There is no room to accept the argument that the publication is defamation of the plaintiff, and in this regard the following will be brought:
- The first and main reason why the argument that the third publication is defamatory (the publication refers to the surrogacy company) should not be accepted - here too it should be emphasized that the second publication does not refer to the plaintiff at all. The publication referred to the conduct of the surrogacy company. As to the fact that the publication does not relate to the plaintiff at all, and in order not to burden the judgment here, I will refer to the reasons stated in section 11.3.1
- The second reason why the claim that the third publication is defamation (expression of opinion) should not be accepted - the publication is an expression of opinion and referred to your personal opinion, which is the defendant. This is not an unfounded opinion, since it has already been clarified above and the facts and the criticism that was leveled at the sale transaction were presented. This is not a far-fetched opinion - it has already been clarified and presented above how, miraculously, after the sale of the surrogacy company, it turned out to be an empty vessel, or at least as an 'almost empty' vessel whose value is substantially different from the value at which it was purchased. As for a publication that is an expression of opinion, in order not to burden the judgment here, I will refer to the reasons stated in section 2.2 above.
- Third reason why the claim that the third publication is defamation (a silencing lawsuit) should not be accepted - here too one should wonder why the lawsuit was filed for advertising on Facebook, when the plaintiff made no claim and remained silent in the face of press publications and against Danel and its officers. Here, too, the fingerprints and characteristics of a proceeding whose purpose is a silencing claim can be clearly seen. As to the fact that this is a claim for silence, in order not to burden the judgment here, I will refer to the reasons stated in clause 11.2.3 above.
- Fourth of seven publications - the publication mentioned in clause 6.2(a) and detailed in clause 7.1(i) above (and in which the defendant also does not refer to the plaintiff personally)
The publication to which the lawsuit refers is a correspondence between the defendant and a lady named Miran Siso, and for the sake of convenience of reading, it will be presented here in full: