SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 4
It was not until March 26, 2007, the date that Chief Medical Examiner Joshua Perper released the official autopsy report, that a cause of death for Ms. Smith was even identified. Even so, the cause of Ms. Smith’s death was reported as “drug intoxication,” which was the very same cause of death of Ms. Smith’s son, and which was the very same cause of death that the media and general public expected.12 This “drug intoxication” cause of death did nothing less than refuel the belief that Stern, who was widely perceived 13 as the person who was supplying 14 the drugs com to Ms. Smith, caused Ms. Smith’s death. 15 In fact, a video filmed (and released to the media) by Stern himself shows Ms. Smith high on drugs while she was eight months pregnant. 16Stern cannot, and will not, offer any conclusive record evidence which would prove that O’Quinn made these statements knowing them to be false. 17 Were Stern able to offer said evidence, he would have undoubtedly done so during the countless interviews that he has given to the media, during the court proceedings in the battle over the custody of Ms. Smith’s body, during the drawn out paternity proceedings, and most importantly, during the discovery period of this defamation lawsuit and the countless other defamation lawsuits that Stern has waged regarding the Anna Nicole Smith media frenzy.The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that O’Quinn believed, and had every reason to believe, that his statements were in fact true. Even today, over half a year after the resolution of the custody and paternity battles, O’Quinn and his client, as well as countless others in the community and media, still believe that Stern provided Ms. Smith with all, if not most, of the drugs which caused her early demise. Because Stern cannot meet his burden of offering any evidence which would even suggest that O’Quinn knew his statements to be false at the time that they were made, this Court should grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. At the time of the February 21, 2007 interview on On the Record with Greta Van Susteren 6, Arthur believed (and still believes) that Stern was responsible for her daughter’s drug overdose and resulting death. Similarly, at the time of the March 20, 2007 second interview on the Nancy Grace Show 7, many people believed 8 (and still believe) that Stern had something to do with Ms. Smith’sdrug overdose. As indicated during the March 27, 2007 third interview on com On the Record with GretaVan Susteren 9, Daniel was trying to hire an investigator to investigate Stern and his dealings with Ms. Smith. Finally, as indicated during the March 27, 2007 fourth interview on the Nancy Grace Show,10 Stern was in the picture when both Daniel and Ms. Smith got deadly sick and died. Even the media took note of this. In fact, Stern traveled with Ms. Smith to the Bahamas and was with her in the Bahamas during the coupled of days, and on the day, that she died “Under Florida’s law regarding summary judgments, when a motion for summary judgment is brought by a defendant against a [general or limited] public-figure plaintiff ... in a defamation action in which the actual malice test applies, summary judgments are to be more liberally granted.” B. Actual Malice StandardThe right to free speech is part of the foundation of our society and is incorporated in the federal constitution. U.S. CONST. amend. I; Friedgood v. Peters Publishing Co., 521 So. 2d 236, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). These constitutional concerns demanded that the traditional law of defamation be reshaped to avoid intrusion upon free speech rights. See Friedgood at 239-40.One result has been the development of policy that permits greater latitude in speech the more public the person or event that is the subject of the speech.“Under that policy, a public figure would have to prove not only that he was defamed but that the publisher of the defamation acted withactual malice towards him.” In essence, the state’s interest in protecting the defamed subject’s reputation is lessened, and as such, public figure plaintiffs must allege and prove a higher level of mens rea (actual malice) on behalf of defendant publishers in order to balance the attendant First Amendment concerns bound up with defamation and free speech. See Mile Marker, Inc., 811 So. 2d 841, 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).In order to prove that the defendant acted with “‘actual malice,’ a plaintiff must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the speaker made the statement ‘with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not,” at the time the statements were made. On summary judgment a public figure must present record evidence sufficient to satisfy the court that a genuine issue of material fact existswhich would allow a jury to find by clear and convincing evidence that the existence of actual malice on the part of the defendant...”)(Emphasis in original opinion.). “‘No matter how gross the untruth, the New York Times rule deprives defamed public official of any hope for legal redress without proof that the lie was a knowing one, or uttered in reckless disregard of the truth.’” In this case, Stern cannot, and will not, meet his burden on proving that O’Quinn acted with actual malice when making the statements which serve as the basis of this claim. Not only will Stern be unable to offer any evidence which would prove that O’Quinn made any statements which knowledge that the statements were false, but Stern will also be unable to offer any evidence which would prove that O’Quinn made these statements with reckless disregard of the truth. As such, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted. C. Analysis1. Plaintiff Cannot, And Will Not, Offer Any Evidence Which Would Prove That O’Quinn Made These Statements With Knowledge of The Statements’ Falsity Because O’Quinn Made Each Of The Statements Believing Them To Be True..The term “actual malice” is used in New York Times not to refer in its ordinary sense tofeelings of ill will about the person who is the subject of the statement, but rather “to signify the likelihood that the speaker knew the statement was false.” Brown v. State, Com’n on Ethics, 969 So. 2d 553, 557 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). A party who publishes a false statement with knowledge that the statement is false is undoubtedly guilty of acting with actual maliceSee e g. Hoch v. Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, 742 So. rosespeaks 2d 451, 460 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(“...the...defendants themselves acknowledged that the statement was disparaging and false.... This...is sufficient showing on the issue of actual malice.”).In the instant case, O’Quinn never made any statements with knowledge that the statementswere false. Contrarily, O’Quinn still believes the statements made during the interviews which form this basis of Stern’s claim are true.To give these statements context, we must remember that at the time that O’Quinn made these statements, there was substantial on-going debate about Ms. Smith’s and Daniel Smith’s deaths. In fact, to this date, there is continued debate. The inquest into Daniel Smith’s death commenced only a couple of months prior to O’Quinn’s statements to the media. The criminal investigation into Ms. Smith’s death had been recently re-opened. It was the position of the seemingly majority of the media, community, and family and friends of Ms. Smith, that Stern had something to do with Ms. Smith and her son’s mysterious drug overdoses.55 See no less than 50 newspaper articles attached hereto as Composite Exhibit “C”.
O Quinn Motion For Summary Judgment   Excerpts
O Quinn Motion For Summary Judgment   Excerpts
O Quinn Motion For Summary Judgment   Excerpts

