Rachel Williams, who was an associate of New York City con artist Anna Sorokin, has sued Netflix&nbsp;over her portrayal in 'Inventing Anna'. The&nbsp;former&nbsp;Vanity Fair&nbsp;photo editor, who has often spoken about her time with the con artist through interviews and articles, feels that nearly everything about her character in the Netflix&nbsp;show is made up and is far from reality.

In her complaint, Williams stated, "This action will show that Netflix made a deliberate decision for dramatic purposes to show Williams doing or saying things in the Series which&nbsp;portray her as a greedy, snobbish, disloyal, dishonest, cowardly, manipulative and opportunistic person."

The complaint further states, "Williams did not stop being friends with Sorokin because Sorokin was having problems in Morocco, but rather because she subsequently discovered on her return to New York that Sorokin was a liar and a con artist whose statements and promises had induced Williams to incur liabilities of around $62,000&nbsp;on Sorokin’s behalf were false, and who only reimbursed her $5,000 despite numerous promises to reimburse her $70,000 to account for the full debt and any&nbsp;late fees incurred."

According to the series, Williams gladly accepts expensive gifts and trips from Anna but doesn't hesitate to sell out her friend to the authorities once she learns that her so-called friend has been lying about her fortune to everyone.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/michael-jackson-had-19-fake-ids-to-buy-drugs-revelations-from-new-documentary-511385" hreflang="en">Michael Jackson had 19 fake IDs to buy drugs! Revelations from new documentary</a>

In another scene in the series, an attorney is seen forcing Williams to admit that Anna picked up the tab on every one of their outings. Referring to that particular scene, the complainant claims that the intent of the cross-examination scene was to imply that Williams is a freeloader, which she completely denies. She stated that everything about that scene is untrue&nbsp;because she paid for drinks on several occasions and split the bill for spa treatments and dinners.

The series is&nbsp;based on a&nbsp;2018 New York article which showcases the scams and downfall of Anna Sorokin, better known as Anna Delvey. In the Netflix show, Anna is seen swindling&nbsp;her way into NYC's upper crust by lying about being a German heiress. She also defrauds banks out of millions to fund her extravagant lifestyle.

The show includes a whimsical disclaimer, which read,&nbsp;"This story is completely true. Except for the parts that are totally made up."

Rachel Williams, who was an associate of New York City con artist Anna Sorokin, has sued Netflix over her portrayal in 'Inventing Anna'. The former Vanity Fair photo editor, who has often spoken about her time with the con artist through interviews and articles, feels that nearly everything about her character in the Netflix show is made up and is far from reality.

Rachel Williams, who was an associate of New York City con artist Anna Sorokin, has sued Netflix over her portrayal in 'Inventing Anna'. The former Vanity Fair photo editor, who has often spoken about her time with the con artist through interviews and articles, feels that nearly everything about her character in the Netflix show is made up and is far from reality. In her complaint, Williams stated, "This action will show that Netflix made a deliberate decision for dramatic purposes to show Williams doing or saying things in the Series which portray her as a greedy, snobbish, disloyal, dishonest, cowardly, manipulative and opportunistic person." The complaint further states, "Williams did not stop being friends with Sorokin because Sorokin was having problems in Morocco, but rather because she subsequently discovered on her return to New York that Sorokin was a liar and a con artist whose statements and promises had induced Williams to incur liabilities of around $62,000 on Sorokin’s behalf were false, and who only reimbursed her $5,000 despite numerous promises to reimburse her $70,000 to account for the full debt and any late fees incurred." According to the series, Williams gladly accepts expensive gifts and trips from Anna but doesn't hesitate to sell out her friend to the authorities once she learns that her so-called friend has been lying about her fortune to everyone. Also read: Michael Jackson had 19 fake IDs to buy drugs! Revelations from new documentary In another scene in the series, an attorney is seen forcing Williams to admit that Anna picked up the tab on every one of their outings. Referring to that particular scene, the complainant claims that the intent of the cross-examination scene was to imply that Williams is a freeloader, which she completely denies. She stated that everything about that scene is untrue because she paid for drinks on several occasions and split the bill for spa treatments and dinners. The series is based on a 2018 New York article which showcases the scams and downfall of Anna Sorokin, better known as Anna Delvey. In the Netflix show, Anna is seen swindling her way into NYC's upper crust by lying about being a German heiress. She also defrauds banks out of millions to fund her extravagant lifestyle. The show includes a whimsical disclaimer, which read, "This story is completely true. Except for the parts that are totally made up."

