DEFAMATION -- LIBEL: In Florida, Plaintiff Must Prove Falsity

Third District Court of Appeal ^ | March 28, 2003 | COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT

[Gringo1]

Especially good was when Jesse told the one guy to take a hike.

[honeygrl]

He made a statement to the public and it was posted onto a terri thread. Try google searching for it. It might even have it's own thread here. I think it was made Oct 20th, but i could be wrong.

[Calpernia]

>>>- the divorce court would insist on large pay in maintenance, and assign him 100% of those uncovered medicals.

The Schindlers just want their daughter back. Their Catholic marriage qualifies for an an Annulment.

The cancels the payments.

[Calpernia]

>>>>That would take more than promises from the parents - it would take a statutory rewrite that would affect thousands of cases for years.

Then an annulment.

[Calpernia]

>>>If people are spreading untruth and unchecked incorrect innuendo, then why shouldn't they shut up?

Shouldn't that be for the Schiavo side too?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

An RC church annulment is meaningless to civil separation or divorce, nor do civil statutes on annulment follow the same rules as curch annulment.

Thankfully.

[Sam Spade]

Here on the Internet, anything goes--and that seems to be what people use to gauge how laws should work, or how society should behave-probably why they are often surprised when real life won't cooperate.

Why is everything being posted on the Internet reminding me of musicals nowadays?

Cole Porter - Anything Goes

Times have changed
And we've often rewound the clock
Since the Puritans got a shock
When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
If today
Any shock they should try to stem
'Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,
Plymouth Rock would land on them.

Refrain 1

In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking.
But now, God knows,
Anything goes.
Good authors too who once knew better words
Now only use four-letter words
Writing prose.
Anything goes.
If driving fast cars you like,
If low bars you like,
If old hymns you like,
If bare limbs you like,
If Mae West you like,
Or me undressed you like,
Why, nobody will oppose.
When ev'ry night the set that's smart is in-
Truding in nudist parties in
Studios.
Anything goes.

Refrain 2

When Missus Ned McLean (God bless her)
Can get Russian reds to "yes" her,
Then I suppose
Anything goes.
When Rockefeller still can hoard en-
Ough money to let Max Gordon
Produce his shows,
Anything goes.
The world has gone mad today
And good's bad today,
And black's white today,
And day's night today,
And that gent today
You gave a cent today
Once had several chateaux.
When folks who still can ride in jitneys
Find out Vanderbilts and Whitneys
Lack baby clo'es,
Anything goes.

Refrain 3

If Sam Goldwyn can with great conviction
Instruct Anna Sten in diction,
Then Anna shows
Anything goes.
When you hear that Lady Mendl standing up
Now turns a handspring landing up-
On her toes,
Anything goes.
Just think of those shocks you've got
And those knocks you've got
And those blues you've got
From that news you've got
And those pains you've got
(If any brains you've got)
From those little radios.
So Missus R., with all her trimmin's,
Can broadcast a bed from Simmons
'Cause Franklin knows
Anything goes.

[Sam Spade]

Again? Damn...

[Sam Spade]

If people are spreading untruth and unchecked incorrect innuendo, then why shouldn't they shut up?

Because it's what makes posting at a forum like this entertaining. If we were limited to the facts only and couldn't have suspicions on this person and that, it would get awfully boring very quickly.

And, btw, who are you to tell me what's possibly true and what ain't.

I believe nothing about everything and everything about nothing.

[Notwithstanding]

palp, you might want to have another margarita before posting any more.

you seem to be at the stage where more liquor will clear your head.

[Notwithstanding]

Clearly when it comes to pyscho lawyerdom no one can match you.

[aristeides]

I wonder how someone who is so concerned about other people's posting untruths feels about having posted what are apparently untruths about Florida law.

[IncPen]

Notwithstanding likes to play act at psycho lawyerdom, but ain't the real thing.

Speaking of psycho lawyerdom, Chancellor, why won't you answer the questions I asked you (and also in FRmail before you fled) on this thread:

  DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER [Florida Law - FReepers Heed] ^

This is a fair question:

Please look at post #521 on this thread, and post #613, and answer the question.

Are you - or were you - known on FR as one_particular_harbour?

[harrowup]

I wonder how someone who is so concerned about other people's posting untruths feels about having posted what are apparently untruths about Florida law.

First CP claims that thousands of plaintiffs prevail in defamation cases, and now, (drum roll, please) he claims an RC annulment is meaningless as to civil divorce?

Does this nitwit really practice law somewhere?

[honeygrl]

The past comes back to haunt him.. he'll probably just go AWOL again.

[IncPen]

I'm not one for picking on weaklings, but this jerk put up a thread that was specious at best, dishonest at worst.

Screw Mr. Schiavo. I wonder if knowingly proffering bad legal advice (while pretending to the bar) is an actionable offense at the Florida bar? Hmm, Chancellor?

This is a guy who purports to have the best interests of all God's children in mind by offering FREE legal advice... which is intended only to stifle discussion and perhaps scare free speech out of a debate he was losing

Which wouldn't be so bad, if he didn't compound it by being a friggin' weasel and running away like a simpering schoolgirl when someone calls his bluff

Wanna see the freepmail from the other thread?

[honeygrl]

Sure! freepmail me a copy.. probably give me a good laugh.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

LOL - You're killing me here. You act like you want to be taken seriously, but then you actually believe that the RC annulment process has any bearing whatsoever with the statutory machinations of civil dissolutions?

[E.G.C.]

Here are my thoughts on the subject.

I actully wrote a letter to the editor to one of our local papers on this subject awhile back and it addressed the thin-skinnes of liberals, progressives and moderates whenever people say anything negative about them, just because it makes them feel uncomfortable, they always go to some judge that they buy off and scream defamation and that judge awards them excessive amount of money in damages.

This clearly makes a case for tort reform and why we need to vote those who are influenced by these ambulance chasers in 2004. Including a certain Senator from Alabama who voted with the ambulance chasers against ending a filibuster on the tort reform vote in the Senate.

Our first amendment like it or not gives people the right to address issues of public importance affecting them. No civil liability judgements or threats thereof or placing liens on homes is going to stop conservatives or christians from addressing issues of public importance or engaging in political activity related to these issues. No conservative or christian is going to allow himself or herself to be pushed into accepting any liability just because his or her speech or political activity causes certain protected individuals disconfort.

Yes some people have been made to feel uncomfortable by people's expressing opinions or engaging in political activity but uncomfortable does not qualify as actionable just because some liberal, progressive or moderate egghead or ambulance chaser or idiot in black robes says so.

There are plenty of places where people have the opportunity to address issues of public importance and engage in political acitivity. No one intenret message board or talkradio station or other soapbox owns exculsivity to this platform.

It all boils down to if you don't like what is being said or being done where you are, go pack your bags and move somplace else. The one thing America doesn't need or want right now is some Political Correct goof ball playing speech and thought police.
Regards.

[FITZ]

Yes --- maybe an annulment --- or maybe a rewrite of the laws so that when an adult is a financial burden on another adult, their right to live wouldn't have in danger because the other adult doesn't want the burden. Originally welfare and Medicaid were set up for people like Terri --- those unable to work but instead the billions we pay go to people who are perfectly capable of working but don't wish to work. That should change back too.