ZG Hires Attorney - Lawsuit Against Casey Anthony Part 2

[Brini]

All I am trying to say here is the statute for Libel states:
836.09 Communicating libelous matter to newspapers; penalty.--If any person shall state, deliver, or transmit by any means whatever, to the manager, editor, publisher or reporter of any newspaper or periodical for publication therein any false and libelous statement concerning any person, then and there known by such person to be false or libelous, and thereby secure the publication of the same he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.

And she did not bring it to them. I believe this is the first point the defense will put into play.

That is only ONE point of the law, however. That's what I mean when I say that you are liniting yourself to direct publication to the media.

 

[Brini]

I fully understand the cultural ussage of hispanic naming conventions. I am well read I have even posted several links here on this forum that explain this in great detail, that aside I don't know for a fact what her "full" name is, there is much confusion in this area and if it is important that Casey used ZFG and not ZG and if this persons name is really only ZG or ZCG as some have mentioned then again how can the masses confuse her by name alone to this case. This will be a very important fact for the defense.

Plus I was meerly responding to questions asked.

The name is one of a few indicators of a specific person. The masses apparently DID identify ZFG by those indicators, as received from the ONE witness, KC.

 

[justbetweenus]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I do agree with others that feel, it was Cindy searching ZG on the 16th. That said...am I the only one that feels that Casey came out with the ZG name on the spur of the moment...when asked by police?

Remember in Lee's interview he states that Casey showed fear, when he told her that the police would make her take them to Caylee to be sure she was safe. Casey felt all she'd have to say is that Caylee was safe with the nanny. I really don't believe she searched out any ZG before or after Caylee's disappearence. She needed a full name for Zany when asked by police, and came out with this one. I know...I'm likely the only one.....LOL

 

[LinasK]

From another thread:

That's true. The term "person of interest" grew out of the defamation Richard Jewell suffered during the investigation of the park bombing in Atlanta. Being named a suspect and targeted for speculation regarding his involvement amid a variety of suspicions and aspersions discussed in public ruined his young life. He was cleared but couldn't find the emporium to get his reputation back. Far from being guilty, he had tried to give assistance the night of the bombing. To avoid media getting hold of a freighted term like suspect & running with it, the term is avoided when there is doubt. LE has no doubt about their suspect at this time, claiming she is the only suspect in the disappearance of her daughter.

Casey named ZF-G as a suspect in this case! ZF-G's reputation has been ruined, much like Richard Jewell's.

 

[jandkmom]

I agree with you on all points. I think that the family probably said just tell the police where she is and it would all be over, and she said with the IN, never thinking that they would actually ask her to take them to the IN. KC probably wouldn't tell her mom specifics at that time about the IN and CA or someone in the family decided to use the computer and search for the IN. Nobody for the last two years had questioned her on specifics and she was not expecting then either.

I haven't read this whole thread, but I do agree with others that feel, it was Cindy searching ZG on the 16th. That said...am I the only one that feels that Casey came out with the ZG name on the spur of the moment...when asked by police?

Remember in Lee's interview he states that Casey showed fear, when he told her that the police would make her take them to Caylee to be sure she was safe. Casey felt all she'd have to say is that Caylee was safe with the nanny. I really don't believe she searched out any ZG before or after Caylee's disappearence. She needed a full name for Zany when asked by police, and came out with this one. I know...I'm likely the only one.....LOL

 

[Friptzap]

That is only ONE point of the law, however. That's what I mean when I say that you are liniting yourself to direct publication to the media.

i never limit myself, I have spoken about other point in the law before, However I am not going to repeating them over and over, this is meerly the first point in law I feel the defense will start with, and it is a key point.

If the problem derived from the information being in the media then that is the first place defense will start with.

I wish they could find a different law to file this suit on, this just has too many holes if you ask me. That is the only reason I feel they may fail. And I do think Casey is guilty of doing something I just don't think this is the right law to base it on.

