![]() ![]() Steele's negligence in making unsupported accusations that our clients had something to do with alleged efforts to interfere in the 2016 election - which they did not. ![]() "We are, however, pleased that the court agreed that we have adequately proved Mr. "We strongly disagree with the court's decision, which we will almost certainly appeal," Lewis said in a statement. citizens to defend themselves,” Epstein wrote.Īlan Lewis, an attorney for the businessmen at the firm Carter Ledyard and Milburn, said he expects the opinion to be reversed. citizens to bring defamation actions, but nonresident aliens do not have the same rights as U.S. “Plaintiffs do not explain why nonresident aliens have the same rights as U.S. court for a redress of their grievances and invoking a constitutional right to discovery.” citizen, but Epstein called it ironic for such an argument to come from “nonresident aliens with Russian and/or Israeli citizenship … while petitioning a U.S. "We think Judge Epstein's order is thorough, well-reasoned and firmly supported in the law and this dismissal is an example of constitutional principles at work," Eikhoff said in an interview.Įikhoff took heart in particular with a footnote of the opinion where Epstein chided the businessmen for claiming Steele lacks First Amendment rights. "Because plaintiffs have not offered evidence supporting a clear and convincing inference that defendants made any defamatory statement in with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of its falsity, they have not offered evidence that their claims are likely to succeed on the merits," Epstein wrote.Īlston and Bird attorney Christy Hull Eikhoff serves as lead counsel for Steele in United States and praised Epstein's decision this afternoon. Epstein said the businessmen's claim that Steele left out "supporting facts" from the dossier would at most show negligence, which would not be enough to support a defamation claim. In addition, Epstein wrote the businessmen did not show the allegations against them in the dossier are false, a key part of proving a claim of defamation. presidential election,' and plaintiffs cannot contend both that defendants in accused them of cooperation with Russian interference in the election and that these statements did not involve an issue of public interest in the United States," Epstein wrote. ![]() "A key part of plaintiffs' case is that implicitly alleged that plaintiffs aided 'the Kremlin's interference in the 2016 U.S. In a 24-page opinion filed Monday, Epstein wrote Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence had done enough to show the allegations in the dossier about the businessmen are an issue of public interest in the United States and that the businessmen qualify as "limited-purpose public figures." Superior Court Judge Anthony Epstein in May to dismiss the lawsuit under Washington D.C.'s anti-SLAPP law, which is meant to deter parties from filing lawsuits to tamp down opposing political speech. Steele and corporate intelligence company Orbis Business Intelligence asked D.C. Superior Court in April, the suit by Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven and German Khan took issue with a two-page portion of the Steele dossier that describes the men’s close ties to the Kremlin and says they gave advice to Russian President Vladimir Putin.įridman, Aven and Khan are all investors in Russian bank Alfa Bank and said that their reputations were damaged when Steele and opposition research firm Fusion GPS arranged briefings with reporters and other people, including a man who worked for a private foundation connected to Senator John McCain, R-Ariz. WASHINGTON (CN) - Trump dossier author Christopher Steele and a London-based corporate intelligence company won the dismissal Monday of defamation claims from three Russian businessmen.įiled with the D.C. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |