Breaking news: Pancho Campo 'to sue iPhone for defamation and commercial damage' for 'smokin' gun' email

Pancho Campo MW – author of the smokin' gun email sent by iPhone: 4th June 2011, 15.30

 
 

The smokin' gun email: sent by Campo's iPhone 3rd June 2011, 15.30

De: Pancho Campo [mailto:panchocampo@gmail.com]
Enviado el: viernes, 03 de junio de 2011 15:30
Para: adela richer
CC: Irene LLorente; <prensa@vinosdemadrid.es>
Asunto: Re: CATA VINOS DE MADTRID POR JAY MILLER, CONFERENCIA, VISITA A BODEGAS Y CATA DE 8 VINOS ENTRE PANCHO CAMPO MW Y JAY MILLER

Querida Adela,

Esta es una oportunidad única para los vinos de Madrid ya que esta DO no entra en los planes de Parker para que sea visitada ni en 2012 ni 2013. 

Las visitas privadas fuera de agenda, como es esta, se hacen en contadas ocasiones por un precio no inferior a 40,000 euros. El que Jay haya aceptado quedarse 2 días mas por la mitad del precio habitual es un milagro y una oportunidad que Madrid difícilmente volverá a tener.

El miércoles que viene cerraremos nuestra agenda. Ojalá que reconsideren, especialmente considerando lo difícil que esta el mercado para España y que cualquier empujón como este puede ayudarles mucho.

Un beso desde la Toscana.

Pancho

Enviado desde mi iPhone

English translation: 

De: Pancho Campo [mailto:panchocampo@gmail.com]

Enviado el: viernes, 03 de junio de 2011 15:30

Para: adela richer

CC: Irene LLorente; <prensa@vinosdemadrid.es>

Asunto: Re: CATA VINOS DE MADTRID POR JAY MILLER, CONFERENCIA, VISITA A BODEGAS Y CATA DE 8 VINOS ENTRE PANCHO CAMPO MW Y JAY MILLER

Dear Adela,

This is a unique opportunity for vinos de Madrid, seeing as how this DO is not in Parker's plans to be visited in either 2012 or 2013.

Private visits off the set agenda, as this would be, rarely take place, and not for a price below 40,000 euros. The fact that Jay has agreed to stay 2 days more, and for half the usual price, is a miracle and an opportunity that Madrid will find it difficult to have again.

We close our diary next Wednesday. I hope they reconsider, especially considering how difficult the market is for Spain and that any little push like this can help a lot.

A kiss from Tuscany.

Pancho

Sent from my iPhone

**

Jim's Loire understands that Pancho Campo MW has instructed his lawyers – Cata, Schmuck and Magistral in Marbella – to prepare to sue iPhone for defamation, commercial damage to his business and that of The Wine Academy of Spain and upset to his family.

"They told me it was a smartphone. If it was truly a smartphone it would not have let me send that dumb email from Tuscany, which is in very clear breach of Parker's ethical guidelines and makes me look like a mafioso from Marbella. We will be seeking substantial damages for loss of business and the tarnishing of our reputations.' 

**

Campo's threats to sue

Campo or his associates continue to issue threats to second and third parties as well as apparently to his friends on Facebook that he is about to sue me for harassment and defamation. I have been looking at Campo's business affairs since September 2009, I have yet to receive any letter from Campo or one of his solicitors.


On this occasion I'm prepared to offer him some free legal advice on the harassment laws in England and Wales. 

Earlier this year lawyers representing a serial scamster informed me that I was harrassing and invading their client's privacy. This formed part of my response:

'Returning to the Puddick case there are three crucial paragraphs in the Court of Appeal judgment (Iqbal v Dean Manson ) above that supports press freedom:

[33] Prior to the 1997 Act, the freedom with which the press could publish facts or opinions about individuals was circumscribed by the law of defamation. Protection of reputation is a legitimate reason to restrict freedom of expression. Subject to the law of defamation, the press was entitled to publish an article, or series of articles, about an individual, notwithstanding that it could be foreseen that such conduct was likely to cause distress to the subject of the article.

[34] The 1997 Act has not rendered such conduct unlawful. In general, press criticism, even if robust, does not constitute unreasonable conduct and does not fall within the natural meaning of harassment. A pleading, which does no more than allege that the defendant has published a series of articles that have reasonably caused distress to an individual, will be susceptible to a strike-out on the ground that it discloses no arguable case of harassment.


[35] It is common ground between the parties to this appeal, and properly so, that before press publications are capable of constituting harassment, they must be attended by some exceptional circumstance which justifies sanctions and the restriction on the freedom of expression that they involve. It is also common ground that such circumstances will be rare.’

The rest of the post can be read here.  

Campo even a cursory look at the above clauses indicates that an harrassment case based on a series of posts published on Jim's Loire would be a non-starter.