The director called the report “false, reckless and defamatory,” and said he had never been accused of killing an animal.
In a legal letter obtained by varietyBay’s attorney demands retraction or correction from TheWrap, after Hollywood trade publication I published a report last week Regarding the bathroom incident.
The director’s attorney, Matthew Rosengart, says TheWrap story states that Bay is accused or “accused” of “pigeon killing” in connection with the film he directed. “These statements are simply wrong; they are also harmful,” Rosengart writes.
TheWrap reports that the director is facing charges in Italy related to killing a pigeon on the set of the Netflix movie in Rome, despite making several attempts to clear the case with Italian authorities. The report cited a production insider who said the homing pigeon was killed by a dummy while taking it, and because Bay was the director, he was held responsible. (Pigeons are a protected species in Italy, and the country has a national law that makes it illegal to harm, kill, or capture any wild bird.)
Bay told TheWrap he wouldn’t go into specifics because the case is in court, but said he declined the option of settling a small fine with Italian authorities, saying, “I will not plead guilty to harming an animal.”
Pai has strongly denied the allegations. “I am a known animal lover and a major animal activist,” Pai had previously said in a statement to TheWrap. “No animal involved in the production has been hurt or injured. Or in any other production I have worked on in the last 30 years.”
Now, in a legal letter, Bey’s attorney writes that the director has “never been accused, let alone charged” with “killing” an animal. Before the story was published, Rosengart writes, TheWrap was made aware of “video evidence that refutes these claims and proves that at no time was any animal hurt, let alone killed.”
TheWrap could not be reached for comment because the phone number for media inquiries has a full inbox that is not currently accepting messages.
Bay’s attorney says the “only ‘in Italy’ charge concerned whether Mr. Bay, as the film’s director, failed to properly supervise the crew members (whom he did not even have the power to hire) responsible for the handling of animals on set. Bay’s attorney says the charge is “strongly defended.”
Read the legal letter sent from Michael Bay’s attorney, Matthew Rosengart, here:
I am Michael Bay’s litigation counsel, and I am writing regarding you and collarFalse, reckless and defamatory title and story stating that Michael Bay has been accused or “accused” of “killing a pigeon” in connection with a movie he directed. These statements are simply wrong. They are also harmful.
As you know, Mr. Bay has never been charged, let alone “accused” of “killing” an animal. In fact, prior to publication, you have been advised that there is video evidence that refutes these claims and proves that no animal has ever been harmed, let alone “killed.” Furthermore, as you also know (but fail to publish), the only “charge” put forward in Italy is whether, as the film’s director, Mr. Bay failed to properly supervise the crew members (who did not even have the ability to Employment) Responsible for handling animals in the group. This charge is vigorously defended – and, indeed, Mr. Pai feels so strongly that, to his credit, he refused to settle the case even for the nominal fine proposed by the authorities for resolution.
What makes your story even more terrible is that it was told explicitly to you, and therefore you He knew, that the headline was false because Mr. Bay never “killed” an animal and was accused of no such thing. You also apparently failed to adequately investigate the matter by obtaining the actual charge or interviewing the authorities or others who could have provided the facts. Instead, I followed your story, with a false and misleading “clickbait” title, demonstrating actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth.
Your story is particularly harmful and malicious because Michael Bay is an animal rights activist, as opposed to its implications; He passionately loves animals, as his track record shows. But as a result of your story, his name is now associated with “killing” or “killing” an animal, with reference to Intentions. Therefore, he is shamed and unjustly attacked. In fact, there are now many countless articles and photos on social media linking Mr. Bei to “killing” or “killing”, which have spread all over the world.
Your story is therefore extremely damaging to Mr. Bey personally and professionally (he has publicly discussed his love of animals and his desire to make a film about saving African elephants, another fact that I had given advance notice to but ignored) and tarnished his reputation. As someone who is very supportive of animals, financially and otherwise, which causes him great distress. All this exposes you and detour to significant financial damage. See, for example, Ringler Associates Inc. against Maryland Cass. company80 cal. Implementation. IV 1165, 1181 (2000); See also Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.497 US 1, 19 (1990); White v. Brotherly Order of Police909 F.2d 512, 518 (DC Circ. 1990). Capellas v. Kaufman1 Ca1.3d 20,33,81 Cal.Rptr. 360 (1969) (the defendant is liable for “what is considered as well as what is expressly stated”).
In consideration of the above, and other facts and evidence, on behalf of Mr. Pai, we hereby request an immediate retraction or correction of your story.