Home > Arnold Schwarzenegger sued for groping and libel

Arnold Schwarzenegger sued for groping and libel

by Open-Publishing - Monday 18 April 2005
9 comments

Edito Elections-Elected Television USA UK

London groping case dogs governor
British libel law seen as benefit to TV host’s suit

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s treatment of women he encountered as a movie star has largely faded from public discourse, aside from the occasional Doonesbury cartoon that depicts the governor as a giant hand addressed by reporters as Herr Gropenführer.

But there’s one incident that refuses to go away. A British television interviewer, Anna Richardson, says Schwarzenegger pawed her during a publicity stop in London in 2000 and then libeled her through statements made by campaign staff that appeared in a California newspaper article five days before the 2003 recall election that vaulted him into office.

Specifically, Richardson says she was defamed by a movie publicist, in a statement arranged by Schwarzenegger’s campaign spokesman. The publicist, in an article published in the Los Angeles Times, accused Richardson of engaging in sexually provocative behavior and of fabricating the claim of harassment. She is suing Schwarzenegger along with the movie publicist and the campaign spokesman — both now on the governor’s paid staff — for damages.

Schwarzenegger, who has acknowledged "behaving badly sometimes’’ toward women, has denied groping or defaming Richardson. The two aides have also denied liability. But the libel suit, filed in London, has withstood all attempts at dismissal, shielded by a plaintiff-friendly British libel law under which Schwarzenegger himself once filed suit.

Unless the governor wins a late judicial reprieve or reaches an out-of-court settlement, he may find himself spending part of the 2006 election year — his re-election year should he choose to seek another term — in a witness box, answering questions under oath before 12 British jurors and a bewigged judge.

"It would be difficult, at this stage, to think of other motions Gov. Schwarzenegger could bring which would dismiss this case without a trial,’’ said Kevin Tierney, a law professor at UC Hastings in San Francisco and also a British barrister.

"He’s going to have to fight this here or he’s going to have to capitulate,’’ said Mark Stephens, a London libel attorney who is not involved in Richardson’s case but who faced Schwarzenegger in another suit more than a decade ago. In view of the governor’s tough-guy image and his aggressive approach to litigation, Stephens said, "my expectation would be that he would come and fight it.’’

Other analysts predict a settlement, noting the risks of a trial or a prolonged lawsuit for any chief executive.

"There’s a tremendous imposition on (Schwarzenegger’s) time, on his attention, on his energy, the damage to the dignity of the office,’’ said Rodney Smolla, dean of the University of Richmond School of Law in Virginia and a libel law expert. "It’s very difficult to imagine this (trial) actually going forward.’’

Schwarzenegger’s longtime California attorney, Martin Singer, said there have been no settlement discussions and he doesn’t know whether the case will go to trial. "There will be other procedural motions’’ to challenge the suit, he said, without giving details.

Richardson’s lawyer, Graham Atkins, said his client is not talking to the media about the case.

Richardson — regularly described in the British media as a vicar’s daughter — is a London television producer who hosted a late-night movie review show called "The Big Screen’’ when she interviewed Schwarzenegger in December 2000 during a tour to promote his new film, "The 6th Day.’’

Her version of the events was published in 2001 in the British magazine Premiere, along with similar accusations against Schwarzenegger from two other British female interviewers, neither of whom has sued. Richardson’s libel suit, filed last May in London’s High Court, quotes an account she gave to the Los Angeles Times in October 2003, when she was one of six women accusing Schwarzenegger of sexual misconduct in an article published five days before the recall election.

According to her account, Schwarzenegger, who had behaved as a "perfect gentleman’’ in her previous interviews with him about his films, kept staring at her breasts during the 2000 interview at the Dorchester Hotel.

"I went to shake his hand and he grabbed me onto his knee and he said, ’Before you go, I want to know if your breasts are real,’ ’’ Richardson told the Times. She said they were real and looked around for help, and "at that point, he circled my left nipple with his finger and he said, ’Yes, they are real.’ ’’ Then, she said, he let her go.

Campaign spokesman Sean Walsh, responding to the allegations, told the newspaper that Schwarzenegger had not behaved improperly toward Richardson or any of the other women but was being attacked for political reasons. Regarding Richardson’s accusations, Walsh referred the Times to Sheryl Main, a studio publicist, who accompanied Schwarzenegger on the movie tour and described Richardson as the instigator.

According to Main’s account, as quoted in the Times, Richardson stood up after the interview, cupped her right breast and said, "What do you think of these?’’ She then sat on his lap and was immediately escorted out.

Richardson did not sue over the hotel incident. But she sought unspecified damages from Schwarzenegger, Walsh and Main for the Times story, which reached Britain via the Internet and was widely reported in the British media.

The allegations "struck at the very heart of (Richardson’s) reputation and integrity,’’ her suit said. "It is a matter about which she has frequently been asked by family, friends and professional colleagues, as well as complete strangers.’’

Richardson also said Schwarzenegger’s lawyers wrote to her lawyers in November 2003, accused her of fabricating her account for self-promotion, and threatened to sue her in California if she sued the newly elected governor, warning her, "You proceed at your peril.’’ No such countersuit has been filed, but Richardson said she was offended by the lawyers’ "bullying, high-handed and gratuitously rude tone.’’

