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 ...
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.")
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.
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.
Judges
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.[18] 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.[19] 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.[20]
Pre-trial
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,[21][22] and Zimmerman's arraignment was scheduled for May 29.[23] 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".[24] Zimmerman was released on a $150,000 bond and was fitted with an electronic monitoring device for monitoring his whereabouts in real-time.[25] Zimmerman's attorney waived Zimmerman's right to appear at the arraignment and entered a not guilty plea on his behalf.[25]
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
http://thelawdictionary.org/malice/
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 ...
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
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.
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
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.
http://www.superpages.com/supertips/malice.html
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.