More Related Content

What's hot

Crime Club WIL Assessment- Essay
Crime Club WIL Assessment- EssayCrime Club WIL Assessment- Essay
Crime Club WIL Assessment- EssayMichael Anderson
 
Hall Elizabeth Unit 7 Homicide Project
Hall Elizabeth Unit 7 Homicide ProjectHall Elizabeth Unit 7 Homicide Project
Hall Elizabeth Unit 7 Homicide ProjectElizabeth Hall
 
CBS Taps Joe Tacopina for Legal Opinion on Pistorius Case
CBS Taps Joe Tacopina for Legal Opinion on Pistorius Case CBS Taps Joe Tacopina for Legal Opinion on Pistorius Case
CBS Taps Joe Tacopina for Legal Opinion on Pistorius Case Joe Tacopina
 
CapstoneCapitalPunishment
CapstoneCapitalPunishmentCapstoneCapitalPunishment
CapstoneCapitalPunishmentEugene Smith II
 
Photographing Torture at Abu Ghraib: Gendered Violence and The Other
Photographing Torture at Abu Ghraib: Gendered Violence and The OtherPhotographing Torture at Abu Ghraib: Gendered Violence and The Other
Photographing Torture at Abu Ghraib: Gendered Violence and The OtherPeter Pawlick
 
Relevancy of evidence under Section 7 of Evidence Act 1950
Relevancy of evidence under Section 7 of Evidence Act 1950Relevancy of evidence under Section 7 of Evidence Act 1950
Relevancy of evidence under Section 7 of Evidence Act 1950Intan Muhammad
 
RELEASE RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE, Sole Survivor of the August 7, 1970 Courthouse ...
RELEASE RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE, Sole Survivor of the August 7, 1970 Courthouse ...RELEASE RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE, Sole Survivor of the August 7, 1970 Courthouse ...
RELEASE RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE, Sole Survivor of the August 7, 1970 Courthouse ...RBG Communiversity
 
