Kelly Rutherford’s ex, Daniel Giersch, sues Vanity Fair for defamation

wenn1167692 copy
Kelly Rutherford’s ex, Daniel Giersch, is a German entrepreneur whose company, Quabb, allows users in Germany to send physical letters through the mail using the internet. He also founded an app called Blipcard through which you can send actual postcards of your photos. In 2007, Giersch successfully sued google for infringing on his registered trademark, g-mail.de.

Giersch is a businessperson who has experience with the legal system, including during his contentious international custody battle with Rutherford. He was just granted full primary custody of their two children, Hermes, nine, and Helena, six, by a court in Monaco, where he lives. It’s thought that Kelly is visiting the children for Christmas.

Now that the custody battle is settled, Giersch is suing the American Magazine, Vanity Fair, for defamation for a piece they published about him in October. As I mentioned in our initial coverage of the article, it was heavily biased in Kelly’s favor and included allegations of emotional abuse by Giersch. She also called the custody battle Giersch’s “sort of side fun project.” Here’s the PR release on this lawsuit, which was filed in Hamburg, Germany. Giersch is also appealing to media outlets not to publish photos of his children:

On 21 December 2015, the Hamburg Regional Court in Germany issued a preliminary injunction against the publisher of the US print and online editions of Vanity Fair, Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. of New York. The petitioner was the German businessman, Daniel Giersch. Giersch was married to US actress Kelly Rutherford from 2006 to 2009. The court ordered Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. not to disseminate and repeat various assertions that were made about Daniel Giersch and published on the Vanity Fair website under the caption “Inside Kelly Rutherford‘s Brutal Globe-Spanning Custody Battle”. The same text was published in the November edition of Vanity Fair in an article entitled “Irreconcilable Distances”. The original wording of the preliminary injunction that contains the individual prohibitions, is appended to this press release (together with an English translation of the court order). Injunctive orders are preliminary in nature and will become legally enforceable upon service of process.

“Our client, Daniel Giersch, has had to repeatedly endure in recent years numerous assertions that were untrue and completely fabricated. This needs to come to an end, now”, remarks German Attorney-at-Law Dr. Oliver Scherenberg of the Hamburg law firm of PREU BOHLIG & PARTNER. “Our client has suffered significant injury to his reputation due to these untrue and defamatory assertions, against which he is now defending himself. The actions taken against the false assertions published in Vanity Fair are only the beginning.” Scherenberg, together with his team is retained by Daniel Giersch to coordinate the global defense strategy against the false and disparaging statements.

Daniel Giersch has been mindful of the child custody dispute currently pending with his ex-wife and has to the end exercised restraint in taking legal action against the false assertions appearing in the press. In an effort to protect his children and his own personal integrity, he now cannot and will not tolerate this situation of false and defamatory assertions any longer.

Scherenberg continues: “The children of our client must have an opportunity to grow up in peace and to be shielded from the glare of the public eye. This means that they should not have to read falsehoods in the press about their father. It also means that they should be kept out of the media spotlight as much as possible. In recent weeks, we have launched extensive and successful campaigns throughout Europe in order to prevent images of our client’s children from appearing in the press, and we will also continue to undertake these efforts going forward”. Thankfully, these efforts have found support among numerous reputable image agencies and media outlets. In order to pro-tect the private sphere of Mr. Giersch’s children, images of the children are to be, at the very least, pixilated or blurred in the future.

PREU BOHLIG & PARTNER lawyers who are principally involved in the proceedings before the Hamburg Regional Court are Dr. Oliver Scherenberg and Michael-Matthias Nordhardt.

[From Press Release PDF]

The full lawsuit, which is available as a PDF here and is in both German and English, specifies that Giersch is suing as Kelly made untrue statements which violated his rights under German privacy law. The statements cited from the Vanity Fair article are:
- Rutherford’s claim that Giersch did not want their son to have a US passport
- Her statement that she “didn’t mind” Hermes having a German passport
- That Rutherford initiated divorce proceedings
- That Giersch requested to be in the delivery room for Helena and
- That Giersch was able to hold Helena in the hospital the day after she was born

It’s worth noting that Giersch is suing Vanity Fair, not Rutherford, and that the press release indicates he may go after additional outlets which published inaccurate stories about him.

In terms of Giersch trying to protect his children from the spotlight, Rutherford brought the kids with her to swag suites and red carpet events this summer, and she posed with them. She presumably called the paparazzi to document an outing with them in Monte Carlo as well. She’s the one who put them out there in the press, at a time when their father requested that the children’s privacy be protected.

Vanity Fair has six months to file an appeal. Kelly has so far not commented on her Instagram or social media accounts and has recently posted photos from the Swiss Alps. I presume that there is some sort of gag order in force for her custody case.

Thanks to LAK for the tip!

Thank you Leta for making our Christmas so beautiful ❤️🎅❤️

A photo posted by @kellyrutherford on

Kelly Rutherford At The Santa Monica Superior Courthouse

Kelly Rutherford At The Santa Monica Superior Courthouse

Photos are from 2007, 2008 and 2009. Credit: FameFlynet and Getty

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

211 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford’s ex, Daniel Giersch, sues Vanity Fair for defamation”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Snazzy says:

    I don’t blame him. So much crap was printed – he’s right to call them out on it.

    • minx says:

      I thought VF was a little more savvy. They were either duped or really stupid to run such a biased piece.
      Hope he at least gets a retraction out of them.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        I am a subscriber to VF and read the story. It was unbelievably one-sided and very poorly researched. I honestly wondered if VF had even assigned a fact checker to it! Daniel is right to go for the jugular now that Monaco has assumed jurisdiction over the custody case and presumably has issued a gag order. VF would do well to print a retraction and apologize for that crappy article!

      • minx says:

        I’m a subscriber, too, and I settled in to read that article, thinking it was going to be juicy. I wa appalled at how one-sided it was.

      • laurie says:

        I also am a subscriber and was horrified by the article. I am very happy they are being sued and hope there are retractions and ramifications. There usually is one fawning celebrity article per issue that makes me squirm, but this was outright defamation. What I don’t understand is how VF can often have hard hitting, well researched articles, then they have this crap!!

