Pubblicato in: Criminalità Organizzata, Giustizia

Melania Trump in tribunale contro il Mail Online.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-02-11.

van-honthorst-gerard-1592-1656-sinedrio-001

van Honthorst Gerard (1592-1656). Cristo davanti al Sinedrio.


Meglio chiamarsi Lev Trockij e farsi giudicare da un tribunale di Stalin,

che chiamarsi Melania Trump ed essere giudicata da una Corte del Maryland.


Il venti agosto dello scorso anno il Mail Online aveva pubblicato un articolo in cui accusava Mrs Melania Trump di aver lavorato come escort per un giro di clientela facoltosa.

Già il primo settembre il Mail Online pubblicava un articolo di ritrattazione, scritto in un inglese palloccoloso e contorto.

Essendo la campana elettorale per le elezioni presidenziali entrata nel vivo, quell’articolo fu ripreso da tutta la stampa liberal americana e straniera, mettendo in moto una delle più poderose macchine del fango, cui si unirono numerosi richiami fatti dalla allora candidata alla presidenza, Mrs Hillary Clinton.

Inutile segnalare il danno di immagine subita dalla coppia presidenziale.

«US First Lady Melania Trump has re-filed a libel lawsuit against the Mail Online’s publisher, Mail Media Inc, for reporting on rumours she worked as an escort»

*

«In the new filing, made this time in New York, the first lady’s attorneys argue the report damaged her ability to profit off her high profile»

*

«Ms Trump’s lawsuit was previously dismissed by a judge in Maryland»

*

«The lawsuit, now filed in New York, where the corporation has offices, seeks compensatory and punitive damages of at least $150m (£121m).»

* * * * * * * *

Il primo settembre 2016 il Mail Online aveva fatto ampia ritrattazione di quanto previamente pubblicato.

«On August 20, 2016, an article was published in the Daily Mail newspaper titled ‘Racy photos, and troubling questions about his wife’s past that could derail Trump.’»

*

«The article discussed whether allegations being made about Melania Trump could negatively affect her husband Donald Trump’s presidential bid. Among other things, the article noted that allegations have been made in a book available on Amazon about a modeling agency where Mrs. Trump worked in Milan being ‘something like a gentleman’s club,’ and an article published by Suzy, a Slovenian magazine, alleged that Mrs. Trump’s modeling agency in New York, run by Paolo Zampolli, ‘operated as an escort agency for wealthy clients.’»

*

«To the contrary, The Daily Mail newspaper article stated that there was no support for the allegations»

*

«The point of the article was that these allegations could impact the U.S. presidential election even if they are untrue»

*

«Mrs. Trump’s counsel in the U.S. and the U.K., have stated unequivocally that the allegations about the modeling agencies are false»

*

«Daily Mail newspaper regrets any such misinterpretation»

* * * * * * *

Il non luogo a procedere stabilito dal Giudice Sharon Burrell, è così riportato dal Guardian.

«A Maryland judge has dismissed first lady Melania Trump’s libel lawsuit against Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper over an article that contained insinuations that she had worked as an escort.

Court records show that Montgomery County circuit judge Sharon Burrell ruled on Thursday to dismiss the suit against Mail Media Inc, the corporation that publishes the Daily Mail’s website. The Daily Mail’s argument centered on whether the lawsuit should have been filed in Maryland and whether Trump was suing the correct corporate entity.

Trump has also filed a lawsuit against the paper in London.

The first lady’s libel suit against blogger Webster Tarpley of Gaithersburg for reporting the escort rumors was allowed to move ahead last week.

She filed the lawsuit in Rockville in September, after both Tarpley and the Daily Mail issued retractions».

*

Da un punto di vista squisitamente legale, Mrs Trump dovrebbe poter dimostrate che

«It not only has to be false, it has to be published with actual malice, meaning reckless disregard for the truth».

*

Difficile però non vedere malizia nel pubblicare una simile notizia proprio nel bel mezzo di una campagna elettorale.

Ma il giudice Sharon Burrell è una liberal democratica, quindi può benissimo far ciò. Ma può fare anche ben di peggio.

«There can be no more defamatory statement than to call a woman a prostitute» [Guardian]

Nota.

