|
Post by mrszinck on Aug 1, 2011 15:46:30 GMT -5
I am curios whether director from L'Express, Christophe Barbier, a personal friend of Carla Bruni, will not regrets all this crap.
|
|
|
Post by paca on Aug 1, 2011 17:11:26 GMT -5
why would he? he did his job
|
|
|
Post by axelle on Aug 2, 2011 10:22:35 GMT -5
Eringer has a full blown war going on over there on the blog! Shaping up to be a bit of a mess...
|
|
|
Post by MyAdia on Aug 2, 2011 12:38:13 GMT -5
Below are thumbnails of last week's issue that Milena Radoman, the editor of Monaco Hebdo devotes to Albert's defense of the rumors. The articles should be online this week. Monaco Hebdo I don't know if this was the editor's intention, but such a wide attention given to every single detail of all there rumors - ONLY MAKES THE SITUATION WORSE! Albert goes on record stating that every thing is false and the ediots published every single item that Albert states is false. Seriously, which insane asylum did these morons escaped from?
ALL IS FALSE | Page 3: ... That is why, initially, decided MonacoHebdo (paredes@monacohebdo.mc) participated in this issue: Edson Anumu, Régis de Closets, ... mc Rumors not toparticipate in the media whirlwind that since the day before the royal wedding, keyAlbert II and Charlene Wittstock. Our position ... | | Page 16: ... American Robert Eringer on her blog for three years. Interviewed just after the C in air show devoted to "Monaco, the rock of the rumors," the Prince Albert defended the country's independence. And reaffirms the rules of transmission of the crown. Interview by Milena | | Page 19: ... this time the royal couple did not wish to grant an interview, the head of state of Monaco has decided two days later to confide in Monaco ... An interview in which he evokes Albert rumors, of course, but also the case Eringer, transmission dynastic | | Page 20: ? News & I bill "The el I Chronology of a rumor three weeks before the royal wedding, all-in Monaco was already talking. Charlene Wittstock alleged leak, the third illegitimate child of Prince Albert ... Back on the evolution of these allegations. In their publication in the... | | Page 21: .. CLASS POLICY After the broadcast of C in the air on France 5, the Minister of State Michel Roger reacted strongly by saying that "Monaco ... Prior to remember that Prince Albert and Princess Charlene have assigned Express for invasion of privacy and dissemination... | | Page 22: ... world and crowned a bed of yours are about to invest the scene, the sound of the ToutMonaco derniire matter that is in turmoil in recent days-and panic-circles of the most closed Prinrinenné See also CI dossier " Wedding of Albert and hem fj | | Page 23: ... Eringer had also portrayed the mission entrusted to him by allegedly Prince: "It was to conduct an operation" mani pulite "in Monaco. "" Delirium and fantasy "" The only thing that is true is that he worked for the Prince Albert until it went... |
|
|
|
Post by countess on Aug 2, 2011 12:59:24 GMT -5
pathetic and desperate, as usual monkey flunkies just making things worse and raking up all the bad PR. it's not going to work, being made a mockery in front of the world can not be fixed by lies and denials in a piddley little local paper JMO
|
|
|
Post by MyAdia on Aug 2, 2011 13:24:14 GMT -5
News agencies are reporting that L'Express received the summon s that Albert's attorney filed in Nanterre, France. Some are also reporting that L'Express has removed the offending article from its site - but that is not true. It is still there as of now: Albert-Charlene, on peril marriage: By LEXPRESS.fr, published on 28/06/2011 at 11:00, updated at 16:11
From TF1Rumors about the marriage of Monaco: The Express removes a section of its website
2 August 2011 at 5:09 PM
The website of L'Express will remove an article, posted online Tuesday and publishing information on the private life of Albert and Charlene Wittstock, in three days of their marriage, Friday and Saturday, reports the Agence France Presse the same day. Earlier this afternoon, the princely palace of Monaco, has formally denied the "false allegations appeared" in a statement sent to AFP. "The Express has received a summons a time in hours, a standard procedure in such circumstances and we have decided to withdraw the article from the site", explains it to the editor of the weekly.
