ZG Hires Attorney - Lawsuit Against Casey Anthony

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
beetrue said:
dumb. she couldn't get a job before this case. she can't get one now. and she is not the only zg in existence. RIDICULOUS.
Click to expand...

Heh heh... We'll see how dumb she is when she wins this lawsuit... :cow:
 
Friptzap said:
Give her a break? Who is not giving her a break? WE SUPPORT HER! we just do not feel she has a case, I feel bad about that fact but I feel that is the fact.

Yous asking us to just go away and not discuss a point in case? the Defense will not do that as easy lol, Seriously I feel she got a raw deal I just do not feel Casey can be blamed for it. But hey that is what a court of law is for aye?
Click to expand...


I supported her right from the start and got myself into a bit of hot water for it with the bloggers who continued to cast suspicion on her and were so determined to scrutinize her life. I wonder how many of those same bloggers are now holding Casey responsible for their own actions.
 
Chilly Willy said:
I supported her right from the start and got myself into a bit of hot water for it with the bloggers who continued to cast suspicion on her and were so determined to scrutinize her life. I wonder how many of those same bloggers are now holding Casey responsible for their own actions.
Click to expand...

I wonder that too....
 
Friptzap said:
You make it sound like the people that feel she will not win her case are against her and I take offense to that.

I hope she wins, I am just the type of person that can view things from boths sides objectively and I feel that while Yes Casey has implicated a ZG ZFG whatever, and this person who happens to go by this very name got caught in the flak happens to go by that very name and is now in the proccess of defending herself by stating she does not know her etc etc, and who has been cleared by poilce etc etc but not the media or the bloggers who ontinue the persuit that they feel she may really be involved....... deep breath....... Casey is not the one persecuting her and up front in the very beggining in fact said this. This fact and this fact alone will be in Casey's favor. She never had intent to implicate this person, the media and the bloggers etc etc are the ones implicating this person.

Thats simple really and again the people in the Jury room will be the ones to decide.

They will not be able to settle, she has nothing to settle for so they may as well go to trial. And she has claimed innocent to ALL current charges so why would she bother to settle this one?

It is really a futile effort IMHO. Now maybe after she loses, if she loses ZG can snag a mini series! OSOMTHNE
Click to expand...

Frip, I do apologize. My comment you quoted was made solely in reference to taking a bow for statments that had been made earlier. Kinda showing solidarity of thought? It was not my intention to disparage anyone. Truly. In my mind, if you hope Z wins, I categorize you as a pro-Z'er. And you are correct and I agree with you: KC is not the only one persecuting Z. Even posters on this board were, otherwise, we would not have been admonished by the mods. I believe I know what you mean by that, but let me ask you this: When was the first time you recall hearing the name Z, ZG, or ZF-G? I know when I did: when the words tumbled across KC's lips. Why did she say it? I don't know. How did she come up with the personal information? I have no idea, and am not even intelligent enough to come up with any conjecture on that. And you're right -- I don't foresee KC's attorney offering a settlement, since there is nothing to offer, and, since you so correctly pointed out, she has denied all other charges.

Bottom line, I think you and I think a lot alike. And once again, I apologize if my earlier comment offended you. That was not my intention.
 
Friptzap said:
Nobody is denying any of this. The police investigate people before they interview them etc etc. Anyway, my understanding from all that I have read is:

