DEFAMATION, CONSPIRACY AND FALSE LIGHT: Plaintiff, EPHRAIM EMEKA UGWUONYE, acting pro se, sues Defendant, OMOLEYE SOWORE for defamation, conspiracy and false light, and alleges the following: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION
)
EPHRAIM EMEKA UGWUONYE )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) Civil Action No. 09-cv-0658 (PJM)
)
OMOLEYE SOWORE )
)
Defendant. )
)
)
)
) __________________________________________)
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
DEFAMATION, CONSPIRACY AND FALSE LIGHT
Plaintiff, EPHRAIM EMEKA UGWUONYE, acting pro se, sues Defendant, OMOLEYE SOWORE for defamation, conspiracy and false light, and alleges the following:
BACKGROUND
1.
This complaint finds its origination in the harrowing 1967-1970 Biafran War in
Nigeria in which the Ibos attempted to secede because of pogroms perpetrated by
different ethnic groups. Among other things, the Biafran War underscored and
intensified tribal divisions among all ethnic groups, especially, as regards this case,
the Ibos of the East and the Yoruba of the West. One legacy of the Biafran War has
been an allocation of government positions based on ethnicity; and, inter-ethnic
suspicion that an individual of different ethnicity is invariably scheming to advance
his ethnic group at the expense of rivals and Nigeria as a whole. Plaintiff, an Ibo,
strongly disagrees with the use of ethnicity to cloud professional or political
judgments or as a basis for discrimination. Plaintiff has been counsel to the Embassy
of Nigeria under a Hausa-Fulani, Ibo, and Yoruba.
2.
Ambassador Oluwole Rotimi and Defendant Sowore both sport Yoruba ethnicity.
The two Yoruba both harbor an ethnic bias towards Ibos. Ambassador Rotimi,
former Nigerian Ambassador to the United States, refused to communicate with
Plaintiff solely because of his ethnicity before publicly defaming and otherwise
discrediting Plaintiff’s good name. Rotimi never requested a meeting with Plaintiff to
seek explanations about transactions that were thought by him to be suspect or
irregular.
3.
The two Yorubas (Rotimi and Sowore) conspired between them and with other
Yoruba individuals to defame Plaintiff through Defendant Sowore’s Internet
publication—Saharareporters.com—and otherwise.
4.
As illustrative of Rotimi’s ethnic bigotry, in or about February 2009, he
communicated to the Foreign Minister of Nigeria, who happens to be an Ibo, words to
the effect that Rotimi was a senior official of the Nigerian Army during the Biafran
War; and, that he knew how to deal with the ragtag Biafran Army. In other words,
Rotimi betrayed a belief that he perceived the Foreign Minister as a representative of
Biafra who should be treated as a renegade or traitor to his country. Rotimi was fired
from his position of Ambassador because of his ethnically bigoted and inflammatory
remarks to the Foreign Minister.
5.
A friend of Rotimi, Howard University Professor of Engineering, Mobolaji Aluko,
described the removal of the Ambassador as the “Ibos Final Solution” for the
Yorubas, which was published on the Internet. The objective was to re-awaken
ethnic tensions between the Ibos and the Yorubas.
6.
While NOT all Yorubas harbor ethnic biases, some individuals cling to the ethnically
combustible past in Nigeria.
PARTIES
7.
Plaintiff, Ephraim Emeka Ugwuonye (“Plaintiff”), Esquire, is an individual,
Nigerian national, Permanent Resident of the United States and resident in the State
of Maryland.
8.
Defendant, Omoleye Sowore, d/b/a Saharareporters.com (“Sowore”), is an
individual, a dual citizen of Nigeria and the United States, and is a resident of New
Jersey.
NATURE OF ACTION AND JURISDICTION
9.
This is an action for defamation and civil conspiracy, arising under the laws of the
State of Maryland.
10. This
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case premised upon diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1) in that this is an action between
citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000,
exclusive of interests and costs.
(a) This
Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant Sowore because the
defamatory statements he published on the Internet against Plaintiff in
Saharareporters.com were published in Maryland; Defendant Sowore conducted
research for his defamation and conspiracy in Maryland in person or by electronic
means or telephone; the subject matter or transactions related to the defamation or
conspiracy were in Maryland; and, the tortuous injury to Plaintiff was inflicted in
Maryland. Among other things, the false statements that form the basis of this lawsuit
occurred in the State of Maryland and they related to facts that occurred in the State of
Maryland; in the defamations against the Plaintiff, defendants alluded to the official
records of the Government of the Montgomery County, Maryland; the defamation
against the Plaintiff was in connection with the sale or purchase of real estate
properties located in Maryland; in the defamation against Plaintiff, defendant Sowore
claimed to have obtained his information from the official records of the Government
of Montgomery County, Maryland, and he referred his readers to Maryland public
records; in the defamation (Exhibit A), Defendant Sowore referred to the official
record of the Court of Appeals of Maryland and the Attorney Grievance Commission
of Maryland, and he directed his readers to said records, which are all in Maryland;
and, in Exhibit A, Defendant Sowore referred to the official records of Maryland
Courts regarding the disciplinary record of the Plaintiff in relation to his status as an
attorney in defamatory statements made against Plaintiff.
