The Hearsay News, Bolinas’s iconoclastic community bulletin, distributes a mere few hundred copies per issue and has never had a paid employee. Last month, the tiny operation acquired the same law firm that has represented Pfizer, Microsoft and the government of Brazil to defend it in a defamation lawsuit.
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, one of the nation’s most prominent firms, has taken on the Hearsay’s defense pro bono, joining Bolinas attorney Jack Siedman in fighting claims that have dragged the scrappy paper through nearly a year of turmoil. The firm, which first learned of the case through the pages of the Light, declined to comment.
Last week, the Hearsay won a small but significant victory, when Marin County Judge Stephen P. Freccero rejected an effort to have Mr. Siedman thrown off the case. The legal team has also filed an appeal of the judge’s ruling earlier this year denying the paper’s anti-SLAPP motion.
The legal tangle has its roots in bitter divisions that rippled through Bolinas in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks. As Israel and Palestine dominated the pages of the Hearsay, the paper’s volunteer editors found themselves caught between their founding principles—“Everyone is a Reporter” and nearly everything gets printed—and mounting acrimony among neighbors.
Bolinas resident Cheryl Ruggiero filed suit last August, alleging she was defamed by two letters written by José Leyva in August 2024. Mr. Leyva, who has since moved to Mexico, criticized her views on Israel and Gaza and her opposition to a temporary R.V. park for displaced residents in Bolinas. She has said the letters falsely portrayed her as racist and supportive of genocide and white supremacism.
The Hearsay issued three statements over the following weeks, including a front-page retraction drafted by Mr. Siedman, but Ms. Ruggiero argued that none met California’s retraction statute. She filed claims against the paper for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging she has suffered reputational harm, ostracism, harassment and anxiety, and that she fears for her safety.
Ms. Ruggiero later sought to disqualify Mr. Siedman, arguing that by assisting in drafting the retraction and publishing a notice in the Hearsay explaining the case and the newspaper’s legal position, he had violated rules of professional conduct, negatively influenced public opinion and tainted the jury pool. Judge Freccero was unmoved.
“Plaintiff is not entitled to have the general public hold a positive opinion of her case,” he said in a written opinion. “Overall, this strikes the Court as an attempt by Plaintiff to use the Rules of Professional Conduct as a pretext to obtain a litigation advantage.”
Paul Levine, Ms. Ruggiero’s attorney, said he disagreed with the ruling and intended to press forward with the case.
Mr. Seidman filed a motion in December to have the suit dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, a law designed to swiftly dispose of lawsuits that target protected speech. The question before Judge Freccero, Mr. Siedman argued, was whether the letters—however inflammatory—were expressions of opinion tied to genuine public debate.
“We have a robust First Amendment right in this country to speak freely and express our opinions, even to say things that others might find offensive,” Mr. Siedman said. “It’s not about whether you agree with the things José Leyva said. It’s about whether he should have the ability to say them.”
Judge Freccero denied the anti-SLAPP motion in January, allowing the case to proceed. But with its robust new legal team, the Hearsay has appealed that ruling, a move that automatically pauses most proceedings in the case.
This print version of this story incorrectly stated that Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer once represented Rudy Giuliani.