|
|
|
Post by paca on Aug 2, 2011 13:28:19 GMT -5
can't wait to see it all online and then of course you have the former hebdo journalist who tellus how papers are being made in MC
|
|
|
Post by hibou on Aug 2, 2011 14:53:16 GMT -5
News agencies are reporting that L'Express received the summon s that Albert's attorney filed in Nanterre, France. Some are also reporting that L'Express has removed the offending article from its site - but that is not true. It is still there as of now: Albert-Charlene, on peril marriage: By LEXPRESS.fr, published on 28/06/2011 at 11:00, updated at 16:11
From TF1Rumors about the marriage of Monaco: The Express removes a section of its website
2 August 2011 at 5:09 PM
The website of L'Express will remove an article, posted online Tuesday and publishing information on the private life of Albert and Charlene Wittstock, in three days of their marriage, Friday and Saturday, reports the Agence France Presse the same day. Earlier this afternoon, the princely palace of Monaco, has formally denied the "false allegations appeared" in a statement sent to AFP. "The Express has received a summons a time in hours, a standard procedure in such circumstances and we have decided to withdraw the article from the site", explains it to the editor of the weekly.
I hope they don't remove it. They need to stand behind their story. I have no doubt that they had good reliable sources or they wouldn't have run with the story. LaCoste is playing go fish to try and find out their sources. It reminds me of the the time the Daily Express printed the story of the Intruder in the Queen's bedroom (From the early 1980's). Years later, I had the opportunity to meet the Fleet street reporter who broke the story. He told me he received a tip by phone and offered to meet the tip. He listened to the person's story and then phoned his editor who initially said, "How long have you been drinking at the pub. Go home and get some sleep" but the reporter said he found the tip sincere and the story credible. The editor said he needed pretty solid proof before he would call his source at Buck House to see if it was true. Well, the tip provided some sort of solid evidence (the reporter would not tell me what the evidence was) and the editor called his source at the palace who confirmed that the incident had occurred. They ran with the story. The reporter told me that they lightened the story up initially but in reality it was quite scary and that the guy was pretty nuts. He said he had huge admiration for the Queen who was calm and cool under pressure. The fact is they didn't run with the story until they could get some solid proof and contacts within the royal household. They also toned down the story initially. This is why I believe that a newspaper like L'Express has a true story. I'm sure the Editor knew full what what would happen if the story couldn't stand on fact. I think this is what's making Albert ticked off. He's got a leak in his palace and he is determined to find out who it was. I'm willing to bet that's why they sued L'Express and not the tabloids. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by paca on Aug 2, 2011 15:41:30 GMT -5
the article is still there and I don't see the point of removing it now. It's been all over the net quoted in heaps of languages. It's not like they can put it back in the box. Now the media has a reason to quote the article all over again. So what's the point? multiplying the bad press?
|
|
|
Post by hibou on Aug 2, 2011 16:46:14 GMT -5
the article is still there and I don't see the point of removing it now. It's been all over the net quoted in heaps of languages. It's not like they can put it back in the box. Now the media has a reason to quote the article all over again. So what's the point? multiplying the bad press? I really think they are after the sources. It is too late to kill it. Well, actually if they had let it die it would have all gone away, but LaCoste had to dredge it up by the lawsuit. Now all the media are going to be watching what happens.
|
|
|
Post by suite583 on Aug 2, 2011 17:14:48 GMT -5
Albert will be so angry that he will also dislike Charlene and lastly will leave her.
|
|
|
Post by suite583 on Aug 2, 2011 17:24:59 GMT -5
I think that the media summonses from palace will be in the air the next half a year. And the emotional life of Albert will be turbulent.
|
|
|
Post by smt on Aug 2, 2011 17:31:35 GMT -5
They obviously don't believe that sometimes silence is the best policy! They are giving credence to the hearsay, rumors and innuendo by entering into the conversation with "their side of the story" ... just go on your honeymoon or whatever it is and shut up!
