PAT BROWN TO SUE RAHNI SADLER

by sallypelt 23.04.17 15:05

PAT BROWN‏
@ProfilerPatB

Yes, I AM suing @rahnisadler and #SevenWestMedia media for intentional misrepresentation, false light, and defamation. #McCann

PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB 8m
Follow Following Unfollow Blocked Unblock Pending Cancel
More

Copy link to Tweet
Embed Tweet

Please copy & paste the following statement on every McCann discussion site and media site you can think of. I would appreciate it. #mccannpic.twitter.com/hal8XFqH8D
PAT BROWN TO SUE RAHNI SADLER C-GkV4HUwAAdxa7

PAT BROWN TO SUE RAHNI SADLER C-GkV4HUwAAdxa7

by willowthewisp 23.04.17 15:27

sallypelt wrote:PAT BROWN‏
@ProfilerPatB

Yes, I AM suing @rahnisadler and #SevenWestMedia media for intentional misrepresentation, false light, and defamation. #McCann

PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB 8m
Follow Following Unfollow Blocked Unblock Pending Cancel
More

Copy link to Tweet
Embed Tweet

Please copy & paste the following statement on every McCann discussion site and media site you can think of. I would appreciate it. #mccannpic.twitter.com/hal8XFqH8D

Hi Sallypelt,isn't network seven owned by Rupert Murdoch's Sky corporation,they where interested in taking over the"Seven net work" in february 2016,don't know if they acquired the net work though?
If he has taken them over,it would tie in with the Pink one flying visit,new PR company in Australia,then have a big world wide exclusive on what happened to Madeleine McCann,Tenth year anniversary?
Or is this another one of those stranGe coincidences?

by pennylane 23.04.17 15:29

two threads!

by sallypelt 23.04.17 15:34

willowthewisp wrote:
sallypelt wrote:PAT BROWN‏
@ProfilerPatB

Yes, I AM suing @rahnisadler and #SevenWestMedia media for intentional misrepresentation, false light, and defamation. #McCann

PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB 8m
Follow Following Unfollow Blocked Unblock Pending Cancel
More

Copy link to Tweet
Embed Tweet

Please copy & paste the following statement on every McCann discussion site and media site you can think of. I would appreciate it. #mccannpic.twitter.com/hal8XFqH8D

Hi Sallypelt,isn't network seven owned by Rupert Murdoch's Sky corporation,they where interested in taking over the"Seven net work" in february 2016,don't know if they acquired the net work though?
If he has taken them over,it would tie in with the Pink one flying visit,new PR company in Australia,then have a big world wide exclusive on what happened to Madeleine McCann,Tenth year anniversary?
Or is this another one of those stranGe coincidences?

Media merger in the west

Perth may soon be the latest one paper town as Murdoch's The Sunday Times looks set to merge with Stokes owned The West Australian.
But now let’s look at media power in Western Australia, where Perth may soon join Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and Darwin in becoming a one newspaper town.

Perth’s population of two million is currently served by two big papers:

The Sunday Times, which publishes one day a week and is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp and the West Australian, which publishes Monday to Saturday and is owned by Kerry Stokes’ Seven West Media.

But if consumer watchdog, the ACCC, gives its bark of approval, those two papers’ newsrooms and reporting staff will be merged into one with union fears of widespread job losses.

And Stokes’s Seven West Media, which also owns Channel Seven, will end up running both the mastheads

by sallypelt 23.04.17 15:40

willowthewisp wrote:
sallypelt wrote:PAT BROWN‏
@ProfilerPatB

Yes, I AM suing @rahnisadler and #SevenWestMedia media for intentional misrepresentation, false light, and defamation. #McCann

PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB 8m
Follow Following Unfollow Blocked Unblock Pending Cancel
More

Copy link to Tweet
Embed Tweet

Please copy & paste the following statement on every McCann discussion site and media site you can think of. I would appreciate it. #mccannpic.twitter.com/hal8XFqH8D

Hi Sallypelt,isn't network seven owned by Rupert Murdoch's Sky corporation,they where interested in taking over the"Seven net work" in february 2016,don't know if they acquired the net work though?
If he has taken them over,it would tie in with the Pink one flying visit,new PR company in Australia,then have a big world wide exclusive on what happened to Madeleine McCann,Tenth year anniversary?
Or is this another one of those stranGe coincidences?