11. Rotimi was a resident of Maryland when he conspired with Defendant Sowore to
commit defamation; and, because as a co-conspirator of Rotimi is responsible as
regards personal jurisdiction for Defendant Sowore’s contacts in Maryland
enumerated in paragraph 10.
VENUE
12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(2) because a substantial
part of the events, acts, omissions and effects thereof giving rise to this suit occurred
within the venue of this Court.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Plaintiff’s Reputation
13. Plaintiff trained as a lawyer; first at the University of Benin Law Faculty, in Nigeria,
where he received a diploma in law (LL.B.) in 1991, graduating in the top ranks of
his class. Plaintiff further proceeded to the Nigerian Law School, Lagos, where he
also obtained a diploma in law (B.L.), graduating in the top ranks of his class.
14. Plaintiff then worked at Texaco Nigeria and, later, Chevron Nigeria as counsel in the
offices of the General Counsel of these corporations.
15. Plaintiff
attended Harvard Law School for further graduate studies in law. He
graduated in the LL.M. class of 1994, also earning top ranks in his class. Plaintiff was
employed at Harvard upon the completion of his studies. He worked as policy and
legal advisor to the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID) at age 27.
In this position and as a senior officer, the Plaintiff was a member of the Policy and
Planning Committee of HIID, which was the highest policy-making body for that
institute. During his tenure at HIID, Plaintiff taught law and policy studies at Harvard
and was listed among the top experts on corporate law, finance and governance.
16. While at Harvard, Plaintiff also served as the regional coordinator of the activities of
HIID in Africa. In this capacity, Plaintiff visited and consulted with many countries in
Africa, directly advising presidents and top officials of African governments. At the
same time, the Plaintiff spearheaded research projects and studies in various areas of
law and policy, including specifically, access to credit and finance in Africa,
privatization and reform of state-owned enterprises, and institutional reforms.
17. The
Plaintiff left Harvard to join the World Bank, in Washington, D.C. in 1996,
where he worked as counsel in the office of the General Counsel. There he focused on
the operational activities of the Bank in the Europe and Central Asia region of the
World Bank’s operations. In addition to the regular operational activities of the
World Bank lawyers, Plaintiff dedicated a significant part of his time to work on
projects such as the Trust Funds activities of the Bank and researching on legal
aspects of anti-corruption reforms in developing countries. The Plaintiff also
conducted the pioneering study at the World Bank on strategies and modalities for the
World Bank’s private-public sector partnership initiative. This research was a multi-
country study that led to fundamental reviews of Word Bank policies. At the World
Bank, Plaintiff developed a reputation as a well-grounded international legal scholar
and practitioner ready to compete among his professional peers at the highest echelon
of the legal profession worldwide.
18. Plaintiff
is a member in good standing of the bars of several international
jurisdictions, and has practiced law in all these jurisdictions. He is a member of the
bar of Maryland and several federal courts. Nine years ago, the Plaintiff left the
World Bank and moved to New York where he established a law practice, which later
grew into the present day ECULAW GROUP, with offices and operations in many
locations within and outside the United States, including Maryland and Lagos.
19. Throughout his employment history, the Plaintiff worked in the private sector and has
never worked for any Government except in his private capacity as an attorney or
policy consultant to a clientele base that included governments. In his private
professional capacity, the Plaintiff has represented clients from both the public and
private sectors. Over the years, Plaintiff’s practice focused significantly on
representing Nigerian clients in the United States or representing American clients in
Nigeria. Among Plaintiff’s most important clients is the Government of Nigeria.
Matters over which Plaintiff has rendered services to the Nigerian Government
include the drafting of the first ever antitrust bill for Nigeria, representing, up to the
United States Supreme Court, the former President of Nigeria, Abdulsalami
Abubakar, at the behest of the Nigerian Government, representing the Nigerian
Government in a class action lawsuit before a U.S. federal court, and representing the
Government of Nigeria, through its embassy in Washington, D.C., for a period of
over seven (7) years on various matters including Nigerian Government’s real estate
transactions in the United States.