      • Liberty says:

        Also a subscriber, also was amazed that they published such a biased, badly researched article. It makes you wonder about the accuracy of their other stories. Worse, a piece like this tarnishes the work of their other writers in a way, most unfortunately. They’ve shown favoritism in fluff pieces before, but with a legal case in play, you’d think they’d show more integrity and exercise more care.

        Sometimes I wonder what Tina Brown thinks of VF now.

    • funcakes says:

      Vanity Fair usually have bias articles in favor of known celebrities. They are so desperate to maintain readership they will print any story that the public will consume

      Anyone who read about this case knew Kelly had her own personal, reckless, agenda. I would never print a word that spewed from her mouth without following it with the word ALLEGEDLY in caps.

      Vanity is a sorry joke. Anna Wintour is the Empress with no clothes. It times for someone to take over who will restore it former glory with fresh views instead of being bored with pictures and articles about the latest millionaire high society party Anna’s friends threw.

      It not 1950 when Truman Capote and Hedde Harper sit around with cocktails gossiping about Liza Taylor.

      • Little Darling says:

        I love how he is suing VF and not Kelly. To me it’s a deliberate move saying how dare you take one person’s side of a divorce case, print libelous statements and then present them as fact. That is so genius to me.

        Also, “I’m not suing my ex wife, because that’s a different matter, I’m suing YOU for being idiotic enough to jump on board that crazy train.”

        I wonder if he will actually win. I mean, in divorce court libel and defamation are taken fairly seriously, to my belief, when children are involved.

        What he said is true, his kids should never have to read the crazy she spewed, on his behalf and hers! I would imagine it will change their viewpoint on what happened when they finally do go around to reading it.

        I think this is the quintessential example of the massively overused phrase, “You got served.”

      • Greenieweenie says:

        Anna is not the editor of VF…I think you mean Vogue….?

      • minx says:

        Are you thinking of Tina Brown? Anna Wintour never edited Vanity Fair.

      • eggy weggs says:

        Anna Wintour is the editor of Vogue. Vanity Fair’s editor is Graydon Carter. Same publisher, Conde Nast, but Anna Wintour has no say in the running of VF.

      • Karen says:

        I think you’re confusing Vanity Fair with Vogue. Anna Wintour is the Editor of Vogue and Graydon Carter is the Editor of Vanity Fair.

      • funcakes says:

        Thank you all for pointing these things out. I was misinformed. I do feel the same way about Vanity Fair as well Vogue. Both needs a change at the helm. Both are outdated. Both need fresh blood.

      • M.A.F. says:

        Speaking of Gaydon Carter, isn’t he very one sided? Wasn’t Vanity Fair suppose to come out with some “hit piece” on Gwyneth Paltrow around the time of her divorce then backed off for whatever reason?

      • Margo Simmons says:

        I read the Vanity Fair article. To me it did not paint a flattering picture of Rutherford. In many cases she appeared and opportunist and calculating herself. Divorce a dying husband by skimming over details but want to use it as to why she is so fragile. Ten different attorneys suggests a difficult client. To me the article slowly unravels an unstable person with constant drama surrounding her.

    • ERM says:

      Well played, Daniel. This demonstrates that he is very intelligent, not ruled by emotion and has good advisors. This is a strategic move and perhaps one of many. Frankly it is impressive because I know my emotions would have gotten in the way long ago….

      • Honeybee Blues says:

        Exactly my thoughts. I’m sure he has been fuming over the character assassination, but put his children first, and waited. However, I think it was less “strategic” and more parenting. I believe he understood that she was doing enough boat-rocking, and it was best to await legal conclusion before seeking to right a wrong. And yes, he was wronged in the press. VF needs to hide it’s collective head in shame that they didn’t do an iota of fact-checking before publishing such one-sided drivel.

      • Liberty says:

        Yes. A brilliant and timely move on his part, and I hope he prevails.

  2. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    Good. For. Him.

    Seriously, what the heck was Vanity Fair thinking picking a side in a celebrity custody battle that has all the legal information going AGAINST it? This is going to be their Rolling Stone moment.

    I know print media is struggling but losing millions of dollars and your (remaining) brand respect isn’t going to help in the end.

    Hope he cleans their clock.

  3. cannibell says:

    He really played a long game here, and by that I do not mean any disrespect. He consistently considered the well-being of the children and acted in their best interests; now that he’s got their immediate futures locked down, he’s taking care of the extraneous business. Good for him. Also, there’s got to have been some language about photos in that custody/visitation agreement, or Kelly would have plastered Christmas photos of the kids all over wherever it is she posts them.

    • Birdix says:

      yes! his revenge is served ice cold. it’s like he could predict her craziness and gave her just enough rope to hang herself. her problems are all self-created, but I do admire the way he managed the crazy to get what he wanted long-term.

    • vauvert says:

      He is smart, no doubt about it. He is also fully justified in his actions, and he played this one like a boss. I hope he gets full vindication from VF – at least a retraction. The money is no object for him, I am glad he is clearing his name. I would get so angry if I would see a string of lies about me ” of course he is evil and a weapons dealer if HS sent him packing and he can’t get a visa, poor Kelly, poor kids…” With not one iota of proof. Hopefully this will also put the kybosh on any further attempts by Kelly to continue her mud smearing campaign.
      He is actually quite cute in a nerdy way, and I think Kelly misjudged him completely because he seems like the slightly naive guy who never gets the girl. Why she couldn’t be happy with a loving, rich guy and two beautiful children is beyond me.

      • LAK says:

        One of the things he is disputing in the lawsuit is that she filed for divorce which is an interesting development because it’s often been repeated in comments sections that she discovered something about him and filed for divorce; especially with the timing when she was still pregnant with Helena.

      • FLORC says:

        KR’s claims and timelines are a disaster! It comes down to dating when her statements were made, claimed to have occurred, and if anything can be proven.

        I’ve never read a worse tangled web of lies than hers. I’m glad this is covered here. I was only seeing it on news exclusive sites. More this gets exposure the better.

      • Michelle says:

        I agree. It will make other media outlets think twice before blinding printing whatever Kelly tells them. I think People magazine caught on late. I stopped reading their stories regarding this case.

        I would love if Daniel sued Dan Abrams for continuing to misrepresent the facts of this case too. How awesome would that be??