Netflix slapped with defamation suit for 'Inventing Anna'

After finding that a YouTube commentator's "relentless, racist, vilification, abusive and defamatory campaign" drove John Barilaro to quit politics prematurely, an Australian court has ordered Google to pay A$715,000 ($515,000) to the former senior lawmaker.

Barilaro, who was the deputy premier of Australia's most populous state New South Wales, was called "corrupt" without evidence by political commentator Jordan Shanks.

Shanks, who accused Barilaro of being racist in his YouTube videos, is a standup comedian who discusses contemporary Australian political issues, involving self-described "lowbrow humour".

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/google-caste-discrimination-row-manager-accuses-google-of-toxic-work-culture-484736/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The Australian comedian known, also known as friendlyjordies, used an Italian accent to mock Barilaro's heritage in his videos.

According to Australian judge Steve Rares, Shanks' videos were "nothing less than hate speech" and traumatised Barilaro to such an extent that it forced him to leave public office and quit politics in October 2021.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/warning-to-billions-of-chrome-users-google-says-browser-successfully-targeted-by-hackers-474644">Also read |&nbsp;Warning to billions of Chrome users! Google says browser successfully targeted by hackers</a>

After evidence proved that by attacking Barilaro in videos that were viewed nearly 800,000 times since being posted in late 2020, YouTube, owned by Alphabet Inc's Google, earned thousands of dollars, Rares told the Federal Court that "I found Google's conduct in this proceeding to be improper and unjustifiable."

He added that Google was willing to join the comedian "to earn revenue as part of its business model" and Shanks "needed YouTube to disseminate his poison."

Barilaro had reached a settlement with a spokesperson for Shanks, who was previously a co-defendant with Google, in 2021 after which friendlyjordies issued an apology and agreed to edit the videos. He sued Google for defamation after the tech giant refused to remove the offending videos.

(With inputs from agencies)

Watch WION's live TV here:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1&lt;/div">&amp;times;</iframe></div>

&nbsp;
</div>

After finding that a YouTube commentator's "relentless, racist, vilification, abusive and defamatory campaign" drove John Barilaro to quit politics prematurely, an Australian court has ordered Google to pay A$715,000 ($515,000) to the former senior lawmaker.

After finding that a YouTube commentator's "relentless, racist, vilification, abusive and defamatory campaign" drove John Barilaro to quit politics prematurely, an Australian court has ordered Google to pay A$715,000 ($515,000) to the former senior lawmaker. Barilaro, who was the deputy premier of Australia's most populous state New South Wales, was called "corrupt" without evidence by political commentator Jordan Shanks. Shanks, who accused Barilaro of being racist in his YouTube videos, is a standup comedian who discusses contemporary Australian political issues, involving self-described "lowbrow humour". The Australian comedian known, also known as friendlyjordies, used an Italian accent to mock Barilaro's heritage in his videos. According to Australian judge Steve Rares, Shanks' videos were "nothing less than hate speech" and traumatised Barilaro to such an extent that it forced him to leave public office and quit politics in October 2021. Also read | Warning to billions of Chrome users! Google says browser successfully targeted by hackers After evidence proved that by attacking Barilaro in videos that were viewed nearly 800,000 times since being posted in late 2020, YouTube, owned by Alphabet Inc's Google, earned thousands of dollars, Rares told the Federal Court that "I found Google's conduct in this proceeding to be improper and unjustifiable." He added that Google was willing to join the comedian "to earn revenue as part of its business model" and Shanks "needed YouTube to disseminate his poison." Barilaro had reached a settlement with a spokesperson for Shanks, who was previously a co-defendant with Google, in 2021 after which friendlyjordies issued an apology and agreed to edit the videos. He sued Google for defamation after the tech giant refused to remove the offending videos. (With inputs from agencies) Watch WION's live TV here:

Australian court orders Google to pay $515,000 to former lawmaker over defamatory YouTube videos

A Delhi court on Monday fixed February 22 for hearing a pre-summoning argument in the defamation complaint filed against 'The Caravan'&nbsp;and Congress'&nbsp;Jairam Ramesh.

The complaint was filed by National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval`s son Vivek Doval against the magazine for allegedly publishing a defamatory article and Jairam Ramesh for using content from the article.

