Daniel Snyder lawsuit: No settlement in sight

The Washington Post on Monday posted an op-ed by Redskins owner Daniel Snyder regarding his lawsuit against the Washington City Paper. In the piece, Snyder reveals that he is moving the filing from New York to Washington "for legal reasons" and says the complaint, otherwise, remains the same.

15 Comments

Dan Snyder: Still doing this. (Photo: Jay Westcott)

Long story short

Snyder's lawyers want a retraction and an apology. Those aren't happening.

retweet

As does his one goal in life: "All I want is for the Redskins to win!" writes the team's owner in the Post.

The op-ed proves that there's still a huge appetite for news on Snyder v. Washington City Paper; just a couple of hours after it hit the web Monday, the piece had tallied well in excess of 200 comments. People still seem energized about the February filing, in which Snyder faulted the paper for: 

• Using an allegedly anti-Semitic illustration of him — the one with the devil horns, that is;

•  Claiming that Snyder had bragged about profiting from cancer victims;

• Claiming that Snyder had been kicked off of the Six Flags board of directors;

• Writing that Snyder had used Agent Orange on some trees near his home. In fact, the paper used Agent Orange only in a figurative sense, writing that Snyder "made a great view of the Potomac River for himself by going all Agent Orange on federally protected lands";

• Alleging that "Dan Snyder ... got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications."

That bloated menu of complaints underwent a trim as it boarded the Post's opinion pages. In this account, the owner shows far more respect for the time and patience of Post readers than he does for the court system. There's just one beef here, and it relates to the whole forgery question. Snyder says that the line about his getting "caught" forging names "is a clear factual assertion that I am guilty of forgery, a serious crime that goes directly to the heart of my reputation — as a businessman, marketer and entrepreneur. It is false."

From there, Snyder says that he'll withdraw the suit if he gets the retractions and apologies he's been pursuing. Then he laments how "recklessly" he's been "attacked."

Absent is any mention of the allegedly anti-Semitic illustration, the Agent Orange, the Six Flags board. So does this mean that Snyder is narrowing his demands against the paper?

By no means, says Snyder's lawyer, Patty Glaser. "There's three or four issues that remain," says Glaser, insisting that Agent Orange and Six Flags issues are still sticking points. Snyder focused on the forgeries in the Op-Ed, says Glaser, just "by way of example."

Here's a quick rundown of the two sides' positions on the key questions:

Forgeries

Snyder Camp: City Paper article accused Redskins owner of "criminal conduct," according to Glaser. At the time, Snyder was head of a sprawling company and couldn't have known about these activities, she contends.

City Paper Camp: Editor Mike Schaffer: "By that logic, you can't attribute to executives any actions of their underlings....No one thinks that the CEO of a publicly traded firm engages in the actions of the front-line telemarketers and to suppose so is to engage in the type of exaggeration typical of this complaint." (Corrupting information: I am a former editor of City Paper and Schaffer is a good friend.)

  1. «
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. »

15 Comments

MORE COMMENTS