 

[Friptzap]

The name is one of a few indicators of a specific person. The masses apparently DID identify ZFG by those indicators, as received from the ONE witness, KC.

Very true. But it is one of the indicators. Zani the Nanny would be another indicator, does this person go by that name? No. So that indicator is also in favor of Casey.

Seriously, I hate defending her but I am meerly defending the freedom of speech here..... That is what I fear most if this case succeeds, that we all loose some rights. This is just the wrong statute to file with. I cannot believe a lawyer cannot find something stronger to charge her with. Honestly it sounds like we need a new law to cover such instances.

 

[JBean]

Very true. But it is one of the indicators. Zani the Nanny would be another indicator, does this person go by that name? No. So that indicator is also in favor of Casey.

Seriously, I hate defending her but I am meerly defending the freedom of speech here..... That is what I fear most if this case succeeds, that we all loose some rights. This is just the wrong statute to file with. I cannot believe a lawyer cannot find something stronger to charge her with. Honestly it sounds like we need a new law to cover such instances.

what rights would we lose?

 

[justbetweenus]

I agree with you on all points. I think that the family probably said just tell the police where she is and it would all be over, and she said with the IN, never thinking that they would actually ask her to take them to the IN. KC probably wouldn't tell her mom specifics at that time about the IN and CA or someone in the family decided to use the computer and search for the IN. Nobody for the last two years had questioned her on specifics and she was not expecting then either.

Thank-you jandKmom!! I really appreciate you taking the time to respond. It can get pretty lonely over here in the corner, so it's nice to see someone else thinking the same as me.

Hope you and everyone else is having a great weekend!

 

[Friptzap]

what rights would we lose?

Freedom of speech. Would you make a comment to a police officer in the future (lie or truth) if that comment could be turned over to the media to find the culprit and then someone they think might match becomes a POI and they interview them and then they clear them but then the media decides to not let go and persues them and they start blaming her anyway, etc etc etc.....

I would fear a lawsuit just like this even if I was an innocent victim reporting a crime and some other person with a similar name was approached by the police and this all happened, thus my freedom of speech just became jepordized. That is the right you will loose. Freedom of Speech. This is why they won't touch the media they know every paper and broadcaster will stomp them into the ground for trying to trounce on this right. And that is exactly what they are trying to do, hoping nobody cares about Casey's freedom of speech, but if we do not protect hers we will loose ours.

Again I believe she is guilty of something here but I am not willing to loose my rights to watch her go down. I want the lawyers to find another statute to charge her with.

JM is a personal Injury lawyer not a civil liberties lawyer, he could care less about civil liberties. He is in the crude definition an abbulance chaser. If you or anyone you know have been injured.... are some of the frist words in his commercials here ;-) Personal Injury lawyers need to keep their buts away from civil liberties cases....

 

[amethyst221]

There is a whole body of case law out there on the subject of defamation dealing with whether and how a reference to the party claiming injury can be proven. I can't decide absolutely whether the plaintiff can do it or not, based on what I currently know of the facts. I just don't think it's clear as day that there is no chance. IF there is an initial defamatory statement about X Y-Z, the fact that the defamer thereafter keeps saying my nanny, or Xie, when the defamer speaks of her as a kidnapper, should make no difference to the viability of the claim.

As far as losing our rights? There is a lot of protection in the appropriate contexts even for libelous or slanderous speech. For many statements, there is an absolute privilege; for others, there is a qualified privilege, which can be lost if the defamatory statement is made in bad faith, with the wrong intent. I'm not sure what Fla. law is, but there is often a privilege for statements made in court, or in pleadings, maybe even a qualified privilege for some statements to LE. These can be raised as defenses to a claim.

 

[JBean]

Freedom of speech. Would you make a comment to a police officer in the future (lie or truth) if that comment could be turned over to the media to find the culprit and then someone they think might match becomes a POI and they interview them and then they clear them but then the media decides to not let go and persues them and they start blaming her anyway, etc etc etc.....

