ZG Hires Attorney - Lawsuit Against Casey Anthony Part 2

[amethyst221]

Just for discussion's sake, I agree that this is not the most straightforward defamation claim ever to come down the pike, but I just don't totally dismiss it or maybe some OTHER tort claim. Let's just assume that I know or have learned/ researched that in my town, there is a person named X Y-Z. When trying to save my booty from being charged with a serious crime, I say I didn't do it, but X Y-Z did, along with her other miscreant family members (sis, tots, etc.). That is downright naughty of me to accuse them of crimes and thrust them into the public spotlight, because I know there are people out there named that and others are going to start looking at them funny. It's forseeable they will be in for some trouble. So if you are one of the 4 X Y-Z's in our town, you would have a right to be extremely upset with me. If you try to pursue a legal remedy, so be it. Supposedly, for every wrong there is a remedy.

The fact that there are other potential defendants that the plaintiff hasn't sued for their "publications" or republications of the alleged defamation is an interesting issue. Ca set things in motion, and her official spokesperson/attorney has repeated the story in public. Some members of her family continue the public flogging of the name, even though we've now seen them, face to face with LE, say maybe the whole thing is a lie or partial lie. Has there been a sufficient retraction? I do agree that this lady was a private person when this started, so the standard for liability will be less than reckless disregard of the truth.

Maybe it's strategic. Maybe at least it might stop the accusations from coming, if a body was ever found, maybe near a park, that X Y-Z did it. But I ramble, so enough.

 

[amethyst221]

My definition of a rank opportunist who'd leave all other opportunists in the dust would be someone who made money from her daughter/granddaughter being missing and likely dead.

 

[IrishSweetOne]

My definition of a rank opportunist who'd leave all other opportunists in the dust would be someone who made money from her daughter/granddaughter being missing and likely dead.

I was just going to say something simular , I couldn't agree with you more. :clap::clap:

 

[Chilly Willy]

Has anyone been able to verify whether ZG actually has the middle initial of C rather than F?

 

[Busylady]

I don't think the F is a middle name it think it is part of her last name.

Has anyone been able to verify whether ZG actually has the middle initial of C rather than F?

 

[IrishSweetOne]

Has anyone been able to verify whether ZG actually has the middle initial of C rather than F?

Chilly the F is also a last name ...........2 last names but just because it's F G doesn't mean she has to use F G . She could still sign just G if she choose to .

 

[Chilly Willy]

Chilly the F is also a last name ...........2 last names but just because it's F G doesn't mean she has to use F G . She could still sign just G if she choose to .

Okay, let me rephrase the question. The site that interviewed her claimed that F is not part of her name at all, that C is. Has anyone been able to verify that?

 

[Busylady]

I have not found anything with C in her name. I do record with an O for a middle name.

Okay, let me rephrase the question. The site that interviewed her claimed that F is not part of her name at all, that C is. Has anyone been able to verify that?

 

[Ezryder9]

The fact that there are other potential defendants that the plaintiff hasn't sued for their "publications" or republications of the alleged defamation is an interesting issue. Ca set things in motion, and her official spokesperson/attorney has repeated the story in public. Some members of her family continue the public flogging of the name, even though we've now seen them, face to face with LE, say maybe the whole thing is a lie or partial lie. Has there been a sufficient retraction? I do agree that this lady was a private person when this started, so the standard for liability will be less than reckless disregard of the truth.

<<snipped>>

Very thought provoking post, Amethyst. I wonder if the most logical potential defendants might not be George and Cindy -- more Cindy, though, since they continue to use the Z name. Even as recently as Cindy's interview that a lot of us listened to, Cindy's now saying, well, Jesse or Amy may be Z. Z's name is still out there. I firmly believe that with KC giving LE enough information that LE contacted Z, and not the other way around, that this Z has every right to proceed, and hopefully prevail, on her defamation claim. On the earlier thread to this, it kept being said that the bell can't be unrung and the snowball rolling downhill keeps getting bigger. Both the ringing of the bell and the formation of the snowball were at KC's hands.

And not responding to you, but to earlier posts, Z is not suing the A's homeowner's policy. If so, they would be named as party defendants. I believe what the A's would do would be to file a claim with their homeowner's policy to pay any judgment that might be rendered. Which also feeds into why I suspect we'll see G&C added as defendants.

 

[Ezryder9]

Has anyone been able to verify whether ZG actually has the middle initial of C rather than F?

Chilly, I suspect JM did obtain identification from ZFG, before he filed suit on her behalf. Most attorneys who have a new client, previously unbeknownst to them, ask for some identifying documents. It doesn't bode well for them to not have that information. And the docs I read (that were cited on one of the media links, you know, the little print?) stated the plaintiff's name as ZFG.

 

[Tate]

That dog don't hunt, honey.

Defamatory lies ------------> reckless disregard for consequences ------------> public exposure -----------> proof of harm. All this within the context of "reasonable man."

Would the average Joe Six-Pack be persuaded that THIS ZFG was THE ZFG:?

THAT is the test. That's why I predict the courts will find for ZFG.

