley Firm. As he stated: “It’s
a good one for our students to work on, and they will benefit from working with Jim Beasley, Jr.” Thus, a law school funded in part with public money became part of a coordinated effort to deny Sherwood’s
First Amendment rights.
32. Like Gregory and
other Kerry aides and supporters, Campbell was greatly concerned about the impact
that Stolen Honor would have on Kerry’s chances of being elected President
of the United States.
Campbell wanted to prevent others from seeing Stolen Honor so that it would not harm Kerry’s Presidential bid.
33. On October 18, 2004, The Beasley Firm issued a press release on behalf of Campbell,
announcing that Campbell would file that day a defamation lawsuit against Sherwood
and Red, White & Blue. The press release stated that Stolen Honor accuses “Campbell of fabricating stories of wrongdoing
by American soldiers and higher ups in the chain of command in Vietnam. All of these allegations are false….”
The press release accused Sherwood and Red, White & Blue of “knowingly
and purposely defaming” Campbell.
The press release further stated that “Sinclair Broadcasting Group and the Baderwood [sic] theatre, right outside
of Philadelphia, where Stolen Honor is to be shown on Tuesday, October 19, 2004,
will on Monday receive a letter from the veteran’s [Campbell’s] attorney [James E. Beasley, Jr. of The Beasley
Firm] stating that they better check the content of Stolen Honor, and in particular
the aspect that contains Dr. Campbell, or they will also be accountable to Dr. Campbell for dissemination of the defamatory
film.” The press release was immediately posted on The Beasley Firm’s
website and remained there indefinitely.
34. The Beasley Firm
hand delivered letters to Sinclair and the Baederwood Theatre informing them of Campbell’s
lawsuit and saying that they could become defendants in the lawsuit if they chose to show, broadcast or screen Stolen Honor.
35. Campbell and The
Beasley Firm, acting on behalf of Campbell, made these and other threats to sue
anyone who showed or broadcast Stolen Honor.
36. These statements
were made maliciously to defame Sherwood and damage his reputation as a journalist, to falsely discredit Stolen Honor, to chill the exercise of Sherwood’s and Red, White & Blue’s First Amendment rights,
and to prevent Stolen Honor from being shown or broadcast.
37. On October 18, 2004, Campbell filed his defamation
and invasion of privacy lawsuit against Sherwood and Red, White & Blue Productions, Inc.
See Kenneth J. Campbell v. Carlton Sherwood and
Red, White & Blue Productions, Inc. (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas;
October Term 2004; No. 2019). See Complaint, attached as Exhibit A. A copy of Campbell’s complaint was
immediately made available on The Beasley Firm website and remained there indefinitely.
38. The filing of Campbell’s
lawsuit and related statements made and action taken by and on behalf of Campbell were part of an intentional, malicious and
improper effort to defame Sherwood and damage his reputation as a journalist, to falsely discredit Stolen Honor, to chill the exercise of Sherwood’s and Red, White &
Blue’s First Amendment rights, to harass and impoverish Sherwood and Red, White & Blue with significant legal
fees and costs, and to stop Stolen Honor from being shown or broadcast.
39. Subsequently, Sinclair
backed out of its agreement to show Stolen Honor in its entirety, and, instead,
showed only 5 minutes of the documentary as part of an October 22, 2004 program entitled “A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media.”
40. On October 18, 2004, one day before the scheduled showing, Baederwood terminated its contract
with Red, White & Blue and refused to allow the scheduled showing of Stolen Honor. Baederwood stated that it had been “threatened with a defamation action in the
event that [Stolen Honor] is broadcast from its theatre.”
41. As a result of Campbell’s
lawsuit and the threats made by Campbell and his attorney on his behalf, these and other venues that had intended to show
or broadcast Stolen Honor, or that may have decided to show or broadcast Stolen Honor in the future, did not do so.
42. On election day in
November 2004, Campbell was invited to Kerry’s election day party in Boston. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that this invitation was given in appreciation
for Campbell’s efforts to sue Sherwood and Red, White & Blue and stop
Stolen Honor from being shown, broadcast or otherwise disseminated.
C. Campbell’s
Baseless Lawsuits
43. In the complaint,
Campbell alleged that he, John Kerry and members of the Vietnam Veterans Against
the War (“VVAW”) were defamed by Stolen Honor. See Exhibit A.
44. Campbell
alleged that Stolen Honor showed him in a film clip taken from the film Winter Soldier in which he and another man, Scott Camil, are talking about a village being wiped out in the Quang
Tri province of Vietnam, located just
south of the demilitarized zone (“DMZ”) which marked the boundary between North
Vietnam and South Vietnam.
45. In the film clip,
Camil said that he had “forgotten all about” the massacre. Campbell
responded: “How could you forget it? I remembered it and I wasn’t
even in on it.”
46. This is the same
Scott Camil who, within months of his WSI testimony, would repeatedly propose to the VVAW leadership a plan to assassinate
high-ranking politicians, including a group of United States
Senators, who supported the Vietnam War. The VVAW took the proposal seriously
enough to hold a vote on Camil’s plan.
47. Campbell alleged
that Stolen Honor removed certain statements made by Campbell and Camil in the
film Winter Soldier and thereby implied that he and Camil were lying about a massacre
in Quang Tri.
48. Campbell also alleged
that he and other members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War were defamed by the narration of Stolen Honor stating that many members of the VVAW would later be discovered as frauds who had never set foot
on the battlefield in Vietnam and whose lurid fantasies of butchery became the basis of the so-called Winter Soldier Investigation
(“WSI”) conducted in Detroit, Michigan, in January-February 1971.
49. At the time of this narration, however, Campbell’s image
is not shown in Stolen Honor. Indeed,
Campbell is never identified by name in Stolen
Honor and appears for just a few seconds, as he looked 35 years ago, merely interviewing Scott Camil, who was supposedly
remembering a massacre he said he had completely forgotten.
50. Nonetheless, Campbell
alleged in his complaint that Stolen Honor falsely implied that he never served
in Vietnam. He
also alleged that Stolen Honor falsely implied that he and other VVAW members fabricated
false stories of atrocities and war crimes in Vietnam.
51. Campbell alleged
that the truth is that he and Camil “were aware of and/or participated in massacres … such as Quang Tri” in Vietnam and participated in the Winter Soldier Investigation hearings to “show the American
people the pattern and practice of the U.S. Military in Vietnam, as evidenced by first hand accounts of village massacres
and murder in contradiction of international laws and the rules of our military.”
52. Campbell
further alleged that he “did receive orders from superiors to kill unarmed civilians” and that the “rumors
of the Quang Tri massacres” had preceded the filming of Winter Soldier and
were confirmed by Scott Camil, who stated he was present for the Quang Tri massacre, among others.
53. Campbell
alleged that Sherwood and Red, White & Blue created and published Stolen Honor
with the specific, malicious intent to make false and defamatory statements about Campbell,
place him in a false light, and thereby harm his reputation. Yet, as Campbell
later testified, there was no evidence that Sherwood even knew who Campbell was,
nor was there any evidence that Sherwood intended to make any false and defamatory statements specifically about Campbell.
54. Campbell
also alleged that he “personally confronted” Sherwood with the truth about Stolen
Honor during the “Hardball with Chris Matthews” television show. Yet
Campbell later testified at his deposition that, when he was on “Hardball”
along with Sherwood, he didn’t even know that he appeared in Stolen Honor. As a result, Campbell did not confront,
and could not have confronted, Sherwood with the truth about anything Stolen Honor
purportedly said about him.