|
|
|
Post by paca on Aug 2, 2011 18:24:19 GMT -5
the article is still there and I don't see the point of removing it now. It's been all over the net quoted in heaps of languages. It's not like they can put it back in the box. Now the media has a reason to quote the article all over again. So what's the point? multiplying the bad press? I really think they are after the sources. It is too late to kill it. Well, actually if they had let it die it would have all gone away, but LaCoste had to dredge it up by the lawsuit. Now all the media are going to be watching what happens. of course they are after the sources, but they won't get them. worst case a judge will fine express, but since they carefully worded their article and only reported what was relevant to public knowledge, seeing that they themselves invited the public to be witness to the love marriage of the century....no judge can possibly do anything. Monaco PR was doing a PR campaign with regards to the wedding. How can they possibly argue privacy issues after inviting everyone to watch? YOu can't have it both ways. They will lose this case, plus keep the article going, generating heaps of free publicity for lexpress by keeping them mention. I don't think that lexpress was aware what goldmine of free worldwide publicity they struck when they were only doing their job. They would have done the same with Sarko and Carla. In European serious journalism, private life of public people only becomes relevant when these people have either done sth criminal, as politicians claim one thing and do the opposite at home, or invite the public in to their private life for image purposes and then it turns out to be a disaster area. French press knew about Mitterands daughter, but she was never a topic in the press until Mitterands decided to go public. He did not have to abuse his power for that. He never talked about his marriage or anything in public. That was a private matter. He never lectured anyone on how to live their private life. Hence the press did not consider his daughter a relevant topic. What they did consider a topic, and although it is a private matter just the same, was his health. There Mitterand did what he could to conceal his state of health as long as possible from the public. But there the press argued the National interest and rightfully so. Albert and Charles gave an avalanche of interviews to promote their public wedding for which they had invited several heads of state, among them Sarko, hence it was of National interest and political interest that to report if the wedding of this head of state was about to take place or not. they never insinuated any reasons, just stated that Charles went to an airport and was stopped by French police from boarding her plane. The rest of the story played in every readers mind who knows about Alberts antics. They did not make any statement for the reasons. That avalanche only came to pass as soon as the dementi was out and the press was free to speculate what the reasons might have been. It was not lexpress that started it, it was Alberts PR that gave the go for the hunt by issuing a dementi, having a walk about town staged etc. It was from the beginning palace PR mucking things up big time and they continue doing it. Morons led by a moron
|
|
|
Post by paca on Aug 2, 2011 18:26:38 GMT -5
They obviously don't believe that sometimes silence is the best policy! They are giving credence to the hearsay, rumors and innuendo by entering into the conversation with "their side of the story" ... just go on your honeymoon or whatever it is and shut up! that's what Caro would do and always has done. That's why everyone knows that she is the one with brains in the family
|
|
|
Post by hibou on Aug 2, 2011 19:56:51 GMT -5
I really think they are after the sources. It is too late to kill it. Well, actually if they had let it die it would have all gone away, but LaCoste had to dredge it up by the lawsuit. Now all the media are going to be watching what happens. of course they are after the sources, but they won't get them. worst case a judge will fine express, but since they carefully worded their article and only reported what was relevant to public knowledge, seeing that they themselves invited the public to be witness to the love marriage of the century....no judge can possibly do anything. Monaco PR was doing a PR campaign with regards to the wedding. How can they possibly argue privacy issues after inviting everyone to watch? YOu can't have it both ways. They will lose this case, plus keep the article going, generating heaps of free publicity for lexpress by keeping them mention. I don't think that lexpress was aware what goldmine of free worldwide publicity they struck when they were only doing their job. They would have done the same with Sarko and Carla. In European serious journalism, private life of public people only becomes relevant when these people have either done sth criminal, as politicians claim one thing and do the opposite at home, or invite the public in to their private life for image purposes and then it turns out to be a disaster area. French press knew about Mitterands daughter, but she was never a topic in the press until Mitterands decided to go public. He did not have to abuse his power for that. He never talked about his marriage or anything in public. That was a private matter. He never lectured anyone on how to live their private life. Hence the press did not consider his daughter a relevant topic. What they did consider a topic, and although it is a private matter just the same, was his health. There Mitterand did what he could to conceal his state of health as long as possible from the public. But there the press argued the National interest and rightfully so. Albert and Charles gave an avalanche of interviews to promote their public wedding for which they had invited several heads of state, among them Sarko, hence it was of National interest and political interest that to report if the wedding of this head of state was about to take place or not. they never insinuated any reasons, just stated that Charles went to an airport and was stopped by French police from boarding her plane. The rest of the story played in every readers mind who knows about Alberts antics. They did not make any statement for the reasons. That avalanche only came to pass as soon as the dementi was out and the press was free to speculate what the reasons might have been. It was not lexpress that started it, it was Alberts PR that gave the go for the hunt by issuing a dementi, having a walk about town staged etc. It was from the beginning palace PR mucking things up big time and they continue doing it. Morons led by a moron paca I think you just won the case for L'Express!