20. As part of his work, the Plaintiff travels constantly between the United States and
Nigeria, and has enjoyed a good reputation in Nigeria and in the United States. As a
result, Plaintiff’s reputation constitutes a valuable asset of his business, happiness,
and aspirations for success and career accomplishments. As an attorney, the
Plaintiff’s work requires a reputation for honesty and integrity. No court of law or
agency of any government anywhere in the world has impugned the honesty and
integrity of the Plaintiff, either in the practice of law or in his personal life.
DEFENDANT’S MOTIVES AND ACTIONS:
21. Oluwole Rotimi (hereinafter “Rotimi”) is a retired Brigadier-General in the Nigerian
Army. Rotimi served in the army during the Biafran War in the 1960s. The War was
fought along ethnic lines. Rotimi belongs to a different ethnic group than the Plaintiff.
Also, Rotimi belongs to a different ethnic group than the predecessor ambassador,
who happens to be of the same ethnic group as the Plaintiff. Rotimi harbors ethnic
resentment against the Ibos (one of the ethnic groups in Nigeria). Towards the end of
2007, the newly elected Nigerian administration appointed Rotimi as the Nigerian
Ambassador to the United States.
22.
Rotimi was recalled from his position as the Ambassador in February of 2009.
Among the issues made public about the sacking of Rotimi was the fact that in
Rotimi’s official correspondence with his Foreign Ministry superior, an Ibo, Rotimi
was bigoted as amplified in paragraph 4 of this Complaint.
23. Rotimi misrepresented to the world, particularly through the tabloid media, including
Defendant Sowore’s Saharareporters.com, owned and operated by persons of his
ethnic group, including that he was recalled only because he was investigating
corruption and fraud in real estate transactions carried out by the Government of
Nigeria and its Embassy in Washington D.C. for which Plaintiff served as counsel.
24. On information and belief, in or about February 2009, Rotimi made an agreement
with Defendant Sowore to defame Plaintiff using Defendant Sowore’s Internet
publication Saharareporters.com. As part of the conspiracy, Rotimi and Defendant
agreed to keep Rotimi’s role anonymous. One purpose of the conspiracy was to
create a false belief among the public that Rotimi had been discharged not because of
his ethnic bigotry, but because he was on an anti-corruption crusader. The conspiracy
would be executed by having Rotimi feed Defendant Sowore direct information or
leads to information that could be employed by Sowore to concoct defamatory
statements about Plaintiff in Saharareporters.com.
25. In
the March 5, 2009 issue of Saharareporters.com.,(See Exhibit A) entitled
“Property scandal rocks Nigerian Embassy in Washington, D.C., former Ambassador
Obiozor fingered,” Defendant Sowore made statements based on assertions provided
by Rotimi which, in context, maintained that Plaintiff was complicit in the crimes of
theft, embezzlement, fraud, or some other type of financial corruption consisting of
the wrongful seizure of $1.55 million of a Government of Nigeria’s IRS tax refund
stemming from real estate transactions. The three statements (hereinafter
“Statements” were as follows: (1) “[Plaintiff] said he apprised [then Ambassador]
Obiozor over this seizure of the embassy’s tax refund, fueling speculation that
Obiozor tacitly approved the seizure for pecuniary reasons as he did not try to retrieve
the money from [Plaintiff] before he left the U.S.”; (2) “But [Plaintiff’s] seizure of the
embassy funds points to a track record of some professional troubles relating to his
competence and manner of handling client monies.”; and, (3)”Details of the cases
point to [Plaintiff’s] professional shadiness.”
26. The Statements individually and taken as a whole, are libelous per se, because they
impute the commission of criminal offenses involving moral turpitude for which one
could be indicted and punished. General and special damages to Plaintiff were
proximately caused thereby in the form of injury to his standing and reputation
throughout the United States and elsewhere. These damages include, but are not
limited to, Plaintiff’s advocacy credibility having been severely compromised by
Defendants’ defamatory statements that they are implicated in criminality. The
Defendants’ defamation has also damaged Plaintiff’s professional standing and
reputation and compromised the Plaintiff’s ability to rise within his profession or
business circles.
27. Also, on or about July 23, 2010, Defendant published a report in Saharareporters.com
(See Exhibit B) titled “Ugwuonye loses defamation lawsuit to summary judgment –
Sahara Reporters”. In that report, Defendant Sowore:
(a) Falsely stated that Plaintiff made a habit of using libel lawsuits to suppress public
debate about the controversial sale of properties belonging to the Nigerian
embassy in Washington DC and Maryland.
(b) Falsely stated or clearly insinuated or implied that Plaintiff withheld the funds of
his client to which he is not entitled or unlawfully.
(c) Falsely
stated or implied that this court had sanctioned Plaintiff for filing a
frivolous lawsuit.
(d) Referring to a related case in the State court (Ugwuonye v. Aluko, et al., Circuit
Court of Maryland for Montgomery County, Case No. 314155-V), Defendant
falsely stated that the state court found that the allegation of fraud made against
Plaintiff was true.