Class.17.posted
Class.17.postedClass.17.posted
Class.17.postedserra8
 
Lawyer for Libyan militant tells court she's seen no evidence tying him to Be...
Lawyer for Libyan militant tells court she's seen no evidence tying him to Be...Lawyer for Libyan militant tells court she's seen no evidence tying him to Be...
Lawyer for Libyan militant tells court she's seen no evidence tying him to Be...quixoticbroker634
 
An Experimental Study Examining the Effects of Confessional and Circumstantia...
An Experimental Study Examining the Effects of Confessional and Circumstantia...An Experimental Study Examining the Effects of Confessional and Circumstantia...
An Experimental Study Examining the Effects of Confessional and Circumstantia...Julia Van Hooser
 
Gawkers motion-for-summary-judgment
Gawkers motion-for-summary-judgmentGawkers motion-for-summary-judgment
Gawkers motion-for-summary-judgmentRepentSinner
 
Anti death penalty, Zahir
Anti death penalty, ZahirAnti death penalty, Zahir
Anti death penalty, ZahirGP10
 

What's hot (14)

Crime Club WIL Assessment- Essay
Crime Club WIL Assessment- EssayCrime Club WIL Assessment- Essay
Crime Club WIL Assessment- Essay
 
Hall Elizabeth Unit 7 Homicide Project
Hall Elizabeth Unit 7 Homicide ProjectHall Elizabeth Unit 7 Homicide Project
Hall Elizabeth Unit 7 Homicide Project
 
CBS Taps Joe Tacopina for Legal Opinion on Pistorius Case
CBS Taps Joe Tacopina for Legal Opinion on Pistorius Case CBS Taps Joe Tacopina for Legal Opinion on Pistorius Case
CBS Taps Joe Tacopina for Legal Opinion on Pistorius Case
 
CapstoneCapitalPunishment
CapstoneCapitalPunishmentCapstoneCapitalPunishment
CapstoneCapitalPunishment
 
Photographing Torture at Abu Ghraib: Gendered Violence and The Other
Photographing Torture at Abu Ghraib: Gendered Violence and The OtherPhotographing Torture at Abu Ghraib: Gendered Violence and The Other
Photographing Torture at Abu Ghraib: Gendered Violence and The Other
 
Relevancy of evidence under Section 7 of Evidence Act 1950
Relevancy of evidence under Section 7 of Evidence Act 1950Relevancy of evidence under Section 7 of Evidence Act 1950
Relevancy of evidence under Section 7 of Evidence Act 1950
 
Kennedy v. louisianna
Kennedy v. louisiannaKennedy v. louisianna
Kennedy v. louisianna
 
Recasting history
Recasting historyRecasting history
Recasting history
 
RELEASE RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE, Sole Survivor of the August 7, 1970 Courthouse ...
RELEASE RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE, Sole Survivor of the August 7, 1970 Courthouse ...RELEASE RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE, Sole Survivor of the August 7, 1970 Courthouse ...
RELEASE RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE, Sole Survivor of the August 7, 1970 Courthouse ...
 
Class.17.posted
Class.17.postedClass.17.posted
Class.17.posted
 
Lawyer for Libyan militant tells court she's seen no evidence tying him to Be...
Lawyer for Libyan militant tells court she's seen no evidence tying him to Be...Lawyer for Libyan militant tells court she's seen no evidence tying him to Be...
Lawyer for Libyan militant tells court she's seen no evidence tying him to Be...
 
An Experimental Study Examining the Effects of Confessional and Circumstantia...
An Experimental Study Examining the Effects of Confessional and Circumstantia...An Experimental Study Examining the Effects of Confessional and Circumstantia...
An Experimental Study Examining the Effects of Confessional and Circumstantia...
 