Schwarzenegger’s response, so far, has been that he is being sued in the wrong country over statements for which he is not responsible.

"Arnold Schwarzenegger did not make any of the statements that were attributed to his aides,’’ said Singer, the governor’s lawyer. "He didn’t ratify or authorize the statements.’’

Singer said Walsh, the governor’s chief campaign spokesman, merely referred the Times to a witness, Main, who did not work for the campaign and was employed by the film studio, not Schwarzenegger, at the time of the incident. Walsh is now director of the state Office of Planning and Research, and Main is on Schwarzenegger’s communications staff. Neither was available for comment.

The pre-election Times story had little apparent impact on Schwarzenegger’s easy victory over then-Gov. Gray Davis. Schwarzenegger dismissed the article as an 11th-hour political hit piece but issued a general apology for past misbehavior and promised to act as a "champion of women.’’ He also pledged to order an investigation into the women’s accusations, but backtracked after taking office.

After the suit was filed, all three defendants challenged British jurisdiction over a case based on statements by U.S. residents to a U.S. publication. But Justice David Eady said British courts could hear the case because the article had been posted worldwide on the Internet and had allegedly libeled a British citizen with an established reputation in her home country.

Walsh and Main have unsuccessfully appealed the ruling; Singer said Schwarzenegger has not decided whether to appeal.

Eady also said the case would be judged under British law, a crucial point. Constitutional protections for libel defendants in the United States, developed by the Supreme Court since 1964 to promote free speech and the right to criticize public figures, are nonexistent in Britain.

One important difference involves the burden of proof. If the case were being tried in the United States, Richardson, the plaintiff, would have to prove that the statements made about her were false. It’s the reverse in Britain: Once Richardson showed that the statements harmed her reputation it would be up to Schwarzenegger, Main and Walsh to prove they were true.

"In a ’he-said, she-said’ case, that can be critical,’’ said Smolla, the University of Richmond law dean.

If a defendant tries to prove a defamatory statement is true and fails, damages are increased — typically threefold, said Stephens, the London libel attorney.

In addition, British courts lack protections provided in U.S. courts for anyone sued for libel by a prominent person, in this case Richardson. If Richardson were suing in a U.S. court, she would have to prove that the defamation was either a deliberate lie or made with reckless disregard of the truth. Not so in British courts.

That was the standard Schwarzenegger used last year to win dismissal of a libel suit in California by Rhonda Miller, who accused his campaign of falsely suggesting she had a criminal record after she told the Los Angeles Times he had groped her on a movie set. A judge ruled that Miller had become a public figure by publicizing her accusations and was unable to prove that the misstatements were deliberate or reckless.

The differences between the two nations’ laws are so stark that U.S. courts have refused to enforce British libel judgments, said Robert Balin, a New York libel lawyer who has been involved in two such cases and has written about the issue. That means that Richardson, if she wins damages against Schwarzenegger, will probably be unable to collect them unless he owns money or property in Britain.

Stephens said damages in British courts are typically much lower than in the United States.

He said the governor could be helped, if the case makes it to trial, by another difference between the two nations’ laws: A British judge generally would bar testimony by other women who accused Schwarzenegger of groping them, unless he raised the issue himself by insisting he would never engage in such conduct. Similar evidence is often allowed in U.S. trials, like Michael Jackson’s child molestation trial, in which jurors have been allowed to hear from other accusers.

Schwarzenegger has been through the British libel system once before. In the early 1990s, he sued the British tabloid News of the World and Wendy Leigh, a writer living in Florida, over an article that he said falsely accused him of holding pro-Nazi views.

The newspaper paid an undisclosed amount to settle the case. Leigh, the source of the tabloid’s article, issued an apology and also made some changes in the then-upcoming British edition of a book she had written on Schwarzenegger, said Stephens, her lawyer.

"He was one of the first to open the floodgates of people coming to London to sue for libel,’’ Stephens said.

Singer bristled at any comparison of the suit Schwarzenegger filed and the suit he now faces. "How can you say there’s any analogy?’’ he asked. Unlike Richardson, who could have sued in California, Singer said, "we could not have sued in the U.S.’’

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...

Forum posts

  • Vat is wrong viz you girlie men ? I am ze gropenfurer general.

  • If groping and libel are bad, what is Senator Kennedy doing running around loose?

    • Pointing out the hypocrisy of dillweeds like you.

    • It’s up to Senator Kennedy to point out hypocrisy? Lord, help us. I always liked the old pro-2nd Amendment bumper sticker: "Senator Kennedy’s Car Has Killed More People Than My Gun."

      FYI, Sen. Kennedy, who says rich guys like him don’t pay enough in taxes, shaved over $4k off of his income tax bill last year by declaring his Washington D.C. house his permanent residence. This means he’s either a tax cheat or he is ineligible to continue to represent the people of Massachusetts, but, oh well, no one cares. Tax laws are only for little people, not senators.

  • diebold was fined millions in california for "poor security" in their election software, good thing they make ATMs.

  • GET-RID. GET-RID

    • Could he be any more disgusting??? He keeps saying close the borders, then when his Nazi tactics backfire, he says "its a language problem. "Steroid Joe" probably has brain damage.

    • Would someone please buy Arnie a bra, he is starting to look like Dolly Parton.

  • What has happened to the buff Ah-nuld. May I offer him some advice - always wear a shirt!