(e) Referring to a real estate transaction, in which Plaintiff represented the Nigerian
Government in Maryland, Defendant Sowore mischaracterized the power of
attorney granted to Plaintiff by his client, and falsely alleged that the reason
Plaintiff obtained such power of attorney was to enable him control the funds
belonging to the Nigerian government to Plaintiff’s advantage, and that armed
with the power of attorney, Plaintiff improperly took control of the funds of his
client.
(f) Referring
to this lawsuit, Defendant falsely stated and/or implied that the
Government of Nigeria had given funds to the Plaintiff and had a pact with the
Plaintiff aimed at filing this suit for the purpose of suppressing or repressing the
freedoms of Nigerian citizens.
(g) Many who read the publication understood the memorandum as the judgment of
the state court against Plaintiff.
28. Also, on August 2, 2010, Defendant published a report in Saharareporters.com (See
Exhibit C). In that report, Defendant Sowore:
(a) Falsely stated and implied that Plaintiff obtained a power of attorney from his
client for the purpose of improperly withholding his client’s funds.
(b) Falsely stated and implied that Plaintiff revived the charter of his company in a
deceptive and improper manner for the purpose of Nigerian Government’s real
estate transaction.
(c) Falsely stated and implied that an official at the office of the State Comptroller in
Maryland made disparaging remarks against the person of Plaintiff and his
business practices.
29. Also, on August 3, 2010, Defendant published a statement in Saharareporters.com
(See Exhibit D). In that publication, Defendant Sowore published defamatory
statements and allegations, falsely stating and implying that Plaintiff is a thief and an
adulterer and a person that Plaintiff engages in acts that involve moral turpitude.
30. The publications of Saharareporters on August 2 and August 3, 2010 were calculated
by Defendant Sowore as retaliation against Plaintiff Ugwuonye and as punishment of
him for the decision of this court (Doc. No. 61) on July 30, 2010 which denied
Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Sowore acted with impunity and in contempt of the
proceedings of this Court. His intention is to damage Plaintiff Ugwuonye as much as
possible as to render any future judgment of the Court of no benefit whatsoever to
Plaintiff, as Plaintiff would have been so irreparably damaged by the time the Court
could get to render a final judgment in this case.
31. By
publishing the Statements on the Internet, Defendants knew it would be
republished and read by the general public throughout the United States and
elsewhere. The Statements were in fact republished and read by members of the
general public throughout the United States and elsewhere as a direct, natural,
probable, and foreseeable consequence of the Defendants’ publication and subsequent
republication.
32. By publishing the Statements Defendants intended to, and did, charge the Plaintiff
with the commission of felonies or acts of moral turpitude.
33. The Statements stigmatize the Plaintiff as having committed one or more felonies or
crimes.
34. The Statements made about and concerning the Plaintiff individually and collectively,
are false, and were false when made.
35. Defendants made the Statements with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity and
with knowledge of their falsity. The Statements are defamatory falsehoods, which
Defendants knew or should have known to have been false when made.
36. Defendants lacked reasonable grounds for making the Statements.
37. Defendant Sowore knew that his publications, particularly on August 2 and 3, 2010,
were false in the context in which they were made. He made them as a show of power
beyond the reach of rule of law and beyond any remedy that this Court could afford
Plaintiff, were Plaintiff to prevail in the end. Defendant Sowore’s action is a rare and
extraordinary repudiation of the authority of the Court to redress this controversy. His
actions are egregious, wanton and rare in its callousness and extremity. His actions, as
shown in his August 2 and 3, 2010 publication is an effrontery to this Court. They are
a rapacious show of force and intimidation of all that this Court stands for and a
complete mockery of all sense of fairness and justice.
38. When Defendant published the Statements, Defendant knew they would be read by
the general public, and they were in fact read by the general public as the direct,
natural and probable consequence of their publication.
39. Defendant Sowore made the Statements with actual malice, and wrongful and willful
intent to injure the Plaintiff. The Statements were made with reckless disregard for
their truth or falsity, and with notice and knowledge of their falsity. The Statements
were made in reckless disregard of both the truth and the impact thereof on the
reputations of the Plaintiff. The Statements were made with such gross indifference
and recklessness as to amount to a wanton and willful disregard of the reputation and
rights of the Plaintiff.
40. On July 23, 2010, Defendant knew that his motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
was pending in this court. He understood that his motion could be denied. He
understood that if his motion was denied, he would probably have to file an Answer
to Plaintiff’s complaint. He further understood that he could assert any defenses he
has in his Answer including the defense of truth. He deliberately aimed to invent a
ground for the defense of truth by falsely stating or implying in his July 23
publication that another court had found similar defamatory statements (as he made
against Plaintiff) to be true.