Gawkers motion-for-summary-judgment
Gawkers motion-for-summary-judgmentGawkers motion-for-summary-judgment
Gawkers motion-for-summary-judgment
 
Anti death penalty, Zahir
Anti death penalty, ZahirAnti death penalty, Zahir
Anti death penalty, Zahir
 

Viewers also liked

Newton’s laws of motion
Newton’s laws of motion Newton’s laws of motion
Newton’s laws of motion Patrisha Picones
 
Circular Motion
Circular MotionCircular Motion
Circular Motionstooty s
 
Euclids five postulates
Euclids five postulatesEuclids five postulates
Euclids five postulatesAryavarta Giri
 
Chapter 4 Powerpoint
Chapter 4 PowerpointChapter 4 Powerpoint
Chapter 4 PowerpointMrreynon
 
Gravity and laws of motion power point2
Gravity and laws of motion power point2Gravity and laws of motion power point2
Gravity and laws of motion power point2Holley Stabler
 
Lecture Ch 04
Lecture Ch 04Lecture Ch 04
Lecture Ch 04rtrujill
 
Euclid's Algorithm for Greatest Common Divisor - Time Complexity Analysis
Euclid's Algorithm for Greatest Common Divisor - Time Complexity AnalysisEuclid's Algorithm for Greatest Common Divisor - Time Complexity Analysis
Euclid's Algorithm for Greatest Common Divisor - Time Complexity AnalysisAmrinder Arora
 
6th Grade Chapter 10- forces and motion
6th Grade  Chapter 10- forces and motion6th Grade  Chapter 10- forces and motion
6th Grade Chapter 10- forces and motionSteven_iannuccilli
 
Physics - Chapter 4
Physics - Chapter 4Physics - Chapter 4
Physics - Chapter 4Mrreynon
 
Newton's 2nd law
Newton's 2nd lawNewton's 2nd law
Newton's 2nd lawjtwining
 
euclids division lemma
euclids division lemmaeuclids division lemma
euclids division lemmaJashan Kainth
 
Attachment Trustee Process & Execution
Attachment Trustee Process & ExecutionAttachment Trustee Process & Execution
Attachment Trustee Process & ExecutionMikeProsser
 
Definitions,scientific reasons and mcqs of physics (motion)
Definitions,scientific reasons and mcqs of physics (motion)Definitions,scientific reasons and mcqs of physics (motion)
Definitions,scientific reasons and mcqs of physics (motion)Dr. Sajid Ali Talpur
 
Definitions and mcqs of matric physics (force and motion)
Definitions and mcqs of matric physics (force and motion)Definitions and mcqs of matric physics (force and motion)
Definitions and mcqs of matric physics (force and motion)Dr. Sajid Ali Talpur
 
Forces and Laws of Motion class 9
Forces and Laws of Motion class 9Forces and Laws of Motion class 9
Forces and Laws of Motion class 9Sanaa Sial
 

Viewers also liked (20)

Euclids Geometry
Euclids GeometryEuclids Geometry
Euclids Geometry
 
Newton’s laws of motion
Newton’s laws of motion Newton’s laws of motion
Newton’s laws of motion
 
Newtons 3rd Law
Newtons 3rd LawNewtons 3rd Law
Newtons 3rd Law
 
Circular Motion
Circular MotionCircular Motion
Circular Motion
 
Euclids five postulates
Euclids five postulatesEuclids five postulates
Euclids five postulates
 
Chapter 4 Powerpoint
Chapter 4 PowerpointChapter 4 Powerpoint
Chapter 4 Powerpoint
 
Gravity and laws of motion power point2
Gravity and laws of motion power point2Gravity and laws of motion power point2
Gravity and laws of motion power point2
 
Lecture Ch 04
Lecture Ch 04Lecture Ch 04
Lecture Ch 04
 
Newton's Laws
Newton's LawsNewton's Laws
Newton's Laws
 
Euclid's Algorithm for Greatest Common Divisor - Time Complexity Analysis
Euclid's Algorithm for Greatest Common Divisor - Time Complexity AnalysisEuclid's Algorithm for Greatest Common Divisor - Time Complexity Analysis
Euclid's Algorithm for Greatest Common Divisor - Time Complexity Analysis
 
6th Grade Chapter 10- forces and motion
6th Grade  Chapter 10- forces and motion6th Grade  Chapter 10- forces and motion
6th Grade Chapter 10- forces and motion
 
Physics - Chapter 4
Physics - Chapter 4Physics - Chapter 4
Physics - Chapter 4
 
Keplers Laws
Keplers LawsKeplers Laws
Keplers Laws
 
Newton's 2nd law
Newton's 2nd lawNewton's 2nd law
Newton's 2nd law
 
euclids division lemma
euclids division lemmaeuclids division lemma
euclids division lemma
 