      • Lady D says:

        I doubt People will catch on. They’re still running poor lonely Kelly in Europe stories. If People editors read their own comment section they would realize the posters (reader aside) know the truth.

    • anne_000 says:

      I agree that he did this in proper order. He didn’t stop and get distracted by playing whack-a-mole on every attack by Kelly in the media. Instead, he made sure to stay focused and get what was the most important thing, legal stability with the kids. And now that he has it, Kelly and the media should realize that he now has the time and focus to stop having their libel and slander from spreading in order to ensure his and his children’s privacy is enforced.

    • anne_000 says:

      I dunno. Before Xmas, she was posting pics from Italy. Then she was posting pics from Switzerland the days around Xmas and afterwards. Maybe she’s going to get them the latter half of Xmas break? Or maybe she said “Nah. Not worth it anymore to pretend to want to be with my children?”

      She sure has loads of money and time to travel around without working, doesn’t she.

  4. Senaber says:

    Now that he has custody it seems like he plans to come out with guns blazing. I honestly don’t blame him one bit.

    And he’s not suing her- is he still protecting her too? Or is he afraid of pushing her off the deep end? Or does he just have a lot of restraint for the sake of his children?

    • LAK says:

      I think he’s going after her enablers.

      If you are dealing with crazy (my term, not a diagnosis of KR), best to remove their toys. The crazy can’t be helped and will probably continue.

      Also, if he was suing her, can you imagine the media tour she’d organise??!!!

      The American mother being attacked by the dastardly foreign husband. A German no less!!!!

    • Die Zicke says:

      You know, he actually has seemed very patient with her. I think he actually really encourages his children to have a relationship with their mother, never sought sole custody and never tried to prevent her from seeing them, he’s mainly just gone after primary physical custody (or so it seems from what I know).

      • MC2 says:

        I totally agree! He has always maintained that he wants his children to have a relationship with their mother. He was pushed (by Kelly) to get sole custody & not allow the kids in the US after the stunt she pulled. He could have pushed for that sooner but he said that he wants his kids to spend time with their mom. It seems to me that he actually has his children’s best interests at heart & suing their mother is not in their best interests. He seems like a great father to me.

      • moo moo says:

        his lawyers likely had him do that because the US judge was very into both parents working together go spend separate time with the kids. And she penalized the parent when they tried to pull any kind of “selfish”, “kids should only be with me” routine.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Showing up at the airport with a big sign made by the kids with Welcome Mom on it? Wrapping gifts and putting Love Mom on them when she didn’t send presents for a birthday or christmas?

        He appears to have done his best to keep the negative aspects of their mother away from them, far beyond what a lawyer would have advised.

      • Lady D says:

        nota: Do you know she tried to sue him claiming he deliberately set that up to get his and the kid’s pictures in the papers, against court orders?

      • anne_000 says:

        Which is ironic because she keeps alerting paps in order to get money and photos of herself as the good mother, but the one time the paps happen to take photos of Daniel looking like a good father and she complains? LOL.

        Btw, I don’t think Daniel called the paps. Maybe she did and was just pissed that they released photos of him actively co-parenting.

    • bluhare says:

      When you sue, you go after the people/entities with deep pockets. Kelly doesn’t have much money, if any. Vanity Fair and its owner have a lot. Plus they published the article and perhaps didn’t fact check it first. Therefore, he went after them.

      Plus LAK’s point is a great one. She’d be on a tour crying about how he’s stolen the kids from her and now trying to ruin her too!

      • notasugarhere says:

        He tried to get the money she’d been pocketing from papping out the kids into an account for them. The court threw that one out sadly. Otherwise, he could have used that money to pay her ridiculous monthly stipend.

      • anne_000 says:

        I don’t think it’s a matter of which defendant has more money, Kelly or VF & the rest of the media.

        He’s essentially making the media view Kelly’s assertions with a more careful, suspicious eye. Basically, what they should have been doing in the first place with anybody’s story that comes to them. Be the gatekeeper between lies and truth instead of acting like they’re part of somebody’s PR team.

      • bluhare says:

        But the media is getting them from Kelly. In law you can shoot the messenger, which is Vanity Fair. To cut it off totally you have to go to the source which is Kelly. She’s got no money, but if he shoots enough messengers he can cut her off that way. And Bearcat’s got a great point about upsetting the children. However, Kelly didn’t particularly consider that when she went gunning for him!

      • Crumpet says:

        I think the biggest reason he doesn’t go after Kelly is because she is the mother of his children. As such, he is affording her respect, and again, playing the long game. When his children are adults, they will remember who it was that tried to keep their parent in their lives and who it was that tried to remove their parent from their lives.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I think he has wisely decided that suing Kelly would only upset the children and is unlikely to stop her grandiose thinking and crazy behaviour anyway. Instead by suing VF (and presumably suing other publications/media outlets that gave Kelly a platform to spew her nonsense) he is putting them all on notice that they better have their facts straight before they badmouth him and anoint her as mother of the year. After all, truth is the best defense to defamation and if there is one thing that Kelly has a very tenuous grip on, it is the truth.

    • Janie says:

      I think it’s time he set the record straight. Kelly should thank her lucky stars he’s not going after her. I guess unlike Kelly, he loves his kids more than he dislikes her. Good for him and I’m sure he’ll prevail.

    • Ana A. says:

      I think by German law he can only sue the papers who published the story and the photos. He can’t sue Kelly for it. Not the same easy way. Germany has the toughest laws on privacy protection in the media. No one is allowed to publish photos of anyone (including celebrities) in their private lives at all. Remember Caroline of Monaco?

      I think he only waited for the custody battle to be over so that this lawsuit doesn’t affect it. Now that Kelly is out of the picture he’ll make sure that his rights and the rights of the children are respected.

  5. LAK says:

    Since I read this lawsuit, i’ve thought more about it and I hope legal experts can weigh in.

    Part of this initial process is an injunction that was granted by the German court. Do you have to present evidence in order to get an injunction?

    I ask with respect to the statements he particularly objected to eg that he made requests about Helena’s birth.

    I’m still flummoxed that VF would publish a piece with risible, if at all, fact checking.

    So much for their vaunted fact checking journalism.

