FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? WHERE?

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? WHERE?

By phone they explained that they had to be defensive...
And below they state that I have to get permission from Countrywide to publish my press release...


My press release was out for a week on PRWeb, and actually had nice visibility statistics... until today...

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:52:33 -0800

To: "PRWeb Direct"

From: joseph zernik

Subject: Re: FW: dispute hold of PRWeb release 617791

I find your note below misleading and offensive. I never implied Countrywide was a party. I stated that as defendant, I hold that Countrywide provided Plaintiff with fraudulent documents, "and Countrywide claims it is merely a witness." If I read it correctly, what you say is that Countrywide did not challenge the statement regarding fraudulent documents, but claimed it implied it was a party? Does not make sense to me...In fact, in various documents in Samaan v Zernik the court designated Countrywide any of the following:

• Defendant
• Cross-complainant
• Intervenor
• Objector
• Real Party in Interest
• Non-Party

It appears that the Court, like PRWEB was bending over backwards to accommodate countrywide.

Joseph Zernik

At 04:16 PM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
Hello Mr. Zernik,

We are notifying you that we have put the press release 617791 entitled"Samuels - Countrywide Chief Legal Counsel to Answer Today in Case InvolvingAlleged Fraudulent Documents" on Dispute/Hold status.PRWEB releases are taken off line and put on Dispute/Hold when and if weare notified of potentially libelous information or a serious inaccuracythat affects a person, company or organization named in the release.Releases may also be put on hold when we learn that the information in arelease may violate copyright law or PRWEB's Terms of Service or when weare informed that the submitter does not have authorization to releaseinformation on behalf of the organization or person named in the release.In this case, we have been informed by Countrywide that this releaseinaccurately implies that Countrywide and Mr. Samuels are a party to thecase Samaan v. Zernik, which is in fact incorrect and therefore misleading.Since PRWEB relies on users to submit accurate information in theirpress releases, we cannot be the arbiters of whether to put the releaseback in circulation. We will only take the release off dispute hold whenand if both parties submit to us that the original or revised releaseshould be taken off Dispute/Hold.

Thank you.

For your reference, our terms of service are located athttp://www.prweb.com/tos.php

Again, PRWEB editors will not get involved in approving or modifying the release further until and unless both you and Countrywide contact us,asking us to put this release back on line.

If you have other questions orconcerns, please contact us.

Best,

Nicole Albright--

PRWeb Editorial StaffPRWeb International, Inc.2084