Yes, willow. It looks as if Murdoch's grubby little mits are all over it.

by willowthewisp 23.04.17 15:46

sallypelt wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:
sallypelt wrote:PAT BROWN‏
@ProfilerPatB

Yes, I AM suing @rahnisadler and #SevenWestMedia media for intentional misrepresentation, false light, and defamation. #McCann

PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB 8m
Follow Following Unfollow Blocked Unblock Pending Cancel
More

Copy link to Tweet
Embed Tweet

Please copy & paste the following statement on every McCann discussion site and media site you can think of. I would appreciate it. #mccannpic.twitter.com/hal8XFqH8D

Hi Sallypelt,isn't network seven owned by Rupert Murdoch's Sky corporation,they where interested in taking over the"Seven net work" in february 2016,don't know if they acquired the net work though?
If he has taken them over,it would tie in with the Pink one flying visit,new PR company in Australia,then have a big world wide exclusive on what happened to Madeleine McCann,Tenth year anniversary?
Or is this another one of those stranGe coincidences?
Yes, willow. It looks as if Murdoch's grubby little mits are all over it.

His Business interests(Hacking) was involved with the unsolved murder of Daniel Morgan,then you have Andy Coulson,Rebekah Brooks,David Cameron,Theresa May,Operation strGrange-Remit,just another coincidence?

by **Tony Bennett** 23.04.17 15:49

sallypelt wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:
sallypelt wrote:PAT BROWN‏
@ProfilerPatB

Yes, I AM suing @rahnisadler and #SevenWestMedia media for intentional misrepresentation, false light, and defamation. #McCann

PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB 8m
Follow Following Unfollow Blocked Unblock Pending Cancel
More

Copy link to Tweet
Embed Tweet

Please copy & paste the following statement on every McCann discussion site and media site you can think of. I would appreciate it. #mccannpic.twitter.com/hal8XFqH8D

Hi Sallypelt,isn't network seven owned by Rupert Murdoch's Sky corporation, they were interested in taking over the "Seven Network" in February 2016, don't know if they acquired the network though?
If he has taken them over, it would tie in with the Pink one flying visit, new PR company in Australia, then have a big world wide exclusive on what happened to Madeleine McCann, Tenth year anniversary?
Or is this another one of those strange coincidences?
Yes, willow. It looks as if Murdoch's grubby little mits are all over it.

Hmmm.

If I could sit down with Pat over a pot of tea and buttered, toasted tea cakes, I would say to her:

Pat >> Take it easy >> Think >> Think hard >> Think hard again >> then >> don't.

What on earth is 'false light', by the way?

.

by pennylane 23.04.17 15:51

These journalists have no integrity, and no interest whatsoever in truth or justice. The McCann farce is clear proof of just how immoral journalists, PR spokespeople, and MSM are.

I would like to wish Pat Brown every success in her lawsuit against Rahni Sadler and Seven West Media! PAT BROWN TO SUE RAHNI SADLER 725573

by sallypelt 23.04.17 15:52

Tony Bennett wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:
sallypelt wrote:PAT BROWN‏
@ProfilerPatB

Yes, I AM suing @rahnisadler and #SevenWestMedia media for intentional misrepresentation, false light, and defamation. #McCann

PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB 8m
Follow Following Unfollow Blocked Unblock Pending Cancel
More

Copy link to Tweet
Embed Tweet

Please copy & paste the following statement on every McCann discussion site and media site you can think of. I would appreciate it. #mccannpic.twitter.com/hal8XFqH8D

Hi Sallypelt,isn't network seven owned by Rupert Murdoch's Sky corporation, they were interested in taking over the "Seven Network" in February 2016, don't know if they acquired the network though?
If he has taken them over, it would tie in with the Pink one flying visit, new PR company in Australia, then have a big world wide exclusive on what happened to Madeleine McCann, Tenth year anniversary?
Or is this another one of those strange coincidences?
Yes, willow. It looks as if Murdoch's grubby little mits are all over it.
Hmmm.

If I could sit down with Pat over a pot of tea and buttered, toasted tea cakes, I would say to her:

Pat >> Take it easy >> Think >> Think hard >> Think hard again >> then >> don't.