55. Campbell
also alleged that Sherwood and Red, White & Blue knew that what they said about Campbell
in Stolen Honor was false and/or recklessly disregarded the truth of what Stolen Honor purportedly said about Campbell. There is no evidence, however, that Sherwood even knew who Campbell
was or intended to say anything specifically about Campbell, let alone that he
knew that he was saying something false about Campbell in Stolen Honor. Yet Campbell,
as a limited purpose public figure, bore the burden of proving that Sherwood acted with “actual malice,” i.e.,
knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, specifically with respect to anything Stolen Honor said about Campbell.
56. And Campbell
alleged that he was damaged by Stolen Honor even though no one, other than two
close friends, recognized him in Stolen Honor, even though Stolen Honor said nothing about him, and even though he admitted that no one told him that they thought less of
him as a result of Stolen Honor. Campbell
testified that he felt some physical and emotional distress (upset stomach, difficulty sleeping) for about three days after
which they “subsided quite a bit” when he decided to see a lawyer and bring his defamation lawsuit.
57. Not only was Campbell
not damaged by Stolen Honor, but the film’s release and Campbell’s
subsequent lawsuit actually resulted in numerous complimentary emails being sent
to Campbell. Campbell
claimed that he destroyed virtually all of the emails that he said were not complimentary.
58. Approximately one
year later, Campbell filed a second defamation and invasion of privacy lawsuit
against the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation (“VVLF”) and NewsMax. See
Kenneth J. Campbell v. Vietnam Veterans Legacy
Foundation and NewsMax (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas; August Term 2005;
No. 3341). See Complaint, attached as Exhibit B. In that lawsuit, Campbell alleged that the VVLF and NewsMax
defamed him by publishing Stolen Honor. Other
than the substitution of new defendants, Campbell’s second lawsuit made
many of the same legal and factual allegations that were set forth in Campbell’s
initial lawsuit against Sherwood and Red, White & Blue. Indeed, it is clear
that much of Campbell’s second lawsuit was hastily lifted, typos and all,
from his first complaint.
59. The VVLF did not
exist when Stolen Honor was created and released in 2004.
60. The VVLF had no involvement
in determining the content of Stolen Honor.
61. The VVLF did not
broadcast or otherwise publish Stolen Honor.
62. At the time he filed
his second lawsuit, Campbell knew that the VVLF had nothing to do with the creation
and publication of Stolen Honor. In
his own complaint, Campbell specifically alleged that the VVLF was an “organization
started in approximately May, 2005.” That was nearly a year after the establishment
of Red, White & Blue, which Campbell alleged “create[d] and produce[d]” Stolen
Honor, and some eight months after the release and distribution of Stolen Honor. Nonetheless, Campbell falsely alleged
in his complaint that the VVLF created, edited, broadcast, published and distributed Stolen
Honor.
63. The VVLF did, however,
assist in the raising of funds to help Sherwood and Red, White & Blue defend
against lawsuits relating to Stolen Honor.
64. Campbell
brought the lawsuit against the VVLF for the improper purpose of punishing the VVLF for assisting Sherwood raise funds to
defend against Campbell’s first lawsuit.
Campbell also brought the lawsuit for the improper purpose of harassing
the VVLF, forcing the VVLF to incur legal fees and costs and thereby impairing the VVLF’s ability to carry out its mission
of setting the record straight about the Vietnam War.
D. Campbell’s
War Crimes Allegations
65. At the Winter
Soldier Investigation hearings (“WSI”) in Detroit in early 1971, Campbell
made a number of war crime allegations against members of the United States
military serving in Vietnam.
At the time, Campbell was a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the
War (“VVAW”) and was a coordinator of the VVAW’s Philadelphia Chapter.
According to Campbell, only those who personally saw and/or committed a
war crime or atrocity were permitted to speak at WSI. At WSI, however, Campbell
offered no corroboration of his war crimes allegations, nor was he asked to provide any such corroboration. A transcript of Campbell’s WSI testimony appears online
at www.wintersoldier.com.
66. Many of those
involved in WSI were frauds and/or had lied about war crimes and atrocities purportedly committed by United
States soldiers in Vietnam.
a.
For example, one of the leaders of the VVAW and organizers of the
WSI was Al Hubbard. Hubbard falsely represented himself to the public as a former
Air Force Captain who had spent two years in Vietnam, and
who had been decorated and wounded during that service. Hubbard was later forced
to admit that he had lied about his service and that he had never been an officer or a pilot.
It was later revealed that the Defense Department had no record of Hubbard ever having served in Vietnam
or having been injured in Vietnam.
b. Another organizer of WSI was
Mark Lane, a lawyer and anti-war activist, who had previously written
“Conversations with Americans,” a book which purported to set forth conversations with Vietnam
veterans who had committed atrocities in Vietnam. Lane’s book was immediately discredited. A review in
the New York Times described the book as “full of false tales of war horrors
that never happened, based on interviews with supposed veterans who had never seen a day of military service in Vietnam.”
c. Steve Pitkin, like Campbell,
made war crimes allegations at WSI, but he later recanted those allegations in an affidavit stating that he “neither
witnessed nor participated in any American war crimes or atrocities against civilians” nor was he “ever aware
of any such allegations.” He explained that “John Kerry and other
leaders of that event pressured [him] to testify about American war crimes, despite [his] repeated statements that [he] could
not honestly do so.” Pitkin explained that one leader “strongly implied
that [Pitkin] would not be provided transportation back to [his] home in Baltimore, Maryland, if [he] failed to comply,”
and that “Kerry and other leaders of the event instructed [him] to publicly state that [he] had witnessed incidents
of rape, brutality, atrocities and racism, knowing that such statements would necessarily be untrue.”
67. Campbell
again made war crimes allegations at the National Veterans Inquiry on U.S. War Crimes in Vietnam,
which was organized by the Citizens Commission of Inquiry and held in Washington D.C.
on December 1-3, 1970 (“CCI Hearings”), as well as at war
crimes hearings sponsored by Congressman Dellums in April 1971 (“Dellums Hearings”). A transcript of Campbell’s CCI Hearings testimony is
online at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ jksonc/docs/vietnam-nviuswcv-19701201.html.
A transcript of his Dellums Hearings testimony is online at http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwch1.htm.
68. Campbell
also made war crimes allegations when he gave a statement to the International Commission
of Enquiry into the United States Crimes in Indochina in June 1971 while he was still a member of the
United States Armed Forces. On the same trip, Campbell
also traveled to the U.S.S.R. and Paris where he met with various officials and delegations representing the Soviet Communist
Party, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam),
the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam (the Viet Cong) and the Pathet Lao (Laotian Communist Party). The Soviet Peace Committee paid all of his transportation expenses. His diary of the trip appears online at http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/ HTML_docs/Texts/Narrative/Campbell_Oslo.html.
69. During these war
crimes hearings, Campbell made numerous war crimes allegations that were false.
a. Campbell
alleged that, while he was at Con Thien, located just south of the DMZ, he saw a civilian “village” roughly “ten
miles” or 15,000 meters away, on the other side of the DMZ in North Vietnam,
using a pair of “ships binoculars” that enabled him to “see” villages “clearly.” His unit had “received no fire” from the village, and he saw “no
evidence of military op[eration]s.” Rather, he saw “people working
in the fields, going in and out of their hooches.” He sought permission
to fire on the village from an unidentified lieutenant in the Fire Support
Coordination Center, telling the lieutenant that
this was nothing more than a civilian village. His fire mission was, he said,
cleared all the way up to the division level, which, he claimed, also “knew” that the target was a civilian village. The fire mission lasted “several hours” and used “175-mm”
artillery and “8-inch arty.” He claimed that, from a distance of
10 miles, he saw “farmers, women and children running from the exploding rounds” and approximately 20 people killed
as a result of the fire mission. He said that he did the same thing to another
village the very next day.
b. Campbell
also made allegations about a war crime that supposedly occurred in An Hoa, located southwest of Da Nang
in South Vietnam, in January 1969. He claimed that he was ordered to call in artillery on 10-15 people on a hill; he could not tell “whether
they were women, children or men,” or “whether they had weapons.”