    • eo says:

      I don’t know the english legal terms, but I hope this helps. Prima facie evidence (? if the dictionary doesn’t fail me) is the level of proof which is needed for a preliminary injunction if it’s contested and was presented by Giersch in this case. This means the claim is in the opinion of the court likely true on the basis of affidavits and/or evidence (5 types of evidence in german law are witness, assessor, official documents, judicial inspection, testimony).
      There is something like a scaling of proof … full proof – which means the judge(s) are personally convinced – is neccessary for the main trial but not for a preliminary injunction.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      You have to present some evidence to obtain a temporary or preliminary injunction. You also must usually convince the judge that the reason you need this temporary order is to prevent some kind of prejudice or harm being inflicted upon you from continuing while the lawsuit progresses.

      Converting a temporary/preliminary injunction to a permanent one requires a much higher standard of proof and significant evidence that a permanent order is necessary to protect your long-term interests and prevent permanent or long-lasting damages for which there might not be an adequate remedy at law. Obviously, damage to one’s reputation is difficult to quantify (it is hard to prove that but for this or that instance of badmouthing a person would have gotten a better job, for example), but when you have someone like Kelly whose public statements are not grounded in reality and are published and disseminated all over the interwebs, injunctions may be the only way to limit all the harm she has caused/is causing/will cause.

    • Nopulitzershere says:

      All he had to do was show a court Rutherford’s own past statements on the record and past filings. Every claim struck down was contradicted by her sworn testimony, court filings or statements to the court-appointed experts.

      He just printed out a record of her comments and actions, rolled it up and smacked VF upside the head with it.

  6. NewWester says:

    The dog looks like it wants to get away from Kelly. It can sense the “crazy “vibes emitting from her

  7. Nancy says:

    Glad to see that he is finally exposing her state of mind or lack thereof. One can be slandered for so long before they must protect their honor and that of his children, so that in the years to come, they will know the truth, or at least part of it. He looks like money, something I’m sure she was drawn to in the beginning, he also looks a lot younger than she does….she looks beat up from fighting everything or one who she deems is in her way. Get help lady, if not for yourself, for your children.

  8. Patricia says:

    I bet it’s absolutely killing her to not be able to post tons of pics of her kids (for attention) and call the paps to document her every move with the kids (for attention).
    Good for him for standing up for himself.

  9. Kezia says:

    Unrelated but those jeans in the last photos? Should be burned immediately, what the hell colour even are they?!

  10. Greenieweenie says:

    I’m kind of starting to really like this guy. Having dealt (not well) with difficult people before, I’m taking notes. He’s not going after the mother of his children, but he’s still putting his version of events out there by going after the one she made public. He’s basically taking away the tools of her manipulation: publicity and social media pics of her kids (she’s always careful to mostly hide their faces though).

    The more you compare their behavior, the more you realize just how crazy she must’ve been.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Him and Gabriel Aubry, the truth is for better or worse we as a society favor women in divorce/custody agreements but both men weathered the storm of having women drag them through the mud, insult them, frame them, accuse them of everything only for them to win custody and public approval.

      It’s telling to me that two women that had all the initial public sympathy eventually lost it all because of their erratic behavior and ever increasing lies.

  11. eo says:

    Giersch is not seeking those €70k as injunctive relief, it’s just the value the court has set for this case which is the basis on which court fees and legal fees are determined. The amount of €250k fee is also set by the court as they see fit, to deterr the publication from making the claims again.

  12. Jezza says:

    Good for him! He’s put up with a lot, so why shouldn’t he stand up for himself and his kids? It’s bad enough having a bat crap crazy mom, don’t let them read about the lies printed about him, too!!

  13. The Original Mia says:

    Good for him. Take down her enablers one by one. Please let him have Dan Abrahms on his list as well.

  14. Minxx says:

    I always say that the worst thing that could happen to a man is to have kids with a wrong woman. A lifetime of aggravation and heartache.

    • MAC says:

      I think the worst thing that can happen is two people having children when the people are from different countries with different citizenship.

      • Little Darling says:

        What I meant to say was Celebitchy explained in another write up about this case that she shares custody with her ex who lives in Germany (I believe) and they have worked it out.

        I think the success of coparenting after a divorce lies equally on both parents being 100% committed to civility. NOT easy, but something that being on different continents shouldn’t impact if both parents are FULLY invested in sharing their children with the other parent. If you both have that desire then you rise up for your kids and you make WHATEVER work best for them. Takes a lot of pride shifting and wearing big adult undies, but it’s possible.

      • swack says:

        No, not necessarily true. I have a friend whose ex is from France. They have a daughter together and co-parent the way it should be done. Just because the couple are from different countries does not mean it can’t work.

      • Die Zicke says:

        Ummm…. You’re kidding right? My parents have different citizenship and it in no way effects me negatively. Actually, I get some positive benefits from it, like having dual citizenship and both an American and EU passport. And their marriage is great And they just recently celebrated their 22nd anniversary. And I even have a friend who”s parents split up, with her dad still living in the US and her mom moving back to London and they managed to coparent and respect each other and my friend has a great relationship with both of them.

      • Ursula says:

        My husband is American , I am German and we have been married for 41 ( in words: fortyone ) years. We have raised 3 dual citizen children and they are raising at current count 3 grandchildren , 2 of which have the same German/ American citizenship and 1 who actually has 4 citizenships ( both his parents are dual citizens). And guess what? It was not the worst thing that could happen but an incredible positive in their lives. More than one perspective and outlook on things and the ability to work easily in both the EU and the US. Might be time to expand your horizon just a little.

    • NUTBALLS says:

      I recall a New York Times article about the particular difficulties of divorcing a Narcissist and gave me even more sympathy for Daniel. The narcissist can’t see they have a disorder, they blame shift and continue to seek revenge, because they can’t get things and move on. They will protract the court proceedings as long as they can. It really is a nightmare for the partner.

  15. Sunnyside says:

    We need more of this; there hasn’t been any journalistic integrity in publications in years.

  16. Cee says:

    He might not be suing her directly, but he is going after publications that talked to her and printed her lies and side of things. He is isolating her from what she craves most – attention.

    He is very, very, very smart (and a terrible dresser, is he wearing a leather tie?!)

