Osundairo Brothers may step forward against Attorney Smollett

Attorney Gloria Schmidt Rodriguez appears in a file photo with Abimbola and Ola Osundairo. (Image via Nuccio DiNuzzo/Getty Images.)

Abimbola and Ola Osundairo appear in a file photo next to their attorney Gloria Schmidt Rodriguez (centre). (Image via Nuccio DiNuzzo/Getty Images.)

The two brothers agreed to attack Jussie Smollett as part of what those brothers now say is a fake hate crime hoax that could continue with a defamation statement against one of Smollett’s attorneys, a federal judge has ruled.

Based on Court recordsTwo brothers, Olabinjo Osundairo and Abimbola Osundairosued lawyer Mark Geragos, Tina Glandianand Geragos & Geragos Law Firm in 2019.

“Mr. Smollett privately told Plaintiff that he needed their favor: they would help him stage a social media hoax and pretend to attack him,” the lawsuit reads. Smollett’s motivation was simple. He wanted his employer and the public to notice and appreciate him as a successful, openly gay black actor. So Mr. Smollett directed every aspect of the attack, including the location and the noose.”

Smollett was charged, but the Cook County State Attorney’s Office dropped the matter in exchange for Smollett’s bail being forfeited. A special prosecutor reinstated the case at the request of a retired judge and secured a trial by jury. The juries later found Smollett, and he sentenced on March 10 to serve a 150-day prison sentence. Illinois appeals since releasing him from custody because his appeal will take longer to argue than his planned lengthy sentence, Law & Crime recently noticed.

That’s the background for original lawsuit from the Osundairo brothers to the aforementioned defendants. It reads, in part:

Mr. Smollett’s lawyers, facing public outrage, did not back down after their success. Instead, they doubled down, asserting not only that Mr Smollett was a completely innocent victim, but also (among other accusations) [the brothers Osundairo] apparently led a homophobic, racist and violent criminal attack against Mr. Smollett. The defendants who made these comments knew they were untrue to distract from Mr. Smollett’s antics and to promote themselves and the Geragos & Geragos Law Firm. This charge against Plaintiff is rigorous and includes the content of the following allegations.

Specifically, guys refers to the appearance of Glandian and Geragos on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” on NBC’s “Today,” and on a podcast as evidence of the libel allegation.

Tina Glandian. (Image via Cassella/Pool/Chicago Tribune.)

Tina Glandian speaks during Jussie Smollett’s sentencing hearing. (Image via Cassella/Pool/Chicago Tribune.)

“Multiple Sclerosis. Glandian .. implies that this battery is a hateful crime,” alleging lawsuit. “Multiple Sclerosis. Glandian’s claims that Plaintiff actually criminally beat Mr. Smollett without his consent are untrue and defamatory, as Mr. Smollett initiated, up.” plan and orchestrate the attack.”

The The lawsuit alleges the following five crimes in this order: (1) defamation of common law each join (against Glandian); (2) common law false lighting (also against Glandian); (3) defamation of common law each join (against Geragos, for allegedly speaking on a podcast and accusing the brothers of participating in a “criminal” attack and committing “perjury”); (4) common law false light (also against Geragos); and (5) superior feedback (a principle that seeks to hold Geragos & Geragos as a corporate entity liable for alleged errors).

The The complaint was filed on April 23, 2019. Court dismissed most of the plaintiff’s claims back on March 17, 2020 – except for the comment about defendants allegedly being in “white faces.” Accordingly, a narrower Amendment complaint filed on June 11, 2020.

“Multiple Sclerosis. Glandian falsely claimed that Plaintiff was involved in the ‘illegal’ trade of Nigerian steroids and that these steroids helped clients lose weight,” that Amendment complaint shown. “Plaintiffs did not illegally use or distribute Nigerian steroids. Ms. Glandian’s comments are untrue and defamatory. “

Glandian submit the next paperwork in an attempt to dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Actor Jussie Smollett speaks to Judge James Linn after his sentencing was read on Thursday, March 10, 2022 at the Leighton Criminal Court Building. (Image via Brian Cassella/Pool/Chicago Tribune.)

Actor Jussie Smollett speaks to Judge James Linn after his sentencing was read on Thursday, March 10, 2022 at the Leighton Criminal Court Building. (Image via Brian Cassella/Pool/Chicago Tribune.)

A judge issued a comments and order on Thursday, March 17, 2022, the action part lights up green. The document notes that Garegos (as an individual) and his law firm (as an agent for the firm) have long since been fired as defendants and have been included in the complaint. modified by mistake. Glandian is the other defendant.

“A motion to dismiss examines the adequacy of a claim, not the merits of the case,” noted the US District Judge. Mary M. Rowland of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. And, here, Judge Rowland ruled that the complaint was sufficient to make a viable defamation claim.