COUNT ONE: Defamation (March 5, 2009 Publication)
41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference into this Count all of the allegations appearing in
paragraphs 1-40 contained in this Complaint.
42. The Statements impute to the Plaintiff the commission of criminal offenses involving
moral turpitude for which, if true, he may be indicted and punished. The publication
and republication of the Statements proximately caused general and special damages
to the Plaintiff. Defendants knew, anticipated, foresaw, and intended that the
Statements would be read by persons throughout the United States and elsewhere and
would damage the reputations of the Plaintiff. The Statements have adversely
impacted Plaintiff’s advocacy credibility by implying that he has been implicated in
criminality. The Defendant’s defamation has also damaged Plaintiff’s professional
standing and reputation and compromised the Plaintiff’s ability to rise within his
profession and business circles.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands:
(a)
Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000) in compensatory damages and Two Million
Dollars ($2,000,000) in punitive damages, plus interest and costs.
(b) Plaintiff to be awarded such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
COUNT TWO: Invasion of Privacy –False Light (March 5, 2009 Publication)
43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference into this Count all of the allegations appearing in
paragraphs 1-42 contained in this Complaint.
44. On
or about March 5, 2009, Defendants Sowore published a story in
Saharareporters.com which placed Plaintiff in false light.
45. In
over ten (10) years of private law practice, Plaintiff has represented over four
hundred (400) clients. In the year 2005, two of Plaintiff’s individual clients filed bar
complaints against Plaintiff. The two complaints were consolidated in the charges
filed by Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland against Plaintiff. Plaintiff
Ugwuonye vigorously defended these charges. After a proceeding that lasted over
two years, the Court of Appeals of Maryland found that some violations of the rules
of professional conduct occurred and imposed a single sanction of 90-day suspension
against Plaintiff in July of 2008. Also, in the judgment of the court, the court held
clearly that Plaintiff did not act dishonestly, fraudulently or deceitfully, and that
Plaintiff had no prior disciplinary history and that he cooperated fully with the Bar
Counsel and that Plaintiff had, even before the proceedings were completed, made
changes in his office procedure to avoid the kind of mistake that led to the
complaints.
46. On
March 5, 2009, Defendant Sowore published the story in his on-line news
medium, SAHARAREPORTER.COM, stating that Plaintiff was found guilty by
Maryland court of the same shady deal involving a client who paid money to plaintiff
and plaintiff withheld it, making a false connection between the case he was
purporting to reference with his story about Plaintiff’s representation of the Embassy
of Nigeria on real estate transactions.
47. Defendant
Sowore knew that Plaintiff was never charged with intentionally
misappropriating a clients’ fund. Defendant knew that there was no connection
between Plaintiff’s work for the Embassy of Nigeria and any matter of professional
discipline. Defendant knew that there might have been an agreement between
Plaintiff and the Embassy of Nigeria which might not have been violated and that any
such agreement would be a private matter between Plaintiff and his clients. Defendant
knew that the Government of Nigeria did not charge the plaintiff with any
wrongdoing relative to his representation of the Government. Defendant knew that
Plaintiff’s honesty and integrity have never been impugned by any court in the United
States or anywhere in the world in relation to his practice of law or for any other
cause. Defendant published selected facts about Plaintiff’s private activities in a
reckless manner.
48. After the publication appeared, Plaintiff received innumerable phone calls, and lost
considerable number of clients, and suffered great anguish and loss of esteem.
49. Defendant improperly published facts about Plaintiff which placed Plaintiff in a false
light by attributing to him conduct and characteristics which were misleading in the
context in which they were used by Defendant Sowore.
50. Defendant Sowore knew that the facts publicized about the Plaintiff were misleading,
or printed them with a reckless disregard for the truth of those facts or the misleading
nature of the publication.
51. The publication of these facts was highly offensive to any reasonable person.
52. As a result of Defendant Sowore’s false publication, Plaintiff Ugwuonye suffered
damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that:
(a) Defendant Sowore be ordered to pay damages in the amount of Five Million
Dollars ($5,000,000) plus interest and cost.
(b) Plaintiff recover such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
(c) In addition to monetary damages, Plaintiff Ugwuonye is entitled to an order of
this Court directing Defendant Sowore to publicly apologize for the
defamatory publication, withdraw it and cease and desist from causing similar
publications concerning Plaintiff Ugwuonye in the future.
COUNT THREE: Defamation (July 2010 Publication)
53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference into this Count all of the allegations appearing in
paragraphs 1-52 contained in this Complaint.
54. The Statements impute to the Plaintiff the commission of criminal offenses involving
moral turpitude for which, if true, he may be indicted and punished.
