Skip to comments.Judge rules against George Zimmerman in NBC lawsuit
Posted on 06/30/2014 7:15:48 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda
Judge rules against George Zimmerman in NBC lawsuit Zimmerman claimed defamation in edited 911 call
SANFORD, Fla. - A judge on Monday ruled against George Zimmerman in a defamation lawsuit he filed against NBC Universal over edited 911 calls made after Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in 2012.
In the ruling, Judge Debra S. Nelson said, "There are no genuine issues of material fact upon which a reasonable jury could find that the Defendants acted with actual malice."
(Excerpt) Read more at clickorlando.com ...
The same judge as the trial? Talk about the fix is in.
This is a lying “judge.” Tar and feathers are in order.
This ruling goes against all logic. NBC fired the person responsible. They admitted malice aforethought. Ballots will not fix what’s wrong with this country.
Actual Malice is only required in a case of libel or slander against a “public figure”.
Not surprised. George needs to get on with his life. It seems like the police are leaving him alone and the media has gone on to something else. George needs to go and continue his life out of the limelight. He gave it a try and failed (the lawsuit). Now it is time to close this chapter and start a new one.
Tell me about, this ZImmerman can’t win for losing with this bias b*tch. What he should do is file suit in New York city, corporate headquarters of NBC - NBC Universal. I believe that is where the audio tape was edited as well. Don’t know if he will have any better luck being that NYC is another sewer of leftist schmuckos, but it wouldn’t hurt to try. Either way, this Orlando is corrupt as hell, he’s never going to get any justice down there.
It’s malice when they deliberately distorted the facts.
Can a white-Hispanic appeal the ruling?
I wouldn’t move on with my life until I got the maximum amount of revenge possible. Remember: This guy came *this* close to spending the rest of his life in jail because he had the audacity to defend himself from someone who was trying to kill him. Oh no no no, I would be spending every single last cent I had to see every last piece of human filth who tried to destroy my life was left broke and in the gutter.
Yes. I would have thought a different judge would have been on this case, especially given the likelihood liberals have threatened her.
This is a very rare ruling.
the real next step is to see which lawyers tried the cases and relationships with the judge. There will be indications of a fix.
The answer is simple, $$$$$ talks, the pressure of a favorable verdict would have damage the regime’s agenda. Since the alphabets are the voice of the regime, did you really expect a favorable verdict? Same judge too? I bet she’ll have some extra bucks coming soon for her campaign chest.(or home upgrade). ;0
In the mind of this judge it is necessary for the media to be able to disseminate false information when it supports liberal political agenda, or backs up the purpose of a radical politician; in this case the Obama/Holder cabal.
This ruling will be reversed on appeal. It’s a no-brainer.
Indeed. Assuming this is Orange/Seminole circuit court the appeal would go... where? To FL Supreme Court or would it to the Federal District. It should be appealed on the basis of the actual judge who should have recused herself. What a kangaroo biotch with political aspirations. Oh, and a porker to boot.
This is how the neo-socialist Crist FL would work— take note Freepers.
Imagine, having to defend yourself for defending yourself as proven already in a court of law. How is it that the judge did not recuse and kick this to a different docket?
This has changed rules of engagement for “volunteer” neighborhood watchers. It caused the police chief to be kicked out (improperly as well, and replaced with a dermatologically acceptable put up lib who cannot stop what FL state law allows... so far).
This is an example of what happens in a dictatorship when a Statist media (NBC is all of that, having been.. RCA, then GE, MicrosoftyNBC, then Comcast owned overall corporatists neo-socialist international corporatists who lickspittle to the leftist admin).
To wit: check with expat Venezuelans to understand that chavez et al controlled all media, all media to the moron voters of marxist one party persuasion, who were against the “ownership” class at every turn. Who seized private farmer’s properties at the force of a junta military. Just like... Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, and ... Cuba.
The sharpton,jackson obamaumao meme is not holding up in face of actual facts. In a more developed media/Statist partnership, Z would not have had a trial, and they would have televised his lynching. Good marxists all. It is appalling.