«Sharon V. Burrell is an associate judge on the Sixth Circuit Court for Montgomery County in Maryland. She was appointed to the court by Governor Martin O’Malley on September 26, 2008 and assumed office on October 21, 2008. Burrell was elected to the court on November 2, 2010 to a full fifteen-year term, ending in 2025» [Fonte]


Usa Today. 2017-02-7. Melania Trump’s ‘Daily Mail’ lawsuit: A FLOTUS first? [Testo completo della citazione]

First lady Melania Trump has returned to the legal battlefield against the American outpost of Britain’s rowdy tabloid, The Daily Mail: She’s refiled her $150 million libel lawsuit against the powerful publication, which has been comparatively friendly to her husband’s political career.

It’s an unprecedented move for a first lady, but Trump, 46, is going after the Mail and its website MailOnline.com because they were among several less-than-fastidious media publications that reported in August on allegations that Trump, a former model, once worked for Milan and New York modeling agencies that also operated as escort agencies.

At the time the Daily Mail story was first published in August 2016, she  strongly denied those allegations as “100% false and tremendously damaging to her personal and professional reputation,” according to her lawyers’ statement at the time. A month later, The Mail issued a retraction. (She also won an apology and settlement from a Maryland blogger who published a similar story.)

On Monday, the first lady refiled her lawsuit against Mail Media Inc., in New York state court, after her initial effort to file in Maryland was rejected by a judge as the wrong venue. MailOnline.com, which is based in New York, claims to be the biggest, most-read news website in the world.

A spokesman for MailOnline did not return a message from USA TODAY seeking comment.

Her lawsuit asserts the escort story damaged her chances of profiting from her high profile, which expanded when she married Donald Trump in 2005 but has soared since he was elected president in November and the Slovenian native became the first foreign-born first lady in nearly two centuries.

Trump’s filing claims she “had the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as an extremely famous and well-known person, as well as a former professional model, brand spokesperson and successful businesswoman, to launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multi-million dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which Plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world.”

Those product categories could have included apparel, accessories, jewelry, cosmetics, hair care and fragrance, among others, the lawsuit says.

But hold the outrage — Trump’s attorney, California media lawyer Charles Harder, insists that doesn’t mean she intends to monetize her new role as critics have implied.

“The first lady has no intention of using her position for profit and will not do so,” Harder said in an emailed statement to USA TODAY. “It is not a possibility.  Any statements to the contrary are being misinterpreted.”

But when pressed for a reason for why her lawsuit contains such language, Harder did not respond.

Profiting from their position has not been an issue for modern first ladies, although it’s not clear that doing so would be illegal given that the “job” is unofficial, undefined and unpaid.

First lady historian Myra Gutin, a professor at Rider University in Lawrenceville, N.,J., says a few first ladies have participated in commercial projects in the past — books, radio broadcasts, TV programs — but they donated their pay to charity.

“It’s such murky territory,” Gutin said. “No, there is nothing that would prohibit her from profiting. But it would be a first.”

It’s also a first for a first lady to file a lawsuit, although Trump wasn’t yet FLOTUS when she originally filed hers.

“It’s unprecedented for a president (to file a libel suit), let alone a first lady,” says Mark Feldstein, a former NBC investigative reporter and a journalism professor at the University of Maryland.

He says former President Theodore Roosevelt once sued a Michigan newspaper for calling him a drunk; the president won after the reporter admitted it was false and apologized on the stand. “Roosevelt shook his hand and dropped the suit.”

Mrs. Trump must clear a high bar in order to prevail. Unlike in the Mail‘s home country, libel lawsuits are difficult to win in the United States, especially if the defendant is rich and powerful and the plaintiff is a public figure like Trump. In those kinds of cases, a plaintiff must prove a high standard of “actual malice” on the part of the defendant in order to win.

The recent victory of Hulk Hogan — also represented by Harder — against Gawker Media over a leaked sex tape, which resulted in a multi-million-dollar judgment and led to the website’s demise, gave hope to some media lawyers and plaintiffs that the power balance may be shifting to the point where the burden of proof in America becomes less stringent, as in the United Kingdom.

“I think this (Trump suit) will get tossed pretty quickly,” Feldstein says. “I don’t see this as challenging New York Times vs Sullivan, which is the linchpin of (libel) law, that there is an extraordinarily high threshold to prove libel of a public figure. It not only has to be false, it has to be published with actual malice, meaning reckless disregard for the truth.”

