Miss Pennsylvania may be beautiful on the outside, but her anger after failing to win the title of Miss U.S.A. in 2012 showed that her beauty was only skin-deep.
Sheena Monnin, from Cranberry Township in Pennsylvania, competed seven times before winning her state title and the opportunity to compete in Donald Trump’s Miss USA pageant.
But apparently it was not what she expected. According to Ms. Monnin, during the pageant another contestant advised her that she had seen a written list of the top five winners before the judges made their announcement the following day.
Relying on this information, Miss Pennsylvania publicly accused Mr. Trump of rigging the competition as she renounced her state title, declaring that the contest was “fraudulent, lacking in morals, inconsistent and in many ways trashy.”
Unfortunately for Ms. Monnin, the other contestant denied the statement attributed to her and Mr. Trump sued for defamation.
An arbitrator found in favour of Trump in December 2012 and awarded him the sum of $5 million dollars. Ms. Monnin appealed and yesterday the Court dismissed Ms. Monnin’s appeal and confirmed that she was on the hook for the payment awarded by the arbitrator.
It was revealed during the arbitration proceedings that Ms. Monnin was also unhappy about Donald Trump’s decision to allow a transgendered competitor in the race for Miss Universe, namely, Canada’s Jenna Talackova.
Mr. Trump’s lawyer advised the media that he intends to take every step required to collect the money from the disappointed beauty queen, while she has stated that the payment will financially devastate her.
Despite her loss Ms. Monnin said:
“I was hopeful for a different outcome, but I am pleased that the true nature of the Miss USA judging procedure has been exposed by the testimony of the Miss Universe Organization (MUO) and Ernst & Young during the arbitration proceedings—testimony that reveals that the MUO does select the top 15 contestants irrespective of the preliminary judges’ scores”.
The moral of the story? Be very careful what you say, particularly if your target is a billionaire with a huge ego.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Lawdiva's Blog 
I am in a quandary over this. The evidence suggest a balance of hearsay.Let’s say it was a wash, one says this, the other party denies. The Pageant got increased value in media exposure. Why would the Pageant want to add pain to one’s possible confusion unless they wanted more media exposure?
If Mr. Moneybags has a brand to protect, he is going to be aggressive to defend the investment. This is not politics, where often the media and political opposition against an office holder, just make things up to get attention and momentum their way. A politician can’t sue and defend in an ordinary way. Perhaps people forget that they can’t get away with stuff in the private sector when a lot of money is at stake, as compared to the open season of lies there is in the political arena.