    • Elliott says:

      Exactly. This is not about money at all. It is isolating KR and depriving her of making a living out of victimizing her children. The cost of fact checking everything she says to prevent libel lawsuits is prohibitive especially with her minimal celebrity. He has made her a pariah and unable to harm her children in one lawsuit. What little interest she could drum up in media is now not worth it to any media company. Without her “story” she has no value in seeking the limelight. Without photos of the children or her made up tale of woe she has nothing to sell. She can’t even get a junky autobiography published due to lawsuits.

  17. HK9 says:

    I read the Vanity Fair article and was shocked at the misinformation that was present throughout the piece. I’m glad he did it and Vanity Fair needs to pull up their socks. They didn’t even try to get the facts, it was obviously a puff piece whitewashing her behaviour all I could do was shake my head.

  18. Lama Bean says:

    Call me crazy, but I think he is such an adorable man. Not quite sexy (and the brownish outfit doesn’t help at all). But very cute.

  19. msd says:

    I too read the VF article and was dumbfounded. They have decent in depth articles sometimes, and it’s one of the few celebrity-centred rags that takes me more than ten minutes to read, but every once in a while they print a shocker, usually written by someone who isn’t even pretending to be impartial. I recall being appalled quite a few years ago when they did a nasty hatchet job on Michelle Williams in a Heath Ledger article.

  20. notasugarhere says:

    From the original VF article, “Giersch and his lawyer declined to answer questions from Vanity Fair.”

    How does that figure in to the lawsuit? Couldn’t they claim they gave him a chance to set forth facts and he declined?

    • LAK says:

      Just because he refused to answer their questions, doesn’t give them a pass to write untruths. Also, we don’t know what exactly was asked. That one disclaimer could cover one question or a barrage of questions.

      Further, given what they did print, it’s clear there was no fact checking on the verifiable facts, nevermind the ones that couldn’t be verified. They, like all the mainstream media outlets, settled for Kelly’s version of events and didn’t try to be impartial at all.

      This is a magazine that was lauded for fact checking. I stopped believing in that aspect of their reporting when they started writing about the royals, particularly Kate Middleton. No fact checking at all.

    • abby says:

      IA with LAK.

      Vanity Fair may have contacted him and his legal team and they reportedly declined. However, the issues Daniel is contesting could easily be verified by the many publicly available court documents. VF did not need his cooperation to verify certain facts. If TMZ and the Daily Mail can access documents. so can VF.

      Also, Daniel had a legit reason for declining – there was on ongoing custodial court matter at the time of the article. Perhaps his legal team felt the integrity of the court case would be compromised had they participated in anyway with the VF hitjob.
      Unlike Kelly, Daniel focused on the court battle (the one that truly mattered) not the battle for public opinion.
      Only now, that he has primary custody of the children, is he rectifying the record in the media.

      So yeah, that line alone imo, isn’t enough to exonerate VF from their journalistic negligence.

    • Nopulitzershere says:

      The author of the piece has a long history of writing stories designed to feel like investigative journalism but which only cobble together second and third-hand information. In this case, she took that sloppiness up a notch by merely taking dictation for a woman who has proven she couldn’t find a truthful statement unless it was hidden in a new handbag she unwittingly bought for display on Instagram.

  21. April says:

    Goid for him. Maybe all these lying magazines will start to fact check a little better. I will never believe anything I read again after seeing all of Kelly’s lies being printed as fact in this case. I also hope he goes after Dan Abrams for giving Kelly a platform. He should go after her supporters too, especially the Kartrashians. Maybe people will learn to find out the legal facts before blindly supporting someone.

  22. anniefannie says:

    I was stunned at the inaccuracies in the VF article. That reporter needs to find another profession. My main concern is they won’t print the scorching letter they notified me they were going to print! Cause in the end it’s all about me 😁

  23. kri says:

    Wow. VF screwed up big time. I can’t believe they took that big, steaming Cup O’ Crazy’s side. This dude is serious, and I would be too if I was in his place. She dragged those kids through way too much, and him also.

  24. KatyD says:

    I dislike both of them immensely and wish they’d both go away forever. It’s hard for me to believe that Daniel is the good guy while Kelly is the bad one. I bet the truth is somewhere in the middle. Team no one is a winner here.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      …but isn’t that like saying, “Hey I know all evidence and facts points to this guy being innocent but I refuse to believe that, instead I’m just going to assume he’s partly bad and therefore make her less guilty.”

      I could understand earlier in this case, but at this point it’s clinging to the narrative of the bad guy is always the Father and the mother can’t possibly be completely wrong.

      • KatyD says:

        Wow! What a leap to a conclusion. Where did I say that I think that all fathers are bad and mothers are innocent? What…?

        What “evidence” do you have here? She seems really maladjusted and attention seeking but his own personality may not be that much better. We don’t really know.

        I just gave my opinion that I think neither one comes off very good here. Continuing to battle when you’ve already won the war …seems pointless if you ask me. The statements made in Vanity Fair may be wrong but they didn’t strike me as incredibly damaging, with the exception that he wasn’t there for his child’s birth. As his lawyer put it, “this is only the beginning…”? So, is he going to sue every outlet that repeated these statements? On and on…? Sounds wonderful.

      • anne_000 says:

        He wasn’t there because Kelly didn’t tell him she went into labor and didn’t tell him the daughter was born. He found out through the media.

        She hired a private investigator for 1300 hours to find dirt on him. Same with an investigative lawyer. The court had their examiners too. There’s not really much or any dirt on him.

        She and her lawyer accused him of drug and gun-running in South America, of kidnapping, of tax cheating, homicidal tendencies, abusive nature, etc. Yet there’s been no evidence of him doing anything wrong that she was able to bring up during the custody hearing.

        Anytime she made an accusation via an accuser, the accusers never appeared in court. The nanny or housekeeper who said Daniel had homicidal tendencies? Kelly never brought her before the judge. The investigative lawyer who said he was a tax cheat? Her evidence never appeared in court by Kelly’s choice. The report from the private eye (whom Kelly stiffed)? Nothing to make DG look bad in court.

        I don’t know what the middle is. I read the Statement of Decision and if there was dirt that Kelly could have actually used in court, then her obsessed-self would have brought it to the judge. She would have shown the evidence to all the media. Yet after all these years, with all the immense effort she’s put into making Daniel look like the bad guy, she’s been unsuccessful in providing any proof.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        I never claimed you said all Fathers are bad, I said that line of reasoning feeds into the stereotype.