|
|
|
Post by sandsla on Aug 2, 2011 22:38:40 GMT -5
Well it's too bad about the Article for Albert, since it is actually a really good picture of Albert, it's unfortunate for him the article isn't more flattering. I don't doubt Eringer plan to sabotage Albert, but it is due to the problem that he lets himself be vulnerable to so many people, and when he is equally insincere or untruthful in his own words or actions, it is hard for anyone to have any sympathy for him. At least the runaway bride story may have helped Albert get the wedding a minute of press--Albert should be grateful that no one is paying attention now-it will make it easier for when the real disaster strikes for him.
|
|
|
Post by MyAdia on Aug 3, 2011 13:07:15 GMT -5
Good lawd, can someone please shut Albert up! Seriously, he sounds like a child in this interview! seriously, he does. His explanation for how the airport rumor got started is not only weak, but only adds more fuel to the fire. Someone please explain to me how Charlene not being let on a boat at a party that Albert attended is the seed for L'Express airport incident. Albert is too stupid to realize that he actually gives the public a reason why Charlene would have been pissed as opposed how someone could have misinterpreted these two stories. Albert needs to talk to Charlene and get lessons on how to lie better. I am speechless about some of the other excuses he gives. All I can say right now is why isn't Charlene the one denying the airport story to the Monaco media? doesn't this make more sense? Why is she silent right now? Here is the link to the Monaco Hebdo article.
"Everything is false"By Milena Radoman Tuesday, August 2, 2011
After expressing his indignation upon returning from his honeymoon, Prince Albert has agreed to return to the origin of the rumors which not only attack the princely couple but also the heavy accusations that the American Robert Eringer carries on his blog for three years. Interviewed just after the C in air show devoted to "Monaco, the rock of rumors," Prince Albert defends the country's independence. And reaffirms the rules of transmission of the crown.
Monaco Hebdo: Sir, in your opinion, how the rumors arose of flight at the airport and illegitimate? Albert II: Look, this is false. On the supposed leak at the airport, we even have a document from the French National Police that we would not disclose who certifies that at no time, she did not intervened to stop Charlene. Nor to intercept nor to block her from an airplane departure! These rumors had already started a few weeks before our wedding. Charlene had gone by plane to Paris with her mother for the final fitting of her wedding dress. She also made a return trip to Athens because she was invited to the opening ceremony of the Special Olympics games. But rumors began before these trips. I can assure you that at no time did she wanted to escape. This is absurd, totally crazy.
MH: Is there something that could have trigger them? A. II: There was an incident on Saturday evening of the Grand Prix. We had gone on the yacht of a friend. I arrived before Charlene. When Charlene came to the bridge, the captain of the boat - who had not recognized her- denied her access because there were already too crowded. At that time, she did not call the boat owner who would have immediately come up. She did not want to insist and preferred to return. Some people were then able to mount this hairpin incident and may be that is how the rumor started. In any case ridiculous.