55. The Statement asserted or implied that a court of law had made a finding of fact that
Plaintiff committed fraud or misappropriation of his client’s funds. Several persons
who read the publication understood it to have this meaning.
56. The
statement asserted or implied that Plaintiff alone or in collusion with others
obtained a power of attorney from his client for unlawful or unethical or improper
purpose.
57. The publication and republication of the Statements proximately caused general and
special damages to the Plaintiff. Defendants knew, anticipated, foresaw, and intended
that the Statements would be read by persons throughout the United States and
elsewhere and would damage the reputations of the Plaintiff. The Statements have
adversely impacted Plaintiff’s advocacy credibility by implying that he has been
implicated in criminality. The Defendant’s defamation has also damaged Plaintiff’s
professional standing and reputation and compromised the Plaintiff’s ability to rise
within his profession and business circles.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands:
(a) Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000) in compensatory damages and Two Million
Dollars ($2,000,000) in punitive damages, plus interest and costs.
(b) Plaintiff to be awarded such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
COUNT FOUR: Invasion of Privacy –False Light (July, 2010 Publication)
58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference into this Count all of the allegations appearing in
paragraphs 1-57 contained in this Complaint.
59. On
or about July 23, 2010, Defendants Sowore published a report in
Saharareporters.com which placed Plaintiff in false light.
60. In the state court case between Plaintiff and Aluko, Defendant Aluko served a motion
for summary judgment on July 12, 2010, fifteen (15) days to trial, which was July 27,
2010. Plaintiff Ugwuonye moved to strike on the ground that the motion would
ordinarily not due for hearing until after the trial date. Due to an apparent error at the
court’s assignment office, a hearing was scheduled for July 23, 2010, presumably on
the motion to strike, but which turned out to be a hearing on the summary judgment
motion. At the hearing on July 23, 2010, Plaintiff Ugwuonye objected on the ground
that he had not filed a response to the motion for summary judgment and that he still
had time to do so. Also, Plaintiff Ugwuonye protested that he did not have adequate
notice of the hearing. The state judge directed plaintiff to go ahead to present an
argument against the motion for summary judgment since he was already in court.
During argument, there was a discussion on whether Plaintiff was a public figure. The
judge found that Ugwuonye was a public figure. The judge they granted the motion
for summary judgment. Ugwuonye promptly filed a motion to reconsider on the
ground that he needed to have an opportunity to file a response and affidavit to
challenge the motion for summary judgment as allowed under Maryland Rules of
Civil Procedure.
61. Defendant Sowore was not present in the state court during that court’s proceedings,
and the transcripts of proceedings have not been out. Yet, Defendant Sowore, on or
about July 23, 2010, published the report in his on-line news medium,
SAHARAREPORTER.COM, totally mischaracterizing the judicial proceedings that
took place and stating that the state court found as a fact that the defamatory
publications of fraud against Plaintiff was true.
62. Further, Defendant Sowore mischaracterized the decisions of this court as a sanction
against Plaintiff for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
63. Further, Defendant Sowore selectively and manipulatively posted the memorandum
of law and argument of an opposing counsel in the state court to appear as
memorandum of opinion of court, thereby creating the wide-spread impression that
the state court made extensive and damaging fact findings against Plaintiff. For days
afterwards, Plaintiff was inundated with calls and electronic mails from several
people who read Defendant’s publication and believed that the court had found
Plaintiff to have misappropriated or embezzled his client’s funds.
64. Defendant
Sowore knew that Plaintiff was never charged with intentionally
misappropriating a clients’ fund. Defendant knew that Plaintiff’s honesty and
integrity have never been impugned by any court in the United States or anywhere in
the world in relation to his practice of law or for any other cause. Defendant
published selected facts about Plaintiff’s private activities in a reckless and malicious
manner calculated to cast Plaintiff in a particular light that was false.
65. After the article appeared, Plaintiff suffered great anguish and loss of esteem.
66. Defendant improperly published facts about Plaintiff which placed Plaintiff in a false
light by attributing to him conduct and characteristics which were misleading in the
context in which they were used by Defendant Sowore.
67. Defendant Sowore knew that the facts publicized about the Plaintiff were misleading,
or printed them with a reckless disregard for the truth of those facts or the misleading
nature of the publication. He failed to state facts which would have shown the truth of
the matter and present Plaintiff in the proper and accurate light of the situation.
68. The publication of these facts was highly offensive to any reasonable person that
knew the truth. Defendant published inaccurate and misleading facts against Plaintiff
with the ulterior motive of influencing his own court proceedings pending in this
case.
69. As a result of Defendant Sowore’s false publication, Plaintiff Ugwuonye suffered
damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that:
(a) Defendant Sowore be ordered to pay damages in the amount of Three Million
Dollars ($3,000,000) plus interest and cost.