        Evidence? Court papers. I don’t have to know anything about either of their personalities. Just what lies she has told the court that have been disproven, what lies she’s told the media that have been disproven, and her many erratic attempts at kidnapping her children and playing fast and loose with the law.

        I think he’s approaching this intelligently. She used these publications as a way to smear him and his reputation as well as defame him as a Father. He can’t make her stop being crazy but he can ensure no other publications makes the mistake of misreporting the facts.

      • notasugarhere says:

        He’s fighting for the truth to be printed and for the lies to be retracted. One day the kids will read all of this. ex. He probably wants their daughter to know that he would have been there to see her born – IF her mother had allowed it. Yes, it makes the mother look bad – but the mother was the one who chose to hide the birth for three days. Much of what Rutherford has slung at him has been incredibly hurtful, were the kids to read and believe it.

    • Little Darling says:

      I mean, I really think that the truth is written in all of the documentation since day one, at least in the divorce proceeding. If he’s been hiding things, or keeping it under the belt Kelly definitely would have blabbed about it by now. Also, it would have been documented. This isn’t just a fly by night ruling or case. It’s been years and years of her whirling the crazy cotton candy and then serving it with a smile – or a tear depending on whether it was Brave Face Kelly or Heartbroken American Kelly (natch wearing all white in the Hamptons).

      Also, I don’t think he’s actually *continuing* to battle, as he’s really finally asserting himself, for the first time – therefore technically *starting* to battle her false claims that have been going on for YEARS.

      He’s protecting his name and his children. I don’t think that’s war at all, I think it’s living with integrity. The fact that he left this all until after the custody case was over isn’t continuing to war, it’s finally speaking up.

      I don’t know what other *truth* there is to be found? The *truth* is she isn’t fit to be a full time parent, unfortunately, and that’s all her own doing.

      • KatyD says:

        Well, court cases may not be the whole truth. I know of many crazy people who are smart enough to never leave an evidence trail. My boyfriend’s narcissistic mother was a poor parent but she appeared nearly saint-like in court. There was never any actual evidence to support anything, of course, as she never left an evidence trail. She caused a lot of pain and damage–and everyone thought she was the one who was wronged. Ha…it took years for people to see the whole story. 15 years in fact..when the kids grew up…they talked. Boy did they speak. .

        I haven’t read the court case, here, so I may be off base and I acknowledge that. That being said, I don’t see his continuing battle in a positive light. I think he should ask for a retraction and an apology, but to to say ” this is only the beginning” as some sort of ominous threat sounds bad. Enough already…that’s my opinion.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I agree, LD. Now that custody has been settled, he is finally asserting himself in order to get the facts out there for all (including their kids) to see.

      • LAK says:

        Katyd: the man’s reputation has been dragged through the mud for years.

        The truth isn’t getting an airing unless you are on the internet and only via the comments sections rather than the articles.

        Some of those allegations made by Kelly and re-printed in publications/aired on TV can cause serious damage eg the insinuation that he is refusing to get a new visa for vague darkly hinted at reasons, the insinuation that he is an abuser etc

        This is a man who relies on his personal reputation to do business. Would you invest with someone who was banned from the US for potentially criminal activities or you knew was abusive? Of course there are people who don’t care about such things and will invest anyway, but why should he be driven to those places and or know his colleagues are thinking he is capable of these things?

        Then there are the children. They will grow up and read everything. Some of it they will know as a consequence of growing up with both parents, but when you read the often repeated phrase ‘I will always fight for you’ that Kelly keeps telling the media, you start to wonder what it is that your father did.

        He is merely stopping the lies.

        He isn’t suing her directly, lord knows she’s given him just cause.

        He is suing her enablers.

        At least they will think twice, and verify, before publishing ‘child snatcher’ headlines about him.

      • anne_000 says:

        If you read the court document (google: Statement of Decision Rutherford Giersch PDF), then you’d see all the accusations she’s made against him in court but without any evidence, even with a lawyer admitting to the judge that he made up some of the accusations. Then you’ll see that she’s gone on the media pretending that she has no clue why his visa was revoked and that he’s disobeyed court orders. This promotes him as unstable and with an inability to follow through on legal matters. And as I said above, she’s made claims about him being a potential murderer, a kidnapper, a drug and gun-runner in South America, a tax cheat (which may directly affect his business reputation), abuser, potential child drowner, etc. And again, without proof.

        So his strategy now is to make the media more diligent in separating the truth versus Kelly’s fiction in the future before they keep spreading the lies about him. What’s wrong with that?

      • paleokifaru says:

        KatyD I think I get what you’re trying to say in regards to your BF’s mom and what the court found and how they handled custody. However, there are still very damning things in those documents when you look at it later and in a bigger picture. I see it in in my husband’s court documents and in the Rutherford case. Had Rutherford given up the fight after joint custody was obvious then yeah there wouldn’t be what you would consider proof of bad parenting and no loss of custody. But I found in my husband’s case and this one (so maybe in the BF’s as well?) that there was plenty to indicate instability and narcissism in what the mother accuses the father and his family of and that no basis is found for those statements. So it is there, just not in ways that will initially lead to loss of custody because the mother is not neglecting or obviously abusing the child.

    • joanne says:

      KatyD why don’t you read the court case before commenting. he is a business man who’s character has been slandered. now he has settled the child custody issue, this IS the beginning of clearing his reputation. kelly has made many unfounded accusations that he is a criminal. he would be foolish not to try for retractions. he has proven that he is no fool but very careful with his goals.

    • April says:

      KatyD, until you inform yourself of the facts of the case, I don’t think you should get to spout an opinion. It really makes you look not so smart. He has had his name smeared for years and I hope he puts a stop to it.

    • Pandy says:

      I agree KatyD – the truth usually IS in the middle. Let’s see how his case plays out – he hasn’t won anything yet! I think he looks creepy.

    • Crumpet says:

      Hmmm. All I know is how each has conducted themselves in regards to their children. And that is really all I need to know to be able to have an informed opinion.

  25. H says:

    Sorry my mother is an attorney and before a word of that article got published it was probably run through ten lawyers. Vanity Fair is not The Star, I’m sure they fact checked. Normally I’m on Daniel’s side, but unless he has evidence malice was used, he’s throwing money away on this lawsuit.