As for the story of an illegitimate child, I have no idea where this might come. But this is absolutely false.
MH: Who started these rumors to you? Do you think this is someone you know? And if so, will you take action? A. II: I think there are people in Monaco who did not accept certain decisions, such as not being invited to all events of the wedding. There is certainly a mixture of frustration and resentment mixed with all this. In any case, we will conduct an investigation and one day I'll know who started these rumors.
MH: Christophe Barbier, editor of L'Express, spoke on the program C in the air a "normalization" of Monaco, which should eventually become a French department. It is challenging the sovereignty of the Principality. How do you react? A. II: M. Barber, in his ignorance of my country, apparently forgetting the constitution that governs our institutions. Monaco is a state long been recognized by the international community that the institutions and the status of a sovereign and independent state. We are not a territory under French protection. We can not say this "annexation" or "normalization" of Monaco.This is very serious.
In a letter, the Minister of State reminded the gentleman who turns out to be the editor of a magazine known, what were the Principality and its historical relations of friendship with France. In this program, I heard everything, including that Monaco did not exist for 700 years. Arms me fall. This is to ignore history, the recognition by Louis XI in 1512 when the lord of Monaco as the only Lord of this territory, the Treaty of Peronne in 1641. How sweeping history of a country with so many inaccuracies? In these debates, it always comes back to the same shots that hit Monaco.
MH: Do you think it is so innocent that? A. II: If the purpose of all these rumors is to disrupt the Principality and its people is the work of a Machiavellian, perverse mind. It will not succeed.
MH: In the same issue C in the air, your lawyer Thierry Lacoste said that it is possible to recognize in time, if necessary, your children born outside marriage. Is it a reality? A. II: Me Lacoste did not address all provisions qu'édictent the Constitution and statutes of the ruling family. First of all, the line will be transmitted by the children of the marriage to Charlene. Then comes the possibility of adopting a child. But the line can be transmitted through my sisters and their children if I so chose. There is no question of legitimacy of children born out of wedlock.
MH: Do you think today that it has been helpful to communicate your anger? Fighting against a rumor is always a trap in terms of communication. Remain silent or answer, it's a dilemma? A. II: I feel relieved now. I firmly believe he had to react. We need to say that everything was false, it was enough. This has saddened Charlene a lot, she is not used to this media maelstrom. I tried to protect her because alas, I am subject to these rumors since childhood, but I did not think it would be too violent.
MH: Why did the international press went wild for you? A. II: With new technology, we entered an age where any information, verified or not, is multiplied and amplified. Not to mention the brilliance with which it is spreading thanks to social networks and the Internet. It is also the race buzz and what shocks me most today is that our expressions and behaviors are interpreted and dissected. For example, following the image of marriage, it is estimated that Charlene looks sad and I too expansive. This is the first time I've been criticized for not being friendly enough ... We forget that our attitude is simply, in an official event, is not the same as in the private sector. I want to reassure those concerned for our happiness (knowing smile ...), Charlene and I are very happy.
MH: In his blog, Robert Eringer involves you personally as well as many officials as well as those around you directly and indirectly. Why did you call him? A. II: I have known Mr. Eringer in the late 80's. His father, who lived in an apartment in the Condamine, was a painter who worked for Disney. Some friends showed me. He described himself as a journalist and writer was also friends with the family Powers. In the 90s, he released a book on Monaco, where he depicted the people he had met so bitter. Mike Powers we did meet in 2001 because he brought information about a person who wanted to sponsor an event in Monaco. At that time, he said he had cooperated with the FBI and the CIA on some issues and that the information he could provide would be more information to staff working for Public Safety.
MH: Is it true that you asked him to report on your life? A. II: No. It was he who said he heard many rumors in Monaco and has taken the initiative to write notes on a variety of people. In fact, the Public Security has quickly comforted in the fact that he had not a shred of trail to explore, and merely mention a few names of people already appeared in the media, including Eastern Europe and specifically in Russia which he said were Mafia.He saw Masonic conspiracies everywhere. It was just to compile general elements, moreover, by exaggerating. Public Security said it had serious doubts about the competence and credibility of Eringer. I understood that from widespread rumors and unfounded, he merely repeated and amplified the past to justify his work. Then he decided to stop everything.