Attachment Trustee Process & Execution
Attachment Trustee Process & ExecutionAttachment Trustee Process & Execution
Attachment Trustee Process & Execution
 
Definitions,scientific reasons and mcqs of physics (motion)
Definitions,scientific reasons and mcqs of physics (motion)Definitions,scientific reasons and mcqs of physics (motion)
Definitions,scientific reasons and mcqs of physics (motion)
 
Definitions and mcqs of matric physics (force and motion)
Definitions and mcqs of matric physics (force and motion)Definitions and mcqs of matric physics (force and motion)
Definitions and mcqs of matric physics (force and motion)
 
Forces and Laws of Motion class 9
Forces and Laws of Motion class 9Forces and Laws of Motion class 9
Forces and Laws of Motion class 9
 
Forces and Newton\'s Laws
Forces and Newton\'s LawsForces and Newton\'s Laws
Forces and Newton\'s Laws
 

Similar to O Quinn Motion For Summary Judgment Excerpts

O Quinn Affidavit Exhibit E
O Quinn Affidavit Exhibit EO Quinn Affidavit Exhibit E
O Quinn Affidavit Exhibit EJRachelle
 
Adam Kunz and Ed Magedson hard at work
Adam Kunz and Ed Magedson hard at workAdam Kunz and Ed Magedson hard at work
Adam Kunz and Ed Magedson hard at workpaladinpi
 
Argumentative or persuasive essay about First amendment.docx
Argumentative or persuasive essay about First amendment.docxArgumentative or persuasive essay about First amendment.docx
Argumentative or persuasive essay about First amendment.docxwrite12
 
394C H A P T E R 8Identification of SuspectsLineups .docx
394C H A P T E R  8Identification of SuspectsLineups .docx394C H A P T E R  8Identification of SuspectsLineups .docx
394C H A P T E R 8Identification of SuspectsLineups .docxgilbertkpeters11344
 
STAR Treatment and Public’s Right to Know
STAR Treatment and Public’s Right to KnowSTAR Treatment and Public’s Right to Know
STAR Treatment and Public’s Right to KnowUmesh Heendeniya
 
Weinstein News Advisory
Weinstein News AdvisoryWeinstein News Advisory
Weinstein News AdvisoryTodd Spodek
 
Ex cia officer v do j on covert merlin agent
Ex cia officer v do j on covert merlin agentEx cia officer v do j on covert merlin agent
Ex cia officer v do j on covert merlin agentAnonDownload
 

Similar to O Quinn Motion For Summary Judgment Excerpts (11)

O Quinn Affidavit Exhibit E
O Quinn Affidavit Exhibit EO Quinn Affidavit Exhibit E
O Quinn Affidavit Exhibit E
 
Adam Kunz and Ed Magedson hard at work
Adam Kunz and Ed Magedson hard at workAdam Kunz and Ed Magedson hard at work
Adam Kunz and Ed Magedson hard at work
 
Argumentative or persuasive essay about First amendment.docx
Argumentative or persuasive essay about First amendment.docxArgumentative or persuasive essay about First amendment.docx
Argumentative or persuasive essay about First amendment.docx
 
394C H A P T E R 8Identification of SuspectsLineups .docx
394C H A P T E R  8Identification of SuspectsLineups .docx394C H A P T E R  8Identification of SuspectsLineups .docx
394C H A P T E R 8Identification of SuspectsLineups .docx
 
STAR Treatment and Public’s Right to Know
STAR Treatment and Public’s Right to KnowSTAR Treatment and Public’s Right to Know
STAR Treatment and Public’s Right to Know
 
Weinstein News Advisory
Weinstein News AdvisoryWeinstein News Advisory
Weinstein News Advisory
 
Ex cia officer v do j on covert merlin agent
Ex cia officer v do j on covert merlin agentEx cia officer v do j on covert merlin agent
Ex cia officer v do j on covert merlin agent
 
Secret Dockets
Secret DocketsSecret Dockets
Secret Dockets
 
The Right to Privacy
The Right to PrivacyThe Right to Privacy
The Right to Privacy
 