    • LAK says:

      And yet it contains many verifiable inaccuracies. Inaccuracies that can be checked against court documents freely available online.

      Further, the first step of this lawsuit is an injunction which was granted. You have to give convincing evidence to a court in order to obtain an injunction.

      The fact of the court granting an injunction proves VF didn’t do their due diligence because they would have been able to verify facts. Easily. The court documents have been available online for more than a year.

    • abby says:

      Perhaps he cannot prove malicious intent against VF but (if it goes to court) he can present other court documents challenging their story and call into question their fact-checking and journalistic integrity. Maybe it’s worth it to him to have his side publicly aired finally. After all these years of siting silently and watching Kelly drag him through the mud, allude to abuse and other unverified allegations/insinuations. Maybe he simply wants to push back and clear his name. His kids are getting older and they will read this one day.
      I am no attorney and perhaps he will lose this, who knows but now that the custodial case is settled maybe he simply wants the opportunity to refute Kelly’s claims – which the US media has little interest in verifying. Perhaps that is worth throwing his money away over.

    • Nic919 says:

      Unless your mother is an attorney in Germany then she doesn’t know what is required for libel in all countries. I am a lawyer in Canada and can tell you that actual malice is not required here.
      I really doubt his lawyers in Germany would be recommending an action that had no merit on top of all the custodial issues.

    • anne_000 says:

      Iirc, the VF article references the custody case yet printed statements that was the opposite of what was noted in the Statement of Decision. I doubt there were ten lawyers who could not get their hands on this document since there’s been so many non-lawyer commenters who’ve been able to read it online for over a year.

      So no. It doesn’t seem like it was fact-checked by even one lawyer, unless that one was very lazy.

    • Bridget says:

      Kind of like how Rolling Stone did with their campus rape story?

    • M.A.F. says:

      Lawyers are involved in journalism? I know reporters will consult w/lawyers depending on the story but I don’t think lawyers are used for fact checking.

    • Ankhel says:

      You’d be surprised at how magazines try to cut costs sometimes. And I’m absolutely certain Daniel wouldn’t claim, for instance, that he was the one to file for divorce, unless he had the documents. He’s not stupid.

    • Ange says:

      And if my dad was a doctor would that mean you’d trust me to do your brain surgery?

    • Kdm302 says:

      There are stupid, worthless lawyers in this world who give bad advice . Dan Abrams and Wendy Murphy, and the jamoke who called the State Department in order to blackmail Daniel Giersch, to name a few.

    • Ali says:

      Reminder to self: Don’t use H’s mom as an attorney lol

    • Elliott says:

      All articles are “supposed” to be fact checked by editors, multiple sources by the reporter themself, and if anything, ANYTHING is iffy, especially if it can be construed as libel, to be run by the legal department. This idiot didn’t even use publicly available court orders to fact check. At a minimum they will have to do a retraction, the sooner the better, and at a maximum pay Daniel. This is a legal strategy to get his reputation back and VF is just the first. The ultimate goal is to make KR persona non grata in the media because they don’t want to get sued. She is simply not worth the legal fee required.

  26. Wentworth Miller says:

    Dude! He sued fkn Google and won. How insane is that?!

  27. Betti says:

    Smart move by going after the publications that print her crazy talk he is effectively cutting off her victim avenues. If they think he will sue then they will think twice before printing, same goes for all the talk shows she likes to go on.

  28. Renae says: says:

    This guy seems like a great Father who has his children’s best interests at the heart of everything he does. Also, seems like he was a great catch for a crazy woman like Kelly. The fact he’s paying her a monthly stipend without her having the kids, says a lot about him plus the fact he has never went after her in the public like she has him. Some-
    times good guys do win.

  29. dibba says:

    He looks like John Edwards, very young, never ages. Its like John Edwards and Tom Cruise had a baby

  30. Fluff says:

    I think I’m starting to crush on this guy. Every move he’s made has been awesome – both smart and compassionate.

  31. Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

    Finally, as I stated in the last publication on this soap opera. He’s a savvy guy and Kelly messed with the wrong person. He’s going after the magazines, which is a good idea, leaving her alone because, after this, no magazine will want to print anything. Plus, he gets to clear his name..
    I’m in love with his intelligence….

  32. Tiffany says:

    I did not know that he was the first to file for divorce. What went down for him to file while she was pregnant. That explains a bit, I mean how dare he leave her before she leaves him ( her walkng out on her 1st hubby was shady as all get out).

    Also, now that he has the legal issues with their kids sorted, I can see why he is going after the media. Not just for his kids but for himself as well. He is possibly want to be in a relationship/marry again it is nice to know that you can continue life with have to check for your name in the press.

    • Betti says:

      That intrigued me too and explains a lot about her rage and hate against him. A narcissist like her is not going to like getting dumped and losing control. I’ll bet that’s what’s at the core of her behaviour toward hi and this whole revenge nonsense. It’s about getting back at him for having the gall to file for divorce before she did.

  33. Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

    Interesting to see parents’s organization opinion on the case.. They totally go against Kelly:

    https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/22628-vanity-fair-s-attempt-to-smear-daniel-giersch
    parents against child abduction also on Daniel’s side…
    https://underwatch.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/breaking-vanity-fair-sued-for-kelly-rutherford-story/

  34. mayamae says:

    I wonder if it’s frowned upon that he lives in Monaco, VF is an American magazine, yet he files in Germany. I’m assuming defamation is easier to prove under German law. I understand he’s a German citizen, but he isn’t a current resident. Obviously I’m not an expert in international law.

    • Liberty says:

      Per Wikipedia: “Vanity Fair Germany launched in February 2007 at a cost of €50 million, then the most expensive new magazine in Germany in years and Condé Nast’s biggest investment outside the United States. After circulation had plummeted from half a million to less than 200,000 per week, the German edition was shut down in 2009.[10] A French version started in June 2013.[11] The Spanish version of the magazine was first published in Spain in 2008 and it has been published monthly.[7] In April 2015 Condé Nast México y Latinoamerica will launch Vanity Fair Mexico.”

      It’s still an international magazine, and the US version can be purchased on newsstands in Germany.

