Three weeks ago we published a two part series that outlined the Complaint for Damages for Defamation and False Light brought by referee/judge Patrick Russell against Pedro Fernandez, and the resulting settlement by stipulated judgment, effective January 17, 2007. Fernandez’ lawyers negotiated conditions for Russell to dismiss claims against their client, including an apology to be written on Fernandez’ website within 30 days and publication of a “guest column” to be written by Russell within 60 days of the agreement. He was also to make payment of $500 within 30 days and $50 a month thereafter until the $18,000 judgment was satisfied.
There were problems from the very beginning. The $500 payment was received late. On February 21, Fernandez wrote Marian Birge, Russell’s attorney, accusing her of receiving the check and denying receipt. He then sent the check by Fed Ex on February 22 that arrived six days later after a strange odyssey that twice included an incorrect address. On the first attempt, Fernandez mailed it to himself, then he apparently misspelled Ms. Birge’s name and used the wrong suite number on the second try.
This Wednesday, Ms. Birge went to court regarding Fernandez’ breach of the Stipulated Judgment. She indicated that Pedro breached the judgment in several ways, including that he failed to print the apology on time, and made prohibited exculpatory modifications to it. One modification consisted of an added headline that flatly contradicted the apology. Pedro’s attorney, Marc Risman, stated to the Judge and Ms. Birge that both he and John Clifford represented Fernandez on a “pro bono” basis. If Pedro wasn’t paying legal fees, why did he put a headline over his apology that read, “Can’t Afford Legal Fees? Go With Retraction”? Further, what happened to the funds collected on his website when he set up a PayPal account for legal contributions?
Additionally, Birge indicated that Fernandez refused to print Russell’s 900 word guest column.
Pedro’s lawyer asked to give Fernandez another chance to publish the apology without the excuses and qualifiers and to publish the 900 word guest column. The Judge wants to know if Pedro will do that and gave Fernandez until noon Friday to comply. After that, Ms. Birge can either ask for entry of the stipulated judgment or not, depending on whether she is satisfied with the result.
Will Pedro publish the guest column before Friday at noon? Ms. Birge also entered into the record a copy of the guest column that she sent to Pedro’s lawyers for publication. Three weeks ago we gave our word that if Pedro did not publish the guest column, Mr. Russell had an open invitation to do it here. We have a copy, and here it is:
————–
The 900 Words Pedro Fernandez Does Not Want You To See
This “guest” column may be a unique experience for those of you who regularly read Pedro Fernandez.
It contains truth and verifiable facts.
My name is Pat Russell. I am a professional boxing official. I’m also the guy who sued Fernandez for slander, false light and for inventing slurs against my character.
I won. This column is part of the settlement reached after Fernandez quit the fight. A Superior Court Judge signed a stipulated agreement that required Fernandez to print this column exactly as written. Attorneys had also hammered out a retraction that Fernandez was required to print, again, exactly as written. It also required Fernandez to pay out $18,000.00 in damages.
Fernandez failed to deliver. Instead, he edited his apology and retraction to gain sympathy for himself. So much for “the straightest writer in boxing history.”
This is the story: I applied for the job of California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) Executive Officer in the summer/fall of 2004. So did seventy plus other people. We all went through a process. Our applications were considered. We interviewed. The CSAC Commissioners interviewed three finalists and picked a new Executive Officer, Armando Garcia. End of story, right?
Not exactly.
Prior to the formal applications being available, Pedro Fernandez decided to insert himself into the process. He began a series of slurs, misstatements and outright lies in an attempt to discredit my character and credibility as a candidate. According to Fernandez, I had some extreme character flaws. He wrote that I was a drunk, I was a racist and that I had cheated on the testing procedures. He called for an “investigation: of my performance as a law enforcement officer.
He solicited his readership to “write the Governor (Schwarzenneger)” about my candidacy, and he took credit and claimed “victory” when Garcia was chosen.
Like most big lies, say them often enough and people start to believe them. His slurs picked up some traction. During the discovery portion of the case, it came out that a CSAC employee, Sal Barrajas, had given the commissioners copies of the Fernandez garbage prior to the final interview. Barrajas did this after he was twice told by his supervisor not to do so, owing to their concerns about the defamatory nature of the material.
It was all false. Don’t believe me? Let me quote Fernandez from the retraction.
“I wrongfully commented that Pat Russell had an alcohol problem” Translation: He lied.
“I was wrong to conclude that he (Russell) was a racist and had a problem with minorities.” Translation: He made up a story so he could try to justify his false statements as “opinions.”
“I also erred when I wrote that Pat Russell cheated in an interview. I got bad information. I trusted a source and did not do a fact check before I wrote that.” Translation: I was willing to print something false, I don’t check sources, and I don’t care if I am wrong.
“Thus, as far as I am concerned, I gaffed and this is over.” Translation: I got caught, and I want to minimize my involvement by claiming that my deliberate, repetitive character assassination was a one-time “gaffe”.
So much for being “fair and balanced.”
When I finally decided that enough was enough, I fought back by suing Fernandez. The First Amendment and the principle of a free press doesn’t include a right to print false statements. Predictably, Fernandez shifted roles from unprovoked assailant to wounded victim, and solicited readers for donations to “save Ringtalk” and take the “fight” to court.
As for his complaint that I was out to “destroy” him, let’s look at the facts. I stipulated to accept a $50.00 a month repayment schedule because his attorney represented in court that Fernandez was in severe financial straits.
I fought back because Fernandez is unfair and a bully. But there was another reason. IN criminal law, there exists a case called the Brady decision. Basically, the case requires a prosecuting agency to voluntarily give the defense any and all potentially adverse information regarding any law enforcement officer involved in a case. During my “Pedro attack,” I was a member of an investigative team that prosecuted an individual who had sadistically murdered two young boys, aged 9 and 13. The result of that investigation was a murder conviction and a sentence of death. The lies that Fernandez told about me could, potentially, have created an issue or delay in that case. Perhaps the greatest statement about the lack of Fernandez’ credibility, is that his accusations of racisim, alcohol abuse and dishonesty were never raised as an issue in any case I ever worked.
I want to thank all the people that Fernandez alludes to in his retraction that supported me. I know a few of you, but my thanks go out to all. You showed great courage, knowing that could have faced a similar assault. As a good friend once said: You are stand up. And stand up doesn’t go out of style.
I want to end this with a word to Fernandez. There is enough truth out there that you don’t need to make it up. Words and actions have consequences. People will accept criticism, but not false slurs against them. And they will fight back. This experience could be the first of many if you don’t change your ways.