He also called in artillery on what he said was a civilian village located on the other side of the hill, but did not
know what the artillery did to the village because he could not see it. He said
that this village contained “women and children but no men.”
c. Campbell
also alleged that, during Operation Meade River
in November 1968, he saw “the refusal to take POWs” as a result of a battalion order permitting soldiers to shoot
on sight POWs whose fingers were “curled,” which might mean that they had “a grenade in their hands.” Campbell said that our soldiers “never
bothered to see whether the fingers were uncurled or not” and “shot” these POWs “anyway.”
d. Campbell
further alleged that, during Operation Taylor Common in January 1969, he witnessed the “fragging” of his company
commanding officer when one of the soldiers threw a grenade at the officer, who had led the platoon into a “heavily
booby-trapped area.”
e. And Campbell
vouched for Scott Camil’s story about a massacre in Quang Tri
Province. He said that his unit was
told “to cool it” and was, in fact, prohibited from “firing on civilian villages” because of “an
incident” in Quang Tri that “Scott Camile [sic] witnessed….”
70. Common to all of
Campbell’s war crimes allegations were the following:
a. None of Campbell’s
war crimes allegations were under oath. None involved sworn testimony.
b. None was subjected to any sort
of rigorous questioning designed to determine the truthfulness of his war crimes allegations.
c. Campbell
never named any person who did or saw the war crimes he claimed took place.
d. Campbell
offered no documentary or testimonial corroboration of any of the war crimes he says took place.
E. The
Falsity of Campbell’s War Crimes Allegations
71. During discovery
in Campbell’s first lawsuit, Campbell
was deposed for two days. It was the first time he had testified under oath about
his war crimes allegations. See Transcript of the Deposition of Kenneth
J. Campbell, relevant excerpts of which are attached as Exhibit C.
72. At his deposition,
Campbell told a drastically different story of the war crimes he previously said
he witnessed and/or participated in during the Vietnam War. In fact, Campbell’s
own deposition testimony shows that his prior war crimes allegations were lies.
73. For example, regarding
his allegation that he, with the permission of his superiors, called in artillery on a peaceful village and killed 20 civilians
(see paragraph 69(a) above), Campbell now stated the following under oath:
a. He was angry because a
friend had been killed in action.
b. As a result, he “decided
to exact some revenge.”
c. He saw a village north
of the DMZ that was “15-20 miles” away – not the “10 miles” he previously claimed.
d. He saw people but, at a distance
of 15-20 miles, they were just “specks,” and admitted he had no way of knowing if they were civilians or combatants
– contrary to his prior allegation that he specifically saw “farmers, women and children” who were “working
in the fields.” It would have been physically impossible, of course, for
anyone to discern any such detail about people from 10 miles, never mind 15-20 miles, even with a ships binoculars.
e. He saw “motor traffic”
– “trucks” or “jeeps” – contrary to his prior representation that he saw “no evidence
of military ops.” Campbell
knew that Vietnamese civilian farmers did not have trucks or jeeps. The North
Vietnamese Army (“NVA”), on the other hand, did have such vehicles.
f. This was not in a
so-called “free fire zone” – contrary to his prior claim that it was.
g. He called in artillery
and specifically lied to his superiors that the “nature of the target” was “enemy bunkers or enemy in the
open.” He admitted that if he did not lie about the nature of the target,
the fire mission would not have been approved.
h. He was never told or informed
that the fire mission was cleared up to the division level. He assumed it. Even if it had been approved, Campbell’s
superiors did not know that the fire mission was targeting civilian villages, because Campbell,
by his own admission, lied about the nature of the target when calling in the fire mission.
i. Only 175 mm
guns were fired because it was the “only gun that could reach” the target.
No 8-inch guns were fired, contrary to his prior allegations.
j. The fire mission
lasted “close to 45 minutes” -- not the “three or four hours” he previously claimed.
k. He saw a “lot of dirt,
a lot of smoke” but, from a distance of up to 20 miles, he did not see anyone killed by the artillery – contrary
to his prior allegation that he saw up to 20 civilians killed. He specifically
admitted that he didn’t know if the fire mission killed anyone.
l. Thus, unlike
the war crime allegations he previously made, Campbell, when testifying for the
first time under oath, told a story that, to the extent it ever happened at all, did not amount to a war crime and certainly
not a war crime that was perpetrated pursuant to official United States
policy. He now testified about a legitimate fire mission that targeted a war
zone, in North Vietnam just north of the DMZ, where there
were no civilians, where B-52s routinely bombed, where there were enemy vehicles and combatants who regularly used the area
as a staging ground for infiltrating into South Vietnam through
the DMZ. He told a story where he deliberately lied about the mission to his
superiors and where he saw no one, neither civilians nor combatants, killed by the artillery.
74. Similarly, regarding
Campbell’s allegation about a war crime in An Hoa in January 1969 (see paragraph
69(b) above), Campbell, in his deposition testimony and discovery responses, described
a very different event and revealed that he did not perpetrate an atrocity.
a. Campbell
said that, from a distance of about 1000 meters, he saw “about a half a dozen to a dozen children, perhaps ten or 12
years old” on a hill – contrary to his prior claim that he “could not tell whether they were women or children
or men.”
b. He said that he could “see
clearly” that the “children” were “unarmed” – again contrary to his prior representation
that he “could not tell whether they had weapons.”
c. He said that the village
on the other side of the hill had “men, women and children” – contrary to his prior statement saying that
the village contained “women and children but no men.”
d. He did not know if anyone was
killed by the artillery and conceded that he could not say that this was an atrocity.
e. Once again, Campbell,
under oath for the first time, testified to a radically different story and thus admitted that his WSI testimony and lawsuits’
allegations were false.
75. Likewise, regarding
Campbell’s allegations about the refusal to take POWs during Operation Meade River (see paragraph 69(c) above), Campbell’s
deposition testimony was again markedly different and showed that he did not witness or commit any such atrocity.
a. He wasn’t sure if
the battalion order (to shoot surrendering soldiers whose hands were curled and could hold a grenade) was a violation of the
laws of war and agreed that “under certain conditions,” the order was justified.
b. More importantly, Campbell
admitted that he never saw and had no first-hand knowledge that his fellow soldiers refused to take POWs or shot POWs regardless
of whether their hands were curled – directly contrary to his prior allegation that he “saw” this happen.
c. Thus, when asked about
this particular war crime for the first time under oath, Campbell contradicted
his prior allegation that he personally witnessed this atrocity.