(b) Defendant Sowore be ordered to pay damages in the amount of Five Million
Dollars ($5,000,000) plus interest and cost.
(c) Plaintiff recover such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate
(d) In addition to monetary damages, Plaintiff Ugwuonye is entitled to an order of
this Court directing Defendant Sowore to publicly apologize for the
defamatory publication, withdraw it and cease and desist from causing similar
publications concerning Plaintiff Ugwuonye in the future.
COUNT FIVE: Defamation (August 2, 2010 Publication)
70. Plaintiff incorporates by reference into this Count all of the allegations appearing in
paragraphs 1-69 contained in this Complaint.
71. The Statements impute to the Plaintiff the commission of criminal offenses involving
moral turpitude for which, if true, he may be indicted and punished.
72. Also the statements, even if not an allegation that Plaintiff committed a crime, is
certainly an imputation of a pattern of conduct, which if true would constitute a
violation of the standards of the legal profession in the jurisdictions in which Plaintiff
is licensed to practice law and generally cause Plaintiff to lose esteem in the eyes of
the public.
73. The publication and republication of the Statements proximately caused general and
special damages to the Plaintiff. Defendants knew, anticipated, foresaw, and intended
that the Statements would be read by persons throughout the United States and
elsewhere and would damage the reputations of the Plaintiff. The Statements have
adversely impacted Plaintiff’s advocacy credibility by implying that he has been
implicated in criminality. The Defendant’s defamation has also damaged Plaintiff’s
professional standing and reputation and compromised the Plaintiff’s ability to rise
within his profession and business circles.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands:
(a) Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000) in compensatory damages and Two Million
Dollars ($2,000,000) in punitive damages, plus interest and costs.
(b) Plaintiff to be awarded such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
COUNT SIX: Invasion of Privacy –False Light (August 2, 2010 Publication)
74. Plaintiff incorporates by reference into this Count all of the allegations appearing in
paragraphs 1-73 contained in this Complaint.
75. On
or about August 2, 2010, Defendants Sowore published a story in
Saharareporters.com which placed Plaintiff in false light. For the purpose of this
allegation, Plaintiff incorporates Exhibit C into this complaint as part thereof.
76. In
over ten (10) years of private law practice, Plaintiff has represented over four
hundred (400) clients. In the year 2005, two of Plaintiff’s individual clients filed bar
complaints against Plaintiff. The two complaints were consolidated in the charges
filed by Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland against Plaintiff. Plaintiff
Ugwuonye vigorously defended these charges. After a proceeding that lasted over
two years, the Court of Appeals of Maryland found that some violations of the rules
of professional conduct occurred and imposed a single sanction of 90-day suspension
against Plaintiff in July of 2008. Also, in the judgment of the court, the court held
clearly that Plaintiff did not act dishonestly, fraudulently or deceitfully, and that
Plaintiff had no prior disciplinary history and that he cooperated fully with the Bar
Counsel and that Plaintiff had, even before the proceedings were completed, made
changes in his office procedure to avoid the kind of mistake that led to the
complaints.
77. On
August 2, 2010, Defendant Sowore published the story in his on-line news
medium, SAHARAREPORTER.COM, stating that Plaintiff was found guilty by
Maryland court of the same shady deal involving a client who paid money to plaintiff
and plaintiff withheld it, making a false connection between the case he was
purporting to reference with his story about Plaintiff’s representation of the Embassy
of Nigeria on real estate transactions. Also, Defendant Sowore made false
connections between Plaintiff’s transactions with the Government of the State of
Maryland, as regards his company’s corporate charters with the transactions in which
the Plaintiff represented the Government of Nigeria as counsel.
78. Defendant
Sowore knew that Plaintiff was never charged with intentionally
misappropriating a clients’ fund. Defendant knew that there was no connection
between Plaintiff’s work for the Embassy of Nigeria and any matter of professional
discipline. Defendant knew that there might have been an agreement between
Plaintiff and the Embassy of Nigeria which might not have been violated and that any
such agreement would be a private matter between Plaintiff and his clients. Defendant
knew that the Government of Nigeria did not charge the plaintiff with any
wrongdoing relative to his representation of the Government. Defendant knew that
Plaintiff’s honesty and integrity have never been impugned by any court in the United
States or anywhere in the world in relation to his practice of law or for any other
cause. Defendant published selected facts about Plaintiff’s private activities in a
reckless manner.
79. After the publication appeared, Plaintiff received innumerable phone calls, and lost
considerable number of clients, and suffered great anguish and loss of esteem. Also
many people who read the publication presumed the Plaintiff to be a bad person, a
criminal and a despicable individual who could not be trusted. The damning opinions
of those who read the publication were also published by and disseminated widely by
Defendant Sowore in his Saharareporters.
