Re: Notice and Demand for Correction and Retraction
Dear President Hirshman, KPBS, and KPBS’s Broadcasters and Publishers:
We are writing to give you notice of our demand, and to make that demand, for correction and retraction of false, inaccurate, and/or misleading reporting that may have been disseminated by KPBS via television or radio on or after March 10, 2015.
On that date, your media partner, Inewsource, posted on its website an article entitled, “DEPOSITION AND DEEDS CONVEY AMBIGUITY OF BRIGGS-CACCIATORE RELATIONSHIP.” In one way or another the article accuses each of us of committing crimes, either by lying during a deposition or by recording false land documents, driving home the significance of such (false) accusations by quoting a prosecutor from San Bernardino County. At one point the article states:
If Cacciatore lied about her relationship with Briggs under oath, it would be considered perjury. Likewise, recording a deed stating they are “husband and wife,” if they know they are not, would constitute filing a “false document,” a violation of Penal Code Section 115(a), according to Vance Welch, deputy district attorney in the real estate fraud division for San Bernardino County.
We want a retraction and correction of each of the following assertions, suggestions, intimations, and other statements and conclusions that a reasonable person might draw from KPBS’s dissemination of them: (1) Ms. Cacciatore lied during her deposition. (2) Ms. Cacciatore recorded any false land document. (3) Mr. Briggs recorded any false land document. (4) Mr. Briggs and Ms. Cacciatore do not regard themselves as “husband and wife.”
Sincerely,
Sarichia Cacciatore
Cory J. Briggs
to see the letter as originally mailed, please click here
[divider]
Re: March 30, 2015 Notice and Demand for Correction and Retraction
Dear Mr. Briggs and Ms. Cacciatore:
Thank you for your Notice and Demand for Correction and Retraction (Demand) dated March 30, 2015. You assert the news story entitled, “Deposition and Deeds Convey Ambiguity of Briggs-Cacciatore Relationship,” published by inewsource on March 10, 2015, in “one way or another” “accuses each of us of committing crimes, either by lying during a deposition or by recording false land documents….” You then quote the news story as follows:
If Cacciatore lied about her relationship with Briggs under oath, it would be considered perjury. Likewise, recording a deed stating they are “husband and wife,” if they know they are not, would constitute filing a false document,” a violation of Penal Code Section 115p(a), according to Vance Welch, deputy district attorney in the real estate fraud division for San Bernardino County.
You thereafter demand a “retraction and correction” of the following assertions: “(1) Ms. Cacciatore lied during her deposition. (2) Ms. Cacciatore recorded any false land document. (3) Mr. Briggs recorded any false land document. (4) Mr. Briggs and Ms. Cacciatore do not regard themselves as ‘husband and wife.’”
Please be advised that news story does not make these four assertions you set forth above. The news story does contain the statements you quote regarding the ambiguity created by the documents on which inewsource relied, which include:
1. Grant Deed, dated February 26, 2009, to “Cory J. Briggs and Sarichia G. Cacciatore, husband and wife as joint tenants”, and executed Grant Deed, dated March 17, 2009, to “Cory J. Briggs and Sarichia G. Cacciatore, husband and wife as joint tenants”
2. Deed of Trust dated March 17, 2009, with borrowers as “CORY J. BRIGGS AND SARICHIA G. CACCIATORE, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS.”
3. Short Form Deed of Trust, dated May 29, 2009, “by CORY J BRIGGS AND SARICHIA G CACCIATORE, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS….”
4. Deed of Trust, dated March 26, 2013, with borrowers as “CORY J. BRIGGS AND SARICHIA G. CACCIATORE, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AS JOINT TENANTS.”
5. Quitclaim Deed dated August 6, 2013, from “Cory J. Briggs and Sarichia G. Cacciatore, husband and wife as joint tenants”.
The deposition testimony of Sarichia Cacciatore, taken under penalty of perjury on December 1, 2014, in San Diegans For Open Government v. City of San Diego et. al., Case No. 37-2012-00088065, further states in pertinent part:
Page 26, lines 12-18:
Q. Ms. Cacciatore, are you married to Cory Briggs?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever been married to Cory Briggs?
A. No.
Q. Have you and Cory Briggs registered as domestic partners?
A. No.
Page 55, line 13 – page 56, line 13, includes questioning based on exhibit 5, the Quitclaim Deed dated August 6, 2013, from “Cory J. Briggs and Sarichia G. Cacciatore, husband and wife as joint tenants” as follows:
Q. Does the document say that Cory Briggs and Sarichia Cacciatore are husband and wife?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you sign a document that’s recorded in the County records stating that you’re husband and wife if, in fact, you’re not?
[Objections made by Mr. Briggs, including on Fifth Amendment grounds omitted].
Q. Well, I think the question is, are you exercising your Fifth Amendment right not to testify?
A. Yes.
inewsource based its reporting on these official government records and judicial testimony, which are inconsistent as to whether Cory Briggs and Sarichia Cacciatore are or ever have been “husband and wife.” Given the inconsistency between Ms. Cacciatore’s sworn testimony and the recorded land deeds, if the testimony made under oath is true, can you please explain the recorded deeds? If the recorded deeds are correct, can please explain the testimony made under oath?
Based on the present state of facts known to inewsource, as shown by these official government records and judicial testimony, copies of which are attached here, we are unaware of any false fact stated in the news story to retract or correct. To the extent that you have any documentation or other information you wish us to consider, please forward it to us on or before Monday, April 6, at 5:00 p.m., and we will be happy to review it.
Sincerely,
Lorie Hearn, Executive Director, inewsource
Thomas Karlo, General Manager, KPBS
to see the letter as originally mailed, please click here.
…The retraction demand is usually a prerequisite to the filing of a lawsuit. I don’t know if plaintiff has standing to bring the action if a demand letter is not sent.