I would fear a lawsuit just like this even if I was an innocent victim reporting a crime and some other person with a similar name was approached by the police and this all happened, thus my freedom of speech just became jepordized. That is the right you will loose. Freedom of Speech. This is why they won't touch the media they know every paper and broadcaster will stomp them into the ground for trying to trounce on this right. And that is exactly what they are trying to do, hoping nobody cares about Casey's freedom of speech, but if we do not protect hers we will loose ours.
snipped...

I cannot even imagine for one minute that this case would impact our freedom of speech if ZG is successful. I think this case is unique and extreme.
I think there is certainly a case to be made, but a good lawyer will have to argue it well to be successful.

 

[Friptzap]

........
As far as losing our rights? There is a lot of protection in the appropriate contexts even for libelous or slanderous speech. For many statements, there is an absolute privilege; for others, there is a qualified privilege, which can be lost if the defamatory statement is made in bad faith, with the wrong intent. I'm not sure what Fla. law is, but there is often a privilege for statements made in court, or in pleadings, maybe even a qualified privilege for some statements to LE. These can be raised as defenses to a claim.

Exactly! So if this suit is won by JM then it sets a precidence and in the future the very things you mention above that protect us against these claims go bye bye. That is my fear. This case should not be won just to find Casey guilty of something. I do not feel the statute is appropriate and if it is won we will all loose some of our freedom of speech rights. Leave Civil Liberties Cases to Civil Liberties Lawyers!

 

[Friptzap]

I cannot even imagine for one minute that this case would impact our freedom of speech if ZG is successful. I think this case is unique and extreme.
I think there is certainly a case to be made, but a good lawyer will have to argue it well to be successful.

Oh I agree this case is unique, but if it is won it sets precidence, then Chilly Willy will think he can sue me and win when I was meerly talking about a cartoon character that gives me the shivers.... Now he even uses a Avitar of the actual cartoon character confusing the issue further I am doomed..... There goes my freedom of speech.

 

[JBean]

Oh I agree this case is unique, but if it is won it sets precidence, then Chilly Willy will think he can sue me and win when I was meerly talking about a cartoon character that gives me the shivers.... Now he even uses a Avitar of the actual cartoon character confusing the issue further I am doomed..... There goes my freedom of speech.

Hahaha right. that's cute.

Seriously, if you can create an comparison to analyze it I would be interested in hearing it.

 

[Blink34]

Respectfully Frip, there are a few issues in your post that are potentially misleading, my comments are bolded.

Freedom of speech. Would you make a comment to a police officer in the future (lie or truth) if that comment could be turned over to the media to find the culprit and then someone they think might match becomes a POI and they interview them and then they clear them but then the media decides to not let go and persues them and they start blaming her anyway, etc etc etc.....

KC did not comment, per se, she MADE AN ACCUSATION of a Federal Kidnapping charge during an interview with LE that she requested the asisstance of; several times ,I might add, during a taped interview. LE did not "turn her over to the press". The PI laws in Fla are what they are, and LE conformed to those absolutely, as they did for all those statements in the Affadavit. The only parties I have ever heard villify this person are the Anthony family, and one other recent article which is questionable at best.
Notably, LE has not released a taped interview of her.

I would fear a lawsuit just like this even if I was an innocent victim reporting a crime and some other person with a similar name was approached by the police and this all happened, thus my freedom of speech just became jepordized. That is the right you will loose. Freedom of Speech. This is why they won't touch the media they know every paper and broadcaster will stomp them into the ground for trying to trounce on this right. And that is exactly what they are trying to do, hoping nobody cares about Casey's freedom of speech, but if we do not protect hers we will loose ours.
I disagree with you and agree with you to a point. Legitimate media, to my knowledge, has not defamed this woman. Anyone lodging a specific allegation against her, where truth is not an absolute defense to it, needs to be concerned of trouncing on this woman's rights. I do not see how that tramples a person's right to free speech, I see how that protects people from hiding behind it like the green curtain in the wizard of OZ. You dont get to say anything you want about anyone in the 1St Ammendment "Bubble".
As to the part I agree with, the Media is way too nonchalant about what they quote and print.