This is the “Today” record in question, as it is portrayed from the judge’s point of view:

Multiple sclerosis. [Savannah] Guthrie: According to Court records, he – Smollett – made it very clear to police on the night of the attack that his attackers were white. He said they were wearing masks and gloves, but he saw their eyes and he saw the skin around their eyes. Is that a false statement?

Mrs. Glandian:. . . Just to be clear, he only saw one of the attackers, one of them he didn’t see. He saw a person through a ski mask. Again he could not see their bodies. Everything was covered. And he [the attacker] was wearing a full ski mask, except for the area around the eyes. He told the police he was – from what he saw, he thought it was pale skin or – white or pale, I think he said. . . .

Mrs. Guthrie: But brothers Osundairo, what is the chance. . . [Smollett] See someone with light skin?

Mrs. Glandian: Well, you know, I mean, I think yes — obviously, you can disguise that. You can wear makeup. Actually, it’s interesting to have a video. You know, I think the police did very little investigation in this case. It took me all five minutes to Google — you know, I was looking for two brothers and one of the first videos that came out was actually one of the brothers in “whiteface” having a monologue with the Joker in class. white makeup. And so it’s not – it’s not a fantasy.

The judge interpreted the situation by weighing the law and reality this way:

In response to the original complaint, Glandian argued that the “whiteface” statement could not constitute defamation. each join because the statement was constructed innocent. This court dismissed the petition on those grounds. Defendants now argue that this statement is a constitutionally protected position and that wearing a “white face” is not indicative of a hate crime. The court disagreed.

[ . . . ]

Reading in context, Glandian pressed about Plaintiffs being the attackers, with Smollett’s description of the attackers being light-skinned or white. To explain (not opine) how they can be attackers (like dark-skinned people), Glandian describes the use of makeup and reinforces her explanation with the fact that a One of the Plaintiffs had previously done white dress – that is, he had experience with makeup.

The judge continued:

The Plaintiffs justifiably allege that Glandian asserted to the Today audience that Plaintiff carried out the assault—despite their dark complexion—with the help of light makeup. Contextually, one possible explanation for Glandian’s “white” remark is that she’s trying to dispel the inconsistencies in Smollett’s story (the light-skinned attackers) and reinforce the intent. her opinion that Plaintiffs (those with non-light skin) were Smollett’s attackers. Disputing that she attributed any hate crime motives to Plaintiff, Glandian asserted that she was only theorizing about ” method that Plaintiff may have caused the assault” (emphasis in original). Again, in context, Glandian is asserting Plaintiffs engaged in a racially motivated attack. Smollett’s report “has led to worldwide outrage, with near-unanimous calls for the Chicago Police… to find and prosecute his attackers.” Explaining that the attackers were white, read in context, further implied that the attack was a hate crime. Based on the “whiteface” statement, Plaintiff justifiably alleges defamation each join and false light.

In short, the judge found that the “whiteface” comment qualifies as defamatory each join because it alleges that the two brothers committed a hate crime – an illegal act – and can therefore be sued.

The judge then moved on to the “steroid” comment. Judge Rowland wrote that that part of the case was dismissed, as the Osundairo brothers were accused of defamation. each join – and “external evidence” is needed to determine whether the statement “steroid” is true. Because outside evidence is needed to weigh the truthfulness of a comment, it cannot be defamatory each join – in other words, on its face.

“Can be acted upon as defamation each join statement must directly or explicitly accuse the plaintiffs of having committed a particular crime,” the judge then noted. And so, the judge also dismissed the allegations surrounding Glandian’s assertion that the Osundairo brothers lied during the investigation – namely the judge classified, since Glandian did not explicitly charge them with the crime. “perjury”.

Again, from the judge:

Glandian accused Plaintiff of lying in general and alluded to journals found with missing pages and postage stamps in Plaintiff’s apartment as relevant. Notably, Glandian did not directly or explicitly accuse them of lying to a jury or under oath. Glandian also did not say explicitly or directly that the brothers lied to law enforcement. Plaintiffs’ claims of defamation and false lighting based on Glandian’s claims of perjury or lying to law enforcement were dismissed.

The judge also dismissed the Osundairo brothers’ allegation that Glandian had smeared them by accusing them of being “criminal vessels”. That statement was based on “the overall message conveyed by Glandian’s interviews,” not on Glandian’s specific statements, and therefore, by law, the judge had to fail.

The judge later overturned the ruling:

All claims against Defendant Geragos and the Geragos & Geragos Law Firm were denied. Defendants Geragos and the law firm Geragos & Geragos have terminated their contracts. Count I and II survivors based on the “white face” comment. The remaining requests were denied.

The case now moves forward accordingly.

Read the complaint, amended complaint, motion for dismissal, and the judge’s Thursday order below:

Is there a trick we should know? [email protected]

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/jussie-smollett/brothers-who-say-they-played-a-role-in-fake-attack-on-jussie-smollett-can-sue-smolletts-defense-attorney-for-defamation-judge/ Osundairo Brothers may step forward against Attorney Smollett

James Brien

24ssports is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – admin@24ssports.com. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button