Message #1

Subject: Complaint About Times Article
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:27:20 -0400
From: "George Freeman/CORPHQ/NYTIMES" <>
CC: "Solomon B. Watson IV/CORPHQ/NYTIMES" <>,"Adam Liptak/CORPHQ/NYTIMES" <>

Mr. Schafer:

Sol Watson has forwarded me your various e-mails complaining about Adam Liptak's April 20 article.

As I understand it, you have two complaints about the sentence "Mr. Schafer did not inform the authorities of Judge Anderson's misconduct until three years after he learned of it -- when the judge sanctioned him for bringing a frivolous suit in 1995."  With respect to the question of when you informed the authorities in relation to when you learned of Judge Anderson's actions, and with respect to the characterization of the 1995 lawsuit, Mr. Liptak relied entirely on the recent Washington Supreme Court decision.  I have now had the opportunity of reviewing it, and find that The Times article is clearly a fair and accurate rendition of the Court's opinion. While I understand that you apparently disagree with what the high court of Washington had to say about your involvement and actions in the prior cases, I simply don't think it can be denied that Mr. Liptak summarized the Court's opinion accurately.  Mr. Liptak certainly is entitled to rely upon the decision of a state supreme court without involving himself in the various interpretations of the underlying 1992 and 1995 facts.

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you on this, but Mr. Liptak has been out of the country for the past week, and I wanted to speak to him about his reporting before getting back to you.

George Freeman

Message #2
Subject:  Re: Complaint About Times Article
Date:  Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:45:29 -0700
From:  Doug Schafer <>
To:  George Freeman/CORPHQ/NYTIMES <>
CC:  "Solomon B. Watson IV/CORPHQ/NYTIMES" <>,Adam Liptak/CORPHQ/NYTIMES <>,"" <>

Mr. Assistant General Counsel George Freeman:  [Webnote: Click here for Legal Dept. roster.]

Thank you for looking into my objections and for responding.   Mr. Liptak wrote:

"Schafer did not inform the authorities of Judge Anderson's misconduct until three years after he learned of it -- when the judge sanctioned him for bringing a frivolous suit in 1995."

You contend that Mr. Liptak relied on the Washington State Supreme Court's opinion.  Please quote for me the passages of that opinion that you feel support Mr. Liptak's defamatory claims that (1) Judge Anderson sanctioned me, and (2) I filed a suit in 1995 that Judge Anderson found to be frivolous.

I'll grant you that the court's loose language about what I suspected might happen after hearing my former client's boasts in August 1992 could be misinterpreted as Mr. Liptak reported it.  However, to the extent that a whistleblower's motive becomes the focus of everybody's attention, Mr. Liptak could have, and responsibly should have, asked me about my motive and why I waited three years before looking into the Hoffman Estate cesspool, and allowed me to rebut (with convincing documentation) the false allegations about my motive.  I call your attention to the National Law Journal story published today by a responsible journalist, Gary Young, who did ask me. See

For your additional information, I obtained from the court clerk last week and have posted on my website the falsely labeled "Schafer petition" (that I neither prepared nor filed) that Judge Anderson ruled frivolous and awarded $1,000 in attorney fees (against the client, Don Barovic, not against his two trial lawyers, Sean Hicks and Richard Jensen, who were responsible for that petition nor against me).
Petition and related papers:
The Order (in which my name nowhere appears):  [Webnote: mistake in link is here corrected.]

Bitter as I am, I know damn well that I'd have little likelihood of proving maliciousness in a defamation suit agains Messrs. Liptak and Watson (though the latter's directorship of ACCA [American Corporate Counsel Association], a body opposing me and organizations I recruited to speak for the public in the SEC's whistleblowing rule debate, and his ABA committee work just might carry the day); but what I really would like--and feel you should provide me--is a public correction.  Perhaps a story about the extent to which public-spirited whistleblowers must contend with never-ending fabricated accusations of "evil" motives.

Please respond with the opinion passages requested above, and with your shop's response about a correction.  Basically, I am asking that you guys act like human beings--not lawyers--in responding to my objections.

Thank you.

Doug Schafer, idealistic suspended lawyer in Tacoma, Washington.

Message #3:

Subject: Re: Complaint About Times Article
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:56:40 -0400
From: "George Freeman/CORPHQ/NYTIMES" <>
To: Doug Schafer <>
CC: Adam Liptak/CORPHQ/NYTIMES <>,"Solomon B. Watson IV/CORPHQ/NYTIMES" <>

You asked that I quote the passage of the Washington State Supreme Court which Mr. Liptak relied upon with respect to the statements in the article that Judge Anderson sanctioned you and that he found your1995 suit to be frivolous.  In your prior e-mails you also took issue with the statement in Mr. Liptak's article that you did not inform the authorities of Judge Anderson's misconduct until three years after you learned of it.

Here is the passage in the Washington Supreme Court opinion that is the basis for those statements:

"In July 1995, nearly three years after Schafer formed the corporation for Hamilton, Schafer represented Donald Barovic in a case before Judge Anderson. Judge Anderson ruled that Schafer's petition was frivolous and without legal merit, and assessed $1,000 in attorney fees against Schafer's client. On the day of Judge Anderson's ruling, Schafer copied the court file for the Hoffman estate and initiated calls to the attorneys involved in that matter."

Message #4:
Subject:  Re: Complaint About Times Article
Date:  Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:44:32 -0700
From:  Doug Schafer <>
To:  George Freeman/CORPHQ/NYTIMES <>
CC:  Adam Liptak/CORPHQ/NYTIMES <>,"Solomon B. Watson IV/CORPHQ/NYTIMES" <>

Dear George, Sol, and Adam:

The court opinion's passage that you quoted does not support Adam's published false statement about me asserting that Judge Anderson "sanctioned him for for bringing a frivolous suit in 1995."

Again, I ask that you publish a conspicuous correction.  Moments ago I faxed to you some 1995 and 1999 documents that refute earlier allegations by Anderson's lawyer that I had acted out of retaliation, and those document confirm that I began in late July 1995 looking into Judge Anderson's corrupt plundering of the Hoffman Estate. [Webnote: Click here for the faxed documents mentioned above.]

In yesterday's message to you I mistakenly gave you the wrong URL for Judge Anderson's order of 12/15/95.  It should have been  Note that my name appears nowhere in that order -- that you report was a "sanction" of me!

Please be reasonable. You've lambasted my integrity nationally, and your false facts are being accepted as true facts by other writers who are commenting on the case.  See, e.g.,
If you print a correction, it should then become an endnote to your initial story on permanent databases such as ProQuest, and that would make both you and me look better in the eyes of later researchers.

Please strive for that accuracy.

Doug Schafer, solo suspended lawyer in Tacoma, Washington.

[Return to home page.]