What on earth is 'false light', by the way?

.

False light

False light is a legal term that refers to a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to privacy from publicity which puts them in a false light to the public; which is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech.

And I had to look it up

by sallypelt 23.04.17 16:03

Dec 1, 2016, 2:27 PM
News Corp now owns 100% of Australian News Channel, the operator of cable station Sky News.
The channel had been a joint venture between Seven West Media, Nine Entertainment and Britain’s Sky, which is 39.3% owned by 21st Century Fox, another Rupert Murdoch company.
The acquisition comes a few months before the expiry of Sky News’ agreement with its carrier cable TV player Foxtel, 50% owned by News.
News Australia executive chairman Michael Miller says the company is committed to promoting and developing Sky News talent and content.
Terms of the deal were not revealed. Earlier reports put the price for Sky News between $20 million and $25 million.
“Today marks an exciting new chapter in the 20-year history of Australian News Channel,” says CEO Angelos Frangopoulos.
“We are now within a global business forged by quality journalism and I can’t think of a better partner to invest and grow Sky News.”
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/news-corp-takes-full-control-of-sky-news-2016-12

by pennylane 23.04.17 16:07

sallypelt wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:
sallypelt wrote:PAT BROWN‏
@ProfilerPatB

Yes, I AM suing @rahnisadler and #SevenWestMedia media for intentional misrepresentation, false light, and defamation. #McCann

PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB 8m
Follow Following Unfollow Blocked Unblock Pending Cancel
More

Copy link to Tweet
Embed Tweet

Please copy & paste the following statement on every McCann discussion site and media site you can think of. I would appreciate it. #mccannpic.twitter.com/hal8XFqH8D

Hi Sallypelt,isn't network seven owned by Rupert Murdoch's Sky corporation, they were interested in taking over the "Seven Network" in February 2016, don't know if they acquired the network though?
If he has taken them over, it would tie in with the Pink one flying visit, new PR company in Australia, then have a big world wide exclusive on what happened to Madeleine McCann, Tenth year anniversary?
Or is this another one of those strange coincidences?
Yes, willow. It looks as if Murdoch's grubby little mits are all over it.
Hmmm.

If I could sit down with Pat over a pot of tea and buttered, toasted tea cakes, I would say to her:

Pat >> Take it easy >> Think >> Think hard >> Think hard again >> then >> don't.

What on earth is 'false light', by the way?

.
False light

False light is a legal term that refers to a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to privacy from publicity which puts them in a false light to the public; which is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech.

And I had to look it up

Interesting. Thanks sallypelt thumbsup

by ChippyM 23.04.17 16:10

The tweet that Pat Brown saved from Rahni Sadler is telling, it said the case is 'nothing to do with you'.

Could that be evidence of her intentions to misrepresent?..What possible reason is there to interview someone on a particular case if you think they have nothing to do with it?...then again Pat Brown willingly did an interview without knowing how it was going to be edited or used, so I don't know if that would make suing difficult.

by pennylane 23.04.17 16:16

ChippyM wrote:The tweet that Pat Brown saved from Rahni Sadler is telling, it said the case is 'nothing to do with you'.

Could that be evidence of her intentions to misrepresent?..What possible reason is there to interview someone on a particular case if you think they have nothing to do with it?...then again Pat Brown willingly did an interview without knowing how it was going to be edited or used, so I don't know if that would make suing difficult.

It is telling (imo). Too bad for Sadler, Pat screen grabbed it.

by willowthewisp 23.04.17 16:20

Hi Sallypelt,TB,GGG,
Do you suppose the following,IF,Clarence Mitchell is still operating in his circles(MI5),would he have access to Operation Grange and the ongoing investigation?
IF,(CM)has has access to"Confidential information" from within Operation Grange,then surely this conflicts within his role as a PR officer,and DCI Andy Redwoods,statement of the,Parents of Madeleine and the Tapas Group are Not Suspects in regard to Operation Grange?
Clarence Mitchell,has been employed by Rupert Murdoch's,Father in Law as PR officer?
Clarence Mitchell has a close affiliation to the Directors of the"Find Madeleine Fund"?
Clarence Mitchell worked for Tony Blair and David Cameron who both know Andy Coulson and Mr Freud Jnr?
Where does that leave us with the Network Seven programme Madeleine McCann,Tenth anniversary?
As Richard D Hall has stated in his "Octopus Mode"famous for producing Black ink,that has many tentacles,which he has spread world wide?
As the saying goes,"there is No smoke without a Fire"but Rupert has managed so far to only have them finger"Tips Singed"by the Establishment?
Imagine what little"Snippets" he has acquired over the years, look at the stories on the Royal Family and his associations to a Germanic Country,is this why the fragrant Rebekah is quoted,We'er All in This together"?
Now surely if you can Mock the Royal Family Leader of the UK,then escape unscathed,what does the dirty digger know,look at the Modus Operandi of all the methods chosen to subvert,coherse of the Governments knowledge?