80. Defendant improperly published facts about Plaintiff which placed Plaintiff in a false
light by attributing to him conduct and characteristics which were misleading and
damning in the context in which they were used by Defendant Sowore.
81. Defendant Sowore knew that the facts publicized about the Plaintiff were misleading,
or printed them with a reckless disregard for the truth of those facts or the misleading
nature of the publication.
82. The publication of these facts was highly offensive to any reasonable person.
83. As a result of Defendant Sowore’s false publication, Plaintiff Ugwuonye suffered
damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that:
(a)
Defendant Sowore be ordered to pay damages in the amount of Five Million Dollars
($5,000,000) and Five Million Dollars in punitive damages plus interest and cost.
(b)
Plaintiff recover such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate
(c) In addition to monetary damages, Plaintiff Ugwuonye is entitled to an order of this
Court directing Defendant Sowore to publicly apologize for the defamatory
publication, withdraw it and cease and desist from causing similar publications
concerning Plaintiff Ugwuonye in the future.
COUNT SEVEN: Defamation (August 3, 2010 Publication)
84. Plaintiff incorporates by reference into this Count all of the allegations appearing in
paragraphs 1-83 contained in this Complaint.
85. The Statements impute to the Plaintiff the commission of criminal offenses involving
moral turpitude for which, if true, he may be indicted and punished.
86. Also the statements, even if not an allegation that Plaintiff committed a crime, is
certain an imputation of a pattern of conduct, which if true would constitute a
violation of the standards of the legal profession in the jurisdictions in which Plaintiff
is licensed to practice law and generally cause Plaintiff to lose esteem in the eyes of
the public.
87. The publication and republication of the Statements proximately caused general and
special damages to the Plaintiff. Defendants knew, anticipated, foresaw, and intended
that the Statements would be read by persons throughout the United States and
elsewhere and would damage the reputations of the Plaintiff. The Statements have
adversely impacted Plaintiff’s advocacy credibility by implying that he has been
implicated in criminality. The Defendant’s defamation has also damaged Plaintiff’s
professional standing and reputation and compromised the Plaintiff’s ability to rise
within his profession and business circles.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands:
(a) Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000) in compensatory damages and Two Million
Dollars ($2,000,000) in punitive damages, plus interest and costs.
(b) Plaintiff to be awarded such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
COUNT EIGHT: Invasion of Privacy –False Light (August 3, 2010 Publication)
88. Plaintiff incorporates by reference into this Count all of the allegations appearing in
paragraphs 1-87 contained in this Complaint.
89. On
or about August 3, 2010, Defendants Sowore published a story in
Saharareporters.com which placed Plaintiff in false light. For the purpose of this
allegation, Plaintiff incorporates Exhibit D into this complaint as part thereof.
90. On
August 3, 2010, Defendant Sowore published the story in his on-line news
medium, SAHARAREPORTER.COM, stating that Plaintiff is a thief and adulterer
not withy of trust.
91. Defendant knew that Plaintiff’s honesty and integrity have never been impugned by
any court in the United States or anywhere in the world in relation to his practice of
law or for any other cause. Defendant published selected facts about Plaintiff’s
private activities in a reckless manner.
92. After the publication appeared, Plaintiff received innumerable phone calls, and lost
considerable number of clients, and suffered great anguish and loss of esteem. Also
many people who read the publication presumed the Plaintiff to be a bad person, a
criminal and a despicable individual who could not be trusted. The damning opinions
of those who read the publication were also published by and disseminated widely by
Defendant Sowore in his Saharareporters.
93. Defendant improperly published facts about Plaintiff which placed Plaintiff in a false
light by attributing to him conduct and characteristics which were misleading and
damning in the context in which they were used by Defendant Sowore.
94. Defendant Sowore knew that the facts publicized about the Plaintiff were misleading,
or printed them with a reckless disregard for the truth of those facts or the misleading
nature of the publication.
95. The publication of these facts was highly offensive to any reasonable person.
96. As a result of Defendant Sowore’s false publication, Plaintiff Ugwuonye suffered
damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that:
(a) Defendant Sowore be ordered to pay compensatory damages in the amount of Five
Million Dollars ($5,000,000) and Five Million Dollars in punitive damages plus
interest and cost.
(b) Plaintiff recover such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate
(c) In addition to monetary damages, Plaintiff Ugwuonye is entitled to an order of this
Court directing Defendant Sowore to publicly apologize for the defamatory
publication, withdraw it and cease and desist from causing similar publications
concerning Plaintiff Ugwuonye in the future.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands trial by jury.
Filed this 4th day of August, 2010
By:
____________/s/__________________
Ephraim Emeka Ugwuonye, Esquire
850 Sligo Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: 301-273-3013