  35. Nopulitzershere says:

    The author of the VF piece cut her teeth co-writing Amy Fisher’s tell-all. That would be the Amy Fisher of Joey Buttafuouco fame. The Long Island Lolita who shot her lover’s wife in the face. The author sure knows how to pick a side to portray sympathetically.

  36. skippy says:

    I applaud Daniel. Well timed. But, KR has always said that she will never stop trying to get the kids back with her. So, I don’t think this is the end. Unfortunately.

  37. FUTMZ says:

    No People Magazine spread on Kelly enjoying Christmas with the kids, so we can assume Daniel raised the drawbridge at his fortress. M’eh…. back to New York to pose with empty bags in front of expensive clothing stores…… and “fighting for her children”!

  38. KWM says:

    I nearly ended a Facebook friendship over this idiot. My friend from HS worked for Entertainment Weekly and to say she was team KR was an understatement. Forwarding the petition, saying how wrong she was, she knows KR from events she is the nicest, sweetest, most honest and caring. I finally asked her if she ever bothered to read one page of the court transcript, that there was a reason court after court sided with the father. But man KR had everyone snowed.

    • LAK says:

      And had she read the court transcripts?

      If not, did you forward them?

      If yes, was she resolutely KR supporter inspite of what she’d read?

    • hogtowngooner says:

      KR’s probably very nice to EW as long as they print KR-friendly articles. I don’t know her, but based on what I’ve seen of her over this case, she’s probably very nice to people who can do things for her, and very nasty to those who won’t.

      On a related note, I didn’t know he was the one who filed (I always thought it was the other way around). Perhaps in her narcissism she felt this was a huge betrayal (him leaving her) and has been trying to punish him for this “injustice” ever since, going so low as to use the kids as pawns in that.

  39. rudy says:

    I read that article and felt for the kids.

  40. Erin says:

    It must seriously be killing her that she can’t cry to the press about this. This is also a brilliant way for him to expose her lies without going after her personally, which she has never hesitated to do to him. He only appears more credible by comparison.

  41. meanusdevilo says:

    He didn’t mind the children being photographed, or being married to a public person when they sold photos of the kids for profit. Now he wants to sue? He lives in Monaco, why not sue there. This guy is so shady, I really feel for the kids. Oh, and good luck trying to extort Google, he’s trying for a pest settlement – Google will crush him.

  42. JRenee says:

    Not that it has anything to do with any of this, but why did Kelly divorce this guy again?

    • Michelle says:

      Apparently HE filed first. I didn’t know that.

    • LAK says:

      He divorced her.

      That’s one of the corrections in the injunction.

      She’s been lying all this time that she divorced him.

      And by that, I mean legally. We don’t know for sure who left whom, BUT he gave convincing evidence in a court of law that he filed first, and injunction was granted.

    • Jasper says:

      @LAK
      That really makes me wonder what she did to make him file.

      Just curious what kind of evidence would he have had to provide to get an injunction? Do you think it’s possible he can win this case?

      Sorry if this has already been asked.

      • LAK says:

        @Jasper: I wondered too. She was pregnant with Helena when he filed so whatever happened must have been a doozy that he couldn’t wait until post-pregnancy.

        Regarding evidence, I guess a copy of the divorce petition which would list date of filing as well as who was petitioning for the divorce?

        According to his statement, he is listed as the petitioner in the divorce.

        With Regards Helena, there is evidence that he found out about her birth in the media, days after she was born, so that immediately proves the falsehood she told that he saw Helena the day after she was born.

        I’m assuming he was emailing/phoning her and keeping records in all matters around the pregnancy and would have been able to produce them in court. Not to mention her own numerous interviews given to various publications eg People Magazine which were contradicted by the Vanity Fair article eg saying she never asked for full custody – court filings show that she did, plus an interview where she said she intended to be a single parent.

  43. LillySue says:

    Brilliant move. Kelly has been shopping a book. This lawsuit puts on notice publishers and others not to cohort with that witch.

    Tony Brand better start being concerned. He’s next.

  44. AnnE says:

    Any thoughts on why a week later Vanity Fair has yet to remove the article in question from their website? Normally in cases like this it is taken down immediately pending the outcome/review of their position.

  45. Crumpet says:

    ” for Helena’s birthday party, he bought a present from Kelly for Helena, which was described as the biggest gift she had, with the word “Mama” written on it in big letters because Helena recognized those letters as meaning “Mama.”

    I get tears in my eyes every time I read this statement. The man obviously loves his children and Kelly loves only herself.

  46. jenn says:

    Cant stand him and his smug smile. He has all the money in the world to throw at this. Loser.

  47. Sam H x says:

    More power to Daniel!!

    If there was a lawyer going over the Giersch VF article must have been a rather lazy and incompetent one lol. Vanity Fair probably thought Daniel wouldn’t go after them but little did they know!

    You could say he is cutting off her supply to validate her ego thus supporting her narrative. Also, it serves as a warning for the other publications to stop in their tracks with regards to publishing inaccuracies about him which destroys his character and reputation.

    I will not be surprised if he goes after People Magazine, U.S. weekly, Dan Abrams and so on.

    BearCatLawyer – always great to have someone weigh in from a legal perspective and shed some light to help us understand things better.

    AnnieFannie – please do post your letter to VF on here.

    I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas xx

  48. Jennifer says:

    I am going to publicly share the original vanity fair article and then share the archived copy of it every day publicly on every social media outlet I can find. SUE ME Daniel I dare you! How dare you trash Kelly.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Waiting for you to understand that all you’ll be doing is helping his case. The more widely it is disseminated the more of a case he has against VF. If it was only available on a bookstore shelf in Germany, he’d have a smaller case. Having it available globally to any German anywhere? That helps his case immensely.

    • nopulitzershere says:

      That would be awesome… It would make it far easier to spot at least one of the ultra-dopes whose opinion was formed without the pesky inconvenience of learning about the topic.

      Also, pretty safe to say, you and Kels aren’t on a first-name basis. She ain’t your friend. She’s just a garden variety narcissist and borderline who you used to see on TV on occasion (way back when she got paid to put on a performance rather than what she does today: put on a performance and try to find a way to make it pay.).

      She behaved badly. She reaped what she sowed as a result.

      Do share that article… There’s no better case study in what not to do as a divorced parent than your girl, Kel-Kel.