Roevwadeaapfinal2
Roevwadeaapfinal2Roevwadeaapfinal2
Roevwadeaapfinal2
 
OJ Simpson & Casey Anthony
OJ Simpson & Casey Anthony OJ Simpson & Casey Anthony
OJ Simpson & Casey Anthony
 

More from JRachelle

Marshall v Living Trust Fund status conference
Marshall v Living Trust Fund  status conferenceMarshall v Living Trust Fund  status conference
Marshall v Living Trust Fund status conferenceJRachelle
 
SC Opinion and Order - motion for comtempt
SC   Opinion and Order - motion for comtemptSC   Opinion and Order - motion for comtempt
SC Opinion and Order - motion for comtemptJRachelle
 
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO COUNTS)
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO  COUNTS)CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO  COUNTS)
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO COUNTS)JRachelle
 
Stern motion for stay of mandate
Stern   motion for stay of mandateStern   motion for stay of mandate
Stern motion for stay of mandateJRachelle
 
Stern - motion to stay mandate GRANTED
Stern  - motion to stay mandate GRANTEDStern  - motion to stay mandate GRANTED
Stern - motion to stay mandate GRANTEDJRachelle
 
Stern - Motion for certiorari granted
Stern  - Motion for certiorari grantedStern  - Motion for certiorari granted
Stern - Motion for certiorari grantedJRachelle
 
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF Petition
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF PetitionSCOTUS - NOTICE OF Petition
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF PetitionJRachelle
 
Bonnie -ORDER TO DISMISS
Bonnie  -ORDER TO DISMISSBonnie  -ORDER TO DISMISS
Bonnie -ORDER TO DISMISSJRachelle
 
Bonnie - Stipulation to dismiss
Bonnie   - Stipulation to dismiss Bonnie   - Stipulation to dismiss
Bonnie - Stipulation to dismiss JRachelle
 
HKS status report on motion for contempt
 HKS status report on motion for contempt HKS status report on motion for contempt
HKS status report on motion for contemptJRachelle
 
Brown reply memo support motion to dismiss
Brown reply memo support motion to dismissBrown reply memo support motion to dismiss
Brown reply memo support motion to dismissJRachelle
 
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10JRachelle
 
Brown Memo re Motion to Dismiss
Brown Memo re Motion to DismissBrown Memo re Motion to Dismiss
Brown Memo re Motion to DismissJRachelle
 
ORDER - Motion to Dismiss
ORDER - Motion to Dismiss ORDER - Motion to Dismiss
ORDER - Motion to Dismiss JRachelle
 
Brown - Motion to Dismiss
Brown - Motion to DismissBrown - Motion to Dismiss
Brown - Motion to DismissJRachelle
 
Shelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaint
Shelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaintShelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaint
Shelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaintJRachelle
 
Bonnie order for hearing rescheduled
Bonnie   order for hearing rescheduledBonnie   order for hearing rescheduled
Bonnie order for hearing rescheduledJRachelle
 
S Carolina - first amended complaint 7-1-2010
S Carolina -  first amended complaint 7-1-2010S Carolina -  first amended complaint 7-1-2010
S Carolina - first amended complaint 7-1-2010JRachelle
 
Bonnie ex.a - 2009 order staying case
Bonnie   ex.a - 2009 order staying caseBonnie   ex.a - 2009 order staying case
Bonnie ex.a - 2009 order staying caseJRachelle
 

More from JRachelle (20)

Marshall v Living Trust Fund status conference
Marshall v Living Trust Fund  status conferenceMarshall v Living Trust Fund  status conference
Marshall v Living Trust Fund status conference
 
SC Opinion and Order - motion for comtempt
SC   Opinion and Order - motion for comtemptSC   Opinion and Order - motion for comtempt
SC Opinion and Order - motion for comtempt
 
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO COUNTS)
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO  COUNTS)CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO  COUNTS)
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO COUNTS)
 
Stern motion for stay of mandate
Stern   motion for stay of mandateStern   motion for stay of mandate
Stern motion for stay of mandate
 
Stern - motion to stay mandate GRANTED
Stern  - motion to stay mandate GRANTEDStern  - motion to stay mandate GRANTED
Stern - motion to stay mandate GRANTED
 
