economy and politics

The Justice condemns the ultra agitator Alvise Pérez to compensate Carmena with 5,000 euros for spreading hoaxes

Third conviction for the ultra agitator Luis ‘Alvise’ Pérez for spreading hoaxes on Twitter. After being sentenced to indemnify former minister José Luis Ábalos and journalist Ana Pastor, a court has decided to force the former Ciudadanos adviser to pay 5,000 euros to Manuela Carmena, former mayoress of Madrid, for spreading the hoax on Twitter that he had received a respirator in his house in the worst of the first wave of the pandemic in 2020. The judge reproaches him for issuing this false information without doing any kind of verification and also for boasting on his Telegram of having won the lawsuit a month before it was issued the conviction.

Alvise Pérez, the 'alt-right' agitator who left professional politics through the back door

Alvise Pérez, the ‘alt-right’ agitator who left professional politics through the back door


The far-right agitator, who at the time served as an adviser to Toni Cantó during his time in Ciudadanos in the Valencian parliament, wrote a message on his Twitter account on March 31, 2020, at a time of maximum lack of respirators in the hospital emergencies throughout the country to combat the first wave of coronavirus: “Do you know which 76-year-old former mayor has received a personal respirator from the company “VitalAire” at her home to avoid going to a Public Hospital and standing in line like the rest of the Spanish people? I’ll give you a clue: Neither La Sexta nor any left-wing media will report it.

The former mayor answered, denied having received a respirator and affirmed it in several interviews. The company itself also denied that claim. Pérez, again on her Twitter account, persevered in a new message: “If you consider it a” slander “I beg you to denounce me. I don’t know your reasons for misrepresenting me. Enough of victimhood. Enough of the lies.”

Carmena chose to denounce him by civil means and the 59th court of Madrid has sentenced Luis Pérez to compensate the former mayoress with 5,000 euros for spreading the hoax and violating his honor. “The author of the information did not contrast it sufficiently. The required diligence was not displayed when publishing information provided by undisclosed sources without sufficiently verifying the veracity of the narrated facts, ”says the sentence. Luis ‘Alvise’ Pérez “is not an information professional,” the magistrate acknowledges, but he is “active on social networks and has a large number of followers who would have had access to said information that, if false, would undoubtedly affect the honor of the plaintiff”.

Throughout the judicial process, Carmena has denied the information and has provided various denials, while the far-right agitator has not asked for “any evidence” to demonstrate “the veracity of the information.” The tweet, reproaches the sentence, “insinuates that, using her privileges as a former mayor, Manuela Carmena was receiving a personal respirator while the rest of the population did not have enough of these elements, not even in the hospital environment. The message, then, exposes and comments on a piece of information, exposing it to public opinion, without sufficiently ascertaining its veracity, reiterating it when it is denied by the affected party”, says the sentence.

Last February, Pérez stated on his Telegram channel that he had won this lawsuit, and that he had found out “through the indiscretion of a judicial operator.” A month later, the authentic sentence condemns him to pay 5,000 euros and the judge explains that she has been able to see these Telegram messages. “Obviously, in the present proceedings, a judgment is being passed on the merits at the present moment and not in any previous one, so it is notorious that the previous information issued through a widely disseminated social network is not true either,” accusing Pérez of lying to his followers about the development of this legal case.

Third conviction for Pérez for spreading hoaxes

This civil conviction is the third adverse ruling for Luis ‘Alvise’ Pérez for spreading hoaxes on his social networks or for violating the honor of public and political personalities from the progressive spectrum. A few months ago, a court in Madrid forced the expert in political communication to pay 60,000 euros to former minister José Luis Ábalos and in another recent resolution the Provincial Court also forced him to pay 1,000 euros to the journalist Ana Pastor.

In the case of the former minister, Pérez was sentenced for posting photos of the politician at his home on his Twitter account without his consent, further implying that he had some kind of mental health problem. The court understood that these photos “have no interest” and that they were taken “within the most private sphere, unrelated to his public function” and that his comments were “extremely vexatious.” In his profiles on social networks such as Telegram, the former Ciudadanos adviser makes continuous comments about Ábalos, his private life and his time as Pedro Sánchez’s executive minister.

In his other civil sentence, the judges of the Provincial Court of Madrid revoked his acquittal in the first instance and understood that he had to compensate the journalist Ana Pastor for insinuating in various comments that he was managing the portal company ‘Newtral’ irregularly, dropping that he paid less tax than was due without providing evidence. The image of irregularities in the management of the company, said that condemnatory sentence, “is presented to readers and viewers as suspicious and this idea is transferred to public opinion, without contrasting the little information available with other data related to compliance with the Fiscal obligations”.

The communication expert, who has more than 200,000 followers on his Telegram channel from which he spreads hoaxes, information on legal cases such as Tándem or Mediador and promotes protests against the Government, has announced that he will appeal this latest sentence before the Provincial Court, so like the two previous ones it is not yet firm. He defends that the process “is null”, as on the two previous occasions.

Source link