MH: Robert Eringer mounted a structure of information? A. II: Never at any time, he was asked to set up an intelligence unit. MIS structure, he suggests, had no existence or administrative or legal.
MH: Any collaboration with Eringer stopped? A. II: Yes. For many years.
MH: He demanded 40,000 euros. Why not have set this sum? A. II: He did repeatedly requested an invoice but for the provision of services that were never requested it and that in any event, he never provided. So there was obviously no reason to pay that amount of money.
MH: Why do you think it take you today as a target? A. II: His obsession and hard on the Principality and myself are pathetic. I did not attack right away thinking that this court case because of its inconsistency and its ridiculous, stop by itself. But I realized that it was not possible when reported to be ready to stop writing his articles defamatory and offensive if it were paid a sum of $ 1 million in return.
This is a person embittered that simply pour his venom and resentment on the Internet. He had said he had other missions and other sources of income.Obviously this is not the case.
MH: What are the legal proceedings? A. II: So far, I have repeatedly condemned by the judge of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris for publishing defamatory and false to me. He also was sentenced to the initiative of other defendants by him of their commitment to the Principality. A number of procedures are currently pending before the same court on my initiative and that of others in the Principality before both civil and administrative law judges.
MH: Do you believe in spreading these rumors, there has been a malfunction or a role of people in your life? A. II: It is very difficult to fight against the spread of rumors, which by definition are not based on anything concrete. Obviously, if people of Monaco were complicit in such infamy, they have unfortunately acted against their country and against myself.
MH: You reaffirm your desire to ethics? A. II: As I said firmly: if there was any breach of ethics and good governance, I will take immediate sanctions. I've never abandoned his intention.?
The "rant" of the royal couple July 20, 2011. Just back from his honeymoon in Mozambique, the couple have received in the office of ceremonial royal palace, some headlines Monaco (Monaco-Matin, La Gazette de Monaco and Monaco Hebdo). Objective: To grow a rant. The message is clear: "We want to express our outrage at rumors. All this is intolerable. "Albert II warned:" I have always respected the freedom of expression. But the dissemination of false information is lamentable and subject to criminal penalties. "The prince put those rumors under the account of" jealousy "which is the subject the Grimaldi family. States that "an individual or individuals seeking to interfere in Monaco. "That day, the prince will go no further. In turn, his wife will refuse to add any comments. "I think that says it all," said the princess in English, obviously hurt by an affair that took outsized. In the office, the atmosphere is heavy, the extreme tension. Like probably present relations with the media.
However, if at that time the royal couple did not wish to grant an interview, the head of state of Monaco has decided two days later to entrust Monaco Hebdo. An interview in which Albert II discusses the rumors, of course, but also the case Eringer, the dynastic transmission of power and the possible desire to destabilize the state.
|
|
|
Post by MyAdia on Aug 3, 2011 13:15:36 GMT -5
Has anyone changed their opinion about L'Express's claims and the happiness of this marriage after reading this interview? I am serious. Albert states again that he and Charlene are happy and you shouldn't judge by the photos - so should you believe what he says now or what you saw on the photos and in videos? Funny, but his wife told us that the photographs will be the judge of their happiness and love.
Also, am I the only who who felt that Albert contradicted himself on he heir question. did he actually leave open the opportunity that he could adopt one of his probably many children? What's up with the modifier that Caroline's children can be his heir - if he chooses?
|
|
|
Post by mrplowfan on Aug 3, 2011 13:24:30 GMT -5
The way I read it is that if he and Charlene can't have a child they will adopt one - but not one of his illegitimate children because it won't be "Charlene's child". WTF kind of a parent is that?! If he "decides" otherwise then his sisters kids will inherit. WTF? Has he not read the constitution? He can neither adopt or decide who inherits.
|
|