1. She lost her job before this happened. I do not think that employment, or lack thereof, is a necessary element of a claim for defamation.
2. Lee investigated her himself and gave some of this information to them regarding the car in particular.Perhaps Lee should be added as a party defendant.
3. I don't blame her for fighting back but I feel the person in the suit that she is blaming for these troubles is not to blame, the media and bloggers who blew this out of proportion are. Casey never pointed the finger at THIS person. She is an innocent victim of the press and internet junkies that persecuted her.We've got to agree to disagree on this one. I believe the starting point was KC, and it took on a life of its own from there. But still, the starting point was KC. Were it not for KC's original statement, there would have been nothing on which the press and internet junkies could have fed.
4. I HAVE ALWAYS supported ZG from the beggining please view ALL OF MY THREADS! I created a timeline thread and spent neumerous hours transcribbing the police documents for any and all ZANNY THE NANNY references in order to seek out the "actual" Zanny Casey used as a babby sitter and or find evidence on how/where Casey derived this fake name. I even susspect she indeed accuired it somehow from stealing this persons information from either Sawgrass itself or Myspace or both.I have read many of your posts. I'd would never say all; that would be a lie, and I make it a point to try and not do that!
5. I hope she wins. I do too, but you know that.
6. Please stop thinking that those of us who have a strong feeling that she wil lose are against her in any fashion many of us are not, we are just objectivley considering the claims and cannot see a win. Too much needs to be proven in the case against Casey and unless they overturn alot of evidence I cannot see how they can accomplish it. I apologized for my perceived insensitivity. But I will say it again. That was not, absolutely was not, my intention. You're an intelligent person. You can pick them out in the thread.
7. HO insurance? She may live there but it is to protect others from harm. They must prove intent of harm I just don't see it.I can only respond to this based off my own homeowner's policy. My policy covers all residents. By KC's own admission on the 911 tape, and the appearances that are presented, she is a resident, therefore, the policy may apply. And again, I'm not certain intent of harm is an element of proving defamation.
8. Unless you can show stronger evidecne other than repeating the same information over and over all of which many of us knew well before this thread started.... you will not convince anyone otherwise. Just as I am sure I will not convince you otherwise.The reason I keep repeating myself is because I think that what's out there is sufficient evidence. I'm looking at this from the plaintiff's perspective. That's all.
9. Please view this a little more objectively try and look at it from the other angle, this is even what lawyers do so they can defend against opposing council arguments. I see your angle 100% But there are strong arguments against them.I have tried for objectivity. I have looked at the opposing position. I applied my objectivity test. I won. What else can I say? :)
10. Challenge: PROVE Casey intended to speccificaly cause this person harm, don;t just come back and say she used her name, thats not intent of causing her harm. What did she have against this person? How did she know her in the first place to decide to cause her harm? These are just two questions to start anyone ff in seeking to prove this. I don;t think it is possible but please by all means try. If I thought it was myself I would honestly try, but I don't.I realize you've admonished me for repeating myself, yet you keep forcing me into the repetitive mode. I am not an attorney, but from what I do know of the law, I don't believe that intent to defame has to be proven by the plaintiff. Only that the defamation occurred. If I had to prove intent, could I? At this juncture, no.

AGAIN: I hope she wins I really do. I am all in favor of laying as many charges on Casey as possible atm because I HOPE she goes to jail on theft charges and they can postpone the child neglect until they get even stronger evidence for a possible murder charge. I really think Caylee is gone.I swear you've read some of my posts on other threads! I've said these exact things.

ABOVE ALL: I WISH to be proven wrong and that someone comes forward with Caylee alive and breathing!Only thing I would change in this statement is change 'wish' to 'pray.' And if that happens, I'll butt in line towards the front to offer up my apologies. Sadly, I don't see that happening
Click to expand...


I hope I answered all of these. It's hard to tell when I'm doing italics instead of bolding, but I didn't want anyone to think I was yelling or anything...

OK! Color me with the stupid crayon. When I was quoting, it didn't show your comments in italics. Makes it doubly hard to read my responses. Sorry, all.
 
karenmamo said:
Psychological damages? The old attorney guy claims she can not leave her house.
Damage to the kids too.
Click to expand...

in a civil case such as Libel etc it is supposed to be monitary damages. Pshyc damages would be more of a criminal offense.

This a more technical point than I can answer positivley though without doing more research. They still must prove intent.
 
beetrue said:
I am going to sue someone. I can not get a job or leave my house, because i am addicted to ws!!! ;p
Click to expand...

Please add me as a plaintiff with you. I expect we could establish quite a class action! Now, who exactly do we sue?
 
Friptzap said:
in a civil case such as Libel etc it is supposed to be monitary damages. Pshyc damages would be more of a criminal offense.

This a more technical point than I can answer positivley though without doing more research. They still must prove intent.
Click to expand...

In a civil case all ZG is required to do is prove that her testimony is true beyond a reasonable doubt. If she can convince 10 out of 12 jurors that her case makes sense, and she can back it up with facts, she will win this case...

G'night, all... :)
 
life of its own from there <- that's where the blame lay.

I'm not certain intent of harm is an element of proving defamation. <- It is I believe, search some of my posts for florida satutes, I believe I posted some regarding this, and some libel information from a few other sites on background of what must be proven.

I applied my objectivity test. I won. What else can I say? <- lol ;-)

I don't believe that intent to defame has to be proven by the plaintiff. Only that the defamation occurred. If I had to prove intent, could I? At this juncture, no.
<- I understand.