76. Regarding Campbell’s
allegation that an officer was “fragged” by his own troops during Operation Taylor Common in January 1969 (see
paragraph 69(d) above), Campbell flatly lied about what happened and what he was told.
a. Campbell
said that his unit was given orders to ambush enemy forces in a night maneuver, causing consternation among the troops who
were worried about hitting booby traps they could not see in the dark.
b. A platoon commander, his radioman
and several others taking the lead were wounded by a booby trap. The radioman
was blinded by the explosion.
c. The company commander went
forward with his senior corpsman to help the wounded men.
d. Campbell
saw a second explosion 50 meters in front of him and then was told that the company commander had tripped another booby trap. Campbell saw nothing of the second explosion
other than the flash.
e. Campbell
said the platoon commander’s radioman told him weeks later that the second explosion was not a booby trap. Rather, he told Campbell that he heard someone yell “you
son of a bitch” and then heard the “spoon fly from a grenade” that then was rolled or tossed under the company
commander’s legs and went off, wounding not just the commander as he was sitting down on a paddy dike but also the corpsman.
f. But according to
the accounts of soldiers present that day, including the platoon commander’s radioman and, indeed, the company commander
himself, no fragging took place. Rather, as Campbell
was initially told, the company commander tripped a second booby trap as he sought to help the platoon commander wounded by
the first booby trap. The radioman never told Campbell
about any fragging of the company commander.
g. Moreover, the radioman
could not have witnessed what Campbell said he witnessed because, according to
Campbell, the radioman had been blinded by the explosion of the first booby trap. Thus, contrary to Campbell’s account,
the radioman could not have known where the company commander was located and how the grenade landed.
h. Campbell
lied when he made this allegation and, moreover, he knew that his story was false when he brought his lawsuits.
77. And regarding Scott
Camil’s allegation of a village being wiped out in Quang Tri Province (see paragraph 69(e) above), Campbell now said
that he had no idea whether Camil was telling the truth or not, despite alleging in his own complaint that Camil was, in fact,
telling the truth.
a. Campbell
said that around the time he arrived in Vietnam in early 1968,
he had heard a rumor of a village being wiped out in Quang Tri in late 1967.
b. In 2003, however, he learned
from someone who said he was there and that the allegations of the killing of civilians and the wiping out of a village in
Quang Tri in 1967 were untrue.
c. Campbell,
despite additional efforts to determine whether Camil’s allegations were true, never determined whether there was any
massacre in Quang Tri. He explained that it was just a “rumor” he
heard.
d. Campbell
further insisted that he never claimed to know for sure whether there was such a massacre – even though at WSI Campbell
vouched for an incident in Quang Tri that he said Camil witnessed and even though Campbell
alleged in his complaint that Camil personally witnessed and/or participated in the Quang Tri massacre.
e. Thus, Campbell’s
lawsuit alleged that Stolen Honor falsely implied that he and Camil had lied about
a massacre in Quang Tri, and further alleged that he and Camil were aware of and/or participated in a massacre in Quang Tri. Yet when he made those allegations, Campbell
knew that he had been told by an eyewitness that such a massacre did not occur and also knew that he has never been able to
determine the truthfulness of Camil’s allegation. Campbell’s
lawsuit and allegations, therefore, were patently false by his own admission.
78. Campbell
also testified that he had no idea whether the others who made war crimes allegations at WSI were telling the truth, even
though he alleged in his complaint that Stolen Honor also falsely implied that
these other veterans were lying about atrocities.
79. Even though Campbell
alleged in his lawsuits that it was official United States
policy to commit war crimes, he testified at his deposition that, when he became a Marine, he was never trained that it was
permissible to commit war crimes and kill civilians, nor was he trained to harm POWs.
Surely if it were official United States policy to
commit war crimes, Campbell and others would have received training on how to do that.
But Campbell admitted he did not receive any such training.
80. In or around 1971,
Campbell was contacted by a member of the Naval Investigative Service who was
investigating his allegations of war crimes. Like others who made war crimes
allegations at WSI, Campbell refused to cooperate and sarcastically told the agent
that it would be acceptable to meet “in the middle of the fountain at 16th and Arch [Streets in Philadelphia].”
81. Campbell
also co-wrote a chapter called “Vietnam Veterans and War Crimes Hearings” that was published in a book called
Give Peace A Chance. In the chapter, Campbell
repeated the war crimes allegations made by others at the CCI Hearings and claimed that they were truthful. Yet in repeating those allegations, Campbell admitted that
he had done nothing to corroborate them and, at his deposition, he admitted he did not know whether they were true or not.
82. Campbell
conceded that the views espoused by historians Guenther Lewy and others (see paragraph 15 above) were one of several schools
of thought regarding the Vietnam War. Yet rather than engage in a public debate
about this important issue and afraid of what would result from such a debate, Campbell chose to file a lawsuit and threaten
to sue anyone who dared show or broadcast Stolen Honor.
83. Campbell
testified that he liked what he was doing in Vietnam and was
good at it and, as a result, remained in the field longer than the required six months.
In the 1990s, Campbell remained so proud of his military service, despite
his horrific stories of war crimes and atrocities, that he petitioned the United
States Government for a Purple Heart to recognize the wounds he received in Vietnam
in January 1969. As a result of his petition, Campbell
received a Purple Heart.
F. Campbell’s
Withdrawal of his Lawsuits
84. During discovery,
Campbell, through his attorney, took one deposition, that of Carlton Sherwood,
which lasted just over two hours. He issued no third-party discovery. And after propounding document requests and interrogatories early on in the litigation, he served no further
written discovery. In other words, after Campbell
filed the lawsuit and succeeded in stopping Stolen Honor from being shown and broadcast,
he did little to pursue his claims.
85. Meanwhile, Sherwood
and Red, White & Blue, forced to defend themselves, conducted an expensive and time-consuming investigation into the war
crimes allegations made by Campbell and others, all of which Campbell’s lawsuits had placed directly at issue. They also served numerous discovery requests, and were forced to file numerous motions
to compel when Campbell’s responses violated the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure. They were forced to subpoena documents and testimony from the Vietnam
Veterans Against the War as well as the University of Delaware,
where Campbell is employed as a professor of political science.
86. Campbell
was deposed for two days pursuant to a Court Order entered because Campbell had
refused to make himself available for his deposition. Following his deposition,
Sherwood and Red, White & Blue served additional discovery requests on Campbell. Campbell failed to respond to the requests
in any manner.
87. Campbell identified
numerous witnesses he would call to show that Stolen Honor was false and defamatory,
including Scott Camil, Jan Barry Crumb, Steve Noetzel, John Beitzel, Bill Perry, Jon Bjornson, Jean Piatkowski and Cathleen
Jenner. And he identified other witnesses with whom he spoke about Stolen Honor, including Craig Scott Moore, Joseph Bangert and Chris Gregory.
Many of these witnesses are located outside of Pennsylvania. Camil is located in Florida.
Barry and Piatkowski are located in New Jersey. Gregory and Bangert are located in Massachusetts. Noetzel is located in California.
88. To depose these out-of-state
witnesses, Sherwood and Red, White & Blue were required to file petitions for issuances of commissions in the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas. Campbell did
not oppose the commissions, thus conceding the relevance of the information and documents these witnesses possessed.
89. Sherwood and Red,
White & Blue were then required to file separate actions in other jurisdictions for the purpose of obtaining subpoenas
seeking the depositions of, and documents from, these material witnesses. This
effort was extremely costly and time consuming.
90. Some of the witnesses
took unusual steps to evade the subpoenas. On May 23, 2006, the very day Camil’s
deposition was supposed to take place in Florida, Camil filed a motion for a protective order claiming that his deposition
and document production could not proceed for three months due to last-minute elective back surgery. Sherwood and Red, White & Blue were forced to file a cross motion to compel, which was granted by the
Florida court. That court ordered
Camil to provide a Form 180 for his military records by June 15, 2006,
and, rejecting Camil’s objections to the subpoena’s document demand, ordered Camil to produce all responsive documents
by June 23, 2006. The Florida
court also ordered Camil to appear for his deposition on July 10 and 11, 2006.
