Halt Letter to the LA Times

Messrs. Chairman Soon-Shiong and General Counsel Glasser; Ms. Editors Tang and Brenneman, and the author Mr. Greenland:

This law firm represents technology companies and investors in the United States, predominantly in Silicon Valley, including executives and board members, in avoiding, mitigating, and defending discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims. This letter serves as a formal notice to the General Counsel and Editors of the LA Times regarding serious legal concerns stemming from the publication of alleged gross mischaracterizations of Polish-Americans.

1. Authority and Privilege to Publish: Does the LA Times possess the authority or privilege to publish statements that allegedly violate, or are made with reckless disregard for, the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims and the IHRA Anti-Semitism Definitions and Examples? The U.S. Department of State has used these definitions since 2010, and they were adopted by the IHRA in 2016. Publishing such statements can lead to defamation per se, trade libel, and publication in a false light, causing special harm to Polish-Americans, a protected class under discrimination, harassment, and retaliation laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
2. Alleged False Statements: In review of the Geneva Conventions and the IHRA Definitions, are the following alleged false statements reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to Polish-Americans? Specifically, the statement, “So many Jews died in Poland that you could say that the entire country is a Jewish cemetery” (Opinion: Have we learned nothing? The protester’s taunt, ‘Go back to Poland,’ is grotesque, by Seth Greenland).
3. Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation: Is it reasonably foreseeable that discrimination, harassment, and retaliation lawsuits will arise against readers of The LA Times' Holocaust-related articles? This includes individuals in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and the religious sphere, due to the hostile environments created by such statements.
4. Title VII Implications: Will the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status, also rule that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on Polish-American ancestry and national origin? The Supreme Court held that “homosexuality and transgender status are inextricably bound up with sex,” and could likewise decide that “Polish ancestry and national origin status are inextricably bound up with Poland.”

Mr. Glasser, please confirm receipt of this email and the attached signed legal notice letter, which provides further detail. Also, provide an estimated time to review and respond to the questions and conclusions. Note that The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal received similar letters three years ago and have since altered their language on this topic.

It is extraordinary, Mr. Greenland, that your LA Times opinion never mentions Germany or Germans or German-occupied Poland; only Poland and Nazis. This is a strict violation of the Geneva Conventions, the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and the IHRA Anti-Semitism Definitions, resulting in alleged defamation, trade libel, and publication in a false light invasion of privacy of 9,150,000 Polish-Americans.

An apology and correction are required. Note that reporter privilege does not extend to statements made with actual malice. Malice may be shown by 'knowledge that [the statement] was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not' (Liberman, 80 N.Y.2d at 437–38, 590 N.Y.S.2d 857, 605 N.E.2d 344, quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)). The LA Times cannot publish these misleading statements again.

In 2021, I authored a detailed 30-page legal opinion challenging the portrayal of Poland during the Holocaust in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. This analysis argued that these portrayals violated the International Holocaust Remembrance Act, Geneva Conventions, and US defamation laws. This led these publications to halt the dissemination of potentially defamatory statements about Polish-Americans, demonstrating the profound impact of diligent legal advocacy on national media practices.

To be clear, the Holocaust occurred in German-Occupied Poland, not Poland. For 600 years, Jews lived freely in Poland until the German Nazi terror and occupation. Any assertion that Poland was complicit is fundamentally flawed. Poland's government was in exile in London and was the first to warn the Allies. Collaboration requires volition, and data shows that 99.97+% of Poles were not traitors. Asserting these horrible allegations on a group of people this way is clear anti-bias against a protected class: Polish Americans.

US defamation laws assert that once a publication is aware of the facts, they cannot misrepresent them. My legal analysis challenged these publications to uphold the truth. Attached is a response from The New York Times' Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, David McCraw, acknowledging the distinction.

Legal advocacy is essential in ensuring historical accuracy and protecting reputations. All legal remedies remain reserved.

Sincerely,

Peter Szymanski, Esq.

Silicon Valley Counsel P.C.

T.?650.776.4826 E.?[email protected]

Attachments:

1. Legal Notice - Mr. Glasser
2. The NY Times response
3. The NY Times letter
4. The WSJ letter