by RosieandSam 23.04.17 16:30

@pennylane

False light is a legal term that refers to a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to protection from publicity which puts the person in a false light to the public.

So, my interpretation is that Pat Browne does not see herself as person of public interest, she merely offers her professional expertise within her consultancy remit.

by pennylane 23.04.17 16:49

RosieandSam wrote:@pennylane

False light is a legal term that refers to a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to protection from publicity which puts the person in a false light to the public.

So, my interpretation is that Pat Browne does not see herself as person of public interest, she merely offers her professional expertise within her consultancy remit.

I don't think it's that cut and dried though, ie there are variations:

"False light
False light invasion of privacy occurs when information is published about a person that is false or places the person in a false light, is highly offensive to a reasonable person, and is published with knowledge or in reckless disregard of whether the information was false or would place the person in a false light.
Although this tort is similar to defamation, it is not the same. The report need not be defamatory to be actionable as false light. This type of invasion of privacy tends to occur when a writer condenses or fictionalizes a story, or uses stock footage to illustrate a news story.
False light includes embellishment (the addition of false material to a story, which places someone in a false light), distortion (the arrangement of materials or photographs to give a false impression) and fictionalization (references to real people in fictitious articles or the inclusion in works of fiction of disguised characters that represent real people). Some courts may consider works of fiction constitutionally protected expressions even if they contain characters that resemble, or clearly were based on, identifiable individuals known by the author or creator.^12"Pat Brown has said she is suing for False Light and Defamation.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.04.17 17:03

willowthewisp wrote:Hi Sallypelt,TB,GGG,

Do you suppose the following, IF Clarence Mitchell is still operating in his circles (MI5), would he have access to Operation Grange and the ongoing investigation?

REPLY: Of course, 100%. The task of the government, the task of Clarence Mithell, the task of Leicestershire Police and the task of DCI Andy Redwood and DCI Nicola Wall (and the BBC on their Crimewatch McCann Special was simple: To cover up the truth. Clarence and senior officers of the Met would regularly be discussing the case, what leaks et. to put out and when, and so forth.

IF (CM) has has access to "Confidential information" from within Operation Grange, then surely this conflicts with his role as a PR officer, and DCI Andy Redwood's statement of the Parents of Madeleine and the Tapas Group are Not Suspects in regard to Operation Grange?

REPLY: How are they in conflict? If the agenda is as suggested - to cover up the truth, then they are all on the same page, singing from the same hymn sheet...or however you want to put it. They are all in harmony with one another; all in agreement!

Clarence Mitchell has been employed by Rupert Murdoch's Father in Law as PR officer?

REPLY: By his son-in-law.

Clarence Mitchell has a close affiliation to the Directors of the "Find Madeleine Fund"?

REPLY: 100%, Yes. Including that weekly cuppa and cakes with Tracey Kandohla iRothely every week back in those early years.

Clarence Mitchell worked for Tony Blair and David Cameron who both know Andy Coulson and Mr Freud Jnr?

REPLY: Yep. you're filling on the jigsaw nicely there.

Where does that leave us with the Network Seven programme Madeleine McCann, Tenth anniversary?

REPLY: Wait and see. At least their advertising revenue will have gone through the roof this week.

As Richard D Hall has stated in his "Octopus Mode" famous for producing Black ink, that has many tentacles,which he has spread world wide?
As the saying goes,"There is No smoke without a Fire" but Rupert has managed so far to only have them "fingertips singed" by the Establishment?
Imagine what little "Snippets" he has acquired over the years, look at the stories on the Royal Family and his associations to a Germanic Country, is this why the fragrant Rebekah is quoted, "We're All in This together"?
Now surely if you can Mock the Royal Family, Leader of the UK, then escape unscathed, what does the dirty digger know, look at the Modus Operandi of all the methods chosen to subvert, coerce of the Government's knowledge?