91. On Monday, June 5, 2006, one week before his scheduled deposition on June 12, 2006, Joseph Bangert was involuntarily committed by Judge Reardon, Judge of the Barnstable District
Court, to the Massachusetts Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center at the Bridgewater Correctional Facility until July 3, 2006. While the commitment was court ordered,
the event that precipitated the commitment appeared intentionally calculated to lead to that result, which precluded the deposition
from taking place as scheduled. The deposition was rescheduled to take place
in Massachusetts on July 17 and 18, 2006.
92. The remaining third
party witnesses were scheduled to take place as follows: Jon Bjornson (July 19),
Jan Barry Crumb (July 20), Bill Perry (July 21), John Beitzel (July 25), Craig Scott Moore (July 28), Gene Piatkowski (August
1). The deposition of Milliarium Zero, the company that recently released the
DVD version of the film Winter Soldier, was not yet scheduled.
93. Sherwood and Red,
White & Blue also repeatedly requested dates for the deposition of Campbell’s
spouse, Cathleen Jenner, whom Campbell himself identified as a material witness. When
Campbell failed to provide dates, Sherwood and Red, White & Blue were forced
to file motions to compel her deposition as well as Campbell’s responses
to discovery requests served on him after his deposition. Campbell’s
attorney did not appear at discovery court, and the motions were summarily granted, with the Court entering an Order requiring
Campbell to respond to the discovery requests no later than July 5th
and Ms. Jenner’s deposition to take place no later than July 11, 2006.
94. Campbell
failed to respond to the discovery requests by July 5th and thus blatantly violated the Court’s Order requiring
that he do so. And Campbell’s
attorney ignored repeated requests for dates for Ms. Jenner’s deposition as required by the Court’s Order.
95. On Friday, July 7, 2006, just before Camil’s deposition was to begin on Monday, July 10, 2006 in Florida, Campbell’s
counsel, without warning, faxed a letter enclosing praecipes of discontinuance for both of Campbell’s
lawsuits. Later that day, Campbell’s
counsel faxed time-stamped copies of the discontinuances. See Discontinuances,
attached as Exhibit D. There was no settlement or compromise. Campbell simply withdrew his lawsuits. As a result, the depositions scheduled to begin on July 10th did not proceed because there was
no longer any pending litigation.
96. Campbell knew that
he could not permit the depositions of Camil, Bangert and others to proceed, for he feared that the falsity of the war crimes
allegations made by these anti-war protesters, who would now have to testify for the first time under oath, would be revealed,
just as the falsity of his own allegations was made clear at his own deposition.
97. Indeed, Campbell
knew long before July 7th that he intended to drop the lawsuits. By
deliberately and maliciously waiting until the very last minute to drop them, Campbell
wished to impose the maximum economic cost on Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and the VVLF.
98. Following the dismissals,
Campbell’s attorney, James E. Beasley, Jr., publicly bragged that Campbell
decided to drop the lawsuits because he had achieved many of his goals in bringing them by highlighting the controversy and
persuading one area theatre not to show it. His lawyer added: “At this
point, what do we want to go further for? It seemed to be the right time to put
a bullet in it.”
99. Campbell,
through his lawyer, thus candidly admitted that he had brought his two lawsuits not for the purpose of adjudicating his defamation
and invasion of privacy claims but rather for the purpose of stopping Stolen Honor
from being disseminated publicly. Once he had accomplished that improper purpose,
Campbell did not prosecute his lawsuits, intentionally drove up the costs of defending
the lawsuits as high as possible and then voluntarily dropped the lawsuits when he became alarmed that discovery would reveal
that the war crimes he and others had been asserting for decades were lies.
G. Bjornson’s
Baseless Copycat Lawsuit and Dismissal
100. In August 2005, defendant Bjornson, also
represented by James E. Beasley, Jr. and The Beasley Firm, brought a copy-cat libel lawsuit against Sherwood, Red, White &
Blue, VVLF and NewsMax. See Jon Bjornson v. Carlton Sherwood, Red,
White & Blue Productions, Inc., the Vietnam
Veterans Legacy Foundation and NewsMax (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas;
August Term 2005; No. 3339). See Complaint, attached as Exhibit E.
101. In his complaint, Bjornson never indicated
where or how he was depicted in Stolen Honor other than to claim, without any explanation,
that Stolen Honor showed him, wearing fatigues, for less than five seconds in a
blurry photograph taken from the book, “The New Soldier.” That poor
quality photograph depicted a crowd of over 40 persons, many of whom also were wearing fatigues, who were protesting the Vietnam
War in Washington D.C. in 1971. See Photo, attached as Exhibit F. Despite requests
to circle where he is shown in the photo, Bjornson never did so.
102. To this day, Sherwood, Red, White & Blue
and the VVLF do not know who Bjornson is in Stolen Honor or, for that matter, whether
Bjornson is shown at all in Stolen Honor.
There is no question that Bjornson is never identified by name in Stolen Honor.
103. Like Campbell, Bjornson alleged that he was
defamed by Stolen Honor even though Bjornson knew that he is neither named nor
identified in Stolen Honor, that Stolen
Honor said nothing about him, that Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and the VVLF did not know who Bjornson was, that there
was no evidence that Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and the VVLF intended to make any false and defamatory statements specifically
about Bjornson, and that Bjornson suffered no damages whatsoever as a result of Stolen
Honor.
104. Like Campbell, Bjornson sued the VVLF, even
though Bjornson knew that the VVLF did not exist when Stolen Honor was created
and released in 2004, that the VVLF had no involvement in creating, editing or producing Stolen
Honor, and that the VVLF did not broadcast or otherwise publish Stolen Honor.
105. Like Campbell,
Bjornson brought his lawsuit for a purpose other than that of securing proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication
of the claim in which the lawsuit was based. Instead, Bjornson brought his lawsuit
solely to defame Sherwood and damage his reputation as a journalist, to falsely discredit Stolen
Honor, to chill the exercise of Sherwood’s and Red, White & Blue’s First Amendment rights, to harass and
impoverish Sherwood and Red, White & Blue with significant legal fees and costs, and to prevent Stolen Honor from being broadcast or shown, as more fully set forth above.
Bjornson did so because he was a John Kerry supporter and wanted to stop the dissemination of anything he thought might
harm Kerry and his political ambitions.
106. And like Campbell,
Bjornson brought the lawsuit against the VVLF for the improper purpose of punishing the VVLF for assisting Sherwood raise
funds to defend against Campbell’s first lawsuit. Bjornson also brought the lawsuit for the improper purpose of forcing the VVLF to incur legal fees and costs
and thereby impair the VVLF’s financial ability to carry out its mission of setting the record straight about the Vietnam
War.
107. Bjornson did not bring his lawsuit against
the VVLF because he reasonably believed that the VVLF had published anything that defamed him or that placed him in a false
light or because he reasonably believed that he had a viable cause of action against the VVLF.
108. On January
30, 2006, Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and the VVLF served on Bjornson their first set of interrogatories and
document requests. Bjornson failed to respond to the discovery requests. As a result, Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and the VVLF were forced to obtain a
court date for a motion to compel discovery responses to be heard. On March 31, 2006, Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and the VVLF served that motion
to compel on Bjornson’s attorney.
109. On April
4, 2006, nearly eight months after filing his lawsuit, Bjornson’s attorney, without warning, notified Sherwood,
Red, White & Blue and the VVLF that he had filed a praecipe to discontinue the lawsuit.
