Posted on 07/08/2020 9:32:04 AM PDT by Red Badger
Court rules Steele's firm violated Britain's data privacy law by failing to aggressively check allegations in his dossier
================================================================================
British judge ruled Wednesday that Christopher Steele violated a data privacy law by failing to check the accuracy of information in his infamous dossier, ordering the former spy’s firm to pay damages to two businessmen he wrongly accused of making illicit payments in Russia.
Justice Mark Warby of the High Court of England and Wales ordered Steele’s firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, to pay a modest 18,000 English pounds – about $22,596 in American currency – each to Petr Aven and Mikhail Fridman as compensation for a violation of Britain’s Data Protection Act 1998 .
Warby ruled that while Steele had a national security interest to share his intelligence with U.S. and British authorities, several of the allegations in Memo 112 of the Steele dossier were “inaccurate or misleading as a matter of fact.” File Aven v Orbis.Judgment Summary.pdf
The judge ruled Steele violated the law by failing to aggressively check the accuracy of one claim accusing Aven and Fridman of making illicit payments to Russia President Vladimir Putin before distributing it to various U.S. and British figures, including the FBI.
“That is an allegation of serial criminal wrongdoing, over a prolonged period. Even in the limited and specific context of reporting intelligence for the purposes I have mentioned, and despite all the other factors I have listed, the steps taken to verify that proposition fell short of what would have been reasonable,” Warby ruled.
“The allegation clearly called for closer attention, a more enquiring approach, and more energetic checking,” the judge added.
The ruling involves a long-discredited claim in Steele’s dossier – repeatedly used by U.S. news media – that Russia’s Alfa Bank, connected to Aven and Fridman, was transmitting secret messages between Moscow and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
The FBI concluded the computer pings were not nefarious messages but rather routine behavior most likely connected to email spam. Special Counsel Robert Mueller told Congress last year he did not believe the allegations.
Fridman hailed the ruling in a statement.
“We are delighted with the outcome of this case and that Mr Justice Warby has determined what we have always known to be the case – that the contents of Memorandum 112 are inaccurate and misleading," he said. "Ever since these odious allegations were first made public in January 2017, my partners and I have been resolute and unwavering in our determination to prove that they are untrue, and through this case, we have finally succeeded in doing so.”
Though a matter of British law, the ruling is likely to have impact as well in the United States, where the Justice Department continues to investigate the actions of the FBI in the Russia collusion probe, including its interactions with Steele and agents' honesty with the FISA court.
The judge ruled that in Memo 112, one of several that made up Steele's dossier, there were six factually inaccurate or unproven claims that Steele provided from his alleged intelligence sources including that:
the businessmen did not do favors for or receive favors from Putin as the memo claimed; Fridman and Aven did not provide informal foreign policy advice to the Russian leader as Steele alleged; Fridman did not meet with Putin in September 2016 as claimed by Steele's source; the businessman did not bribe Putin when he was Deputy Mayor of St Petersburg; And Fridman and Aven did not do Putin’s political bidding as the dossier alleged.
The ruling further accentuates that much of the Steele dossier contained unproven Internet rumor or false information, some possible from Russian intelligence, as the Justice Department inspector general concluded last December. Nonetheless, the FBI used evidence from Steele's dossier to support a warrant targeting Trump campaign figures in four occasions, claiming to the court that agents had verified the information.
The judge also concluded that Steele's notes of his first interaction with the FBI about the dossier on July 5, 2016 made clear that his ultimate client for his research project was Hillary Clinton's campaign as directed by her campaign law firm Perkins Coie. The FBI did not disclose that information to the court.
The supposition that the Clinton campaign was the ultimate client "is in line with the FBI Note of 5 July 2016, which records Mr. Steele telling the FBI that Orbis had been instructed by Mr. [Glenn] Simpson of Fusion and 'Democratic Party Associates' but that 'the ultimate client were (sic) the leadership of the Clinton presidential campaign.' The FBI Note also indicates that Mr Steele had been told by that stage that Mrs Clinton herself was aware of what Orbis had been commissioned to do," Warby concluded.
"I have little reliable evidence as to who exactly was the Ultimate Client, but I have enough to find that Perkins Coie were instructed by one or more people or organizations within the upper echelons of the Democratic Party, concerned to ensure Hillary Clinton’s election as President." the judge added.
p
Sweet....and good timing. Mr. Biden, Mr. Comey, Hillary...take note!!
...and this sh*t almost brought down the President and has caused incalculable damage to the country. Why this POS is not arrested is beyond me.
The ruling further accentuates that much of the Steele dossier contained unproven Internet rumor or false information, some possible from Russian intelligence, as the Justice Department inspector general concluded last December.
Nonetheless, the FBI used evidence from Steele’s dossier to support a warrant targeting Trump campaign figures in four occasions, claiming to the court that agents had verified the information
Justice Mark Warby of the High Court of England and Wales... ruled Steele violated the law by failing to aggressively check the accuracy of one claim... The judge ruled that in Memo 112, one of several that made up Steele's dossier, there were six factually inaccurate or unproven claims... The judge also concluded that Steele's notes of his first interaction with the FBI about the dossier on July 5, 2016 made clear that his ultimate client for his research project was Hillary Clinton's campaign as directed by her campaign law firm Perkins Coie. The FBI did not disclose that information to the court... The FBI Note also indicates that Mr Steele had been told by that stage that Mrs Clinton herself was aware of what Orbis had been commissioned to do," Warby concluded.
Y'think this would have been the verdict if May were still PM?
The judge also concluded that Steele’s notes of his first interaction with the FBI about the dossier on July 5, 2016 made clear that his ultimate client for his research project was Hillary Clinton’s campaign as directed by her campaign law firm Perkins Coie.
The FBI did not disclose that information to the court.
Possibly.............
It never “almost” brought down the President. It was never close to doing so.
Kek.
Chump change considering the multi-millions he was paid to invent this fairy tale.
Good, get that little limey weeny. Could Trump now file suit against Steele?
Trump needs to threaten Boris with economic sanctions against the UK until Steele is extradited to the USA.
Ha ha ha!!! Hope some of that money he pays was part of what he got from the DNC!! Ha ha ha!!
Seems like a WIN WIN for Steele. He got paid. DNC got the dirt they wanted. Stelle has to pay less than 1 % of his profit. No one in the US knows because the MSM wouldn’t report and the US is still allegedly “investigating”. Nothing to see here.
It is not about money. Aven and Friedman make that much in hour.
The importance of the ruling is in a legal recognition to the fact that the dossier is made up.
In years gone by, I would have insisted that it was irrelevent because the judiciary are independent, but having seen the absolute stitch-up Tommy Robinson got, as well as Count Dankula by a legal system determined to crush freedom of speech that threatens the establishment I’m not so sure. Maybe the judiciary is still ‘independent’ of the executive in a technical sense, but they all serve the swamp at the end of the day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.