Thank you for the kind remarks and redacting the other statement :) I was more slighted than offended, but it was headed there lol. I think you were just getting heated and to us others, that feel bad for Z but don't think she has a strong case, it sounded like we were being made to feel like we were not supporting her when we really were. Honestly!

Short story:
My father was a police officer for my first 30 years in life. He always said that if he ever caught my mother stealing he would arrest her.

Get my morals from him... Sadly if I had become a police officer as well, I would have to say I would arrest my mother had I ever caught her stealing also. Not saying my mother was that type of person what so ever, just saying these are the morals I was raised on.

Point to this story is I can honestly step back in almost any situation and be fairly objective. Now mind you once I take a stand I can be very VERY stubborn about not changing my mind :)

Now if I were called to Jury in this case I would step down because if they did not present all the evidence I have seen and heard thus far I could not ignore my knowlege of them and it would create too much striff for any deccision from me.

On the other hand If I stayed and they did provide ALL of the evidence I have seen so far I could weigh it fairly against the information the judge would provide as to how we must make a decision.
 
Friptzap said:
In your analogy applied to THIS CASE this is how it works:
Chilly Willy looks you up on myspace right now, got all the information on you available, called police and reported someone named Zeeker78 as the kidnapper. The police go the the internet and find 7 or so people by the name of seeker78 and interview them, they then are given additional information on a specific seeker78 and interview him, his information matches alot of the information provided by Chilly Willy but they determine the YOU Seeker78 are not the one they are looking for and say thank you for your assistance and leave a card should you come up with any information that may help them in the case.

a week later you Seeker78 atart getting blogged about and the media is calling you and people are pounding on your door and your looking for a job but nobody will hire you because the media is laying claims you may be the one.

Wait? the police cleared you, the media chose to hammer you? how is this the fault of someone that claimed someone named Seeker78 is to blame, Chilly Willy does not know you never said YOU speciffically, the police even got a sworn statment from Chilly that he don;t know you, never met you nuthin! So how is it Chiily's fault? The media persecuted you the bloggers saught you out.

That is all we are saying here.

I say let Chilly fry because of all the trouble he caused in the first place but hey I don;t think a Judge/Jury will honestly agree.....
Click to expand...

You're leaving out a couple crucial things:

In the example, Casey uses the exact same name - the person suing is Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez, so Chilly would have used my exact name when naming me as a suspect.

He would have also said, "And oh, by the way, the last place I saw my child was at the same apartments another exact Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez was at not too long ago."

According to John Morgan, Zenaida's excellent attorney:

"We know this is the right one. They not only knew she was the right Zenaida, gave the names of her two children and type of car she drove. They knew the color of the car she drove. All given to them allegedly by Casey Anthony," Morgan said.

So could there be another Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez that drives the same type of car with the same names for her kids with the exact same name that was connected to the exact same place Casey said she last saw her daughter?

Probably. I could probably build a 10 story building made of cheese too. Neither one are realistic, though.

Zenaida - 1, Casey - 0
 
Ezryder9 said:
Frip, I do apologize. My comment you quoted was made solely in reference to taking a bow for statments that had been made earlier. Kinda showing solidarity of thought? It was not my intention to disparage anyone. Truly. In my mind, if you hope Z wins, I categorize you as a pro-Z'er. And you are correct and I agree with you: KC is not the only one persecuting Z. Even posters on this board were, otherwise, we would not have been admonished by the mods. I believe I know what you mean by that, but let me ask you this: When was the first time you recall hearing the name Z, ZG, or ZF-G? I know when I did: when the words tumbled across KC's lips. Why did she say it? I don't know. How did she come up with the personal information? I have no idea, and am not even intelligent enough to come up with any conjecture on that. And you're right -- I don't foresee KC's attorney offering a settlement, since there is nothing to offer, and, since you so correctly pointed out, she has denied all other charges.

Bottom line, I think you and I think a lot alike. And once again, I apologize if my earlier comment offended you. That was not my intention.
Click to expand...

holy crap I feel like I'm looking at an eye chart lol
 
I really hope she succeeds so they cannot profit from Caylee's disappearance/death
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 162 more.
Total: 1,814 (members: 163, guests: 1,651)

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
1,651
Total visitors
1,814
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,082
Messages
18,198,237
Members
233,731
Latest member
Kimmyann4141
Back
Top