bestill
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 9,007
- Reaction score
- 65,979
Lawsuit is moving forward!
Yes, but you said "he removed her shoes."It’s actually in this thread somewhere that her boots were found near her sorry for the late response
BOOM!!
Perhaps they just want to make sure they are provided access to everything that could give them the truth, as much as is possible, about what happened to their daughter and why. I can't imagine knowing the lawyers had the notebook, letters, etc. but not being able to see copies. Maybe there is other evidence. I'm surprised by the multiple comments criticizing this lawsuit; we aren't walking in their shoes.
Judge says this statement shows the Laundries did not merely just stay silent. They spoke through this statement. And it allows for the Petitos argument that they were misled (Petitos claim Laundries knew Gabby was dead at that time). And being misled caused suffering.
Judge writes:
"If the facts of this case truly were about silence with no affirmative act by the Laundries,
the Court would have resolved this case in the Laundries’ favor on the concept of legal duty..."
"But they did not stay silent."
Lawsuit is moving forward!
And if they do prove that what happens to the L's, can they be charged for obstruction?Now it will be up to the P's to prove that the L's knew about GP's death at the time that their attorney made this statement on their behalf.
And if they do prove that what happens to the L's, can they be charged for obstruction?
Judge says this statement shows the Laundries did not merely just stay silent. They spoke through this statement. And it allows for the Petitos argument that they were misled (Petitos claim Laundries knew Gabby was dead at that time). And being misled caused suffering.
Judge writes:
"If the facts of this case truly were about silence with no affirmative act by the Laundries,
the Court would have resolved this case in the Laundries’ favor on the concept of legal duty..."
"But they did not stay silent."
Agree. It doesn't amount to more than this.It's a very narrow and conditional ruling, IMO. In effect he's reaffirming that the plaintiffs must prove their case.
Good point. This might be an issue as the case moves forward.SB is not a member of the Florida Bar, he is a member of the NY Bar, if I'm understanding it correctly. As I reflect on it now the L's never had a Florida attorney speak on their behalf at all. I am wondering if that will be an out for them in this Florida lawsuit. Just musings on my part.
BBMSince it is not SB who is representing the L's as attorney for the civil lawsuit, I wonder if the attorney who is representing the L's can say that SB spoke out of turn, without consulting his clients when he made that statement. He would have to throw SB under the bus, and the L's would probably have to file a complaint with the state Bar in Florida, and maybe even file a lawsuit against SB. It does happen that lawyers can get ahead of themselves, say things that don't represent the clients' view or position, and this may be the case here.
The L's could claim, and perhaps rightly so, that they gave SB permission to make a statement that they hoped GP would be found, whether alive or deceased, and the term "reunited" with her family if found deceased was SB's choice of words and was not what the L's intended when they gave SB permission to release a statement.
I guess it all depends on what evidence the P's can show at trial. The two sides still have the option to settle.
I don't think that is what the Judge is saying. The 'facts' in the complaint need to be backed up by evidence (now at trial) to make the statement by Bertolino 'outrageous'. The Judge has to take the statement in the complaint as 'facts' - but the P's need to provide evidence at trial that they are indeed facts.So, it would seem that the judge is saying the the Bertolino statement was "outrageous"... within the context of the hearing - in which the judge must take all the plaintiff's statements as truth. That would include, assertions that the defendants did absolutely know of the death and other related aspects. It's a very narrow and conditional ruling, IMO. In effect he's reaffirming that the plaintiffs must prove their case.
Also, should this case be successful incorporating this judge's comment, it would seem to me that it could result in more absolute silence of those that "know stuff.' 'cuz then it's hazardous to say a little bit. One would pretty much have to say all or nothing. Be careful for what you wish is the phrase that again comes to mind.
Yes, the judge is not confirming that SB's statement on behalf of the family was "outrageous," he is simply using the term that was used by the P's in their lawsuit and indicating that they can move forward with this claim, and now it is up to the P's to (1) provide evidence to show that the L's knew that Gabby was deceased at the time of that statement and (2) that the statement must be interpreted to mean that GP would be alive when found and reunited with her family, and (3) that the statement was intended to mislead, and (4) that the average person would find this statement to be "outrageous" (the P's term) if #2 and #3 were proven to be true.So, it would seem that the judge is saying the the Bertolino statement was "outrageous"... within the context of the hearing - in which the judge must take all the plaintiff's statements as truth.