More On:

Katie Hill

‘I’m not going anywhere’: Embattled Gaetz vows to fight, tries to stay on offensive amid scandal

Judge dismisses Katie Hill lawsuit over nude photos

Katie Hill opens up about friendship with Matt Gaetz, wants him ‘held responsible’

‘Throuple’ pol ‘nauseated’ by Matt Gaetz’s alleged nude pic collection

Former “throuple” pol Katie Hill has reportedly been ordered to pay about $220,000 in attorneys’ fees after losing her lawsuit against media outlets that printed her naked photos, according to a report.

The one-time Democratic rising star had accused the outlets of posting “revenge porn” by using the graphic, leaked photos that played a part in her resignation in 2019.

But the legal bid was thrown out in March on First Amendment grounds, with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco arguing that the publication was in the “public interest” as it reflected Hill’s “character” and “qualifications” for office.

Hill had already been ordered to pay about $84,000 to the attorneys of Jennifer Van Laar, managing editor of the conservative website Red State, and about $30,000 to those representing radio producer Joseph Messina, the Los Angeles Times said.

On Wednesday, Orozco also ordered her to pay about $105,000 to the parent company of the UK tabloid the Daily Mail, the LA Times said — swiftly confirmed by the outraged former California congresswoman.

“A judge just ordered me to PAY the Daily Mail more than $100k for the privilege of them publishing nude photos of me obtained from an abuser,” she tweeted.

“The justice system is broken for victims,” she wrote, along with the hashtag #BoycottDailyMail.

A spokeswoman said Hill — who previously warned that hefty legal fees could bankrupt her — told the LA Times that they planned to appeal the rulings that dismissed her suit.

Krista Lee Baughman, an attorney representing Van Laar and Messina, told the LA Times that the ruling showed that “those who file speech-chilling [intimidation] lawsuits must pay the price.”

“If you have a problem with the way the Legislature wrote the revenge-porn statute, that needs to be addressed in the Legislature,” she said.

“The court is duty-bound to follow the writing. In this case, the statute itself clearly had a public interest exception,” Baughman insisted.

The naked images were published when Hill was already embroiled in a sex scandal over her “throuple” relationship with her now-ex-husband Kenneth Heslep and a 22-year-old female campaign staffer.

It was first reported by RedState, which also alleged that Hill had a separate affair with Graham Kelly, her legislative director, which would have been a violation of House rules. She has long denied that affair.

The scandal led to an investigation by the House Ethics Committee and the Federal Election Commission, with Hill resigning days later.

Share this article:

Source: Read Full Article