Again I believe she is guilty of something here but I am not willing to loose my rights to watch her go down. I want the lawyers to find another statute to charge her with.

Which statute are you referring to?


KC gave MULTIPLE sworn statements to LE on this issue. That is not the equivalent of reporting from an innocent victim of a crime.
KC, and her family, in several taped interviews as well as the 911 call, freely mentions this woman. Several witnesses confirm hearing this woman's name for well over 6 months.


JM is a personal Injury lawyer not a civil liberties lawyer, he could care less about civil liberties. He is in the crude definition an abbulance chaser. If you or anyone you know have been injured.... are some of the frist words in his commercials here ;-) Personal Injury lawyers need to keep their buts away from civil liberties cases....

While I agree with you from what I have heard, on the ambulance chaser description based on profile, etc. However, as JM is a sworn officer of the court, member of the Fla Bar, it is not your call (or mine) to decide what a JD's area of concentration and proficicency should be. It is up to his Client. As an observation, JM is the most compelling Client representative I have seen to date, of all of the Atttorneys in this Beeehive. My former pick, has withdrawn from the case, Mike Walsh.

 

[Friptzap]

Hahaha right. that's cute.

Seriously, if you can create an comparison to analyze it I would be interested in hearing it.

I started to do that but remembered the Cartoon Character discussion and thought I would use it to wrap this bit up instead, I thought a new comparision was going to take a while lol and it's late.

I will see if I can make one tommorow when I have more time. I did one earlier on this thread about a "hockey player" too but I will try and make one that is more in line with the events here but from a "innocent" persons perspective and not from a "suspected to be guilty" persons perspective.

 

[amethyst221]

I can't comment about a lawyer I don't know, but a defamation claim is just a tort claim involving injuries that aren't physical. It isn't a simple car crash, but a competent lawyer can do research and learn and be creative within the bounds of the law. Or seek help from someone who is expert in the area.

Obviously, when you allow a person to protect their good name by means of a tort claim for money damages, which the law does, there will be some clash with the right to "free speech." That's why so many defamation cases have made their way from state courts to the US Supreme Court. That's where a lot of the law comes from. I don't see any danger that the filing of this particular case will do some horrible damage to our first amendment rights. If one of us goes out tomorrow to report a crime to LE, and to name names, we'll be free to do so, if we act in good faith -- even if we're mistaken. That isn't what happened with Ca here. Criminal defendants will still be able to go to court and blame third parties, to try to create reasonable doubt, with a privilege to do so. We aren't in some sensitive area where important public issues are being discussed or debated and that will be impeded. One total loser in trouble has borrowed the name of another innocent person to exonerate herself and blame the other for a serious crime against a small child. If she does this in a context where the privilege is absolute, she can do it with impunity. If the privilege is only partial and can be lost because of bad faith, so be it. It would be the same for anyone in a similar situation.

 

[JBean]

I started to do that but remembered the Cartoon Character discussion and thought I would use it to wrap this bit up instead, I thought a new comparision was going to take a while lol and it's late.

I will see if I can make one tommorow when I have more time. I did one earlier on this thread about a "hockey player" too but I will try and make one that is more in line with the events here but from a "innocent" persons perspective and not from a "suspected to be guilty" persons perspective.

No worries. The cartoon character isn't working,but I am sure you will come up something

 

[Friptzap]

Respectfully Frip, there are a few issues in your post that are potentially misleading, my comments are bolded....

....snipped....
KC did not comment, per se, she MADE AN ACCUSATION of a Federal Kidnapping charge during an interview with LE that she requested the asisstance of; several times ,I might add, during a taped interview. LE did not "turn her over to the press". The PI laws in Fla are what they are, and LE conformed to those absolutely, as they did for all those statements in the Affadavit. The only parties I have ever heard villify this person are the Anthony family, and one other recent article which is questionable at best.
Notably, LE has not released a taped interview of her.