Stern - Motion for certiorari granted
Stern  - Motion for certiorari grantedStern  - Motion for certiorari granted
Stern - Motion for certiorari granted
 
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF Petition
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF PetitionSCOTUS - NOTICE OF Petition
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF Petition
 
Bonnie -ORDER TO DISMISS
Bonnie  -ORDER TO DISMISSBonnie  -ORDER TO DISMISS
Bonnie -ORDER TO DISMISS
 
Bonnie - Stipulation to dismiss
Bonnie   - Stipulation to dismiss Bonnie   - Stipulation to dismiss
Bonnie - Stipulation to dismiss
 
HKS status report on motion for contempt
 HKS status report on motion for contempt HKS status report on motion for contempt
HKS status report on motion for contempt
 
Brown reply memo support motion to dismiss
Brown reply memo support motion to dismissBrown reply memo support motion to dismiss
Brown reply memo support motion to dismiss
 
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
 
Brown Memo re Motion to Dismiss
Brown Memo re Motion to DismissBrown Memo re Motion to Dismiss
Brown Memo re Motion to Dismiss
 
ORDER - Motion to Dismiss
ORDER - Motion to Dismiss ORDER - Motion to Dismiss
ORDER - Motion to Dismiss
 
Brown - Motion to Dismiss
Brown - Motion to DismissBrown - Motion to Dismiss
Brown - Motion to Dismiss
 
GBT ANSWER
GBT ANSWERGBT ANSWER
GBT ANSWER
 
Shelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaint
Shelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaintShelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaint
Shelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaint
 
Bonnie order for hearing rescheduled
Bonnie   order for hearing rescheduledBonnie   order for hearing rescheduled
Bonnie order for hearing rescheduled
 
S Carolina - first amended complaint 7-1-2010
S Carolina -  first amended complaint 7-1-2010S Carolina -  first amended complaint 7-1-2010
S Carolina - first amended complaint 7-1-2010
 
Bonnie ex.a - 2009 order staying case
Bonnie   ex.a - 2009 order staying caseBonnie   ex.a - 2009 order staying case
Bonnie ex.a - 2009 order staying case
 