Earlier in the day, Vivek`s business partner Amit Sharma had recorded his statement before the court.

In his statement, Sharma said, "I know Vivek Doval (complainant) since 2004 when we both were semiconductor analyst at different banks. I was at Deutsche Bank and Vivek was at Bear Stearn Bank. Since then we became friends and had been in regular contact."

"Later, Vivek and I discussed stock ideas very regularly and got along very well over the course of the next several years," he noted."In 2012, when Boyer Allen shut down. Vivek was looking for what to do next.&nbsp;This is when we came up with the idea of the launching of a fund together," Sharma said.

This development came to light after Vivek on January 30 recorded his statement before the same court.

Vivek asserted that all charges made against him were “baseless and false” and references were made in “a demeaning manner” without trying to “ascertain the facts.”He had recorded his statement before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Samar Vishal.

“I was livid after reading the article published about me in a magazine and the manner in which the events were narrated. My family was referred to as D-Companies whereas we all know that in our country the D-Company refers to Dawood Ibrahim, a known criminal, who figures in the most wanted list,” he told the court.

“Questions were also raised on the integrity of my family, especially my father who has dedicated his life to the service of the nation and fighting against Dawood,” Vivek further said.

Vivek, who obtained CFA from the US in 2006 and did CAIA from CAIA institute in 2010, said: “Allegations were levied about money laundering and converting the black money into white, without there being any basis.”It was written that Rs 8,300 crore of black money has been round tripped to India thereby tarnishing my career and my venture GNY Asia Fund,” he stated.

Calling himself a proud Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) and citizen of the UK, Doval also asserted that “the article branded him and his family as anti-national.”

Stating that Jairam Ramesh, a former Union Minister, had used the platform of the Indian National Congress (INC) to propagate these charges, he said: “There were many derogatory comments spoken which raised numerous questions on the integrity of my family.”

“Unpleasantness was bestowed upon me and my family based on falsehood and mala-fide. Without trying to ascertain facts, references were made in a demeaning manner,” he said.

He also claimed that the repercussions of the article and press conference questioned his professional integrity, which is of critical importance for his career.“It has questioned my social standing as a fund manager. If I have dubious integrity, my career is over as a Fund manager.”

On January 21, Vivek had filed a criminal defamation case against Congress leader Jairam Ramesh and two journalists, contending that they had caused “irreparable damage” to his reputation “through calculated insinuations and innuendos.”

Vivek has contended that Ramesh and the two journalists “have committed the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of IPC (which provides for simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both) read with Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy).&nbsp;

A Delhi court on Monday fixed February 22 for hearing a pre-summoning argument in the defamation complaint filed against 'The Caravan' and Congress' Jairam Ramesh.

A Delhi court on Monday fixed February 22 for hearing a pre-summoning argument in the defamation complaint filed against 'The Caravan' and Congress' Jairam Ramesh. The complaint was filed by National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval`s son Vivek Doval against the magazine for allegedly publishing a defamatory article and Jairam Ramesh for using content from the article. Earlier in the day, Vivek`s business partner Amit Sharma had recorded his statement before the court. In his statement, Sharma said, "I know Vivek Doval (complainant) since 2004 when we both were semiconductor analyst at different banks. I was at Deutsche Bank and Vivek was at Bear Stearn Bank. Since then we became friends and had been in regular contact." "Later, Vivek and I discussed stock ideas very regularly and got along very well over the course of the next several years," he noted."In 2012, when Boyer Allen shut down. Vivek was looking for what to do next. This is when we came up with the idea of the launching of a fund together," Sharma said. This development came to light after Vivek on January 30 recorded his statement before the same court. Vivek asserted that all charges made against him were “baseless and false” and references were made in “a demeaning manner” without trying to “ascertain the facts.”He had recorded his statement before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Samar Vishal. “I was livid after reading the article published about me in a magazine and the manner in which the events were narrated. My family was referred to as D-Companies whereas we all know that in our country the D-Company refers to Dawood Ibrahim, a known criminal, who figures in the most wanted list,” he told the court. “Questions were also raised on the integrity of my family, especially my father who has dedicated his life to the service of the nation and fighting against Dawood,” Vivek further said. Vivek, who obtained CFA from the US in 2006 and did CAIA from CAIA institute in 2010, said: “Allegations were levied about money laundering and converting the black money into white, without there being any basis.”It was written that Rs 8,300 crore of black money has been round tripped to India thereby tarnishing my career and my venture GNY Asia Fund,” he stated. Calling himself a proud Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) and citizen of the UK, Doval also asserted that “the article branded him and his family as anti-national.” Stating that Jairam Ramesh, a former Union Minister, had used the platform of the Indian National Congress (INC) to propagate these charges, he said: “There were many derogatory comments spoken which raised numerous questions on the integrity of my family.” “Unpleasantness was bestowed upon me and my family based on falsehood and mala-fide. Without trying to ascertain facts, references were made in a demeaning manner,” he said. He also claimed that the repercussions of the article and press conference questioned his professional integrity, which is of critical importance for his career.“It has questioned my social standing as a fund manager. If I have dubious integrity, my career is over as a Fund manager.” On January 21, Vivek had filed a criminal defamation case against Congress leader Jairam Ramesh and two journalists, contending that they had caused “irreparable damage” to his reputation “through calculated insinuations and innuendos.” Vivek has contended that Ramesh and the two journalists “have committed the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of IPC (which provides for simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both) read with Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy).

