Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Albert II Legal Update

Stanley S. Arkin, Counsel for H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco, Files
Motion to Dismiss Meritless Complaint of Robert Eringer; Declares Eringer's
Lawsuit "a Crude 'Shake Down' or Blatant Extortion"

Calif., Nov. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Stanley S. Arkin, legal counsel for
Albert II of Monaco ("Prince Albert"), today filed in federal court
California a motion on Prince Albert's behalf calling for the court to
the meritless lawsuit of Robert Eringer. By filing this lawsuit,
Eringer is
attempting to misuse the U.S. judicial system to extract
undeserved monies from
Prince Albert.

Mr. Arkin stated, "Simply put,
Robert Eringer, like his
attempted lawsuit, is not credible. In fact, he
dresses up his complaint with
pages upon pages of unrelated and seemingly
bizarre anecdotes which have nothing
to do with his so-called claim.
Basically, Eringer's lawsuit couches a modest
breach-of-contract claim in a
complaint replete with grandiose, scurrilous and
largely irrelevant
allegations, redolent of a crude 'shake-down' or blatant
I will add to the above only to say that since this story came out I have yet to understand why Eringer brought his case before a U.S. court. What possible jurisdiction could the judge have even if all of his accusations are true? The dispute involves a contract made in Monaco by two foreign nationals. How is it any business of a U.S. court to hear? Furthermore, what possible hope of success could Eringer have considering that Prince Albert II is beyond the reach of the
court having the diplomatic immunity of a foreign head-of-state? He would seem to me to be firmly beyond the reach of U.S. law even if the court heard the case and found against him. The case would have to be brought in Monaco which would be an exercise in futility regardless of the facts as in Monaco Prince Albert IS the law, appoints all the judges and has the final word on all decisions. In the absence of any other facts I don't see how this cannot be seen as a simple effort at extortion or a bizzare bid for publicity by a disgruntled meida hound. I can also say that if this is some sort of bid to cause scandal and cash-in on it, it is still sorely lacking. What exactly does he hope to prove here? That Albert II is some sort of scheming Machiavellian? I'm sorry, but no one is going to buy that in a million years. Perhaps the primary intent is to get out the allegations of a sex tape......but......really?! His Serene Highness is beloved by many and respected by many but honestly I think everyone at this point is well aware that he is not pure as the driven snow when it comes to his personal life. Hopefully the case will be thrown out for the extortion attempt that it is and everyone can get past this, perhaps teaching the Sovereign Prince a lesson about choosing more carefully who he associates with (he really needs to start getting that message).


  1. Funny you stress the Prince needs to be careful who is surrounded by. Eringer claims that was the biggest part of his work - vetting people.

    Consider for a second there is some fire to this smoke. Nowhere in the charges is it claimed the Prince is intelligent and scheming - rather the contrary. Nor are the anecdotes necessarily detrimental to the Prince, as much to the individuals accused.

  2. Extortion is a crime. If Albert's fancy New York lawyer believes a crime has been committed, he should call the police. Defense lawyers are paid handsomely to eruct such drivel. No crime has been committed. This is a straightforward employment dispute. Over 18 months ago my law firm sent a letter to Albert pointing out that my employment status required resolution and accounts brought current. Albert did not respond to that letter. Instead, Albert did what Albert does best when confronted with an acrimonious situation: Hide out.

  3. And how does spreading around Albert's dirty laundry relate to your dispute? What does the Prince's private behavior have to do with your employment contract? Why bring the case to an American court? Why put up a blog and leave comments on others arguing your case if you are only interested in justice and not the least in publicity?

  4. Would have answered sooner, but just saw your questions:

    1. I was obliged by California's legal system to file a Verified Complaint. If you view its contents as "dirty laundry" well, phrases like that are in the eye of the beholder, but my Verified Complaint is a factual accounting of events.

    2. Again, the need for a Verified Complaint is a California requirement; the Prince's behavior was entwined in the service I was paid to perform.

    3. You answered this yourself: I could not possibly receive a fair trial in Monaco. Fortunately, I have grounds to argue that California is an appropriate jurisdiction.

    4. I put up a blog to refute the lies being announced by others pertaining to this case e.g.

  5. And yet you have said nothing about what the California legal system has to do with this at all. And there's no "eye of the beholder" issue here; an alleged employment contract has nothing to do with the Prince's personal behavior. He could be swinging from the chandeliers with 5 hookers and it would have no bearing on any contract with those who work for him. Are you claiming the Prince hired someone to spy on himself?!

    Why not explain it then if you are so worried about the truth? Explain why California is an appropriate jurisdiction in a legal dispute between two foreign nations which was allegedly signed in a foreign country. If you are worried about lies being spread, and you are telling the truth, why not simply present the evidence in court and let it come out then? At least present some evidence other than your word which could be verified by independent parties. Do you really think you're going to win a PR-war with the Prince of Monaco via a weblog? If so, I'm afraid you're doing to be disappointed.

  6. Presenting the evidence is in court is precisely what I have set out to do.

    Please refer to the Verified Complaint. It necessarily stipulates why California is an appropriate jurisdiction.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...