Right of Reply – Silvio Scerri

Facebook
Facebook
RSS
Follow by Email
Google+
http://maltawinds.com/2017/08/11/right-reply-silvio-scerri/

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 We write on behalf of our client, Mr Silvio Scerri, and whilst we refer to our previous correspondence, we also observe that far from apologizing your website went ahead in publishing another inflammatory and defamatory article by an author writing under the usual moniker of VENTO, which article is dated 28 July 2017, is entitled Min hu Silvio Scerri? and is still accessible at http://maltawinds.com/2017/07/26/min-hu-silvio-scerri/.

 Our client requests that your news portal disavows and retracts all its allegations in his regards, as penned by whoever goes under the moniker of VENTO, and that this be done in a clear, noticeable and unequivocal manner on your news portal. Failure to satisfy such a request will leave our client with no other avenue but to proceed with such remedies as are available to him at law.

avv. Edric Micallef Figallo LL.B., Dip. Not. Pub., LL.D., LL.M. (Melit.)

Editorial note: Maltawinds welcomes clarification on which passages of the article are allegedly defamatory and will publish a retraction if such are pointed out accordingly. 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Following our latest communication, we have taken note of your publication as follows http://maltawinds.com/2017/08/11/right-reply-silvio-scerri/, which publication was not actually requested.

Morever, we have taken note of your editorial note and in the interest of an amicable settlement to be reached in good faith, we would like to propose to set a meeting at your offices, so that our client may provide the relevant undeniable evidence proving all the allegations that you have published as being unjust and detrimental to the rights of our client. We look forward to receiving your acceptance to this invitation accordingly.

We would also request that this proposal be published on the webpage linked above which you have published as “right of reply”.

Editorial note: Maltawinds once again requests clarification on which passages of the article are allegedly defamatory and will publish a retraction if such are pointed out accordingly.