President Trump has vowed to “open up” libel laws to make it easier for plaintiffs suing media publications to win, although he hasn’t said how he plans to do that. “We’re a long way from libel laws being changed courtesy of Donald Trump,” Feldstein says. “This case is not a silver bullet.”


Independent. 2017-02-07. Melania Trump’s Daily Mail refiled lawsuit reveals she wants ‘multi-million dollar’ endorsements as First Lady

US First Lady Melania Trump has re-filed a libel lawsuit against the Mail Online’s publisher, Mail Media Inc, for reporting on rumours she worked as an escort.

In the new filing, made this time in New York, the first lady’s attorneys argue the report damaged her ability to profit off her high profile.

Ms Trump, the filing states, had a “one-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to launch a commercial brand of multiple products.

It says each product “could have garnered multi-million dollar business relationships” during the term in which Ms Trump is First Lady and thus “one of the most photographed women in the world.”

The lawsuit says those products could have included apparel, accessories, jewellery, cosmetics, hair care and fragrance, among others.

Ms Trump filed the previous lawsuit against Mail Media Inc after it ran a story citing a Slovenian magazine’s report that a modelling agency she worked with in New York in the 1990s also served as an escort business, linking wealthy clients with women for sexual services.

The Mail Online has since retracted the story, which it headlined: “Naked photoshoots, and troubling questions about visas that won’t go away: The VERY racy past of Donald Trump’s Slovenian wife.”

The posting said it “did not intend to state or suggest that these allegations are true, nor did it intend to state or suggest that Mrs. Trump ever worked as an ‘escort’ or in the ‘sex business.’”

Ms Trump’s lawsuit was previously dismissed by a judge in Maryland.

The lawsuit, now filed in New York, where the corporation has offices, seeks compensatory and punitive damages of at least $150m (£121m).

She is also suing US blogger Webster Tarpley for reporting the rumours. The lawsuit against Mr Tarpley has been allowed to go ahead in Maryland.


Mail Online. 2016-09-01. Melania Trump: A retraction

On August 20, 2016, an article was published in the Daily Mail newspaper titled ‘Racy photos, and troubling questions about his wife’s past that could derail Trump.’

The article discussed whether allegations being made about Melania Trump could negatively affect her husband Donald Trump’s presidential bid. Among other things, the article noted that allegations have been made in a book available on Amazon about a modeling agency where Mrs. Trump worked in Milan being ‘something like a gentleman’s club,’ and an article published by Suzy, a Slovenian magazine, alleged that Mrs. Trump’s modeling agency in New York, run by Paolo Zampolli, ‘operated as an escort agency for wealthy clients.’

The article, which was also published online by the Mailonline/DailyMail.com website under the headline ‘Naked photoshoots, and troubling questions about visas that won’t go away: The VERY racy past of Donald Trump’s Slovenian wife’ did not intend to state or suggest that these allegations are true, nor did it intend to state or suggest that Mrs. Trump ever worked as an ‘escort’ or in the ‘sex business.’

To the contrary, The Daily Mail newspaper article stated that there was no support for the allegations, and it provided adamant denials from Mrs. Trump’s spokesperson and from Mr. Zampolli.

The point of the article was that these allegations could impact the U.S. presidential election even if they are untrue.

Mrs. Trump’s counsel in the U.S. and the U.K., have stated unequivocally that the allegations about the modeling agencies are false.

To the extent that anything in the Daily Mail’s article was interpreted as stating or suggesting that Mrs. Trump worked as an ‘escort’ or in the ‘sex business,’ that she had a ‘composite or presentation card for the sex business,’ or that either of the modeling agencies referenced in the article were engaged in these businesses, it is hereby retracted, and the Daily Mail newspaper regrets any such misinterpretation.

The Daily Mail newspaper and MailOnline/DailyMail.com have entirely separate editors and journalistic teams.

In so far as MailOnline/DailyMail.com published the same article it wholeheartedly also retracts the above and also regrets any such misinterpretation.

 

Annunci

Un pensiero riguardo “Melania Trump in tribunale contro il Mail Online.

I commenti sono chiusi.