REPLY: If we were ever told all the things that are known by Rupert Murdoch, Clarence Mitchell and Rebekah Brooks, about Madeleine McCann and about many other things, we would probably nearly all die of shock.

by JulieC 23.04.17 17:24

So, false light is a "tort"?

I make a lovely chocolate tort at Christmas. Can I be sued for that? big grin

.

by sallypelt 23.04.17 17:27

JulieC wrote:So, false light is a "tort"?

I make a lovely chocolate tort at Christmas. Can I be sued for that? .

Shouldn't that be "torte"? spin

by JulieC 23.04.17 17:31

sallypelt wrote:
JulieC wrote:So, false light is a "tort"?

I make a lovely chocolate tort at Christmas. Can I be sued for that? .
Shouldn't that be "torte"?

Yes, but I was using poetic licence. lol

by sallypelt 23.04.17 17:37

JulieC wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
JulieC wrote:So, false light is a "tort"?

I make a lovely chocolate tort at Christmas. Can I be sued for that? .
Shouldn't that be "torte"?

Yes, but I was using poetic licence.

with a law student in the house, we hear more about torts than we get to eat torte titter

Sorry admins. l am now back on track. No more torte, just torts

by **Tony Bennett** 23.04.17 17:38

sallypelt wrote:
JulieC wrote:So, false light is a "tort"?

I make a lovely chocolate tort at Christmas. Can I be sued for that? .
Shouldn't that be "torte"?

Jawohl

by willowthewisp 23.04.17 17:44

Hi Mr.Tony Bennett. I know this reply is off topic to Pat Brown article.
Thanks for your reply,sorry I got the son in Law wrong?
It truly is a mad World we live in,when one Politician(TM) quotes to fighting against the Establishment(House of Common's,Lords Chambers)then asks the country to give her a Mandate to Govern the masses,eg the"Establishment"?
If,as you have stated a "Cover Up by the state"there is something corrupt in our so called"Democratic system" for this to have gone on?
It is No defence to say well that is how the"System Works"and things have been Covered up for years?
So If, you uncover a Cover Up,having been Committed by the state,what are you supposed to do,leave it for the Police,MI5/6 to come up with"Fake News",Bletchally Park,Alan Turing,persecuted for his sexuality,Psyop methodology?
It does seem as though there is a World wide web of deceit that has been carried out for the past at least Seventy Two years,in regard to "Well Being of young children,Adolescents"assisted by the governments requesting the children for the "New Country"that needed them,Film, Oranges & Lemons?
Add into that mix,the nefarious Marc Dutroix and the relationship that he had developed with the elite from European Institutions,is that all we are,Name and Numbers to some sort of NWO,but not actual individual persons,who have the right to a normal life,or is that a "Utopian" myth,ideology?
So "IF" you cannot trust the state,who's rules do you live by or do you make your own rules up and suffer the consequences?

by **Richard D. Hall** 23.04.17 20:19

This is what mainstream media do. This is why I gave Jenny Kleeman (Guardian) 3 conditions before taking part in a mainstream production.

1. I want to see the finished item before it airs so I can check it for accuracy.

2. I want the film to focus on the facts, not on beliefs.

3. I want you to post links to my film.

They ran a mile. They ran a mile because their intentions are not honourable. They never are. They are especially less honourable when they invite somebody with an opposing view to their own. This is how mainstream "deals with" experts that oppose them. They trap them. If Pat Brown signed a contract I would recommend reading the small print. I would be surprised if it does not say words to the effect that they CAN mis-represent what she is saying. Their contracts normally state that they take ownership of the content and they can edit it in any way they like.

by JulieC 23.04.17 20:32

Richard D. Hall wrote:If Pat Brown signed a contract I would recommend reading the small print. I would be surprised if it does not say words to the effect that they CAN mis-represent what she is saying. Their contracts normally state that they take ownership of the content and they can edit it in any way they like.

Jesus, MSM is sicker than I ever imagined.