vantiy fair for comment attny work product

Dear Graydon. , I have been told that John Conally , has resurrected the story about me that both he and David Margolik were originally assigned . Though I frankly initially was surprised, as you had clearly stated during our last conversation that it was your closely held belief that a sex story, is not vanity fairs fare,, unless the person was holding public office. You had also admirably stated that Vanity fair distinguished iteself from the other magazines by being 80% fact, wherein the others were less than fifty. It might come as a shock to you but in fact I would welcome a story with the caveat that it be carefully reviewed by both you and your staff. (Though I much prefer no story at all,as you know I am a private person, I take your last comment to heart ,," then you should have lived in a one bedroom on the west side") My concern is that John COnally has conducted himself in a way that I'm sure does not reflect either your or the magazines ethics. As I'm sure you are aware, john worked for me , or to more precise his company "Hit the Bid", ( you decide it's connotation), was hired by me when I owned Radar magazine. His tactic of telling people he was a former detective, (i'm sure you are aware of his unedited backround) and that I had kicked a pregnant woman (Vicky Ward) , in the stomach, the last time there was an article.is only one of the many clear reasons he should be removed from doing this story. ( I had personally asked Vicky to mention this to you , as we both agreed this wasn't your style ). His statement that Margolik was going about the story the wrong way by getting the facts from the Lawyers first, and then having that as part of a story, was an anathema to his style of " writing the entire story and then giving the other a side only a day to respond. .Is especially aggregious in this case.this is confirmed by .another connally statement, If taken off this story I would simply find another buyer , or find a way to have it published on-line. WIth this in mind , I would respectfully request a meeting with you ,your editor, attorneys and if you thought wise Conally himself, to review the true facts and highly relevant documents of this event. Both Jerry Lefcourt and Alan Dershowitz have as you know, have previously met with David Margolik, and had shared with him confidential information,They were both disappointed that after preparing a full presentation of what david knew to be exculpatory documents , the meeting was suddenly cancelled the very morning it was to have taken place. I was led to believe that as David, who after being privledged to these certain facts, began to comprehend that the story was in fact , not the sleaze that John Conally had hoped for , and that David now considered himself "off the story". To get the legallities out of the way,, please consider this formal notice that the police reports that were released in an unprecedented and improper fashion to the public contain both gross fabrications and malicious inventions, and if relied upon for your story after this notice , would be clear grounds for a defamation and malice claim. A claim that I would regretfully but certainly pursue. If instead, you were willing to publish a factual account , not with any expectation of you removing it's warts and pimples, but based on documentary evidence , I would cooperate fully , limited only by legal considerations. I think this is fair , as you will end up with a better article, and though I would not expect to be "happy ", you could at least claim that I had been treated fairly. At a minimum however, I think that John Conally his interviews , and notes must be disregarded, as under the new york times journalistic ethics guide. .........

Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367