See Discontinuance, attached as Exhibit G. There was no settlement
or compromise. Bjornson withdrew his lawsuit without ever initiating or responding
to any discovery.
COUNT I
DRAGONETTI ACT, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 8351-8354
PLAINTIFFS v. CAMPBELL
110. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of
their Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
111. Campbell
instituted and continued two civil lawsuits against Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and the VVLF in the Philadelphia Court
of Common Pleas. See Kenneth J. Campbell v. Carlton Sherwood and Red,
White & Blue Productions, Inc. (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas; October Term 2004; No. 2019), attached as Exhibit
A; Kenneth J. Campbell v. Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation and NewsMax (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas; August
Term 2005; No. 3341), attached as Exhibit B.
112. Both of Campbell’s
lawsuits were terminated in favor of the Plaintiffs when Campbell voluntarily
withdrew and discontinued the lawsuits. See Exhibit D. Neither lawsuit was dismissed pursuant to any settlement or compromise between Campbell and Sherwood, Red,
White & Blue and the VVLF. To the contrary, Campbell suddenly discontinued
his lawsuits just as the depositions of Camil, Bangert and other critical third-party witnesses were about to take place,
and Campbell feared that the falsity of the war crimes allegations made by these anti-war protesters, who would now have to
testify for the first time under oath, would be revealed, just as the falsity of his own allegations was made clear at his
own deposition. Campbell also dropped his lawsuits because he believed he had
already accomplished the improper purpose for which he brought them – to defame Sherwood and damage his reputation as
a journalist, to falsely discredit Stolen Honor, to chill the exercise of Sherwood’s
and Red, White & Blue’s First Amendment rights, to harass Sherwood,
Red, White & Blue and the VVLF, to burden Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and the VVLF with significant legal fees and
costs, and to prevent Stolen Honor from being broadcast or shown.
113. Campbell
brought and continued his lawsuits in a grossly negligent manner and/or without probable cause for numerous reasons, including
but not limited to the following:
a. Stolen Honor neither stated nor implied anything false or defamatory about Campbell,
and Campbell, when he filed his lawsuits, knew that Stolen Honor contained no false or defamatory statements about him.
b. Even if Stolen Honor stated or implied that Campbell had fabricated stories
of war crimes and atrocities (which it did not), such a statement or implication about Campbell
would have been true or substantially true: Campbell lied repeatedly about war
crimes and atrocities that he said occurred during the Vietnam War, as more fully set forth above. Moreover, when Campbell brought his lawsuits, he knew he had
lied about these war crimes and atrocities, yet alleged falsely in his lawsuits that he and others had told the truth.
c. Campbell
knew, when he filed his lawsuits, that Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and the VVLF did not know who Campbell
was, did not intend to say anything specifically about Campbell, and did not intentionally
or recklessly say anything false or defamatory about Campbell. Despite that knowledge, Campbell falsely claimed in his lawsuits
that Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and the VVLF intentionally and recklessly made false and defamatory statements specifically
about him.
d. Campbell
knew that the VVLF had nothing to do with the creation and publication of Stolen Honor. Indeed, Campbell knew and even alleged
in his complaint that the VVLF did not even exist until long after Stolen Honor
was created and released. Nonetheless, Campbell
falsely alleged in his complaint that the VVLF created, edited, broadcast, published and distributed Stolen Honor.
e. Campbell suffered no cognizable
damages as a result of Stolen Honor, given, as he admitted at his deposition, that
no one told him that they thought less of him as a result of Stolen Honor, that
virtually no one even recognized him in Stolen Honor, and that, to the contrary,
he received compliments from those who found out about his appearance in Stolen Honor
as a result of his filing his first lawsuit.
f. Campbell
withdrew his lawsuits voluntarily because he feared that if he did not discontinue them, the depositions of critical third-party
witnesses, which were to commence a few days later, would show that the war crimes he alleged were true in his complaint and
which he and others had asserted for decades were lies.
114. Thus, as stated previously, Campbell
did not reasonably believe in the existence of facts upon which his causes of action were based. Campbell also did not reasonably believe that under those facts
his claims may have been valid under existing or developing law, nor did Campbell
believe to that effect in reliance on advice of counsel, sought in good faith and after full disclosure of all relevant facts
within his knowledge.
115. Campbell
brought his lawsuits for a purpose other than that of securing proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of the
claims on which the lawsuits were based. Instead, Campbell brought the lawsuits
solely to defame Sherwood and damage his reputation as a journalist, to falsely discredit Stolen
Honor, to chill the exercise of Sherwood’s and Red, White & Blue’s First Amendment rights, to harass and
impoverish Sherwood and Red, White & Blue with significant legal fees and costs, and to prevent Stolen Honor from being disseminated publicly by Sinclair, the Baederwood Theatre and others, as more fully set
forth above. Campbell did so because,
as a loyal John Kerry supporter and advisor, he was afraid that Stolen Honor would
harm John Kerry’s campaign for President of the United States. Thus, Campbell did not bring his lawsuits
primarily for the purpose of securing proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of the claims on which the lawsuits
were based.
116. Campbell
also brought his second lawsuit against the VVLF for a purpose other than that of securing proper discovery, joinder of parties
or adjudication of the claims on which the lawsuit was based. Campbell
brought that lawsuit against the VVLF for the improper purpose of punishing the VVLF for assisting Sherwood raise funds to
defend against Campbell’s first lawsuit.
Campbell also brought the second lawsuit for the improper purpose of harassing
the VVLF, burdening the VVLF with significant legal fees and costs and thereby impairing the VVLF’s ability to carry
out its mission of setting the record straight about the Vietnam War. Thus, Campbell
did not bring the second lawsuit primarily for the purpose of securing proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication
of the claims on which the lawsuit was based.
117. Campbell
continued his lawsuits for a purpose other than that of securing proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of the
claims on which the lawsuits were based. After initial written discovery, Campbell
did virtually nothing further to prosecute his claims other than depose Sherwood for roughly two hours. Campbell repeatedly failed to respond to discovery served on him, forcing Sherwood and Red, White &
Blue to file numerous motions to compel, including one motion that was summarily granted as uncontested when Campbell’s
attorney failed to appear. Campbell knew from the outset that he was going to
drop his lawsuits, yet deliberately and maliciously waited until the very last minute to do so because he wished to impose
the maximum economic cost on Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and the VVLF, who
were forced to expend substantial time and resources investigating events that occurred up to forty years ago and taking all
necessary discovery, including the depositions of numerous witnesses located in Pennsylvania, Florida, Massachusetts and New
Jersey. It was not until those depositions were about to commence that Campbell
then withdrew his lawsuits, saying that he had accomplished his improper purpose in bringing them by preventing Stolen Honor from being disseminated publicly by Sinclair and others, all to aid John Kerry’s presidential
campaign. Campbell also knew that
if he did not discontinue his lawsuits, the third-party depositions would reveal that the war crimes he and others had been
asserting for decades were lies. Thus, Campbell
did not continue his lawsuits primarily for the purpose of securing proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of
the claims on which the lawsuits were based.
118. Plaintiffs have suffered significant and
continuing damages as a result of Campbell’s improper conduct, including
but not limited to reputational harm, emotional and mental distress, and pecuniary harm, including the costs and expenses
associated with defending against Campbell’s lawsuits (e.g., attorneys
fees and costs).
119. Campbell’s
improper conduct was malicious, outrageous, willful and wanton, in reckless disregard of the facts and law, indifferent to
the First Amendment rights of others, and the result of improper motives. Thus,
plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.
120. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Campbell
such damages that will compensate plaintiffs for the severe harm to their professional and personal reputation, for emotional
and mental distress, and for all costs incurred as a result of Campbell’s conduct, and which will hold Campbell accountable
for his malicious and outrageous conduct and deter him and others from doing the same thing in the future.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against defendant Campbell and that plaintiffs
be awarded compensatory damages in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), including consequential damages, special damages,
punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as this Court deems proper and just.
COUNT II
DRAGONETTI ACT, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 8351-8354
PLAINTIFFS v. BJORNSON
121. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of
their Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
122. In August 2005, Bjornson brought a lawsuit
against Sherwood, Red, White & Blue, VVLF and NewsMax. See Jon
Bjornson v. Carlton Sherwood, Red, White & Blue Productions, Inc., the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation and NewsMax
(Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas; August Term 2005; No. 3339), attached as Exhibit E.
123. Bjornson’s lawsuit was terminated in
favor of the plaintiffs when Bjornson voluntarily withdrew and discontinued the lawsuit.
See Exhibit G. Bjornson’s lawsuit was not dismissed pursuant
to any settlement or compromise between Bjornson and Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and the VVLF. To the contrary, Bjornson suddenly dropped his lawsuit just as he faced a motion to compel discovery for
his failure to respond in any manner to interrogatories and document requests served by Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and
the VVLF.
124. Bjornson brought and continued his lawsuit
in a grossly negligent manner and/or without probable cause for numerous reasons, including but not limited to the following:
a. Bjornson alleged that he
was defamed by Stolen Honor even though Bjornson knew that he is neither named
nor identified in Stolen Honor, that Stolen
Honor said nothing about him, that Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and the VVLF did not know who Bjornson was, that there
was no evidence that Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and the VVLF intended to make any false and defamatory statements specifically
about Bjornson, and that Bjornson suffered no damages whatsoever as a result of Stolen
Honor.
b. Bjornson sued the VVLF, even
though Bjornson knew that the VVLF did not exist when Stolen Honor was created
and released in 2004, that the VVLF had no involvement in creating, editing or producing Stolen
Honor, and that the VVLF did not broadcast or otherwise publish Stolen Honor.
125. Thus, as stated previously, Bjornson did
not reasonably believe in the existence of facts upon which his causes of action were based.
Bjornson also did not reasonably believe that under those facts his claims may have been valid under the existing or
developing law, nor did Bjornson believe to that effect in reliance on advice of counsel, sought in good faith and after full
disclosure of all relevant facts within his knowledge.
126. Bjornson brought his lawsuit for a purpose
other than that of securing proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of the claims on which the lawsuit was based. Instead, Bjornson brought his lawsuit solely to defame Sherwood and damage his reputation
as a journalist, to falsely discredit Stolen Honor, to chill the exercise of Sherwood’s
and Red, White & Blue’s First Amendment rights, to harass and impoverish Sherwood and Red, White & Blue with
significant legal fees and costs, and to prevent Stolen Honor from being broadcast
or shown, as more fully set forth above. Bjornson did so because he was a loyal
John Kerry supporter and wanted to stop the dissemination of anything he perceived to harm John Kerry and his political ambitions. Thus, Bjornson did not bring his lawsuit primarily for the purpose of securing proper
discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of the claims on which the lawsuit was based.
127. Bjornson brought his lawsuit against the
VVLF for a purpose other than that of securing proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of the claims on which
the lawsuit was based. Bjornson brought his lawsuit against the VVLF for the
improper purpose of punishing the VVLF for assisting Sherwood raise funds to defend against Campbell’s
first lawsuit. Bjornson also brought the lawsuit for the improper purpose of
harassing the VVLF, burdening the VVLF with significant legal fees and costs and thereby impairing the VVLF’s ability
to carry out its mission of setting the record straight about the Vietnam War. Thus,
Bjornson did not bring his lawsuit primarily for the purpose of securing proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication
of the claims on which the lawsuit was based.
128. Bjornson continued his lawsuit for a purpose
other than that of securing proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of the claims on which the lawsuit was based. Once the pleadings were concluded, Bjornson did nothing to take any discovery in his
lawsuit and, moreover, failed to respond in any manner to discovery propounded by Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and the
VVLF, forcing them to draft and serve on Bjornson’s counsel a motion to compel discovery, who responded by notifying
Sherwood, Red, White & Blue and the VVLF that Bjornson had filed a praecipe
to discontinue his lawsuit.
129. Plaintiffs have suffered significant and
continuing damages as a result of Bjornson’s improper conduct, including but not limited to reputational harm, emotional
and mental distress, and pecuniary harm, including the costs and expenses associated with defending against Bjornson’s
lawsuit (e.g., attorneys fees and costs).
130. Bjornson’s improper conduct was malicious,
outrageous, willful and wanton, in reckless disregard of the facts and law, indifferent to the First Amendment rights of others,
and the result of improper motives. Thus, plaintiffs are entitled to punitive
damages.
131. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Bjornson
such damages that will compensate plaintiffs for the severe harm to their professional and personal reputation, for emotional
and mental distress, and for all costs incurred as a result of Bjornson’s conduct, which will hold Bjornson accountable
for his malicious and outrageous conduct and deter him and others from doing the same thing in the future.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against defendant Bjornson and that plaintiffs
be awarded compensatory damages, consequential damages, special damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney’s
fees, and such further relief as this Court deems proper and just.
COUNT III
COMMON LAW ABUSE OF PROCESS
PLAINTIFFS v. CAMPBELL
132. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of
their Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
133. Campbell,
employing legal process against plaintiffs, instituted and continued two civil lawsuits against Sherwood, Red, White &
Blue and the VVLF in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. See Kenneth
J. Campbell v. Carlton Sherwood and Red, White & Blue Productions, Inc. (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas; October
Term 2004; No. 2019), attached as Exhibit A; Kenneth J. Campbell v. Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation and NewsMax
(Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas; August Term 2005; No. 3341), attached as Exhibit B.
134. Campbell brought and maintained his lawsuit
against Sherwood and Red, White, & Blue employing legal process for one or more unlawful purposes, not the purpose for
which it was intended, and/or brought his lawsuit employing legal process primarily to accomplish a purpose for which the
process was not designed and/or as a tactical weapon to achieve a result that was not the legitimate object of the process,
namely, among other things, to defame Sherwood and damage his reputation as a journalist, to falsely discredit Stolen Honor, to chill the exercise of Sherwood’s and Red, White &
Blue’s First Amendment rights, to harass Sherwood and Red, White & Blue, to burden Sherwood and Red, White
& Blue with significant legal fees and costs, to prevent Stolen Honor from
being broadcast or shown, and to prevent the possible harm that the public dissemination of Stolen Honor would have on John Kerry’s campaign for President of the United States.
135. Campbell brought and maintained his lawsuit
against the VVLF employing legal process for one or more unlawful purposes, not the purpose for which it was intended, and/or
brought his lawsuits employing legal process primarily to accomplish a purpose for which the process was not designed and/or
as a tactical weapon to achieve a result that was not the legitimate object of the process, namely, among other things, to
punish the VVLF for assisting Sherwood raise funds to defend against Campbell’s first lawsuit, to harass the VVLF, and
to burden the VVLF with significant legal fees and costs and thereby impairing the VVLF’s ability to carry out its mission
of setting the record straight about the Vietnam War.
136. By bringing and maintaining his lawsuits
against Sherwood, Red, White, & Blue, and the VVLF employing legal process for one or more unlawful purposes and not the
purpose for which it was intended, and/or bringing his lawsuits employing legal process primarily to accomplish one or more
purposes for which the process was not designed and/or as a tactical weapon to achieve a result that was not the legitimate
object of the process, as referenced above, Campbell perverted such legal process.
