FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? WHERE?
By phone they explained that they had to be defensive...
And below they state that I have to get permission from Countrywide to publish my press release...
My press release was out for a week on PRWeb, and actually had nice visibility statistics... until today...
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:52:33 -0800
To: "PRWeb Direct"
From: joseph zernik
Subject: Re: FW: dispute hold of PRWeb release 617791
I find your note below misleading and offensive. I never implied Countrywide was a party. I stated that as defendant, I hold that Countrywide provided Plaintiff with fraudulent documents, "and Countrywide claims it is merely a witness." If I read it correctly, what you say is that Countrywide did not challenge the statement regarding fraudulent documents, but claimed it implied it was a party? Does not make sense to me...In fact, in various documents in Samaan v Zernik the court designated Countrywide any of the following:
- Real Party in Interest
It appears that the Court, like PRWEB was bending over backwards to accommodate countrywide.
Hello Mr. Zernik,