/Katie Hill ordered to pay $220,000 in lawyer fees in revenge porn suit: report
Katie Hill ordered to pay $220,000 in lawyer fees in revenge porn suit: report

Katie Hill ordered to pay $220,000 in lawyer fees in revenge porn suit: report


Katie Hill ordered to pay $220,000 in lawyer fees in revenge porn suit: report

By Edmund DeMarche | Fox News

Katie Hill, the former rising Democratic star in the House, was ordered on Wednesday to pay the legal bill for a British newspaper and a couple of journalists in the wake of a ruling against her revenge porn lawsuit, a report said.
The Los Angeles Times reported that a judge in L.A. County Superior Court ordered Hill to pay roughly $220,000 in fees, which included about $105,000 to the Daily Mail’s parent company. Hill, though a spokesperson, vowed an appeal, the paper reported.
She took to social media to express outrage that the judge would order her to “PAY the Daily Mail more than $100K for the privilege of them publishing nude photos of me obtained from an abuser. The justice system is broken for victims.”
The paper did not immediately respond to an after-hours email from Fox News.
Hill filed a lawsuit in December against her ex-husband and several media outlets for allegedly distributing “nonconsensual porn,” including naked photos of her and a female staffer, which caused a scandal that forced her to resign from Congress in 2019.
The lawsuit claimed that Hill’s ex-husband Kenneth Heslep and Mail Media Inc., parent of the Daily Mail, and Salem Media Group Inc., which owns RedState, conspired to and distributed intimate images of her without her consent. Los Angeles magazine reported that Helslep, who Hill has accused of abuse, remains a defendant in the case.
She acknowledged having an inappropriate affair with a female campaign aide but denied allegations of a relationship with a male congressional staffer. A relationship with a congressional staffer would have violated House rules.
In April, Judge Yolanda Orozco ruled that the tabloid was protected under the First Amendment when it published nude photos of her.
Orozco wrote in her decision that she accepted the Daily Mail’s argument that the publication of the photos was “a matter of public issue or public interest.”
Hill’s lawyer, Carrie Goldberg, indicated at the time that her client would appeal.
Original Source