Court to hear pre-summoning argument in defamation suit by Vivek Doval on February 22

The actor Alok Nath has filed a defamation suit against the writer and director Vinta Nanda who on Monday accused him of having raped her 19 years ago.&nbsp;

Others, including the actress Sandhya Mridul , have since come out saying they too were sexually harassed by Nath.&nbsp;

Mridul has said Nath had tried to force himself on her after getting drunk, and a crew member of the film Hum Saath Saath Hain has said Nath stripped naked in front of her.&nbsp;

When the crew member tried to make her way out of the room, she said Nath grabbed her hand and manhandled her.&nbsp;

Nath played the role of the "sanskaari bapuji" in the film Hum Saath Saath Hain, which is also what he built his reputation on.&nbsp;

News reports quoted Nath’s lawyer Ashok Saraogi as having said earlier that it was easy to make allegations about something that happened 19 years ago. Saraogi said that that itself proved the allegations were false, for "a person will never wait for a period of 19 years to make such allegations, especially when we have a democracy, when we have a proper ministry over here, to look after all these things”.&nbsp;

Saraogi had also threatened Nanda with a defamation suit if the accusations continued, saying they would seek an injunction so that "she (Nanda) can't make baseless allegations in media and defame my client". &nbsp;

On Monday, Nanda said she had been raped — more than once — by an "actor par excellence who is known as the most #Sanskaari (Cultured) person in the film and television industry".&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="289" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fvintananda%2Fposts%2F10156499299095560&amp;width=500" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="500"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

When she was asked a day later if it was Alok Nath, she said yes.&nbsp;

On Saturday, Nanda said she had not yet received the notice of the defamation suit.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="308" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fvintananda%2Fposts%2F10156510350505560&amp;width=500" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="500"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

She added that "we will respond to the notice once we get it and I assure all of you that we will fight this battle right till the end".&nbsp;&nbsp;

The actor Alok Nath has filed a defamation suit against the writer and director Vinta Nanda who on Monday accused him of having raped her 19 years ago. Others, including the actress Sandhya Mridul , have since come out saying they too were sexually harassed by Nath.

The actor Alok Nath has filed a defamation suit against the writer and director Vinta Nanda who on Monday accused him of having raped her 19 years ago. Others, including the actress Sandhya Mridul , have since come out saying they too were sexually harassed by Nath. Mridul has said Nath had tried to force himself on her after getting drunk, and a crew member of the film Hum Saath Saath Hain has said Nath stripped naked in front of her. When the crew member tried to make her way out of the room, she said Nath grabbed her hand and manhandled her. Nath played the role of the "sanskaari bapuji" in the film Hum Saath Saath Hain, which is also what he built his reputation on. News reports quoted Nath’s lawyer Ashok Saraogi as having said earlier that it was easy to make allegations about something that happened 19 years ago. Saraogi said that that itself proved the allegations were false, for "a person will never wait for a period of 19 years to make such allegations, especially when we have a democracy, when we have a proper ministry over here, to look after all these things”. Saraogi had also threatened Nanda with a defamation suit if the accusations continued, saying they would seek an injunction so that "she (Nanda) can't make baseless allegations in media and defame my client". On Monday, Nanda said she had been raped — more than once — by an "actor par excellence who is known as the most #Sanskaari (Cultured) person in the film and television industry". × When she was asked a day later if it was Alok Nath, she said yes. On Saturday, Nanda said she had not yet received the notice of the defamation suit. × She added that "we will respond to the notice once we get it and I assure all of you that we will fight this battle right till the end".

