Judge throws out George Zimmerman's libel suit against NBC

Orlando Sentinel ^ | 06/30/2014 | By Rene Stutzman

[SeekAndFind]

A Sanford judge today put an end to George Zimmerman's libel suit against NBC Universal.

Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson ruled that the former Neighborhood Watch volunteer is entitled to no money from the media giant.

She issued a summary judgment in the network's favor, meaning that unless an appeals court reverses her, the case is now dead.

[MeganC]

Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson is a low-born gutter slut who routinely makes racist comments from the bench all while being either drunk or getting high in her chambers. And since she’s a public figure and I’m saying this with a smile and not with any malice she just has to suck it up.

Just like George does.

[mlo]

"Maybe you can take it on the cheek..."

Again, it doesn't matter if I approve or you approve. That's not the point. It's a matter of fact that this "Sovereign Citizen" stuff is made up nonsense. No government action, no matter how much we may dislike it, is going to make it a real thing. It's fiction.

[Neidermeyer]

How did she get elected judge in the first place?
*************************
To become a judge you typically have to be a failed lawyer looking for a steady gig and be willing to suck up to the AG.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

“Isn’t that Nelson a judge who was part of railroading George in the first place?
George should appeal.”

If this is the same judge, then George should not only appeal, but he should also consider suing his attorney for malpractice for letting this case be heard by that judge.

[CharleysPride]

Court system is too slow, takes this long too throw Zimmey out of Court!

Hell, he’s thrown two broads out to the curb in this time!

[Red in Blue PA]

If what NBC did is not considered libel, then what the hell is?

[Impala64ssa]

Proving once again, beauty is in the eye of the BEERholder. "I'm not dumb but I can't understand/ why she walks like a woman and talks like a man..."

[TChad]

APPEAL!

Andrew Branca's comments are here:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/06/zimmerman-libel-suit-against-nbc-thrown-out/

[Friendofgeorge]

Glad to hear it :)

[clintonh8r]

A real judge would have recused herself, and why didn’t GZ’s lawyers ask for a different judge? It was pretty clear that she was on “Tryavon’s side” throughout the trial.....

[DrDude]

His lawyers messed this up in the first place. Should have had Nelson removed immediately. I would bet Angela corey and her cronies are involved. Geo. Z was a nobody until the news put him in the headlines. How does this make him a public figure. Maybe he doesn’t have the same rights as the thug Trayvon. Equal Protection, I think not!

[lepton]

There the evidence that they knew what the originals said, and knew that they changed them to something else.

[nathanbedford]

If you think about it, libel and slander laws are an imposition by the state on someone's freedom of speech even though we are talking about a civil action between nongovernmental agents. Those laws exist before the First Amendment and it in some applications and in some jurisdictions understood that libel and slander were not protected by that amendment. The New York Times vs. Sullivan case raises the bar but only for public persons to prove slander or libel by requiring them to show malice.

The court justified this distinction in the application of libel and slander laws because it sought to protect robust debate where it counts most, on public issues which, presumably, are debated usually by public officials and public personas. A public person still has a right to collect if he can convince a jury that the utterance was not only false, and caused injury, but was malicious.

I don't have a problem with the way the court balanced these two competing interests of permitting individuals to protect their good name as well as encouraging robust public debate on public issues. I do have a problem when the person is barred from recovery by the very process which libels him.

[Eleutheria5]

Exactly. Even assuming that he really was a public figure, that itself shows malice. But he wasn’t a public figure. He didn’t ask to be made one. He resisted becoming one. Malice standard should not even apply, and even then, there it is.

[sport]

The fix was already in. That was just one of the excuses to dismiss it.

[Eleutheria5]

Naturally. Judge’s robes and salary. Whore’s ethics.

[samtheman]

That’s exactly what I was thinking. How can they hide behind the “you can’t libel a public figure” law when the only reason he’s a public figure is because of the libel?

[snuffy smiff]

Richard Jewell(sp?) didn’t have any money either.

At least-not until he and his attorneys cleaned the Atlanta Urinal & Constipation’s plow...

[DoughtyOne]

Without going into a lengthy explanation of my own views, I think they’re close enough to yours to let it stand.

I want free speech. If a guy is doing something wrong, scream it to the high heavens. It’s truth. It’s not actionable.

If I as a campaign manager devise a plan to out the other candidate as a child molester in a devious manner when it is not true, then I should be placed in prison for a long long time.

I don’t want to place a chill on free discussion, but malice is malice and the public should not be refused the right to vote for a good man.

Slander in this instance is a violation of personal rights and public rights. It’s destructive to the process. We should view is as more devious than vote fraud, because it turns a election on it’s head nullifying many potential votes.

Thanks for the comments.

[GladesGuru]

“It doesn’t matter whether you like the law. That’s why it’s the law. It’s not voluntary.”

That is the functional equivalent of theLatrino “Es La Ley!”.

May I suggest looking up “void ab initio”?