O Quinn Motion For Summary Judgment Excerpts

  • 1. It was not until March 26, 2007, the date that Chief Medical Examiner Joshua Perper released the official autopsy report, that a cause of death for Ms. Smith was even identified. Even so, the cause of Ms. Smith’s death was reported as “drug intoxication,” which was the very same cause of death of Ms. Smith’s son, and which was the very same cause of death that the media and general public expected.12 This “drug intoxication” cause of death did nothing less than refuel the belief that Stern, who was widely perceived 13 as the person who was supplying 14 the drugs com to Ms. Smith, caused Ms. Smith’s death. 15 In fact, a video filmed (and released to the media) by Stern himself shows Ms. Smith high on drugs while she was eight months pregnant. 16Stern cannot, and will not, offer any conclusive record evidence which would prove that O’Quinn made these statements knowing them to be false. 17 Were Stern able to offer said evidence, he would have undoubtedly done so during the countless interviews that he has given to the media, during the court proceedings in the battle over the custody of Ms. Smith’s body, during the drawn out paternity proceedings, and most importantly, during the discovery period of this defamation lawsuit and the countless other defamation lawsuits that Stern has waged regarding the Anna Nicole Smith media frenzy.The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that O’Quinn believed, and had every reason to believe, that his statements were in fact true. Even today, over half a year after the resolution of the custody and paternity battles, O’Quinn and his client, as well as countless others in the community and media, still believe that Stern provided Ms. Smith with all, if not most, of the drugs which caused her early demise. Because Stern cannot meet his burden of offering any evidence which would even suggest that O’Quinn knew his statements to be false at the time that they were made, this Court should grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. At the time of the February 21, 2007 interview on On the Record with Greta Van Susteren 6, Arthur believed (and still believes) that Stern was responsible for her daughter’s drug overdose and resulting death. Similarly, at the time of the March 20, 2007 second interview on the Nancy Grace Show 7, many people believed 8 (and still believe) that Stern had something to do with Ms. Smith’sdrug overdose. As indicated during the March 27, 2007 third interview on com On the Record with GretaVan Susteren 9, Daniel was trying to hire an investigator to investigate Stern and his dealings with Ms. Smith. Finally, as indicated during the March 27, 2007 fourth interview on the Nancy Grace Show,10 Stern was in the picture when both Daniel and Ms. Smith got deadly sick and died. Even the media took note of this. In fact, Stern traveled with Ms. Smith to the Bahamas and was with her in the Bahamas during the coupled of days, and on the day, that she died “Under Florida’s law regarding summary judgments, when a motion for summary judgment is brought by a defendant against a [general or limited] public-figure plaintiff ... in a defamation action in which the actual malice test applies, summary judgments are to be more liberally granted.” B. Actual Malice StandardThe right to free speech is part of the foundation of our society and is incorporated in the federal constitution. U.S. CONST. amend. I; Friedgood v. Peters Publishing Co., 521 So. 2d 236, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). These constitutional concerns demanded that the traditional law of defamation be reshaped to avoid intrusion upon free speech rights. See Friedgood at 239-40.One result has been the development of policy that permits greater latitude in speech the more public the person or event that is the subject of the speech.“Under that policy, a public figure would have to prove not only that he was defamed but that the publisher of the defamation acted withactual malice towards him.” In essence, the state’s interest in protecting the defamed subject’s reputation is lessened, and as such, public figure plaintiffs must allege and prove a higher level of mens rea (actual malice) on behalf of defendant publishers in order to balance the attendant First Amendment concerns bound up with defamation and free speech. See Mile Marker, Inc., 811 So. 2d 841, 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).In order to prove that the defendant acted with “‘actual malice,’ a plaintiff must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the speaker made the statement ‘with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not,” at the time the statements were made. On summary judgment a public figure must present record evidence sufficient to satisfy the court that a genuine issue of material fact existswhich would allow a jury to find by clear and convincing evidence that the existence of actual malice on the part of the defendant...”)(Emphasis in original opinion.). “‘No matter how gross the untruth, the New York Times rule deprives defamed public official of any hope for legal redress without proof that the lie was a knowing one, or uttered in reckless disregard of the truth.’” In this case, Stern cannot, and will not, meet his burden on proving that O’Quinn acted with actual malice when making the statements which serve as the basis of this claim. Not only will Stern be unable to offer any evidence which would prove that O’Quinn made any statements which knowledge that the statements were false, but Stern will also be unable to offer any evidence which would prove that O’Quinn made these statements with reckless disregard of the truth. As such, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted. C. Analysis1. Plaintiff Cannot, And Will Not, Offer Any Evidence Which Would Prove That O’Quinn Made These Statements With Knowledge of The Statements’ Falsity Because O’Quinn Made Each Of The Statements Believing Them To Be True..The term “actual malice” is used in New York Times not to refer in its ordinary sense tofeelings of ill will about the person who is the subject of the statement, but rather “to signify the likelihood that the speaker knew the statement was false.” Brown v. State, Com’n on Ethics, 969 So. 2d 553, 557 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). A party who publishes a false statement with knowledge that the statement is false is undoubtedly guilty of acting with actual maliceSee e g. Hoch v. Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, 742 So. rosespeaks 2d 451, 460 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(“...the...defendants themselves acknowledged that the statement was disparaging and false.... This...is sufficient showing on the issue of actual malice.”).In the instant case, O’Quinn never made any statements with knowledge that the statementswere false. Contrarily, O’Quinn still believes the statements made during the interviews which form this basis of Stern’s claim are true.To give these statements context, we must remember that at the time that O’Quinn made these statements, there was substantial on-going debate about Ms. Smith’s and Daniel Smith’s deaths. In fact, to this date, there is continued debate. The inquest into Daniel Smith’s death commenced only a couple of months prior to O’Quinn’s statements to the media. The criminal investigation into Ms. Smith’s death had been recently re-opened. It was the position of the seemingly majority of the media, community, and family and friends of Ms. Smith, that Stern had something to do with Ms. Smith and her son’s mysterious drug overdoses.55 See no less than 50 newspaper articles attached hereto as Composite Exhibit “C”.