I fully agree this has been the basis for my argument all along. But I do believe they finnaly released the taped interview from Universal, no?. They did release all the transcripts as well even from there, I have mostly stuck to reading those anyway.

I disagree with you and agree with you to a point. Legitimate media, to my knowledge, has not defamed this woman. Anyone lodging a specific allegation against her, where truth is not an absolute defense to it, needs to be concerned of trouncing on this woman's rights. I do not see how that tramples a person's right to free speech, I see how that protects people from hiding behind it like the green curtain in the wizard of OZ. You dont get to say anything you want about anyone in the 1St Ammendment "Bubble".
As to the part I agree with, the Media is way too nonchalant about what they quote and print.

I don't really disagree with that much at all. Allowing Casey to be sued in court and obtaining a win for ZFG based on the Libel statute is the only problem I have. I don;t think she should be allowed to get away with what she did but I do not believe this is the statute to use. Again I feel that is they win this will open flood gates for anything and everything someone says to a police officer can later be used against them in a court of law in a very similar case. Even if that person is innocent and was meerly discussing a car that was stolen and whom they think stole it "John Smith" how many John Smiths will be spoken to by police how amny will then sue this individual whom had his car stolen ebcause of the precidenc this case between ZFG and Casey set forth. JBean asked me to provide a "comparison situation" we can debate on, I will be trying that tommorow ;-)

Which statute are you referring to?

The only statute they are basing this suit on is Libel, Slander, Defamation of Character. I have posted several links to the State of Florida's website which allows you to view all of the statutes if you are interested in checking them out.

The two counts in this suit:
Count 1 Defamation <- this is the part I feel affects our rights. The Libel,Slander, Def. Statute is the only one I can see them using here and I do not see how it fits. (My arguments so far have been based on this main point)
Count 2 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress <- I don't see how they can prove this since Casey used information obtained from "somewhere" for her fake story and admitted this person is not her nanny. Did she intentionally find/steal/over hear this womans information and intentionally use it in her fake story? I believe so yes. But how does this fit a statute. I do not even know what statute they are using to apply here.

KC gave MULTIPLE sworn statements to LE on this issue. That is not the equivalent of reporting from an innocent victim of a crime.
KC, and her family, in several taped interviews as well as the 911 call, freely mentions this woman. Several witnesses confirm hearing this woman's name for well over 6 months.

Again I basically agree here, except Casey was refering to her "fake" Nanny not this person. They have been hearing the name Zani not ZFG. There are so many parts to this that the defense will pick apart. That aside if we allow the case to win based on this what happens to all fictional stories? Basing a case on Libel is a civil liberty and I can see how this can be used in the future as precidence for other cases where an author writes a story with a name that happens to be similar to someone else or someone give a real witness statement to the police and that real name they give gets published in the paper and several people with similar names end up in a similar situation. I want Casey to be found guilty of something but I am not willing to see this case be used to possibly limit my freedoms down the road. I just want them to find a more appropriate law. If this case was not so public it may not have any affect on us down the road (still could but maybe not) But as public as this case is even Lawyers in Texas are looking at issues with how Casey was arrested and how she was given bail etc and how those issues affect our rights, I feel this individual case also will affect our rights in the same manner.

While I agree with you from what I have heard, on the ambulance chaser description based on profile, etc. However, as JM is a sworn officer of the court, member of the Fla Bar, it is not your call (or mine) to decide what a JD's area of concentration and proficicency should be. It is up to his Client. As an observation, JM is the most compelling Client representative I have seen to date, of all of the Atttorneys in this Beeehive. My former pick, has withdrawn from the case, Mike Walsh.

Oh I fully agree on that, I just think he cares little about the aspect of civil liberties involved here.