137. Plaintiffs have suffered significant and
continuing damages as a result of Campbell’s abuse of legal process, referenced above, including but not limited to
reputational harm, emotional and mental distress, and pecuniary harm, including the costs and expenses associated with defending
against Campbell’s lawsuits (e.g., attorneys fees and costs).
138. Campbell’s
abuse of legal process, referenced above, was malicious, outrageous, willful and wanton, in reckless disregard of the facts
and law, indifferent to the First Amendment rights of others, and the result of improper motives. Thus, plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.
139. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Campbell
such damages that will compensate plaintiffs for the severe harm to their professional and personal reputation, for emotional
and mental distress, and for all costs incurred as a result of Campbell’s abuse of legal process, and which will hold
Campbell accountable for his malicious and outrageous conduct and deter him and others from doing the same thing in the future.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against defendant Campbell and that plaintiffs
be awarded compensatory damages in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), including consequential damages, special damages,
punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as this Court deems proper and just.
COUNT IV
COMMON LAW ABUSE OF PROCESS
PLAINTIFFS v. BJORNSON
140. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of
their Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
141. Bjornson, employing legal process, brought
and maintained a libel lawsuit against Sherwood, Red, White & Blue, VVLF and NewsMax.
See Jon Bjornson v. Carlton Sherwood, Red, White & Blue Productions, Inc., the Vietnam Veterans Legacy
Foundation and NewsMax (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas; August Term 2005; No. 3339), attached as Exhibit E.
142. Bjornson brought and maintained his lawsuit
against against Sherwood and Red, White, & Blue employing legal process for one or more unlawful purposes, not the purpose
for which it was intended, and/or brought his lawsuit employing legal process primarily to accomplish a purpose for which
the process was not designed and/or as a tactical weapon to achieve a result that was not the legitimate object of the process,
namely, among other things, solely to defame Sherwood and damage his reputation as a journalist, to falsely discredit Stolen Honor, to chill the exercise of Sherwood’s and Red, White & Blue’s First Amendment rights,
to harass and impoverish Sherwood and Red, White & Blue with significant legal fees and costs, to prevent Stolen Honor from being broadcast or shown, and because he was a loyal John Kerry supporter, to stop the dissemination
of anything he perceived to harm Kerry and his political ambitions.
143. Bjornson brought and maintained his lawsuit
against against the VVLF employing legal process for one or more unlawful purposes, not the purpose for which it was intended,
and/or brought his lawsuits employing legal process primarily to accomplish a purpose for which the process was not designed
and/or as a tactical weapon to achieve a result that was not the legitimate object of the process, namely, among other things,
to punish the VVLF for assisting Sherwood raise funds to defend against Campbell’s first lawsuit, to harass the VVLF,
and to burden the VVLF with significant legal fees and costs and thereby impairing the VVLF’s ability to carry out its
mission of setting the record straight about the Vietnam War.
144. By bringing and maintaining his lawsuit against
Sherwood, Red, White, & Blue, and the VVLF employing legal process for one or more unlawful purposes and not the purpose
for which it was intended, and/or bringing his lawsuits employing legal process primarily to accomplish one or more purposes
for which the process was not designed and/or as a tactical weapon to achieve a result that was not the legitimate object
of the process, as referenced above, Bjornson perverted such legal process.
145. Plaintiffs have suffered significant and
continuing damages as a result of Bjornson’s abuse of legal process, referenced above, including but not limited to
reputational harm, emotional and mental distress, and pecuniary harm, including the costs and expenses associated with defending
against Bjornson’s lawsuits (e.g., attorneys fees and costs).
146. Bjornson’s abuse of legal process,
referenced above, was malicious, outrageous, willful and wanton, in reckless disregard of the facts and law, indifferent to
the First Amendment rights of others, and the result of improper motives. Thus,
plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.
147. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Bjornson
such damages that will compensate plaintiffs for the severe harm to their professional and personal reputation, for emotional
and mental distress, and for all costs incurred as a result of Bjornson’s abuse of legal process, and which will hold
Bjornson accountable for his malicious and outrageous conduct and deter him and others from doing the same thing in the future.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against defendant Bjornson and that plaintiffs
be awarded compensatory damages in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), including consequential damages, special damages,
punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney’s fees, and such further relief as this Court deems proper and just.
COUNT V
INTENTIONAL AND/OR NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH
PROSPECTIVE AND EXISTING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
PLAINTIFFS SHERWOOD AND RED, WHITE AND BLUE PRODUCTIONS v. CAMPBELL
148. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of
their Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
149. Campbell knew or should have known that the
false and defamatory statements made by him, his agents acting on his behalf, or others acting in concert with him would disrupt
Red, White & Blue’s existing and prospective contractual relations with Sinclair Broadcasting and the Baederwood
Theatre, among others, and would discourage other broadcasters or theatres from conducting any business with Sherwood or Red,
White & Blue.
150. Campbell’s sole and improper purpose
in taking the actions described above was to prevent the public from viewing Stolen
Honor, by improperly threatening broadcasters or theatres who might have otherwise chosen to show or broadcast Stolen Honor that if they did show or broadcast Stolen Honor, they
also would be sued.
151. Through improper actions taken by Campbell
and that were taken by those on his behalf, including his attorneys, Campbell intended to cause those who had agreed to show
or broadcast Stolen Honor to break their agreements to show or broadcast Stolen Honor. Campbell
also intended to prevent the formation of any prospective relationship or agreements between Red, White & Blue and Sherwood and any others who might have undertaken to agree to show, broadcast or otherwise disseminate
Stolen Honor.
152. These actions were not privileged or otherwise
protected or justified.
153. As a direct and proximate result of these
wrongful and unjustifiable actions, plaintiffs have suffered damages, including loss of business, goodwill and damage to their
reputation, and continue to suffer damages.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against defendant Campbell and that plaintiffs
be awarded compensatory damages, consequential damages, special damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney’s
fees, and such further relief as this Court deems proper and just.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
__________________________________________
Robert C. Clothier
rclothier@foxrothschild.com
Matthew R. Salzwedel
msalzwedel@foxrothschild.com
Beth L. Domenick
bdomenick@foxrothschild.com
Attorney I.D. Nos. 57162/201492/93591
Fox
Rothschild LLP
2000 Market Street
Tenth
Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attorneys
for Carlton A. Sherwood, Red, White
and
Blue Productions, Inc., and the Vietnam
Veterans
Legacy Foundation
Dated: September 25, 2006
VERIFICATION
I, Carlton A. Sherwood,
hereby verify that I am an individual plaintiff in this action, and that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
I, Carlton A. Sherwood,
also verify that I am a representative of plaintiff Red, White and Blue Productions, Inc.; that I am authorized to make this
verification on behalf of plaintiff Red, White and Blue Productions, Inc. in the foregoing action; that I have personal knowledge
of the statements made in the foregoing Complaint; and that the statements made in the Complaint are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
I understand that the statements made therein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
____________________________________
CARLTON A. SHERWOOD
Dated: September ___, 2006
VERIFICATION
I, Robert McMahon, hereby
verify that I am a representative of plaintiff Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation; that I am authorized to make this verification
on behalf of plaintiff Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation in the foregoing action; that I have personal knowledge of the statements
made in the foregoing Complaint; and that the statements made in the Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information, and belief.
I understand that the statements in this Verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
____________________________________
ROBERT MCMAHON
Dated: September ___, 2006