I agree...

 

[Tate]

My definition of a rank opportunist who'd leave all other opportunists in the dust would be someone who made money from her daughter/granddaughter being missing and likely dead.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[Brini]

And the boat you base these claims on don't float. The statute they are trying to sue her on are not the correct ones for the crime. I have no doubt Casey did something wrong, I just want JPM to base this suit on a statute that holds more water. He has a pefect case against the media, TEHY CANNOT REPEAT SOMEONE ELSES DEFAMATION etc etc etc and hold no LIABILITY. If as you say Casey is the one at fault here then they are equally liable for publishing her claims and for their continuation of seeking this person out trying to find her at fault, yeah now they jump on her bandwagon but in the beggining they were guilty.

Why does he not go after them? Freedom of speech and he knows this suit holds no water because of it. If he cannot win a case against them he will not win one against her unless he finds a stupid jury he can blindside with hatred towards her because of what she is being accused of doing to her daughter. The press cannot claim freedom of speech for printing Casey's lies if she is supposed to be guilty here, Casey cannot be blammed for them printing her lies because she TOLD the police this person was not the one and she did not ASK them to print anything. Read the statutes they are very clear to me in that Casey NEVER said anything publicly she cannot be held responssible because the media took her police report and printed, or repeated in in tv or radio news and for the simple fact that she never meant this person in her remarks.

I admit and HAVE ALWAYS STATED, even months ago when many people even on this forum were trying to claim this ZFG should be a suspect, that Casey has to have stolen this womans information and used it in her made up story about her fake nanny. That said find a real law to use against her, this one is just not strong enough to succeed in my opinion.

Now that is my opinion, and unless you can provide another law on which Casey can be found guilty all we are going to do is repeat the same debate arguments over and over, you have provided no details that will ever convince me otherwise.

We'll see, ;-) Don't put any money on that, honey!

 

[Brini]

I am asking for a link from the other poster who said she was fired BEFORE being blammed...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Friptzap
she was fired before this all happened.

Provide a link please..because everything reported is to the contrary...
__________________

I see. I think I misunderstood you, Princess. Sorry!:blowkiss:

 

[Brini]

She filed a criminal complaint with A ZFG's name she allready said after police asked her it was not THIS ZFG. As you are admitting. Casey never released anything to the media and she never wrote anything in the paper about this crime, she cannot be held responsible for the media twisting this all out of proportion based on the law they are using to charge her with. PLEASE I want someone to find a law that CAN be used so she CAN win a case against Casey, but I do not feel this case will win basing it on the laws they are trying to base it on. Just because we discussed this before does not mean I ever agreed with you.

There is enough doubt here in this thread alone to prove that there will be just as many people in the jury on both sides of this argument, I wish it were not true and I hope they get some really dumb people that will find for ZFG but I have been in a jury pool and they are not all stupid people.... Which honestly is a good thing or I would think our justice system was a total failure.

And, when I forced a retraction of a PRIVATE article, I was able to do based on the advice that BOTH side's counsel gave that I had a valid libel claim.

Slander or libel do not have to go to the media in order to be legally considered same. Nor, does one have to have stolen information, or have one's identity stolen or used.

The media did not originate the claim that ZFG stole the child. KCF continued to create stories re: ZFG, until, recently.

You are overlooking (persistently) two things: 1) the definition of "make public" is NOT limited to the media. It means to speak or write it, where another can hear or read it, and it results in damages. 2) the reasonable man test.

You can be sued for slander if you tell your boss a co-worker is a drunk and shouldn't be promoted, in the privacy of your office. If it is untrue, and caused damage to said co-worker's career, you can be successfully sued. You can be sued for libel, if you write it down.

Authors have been successfully sued when they have created fictional characters who are deemed close enough to real people to be thought to represent them in a denigrating way.

One more time-- the media and the bloggers did NOT create Zanny the Nanny, and use ZFGs three names, presence at the Sawgrass, and racial background to the point where ZFG was persecuted. KC did.

ZFG does not have to have been described by KC down to the same blood type, to get KC out of a slander claim or judgement.

The ABC defense (anybody but KC) does hot apply, here.

 

[suzet]

My definition of a rank opportunist who'd leave all other opportunists in the dust would be someone who made money from her daughter/granddaughter being missing and likely dead.

I agree. I am against anyone making money off of this case, including ZG.

 

[Brini]

I was just going to say something simular , I couldn't agree with you more. :clap::clap:

And, I agree with you and amethyst.

A woman who is trying to clear her name, which was besmirched by a criminal, does not qualify as "opportunist," IMHO.

 

[karenmamo]

I agree. I am against anyone making money off of this case, including ZG.

What I really like about this: All the Anthony clan might be sworn in and questioned.
I like that part....I REALLY do.:clap::clap::clap::clap:

And I think that is the reason this attorney is taking the case. He has stayed informed all along and is probably as frustrated as many of us. IMO

 

[JBean]

Hopefully there is no ZG bashing in here..right?

 

[Tate]

Hopefully there is no ZG bashing in here..right?

Not yet, but give it time...