OK so the key element was acting with malice— got that. But how about a media that materially altered publicly available tapes to influence justice and a locally selected jury. This would be.. what? Not malice, but they first said they didn’t alter then they did— so perjury.
Gotta say that Z is not without flaw, but a citizen is due fair treatment. How different is this than if by some cultural reversal NBC “edited” the facts of a black on white shooting (which all media has been suppressing reportage of, for sometime). This is a litmus strip test of what is happening in the “ruling” media elites and their “consensus” agenda that is NOT the law or the facts. For tv ratings?
What is interesting is that Zimmerman could have sued in pretty much any state in the country since NBC published the defamatory story in every state. His lawyer should have picked a more friendly venue in another district in Florida or another state.
He could have sued in New York to start with, but once you sue and lose, you can't start over in another jurisdiction. (Google "res judicata.")
Dont know if he will have any better luck being that NYC is another sewer of leftist schmuckos, but it wouldnt hurt to try.
The reason he didn't sue in New York was probably that New York, being the media capital of the country, has incredibly defendant-friendly libel laws.
Judge Debra S. Nelson of the 18th Circuit Court of Florida was the fourth judge to preside over the case. Nelson had been a judge for thirteen years, much of it handling criminal matters. Before becoming a judge she had worked in civil litigation. Nelson succeeded Judge Kenneth Lester on August 30, 2012, after a Florida appeals court ruled that remarks he made about Zimmerman could make a reasonable person believe Lester was biased against Zimmerman. Lester had taken over the case in April 2012, after Judge Jessica Recksiedler recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest involving her husband's work.
At a pretrial hearing on April 12, Judge Mark Herr ruled that the affidavit was legally sufficient to establish probable cause. Court documents, including witness statements and other information, were sealed at the request of the defense team, and Zimmerman's arraignment was scheduled for May 29. Zimmerman took the witness stand at a bail hearing on April 20 and told the parents of Martin he was "sorry for the loss of your son". Zimmerman was released on a $150,000 bond and was fitted with an electronic monitoring device for monitoring his whereabouts in real-time. Zimmerman's attorney waived Zimmerman's right to appear at the arraignment and entered a not guilty plea on his behalf.
Though I despise Judge Nelson, and think she should have recused herself from any case involving Zimmerman, libel law is severely flawed and needs to be changed. Why is evidence of “malice” required under the law, when it is obvious that NBC intended to benefit itself by deliberately and knowingly broadcasting evidence NBC falsified, that exploited and greatly harmed an individual? Did NBC harm Zimmerman or not? If a drunk driver kills someone, is he immune from responsibility because he lacked malicious intent against the victim? The networks made beaucoup money off this case, and had a corrupt interest in hyping it into existence.
I suspect that Nelson is correct that there is no evidence that NBC acted out of malice towards GZ. Absent some sort of “I’m going to get that sucka” declaration, what evidence could there be? I doubt that they felt any. As true believers in PC fantasies, they see perfidy and libel for “the greater good” (as they define it) as altruism, not malice. To NBC staff, GZ was just an opportunity. They could get career points by pursuing NBC’s leftist politics (gun control/anti-self defense/stirring up racist animosity), and promoting the false idea that “whites” hunt down and murder black children. Isn’t presenting sensationalized false information for politics and ratings exactly what NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. do every day?
I think NBC totally acted out of malice. What is the legal definition of “malice”? One party intending to do harm to another. You don’t think willfully, knowingly, purposely editing a tape to make Zimmerman appear racist is not malice? The guy could have spent the rest of his life in jail! If that is not the purest example of intent to harm, injure or cause distress to someone than I don’t know what is.