#MeToo: Alok Nath files defamation suit against Vinta Nanda who accused him of rape

The Delhi High Court today closed the Rs 10 crore defamation suit filed by Union minister Arun Jaitley after Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal apologised to him.

Jaitley had filed this second defamation suit after Kejriwal's former lawyer Ram Jethmalani allegedly "abused" him in open court during the proceedings of the original defamation suit against the Aam Aadmi Party chief and five other party functionaries.

Justice Manmohan allowed the settlement application jointly filed by Jaitley and Kejriwal and disposed of the suit following the AAP chief's apology, which was accepted by the BJP leader.

The court accepted the written undertaking and statement of both the leaders and decreed the suit in accordance with the settlement application.

During the hearing, advocate Anupam Srivastava, appearing for Kejriwal, told the court that the matter was settled and Jaitley accepted the apology tendered by the AAP leader.

Senior advocate Rajiv Nayyar and advocate Manik Dogra, representing Jaitley, also said the dispute was settled by the parties.

The court noted that the settlement application was signed by the leaders as well as their advocates who undertook that their clients would abide by the undertaking given.

Another bench of the high court is scheduled to hear during the day Jaitley and Kejriwal's settlement application in the first defamation suit.

Kejriwal had on March 19 opposed in the High Court the second Rs 10 crore defamation suit filed against him by Jaitley over the use of an objectionable word by Jethmalani. He claimed that he had never instructed his then counsel to use any scandalous words against the minister during a recording of evidence.

During the cross-examination of the minister on May 17 last year before Joint Registrar, Jethmalani had used a term Jaitley found objectionable. 
AAP leaders had accused the BJP leader of corruption as the president of the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA), a post he had held from 2000 to 2013.

Jaitley, who had denied all allegations levelled by the AAP leaders in December 2015, had filed a civil defamation suit seeking Rs 10 crore damages from Kejriwal and five other leaders of his party, claiming they had made "false and defamatory" statements in the case involving DDCA, thereby harming his reputation.

The court accepted the written undertaking and statement of both the leaders and decreed the suit in accordance with the settlement application

The Delhi High Court today closed the Rs 10 crore defamation suit filed by Union minister Arun Jaitley after Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal apologised to him. Jaitley had filed this second defamation suit after Kejriwal's former lawyer Ram Jethmalani allegedly "abused" him in open court during the proceedings of the original defamation suit against the Aam Aadmi Party chief and five other party functionaries. Justice Manmohan allowed the settlement application jointly filed by Jaitley and Kejriwal and disposed of the suit following the AAP chief's apology, which was accepted by the BJP leader. The court accepted the written undertaking and statement of both the leaders and decreed the suit in accordance with the settlement application. During the hearing, advocate Anupam Srivastava, appearing for Kejriwal, told the court that the matter was settled and Jaitley accepted the apology tendered by the AAP leader. Senior advocate Rajiv Nayyar and advocate Manik Dogra, representing Jaitley, also said the dispute was settled by the parties. The court noted that the settlement application was signed by the leaders as well as their advocates who undertook that their clients would abide by the undertaking given. Another bench of the high court is scheduled to hear during the day Jaitley and Kejriwal's settlement application in the first defamation suit. Kejriwal had on March 19 opposed in the High Court the second Rs 10 crore defamation suit filed against him by Jaitley over the use of an objectionable word by Jethmalani. He claimed that he had never instructed his then counsel to use any scandalous words against the minister during a recording of evidence. During the cross-examination of the minister on May 17 last year before Joint Registrar, Jethmalani had used a term Jaitley found objectionable. AAP leaders had accused the BJP leader of corruption as the president of the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA), a post he had held from 2000 to 2013. Jaitley, who had denied all allegations levelled by the AAP leaders in December 2015, had filed a civil defamation suit seeking Rs 10 crore damages from Kejriwal and five other leaders of his party, claiming they had made "false and defamatory" statements in the case involving DDCA, thereby harming his reputation.

Delhi High Court closes defamation suit filed by Jaitley against Kejriwal

defamation-suit

Defamation Suit, News on Defamation Suit, stories on Defamation Suit, articles on Defamation Suit, Defamation Suit stories at Wion, Defamation Suit news, Defamation Suit latest news