In criminal law. In its legal sense, this word does not simply mean ill will against a person, but signifies a wrongful act done intentionally, without just cause or excuse. Bromage v. Prosser, 4 Barn. & C. 255. A conscious violation of the law (or the prompting of the mind to commit it) which operates to the prejudice of another person. About as clear, comprehensive, and correct a definition as the authorities afford is that malice is a condition of the mind which shows a heart regardless of social duty aud fatally bent on mischief, the existence of which is inferred from acts committed or words spoken. Harris v. State, 8 Tex. App. 109. Malice, in its common acceptation, means ill will towards some person. In its legal sense, it applies to a wrongful act done intentionally, without legal justification or excuse. Dunn v. Hall, 1 Ind. 344. A man may do an act willfully, and yet be free of malice. But he cannot do an act maliciously without at the same time doing it willfully. The malicious doing of an act in- cludes the willful doing of it. Malice includes intent and will. State v. Bobbins. 06 Me. 328. For other definitions see Shannon v. Jones, 70 Tex. 141. 13 S. W. 477; Williams v. Williams. 20 Colo. 51. 37 Pac. 014; Smith v. Railroad Co., 87 Md. 48. 3S Atl. 1072; In re Freche (D. C.) 109 Fed. 621 ; Craft v. State, 3 Kan. 486; Lewis v. Chapman. 10 N. Y. 309; State v. Avery, 113 Mo. 475. 21 S. W. 193; State v. Witt. 34 Kan. 488. 8 Pac. 709; State v. Walker, 9 Houst. tDel.) 404, 33 Atl. 227; Cotton v. State. 32 Tex. 014; Com. v. Chance, 174 Mass. 245. 54 N. E. 551. 75 Am. St. Rep. 306. In the law of libel and slander. An evil intent or motive arising from spite or ill will; personal hatred or ill will; culpable recklessness or a willful and wanton disregard of the rights and interests of the per- ) MALICE son defamed. McDonald v. Brown, 23 R. I. 546, 51 Atl. 213, 58 L. R. A. 768, 91 Am. St. Rep. 659; Hearne v. De Young, 132 Cal. 357, 64 Pac. 576; Cherry v. Des Moines Leader, 114 Iowa, 298, 86 N. W. 323, 54 L R. A. 855, 89 Am. St. Rep. 365; Minter v. Bradstreet Co., 174 Mo. 444, 73 S. W. 668
The fix is in and it couldn’t be anymore blatant. This Judge should be REMOVED from the bench.
Courts love to redefine the meaning of ordinary words. This is the legal definition of "actual malice" in defamation cases where a public figure is the plaintiff ...
The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "actual malice" -- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
That's not the legal definition for defamation purposes.
A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.There is nothing in there about intending harm.
They *knew* the statement was false, the evidence being the two employees admitted they edited the original tape to make him appear racist. NBC fired them and apologized. The evidence is overwhelming the two employees acted out of malice. What this bitch is doing is using the excuse that NBC is separate from the two employees so malice cannot be proved which is baloney.
Brilliant that is, Yoda. A basis for the appeal. The liability of NBC to this is not removed by the removal of rogue employees.... just as Lerner and the IRS could not contain that scandal due to rogue agents in KY or wherever.
Corporate liability, in every sense, in the same way that corporations are the same as individual citizens.
And when you use one prong of the legal definition for "actual malice" that applies to defamation (knew it was false), the proof is self-evident.
I haven't read her opinion yet, but I do believe she holds malice toward Zimmerman, and I mean "malice" in the way that word is normally used. She hates his guts.
If this were the case, then could they have done 50 concurrent cases? (After all, the jurisdiction of every state court must obviously be that state; as the offense [of libel/slander] was carried out in each jurisdiction, the offense has an interest in each jurisdiction.) About the only
special case would be the jurisdiction wherein the actual editing took place, but that case would likely be
heavier as that's where the editing took place.
Sure, that might open up a can-o-worms as to 'legal' across states — but it'd be kinda fun to watch state-reactions across the board.
Have to choose just one venue, and the number to choose from is far greateer than 50 since there are far more than 50 U.S. District courts.
I figured that was the case.
Still, it's odd that they didn't go for where the editing actually happened as I think there's a bit more, er, relevance[?] because that's where the action occurred.
Thanks. That voids hope for legislative improvement of libel laws (short of an Amendment or the repeal of one).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.