GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU law professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 - #4 *Arrests*

[Pawns123]

Interesting. What does this mean then?

That is easy. They are in cahoots. And paid by same source and or sources.

 

[GordonX]

i couldn't figure out why KM had Miami attorneys for a Tallahassee case. now maybe we know why.

 

[TTF14]

Most people wouldn't change the last name of their innocent surviving children, either. WA is despicable for that act alone!!

I'm quoting my own post because this makes me so angry.

I'm a divorced woman with two kids. My ex cheated on me with anonymous strangers on the internet. He was emotionally and verbally abusive to me (and physically at the end, briefly). Despite it all, I KNOW he loves his kids. Not only would I never attempt to have him murdered, but if he died, I would never take his last name from them. Hell, I even keep his last name so I can have the same last name as my kids. What Wendi did IS NOT NORMAL. Not at all unless she and the boys were being physically abused/tortured by Dan. And I highly doubt that. She's just wicked. A wicked, wicked woman.

 

[DexterMorgan]

The LE approached DA at the memorial service held the day after DM died (the actual funeral - which none of the Adelsons attended - was held in Toronto). The LE told DA he had a few questions for her family, but she said the timing was inappropriate and she would call him the next day to set up appointments. When she failed to call, the LE called WA's cell phone - WA told him the reception was poor and she hung up on him. A few minutes later, the LE got a call from a man who identified himself as WA's lawyer, informed him that the entire family was on its way to South Florida and would not be giving any interviews to the police. Since then, there has been no communication between the LE and any of the Adelsons.

Okay. So Da or WA reception was too poor to talk. But their phone reception was good enough to let the lawyer know to call LE because even when they do get good reception; They still will not call them.

Okay Thanks.

Because why not just say the reception is bad and I will call you later.

So I understand. But the point is still the same. Jmo.

They knew that LE wanted to talk. And they said not now but tomorrow.

But when tomorrow came. It was woooppps.

Phone problems. Contact the lawyers?

Jmo. Same thing for the most part. WA and Da knew that the cops wanted to speak to them again.

But they simply decided not to. Jmo

Because its not like they couldn't say that the phone reception is bad right now. But I will personally call you back later. Jmo

 

[Twister]

very interesting. so KM's attorneys and CA's attorneys are located in the exact same city (Miami), in the exact same building (40 NW 3rd St), on the exact same floor (PH1). coincidence or conspiracy? hey Lat - what do you think of that?

I think in reaction to that, Lat would say, "And that is one more piece of evidence proving that Wendi Adelson had nothing to do with this crime."

 

[friendlyobserver]

LOL his mantra...
interesting tensiob - gossip columnists often have irrational favoritism but here its a murder case and reporters and attorneys alike are trying to be responsible in their analysis. There comes a point when denial is itself a form of irresponsible reporting.

I think in reaction to that, Lat would say, "And that is one more piece of evidence proving that Wendi Adelson had nothing to do with this crime."

 

[Tricia]

From dotr
https://josephquinnblog.wordpress.co...wendi-adelson/

The Dan Markel Case: Watch Your Words About Wendi Adelson

December 19, 2016 ~ Joseph Quinn
Wendi Adelson’s lawyer is considering legal action against those who malign his client online.

This is a good reminder my friends that you all are responsible for what you say here or anywhere on the Internet.

You are not really anonymous. If someone sues you or if LE wants to find you there are ways to do so.

Now, it is EXTREMELY hard to sue someone who is now a public figure but that doesn't mean someone won't try.

To prove libel Adelson's lawyer would have to prove you knew the truth about her and still you posted lies with the intent to destroy her reputation.
This is almost impossible to prove. Then again, there are no guarantees.

This article could easily be an attempt to scare people and make them stop. I don't know.

The best way to protect yourself is to make sure before you post state "this is my opinion" or words along those lines. Again, no guarantees.

Don't be nasty and mean. There is no need.

This is unlikely but it could happen: Someday you may have to defend what you posted somewhere on the Internet.

Tricia

 

[whonos]

Thank youTricia, for the warning

I don't know if a lawsuit should concern us as much as CA.

Look what happened to the last person that was mean to Wendi.

 

[Pawns123]

This is a good reminder my friends that you all are responsible for what you say here or anywhere on the Internet.

You are not really anonymous. If someone sues you or if LE wants to find you there are ways to do so.

Now, it is EXTREMELY hard to sue someone who is now a public figure but that doesn't mean someone won't try.

To prove libel Adelson's lawyer would have to prove you knew the truth about her and still you posted lies with the intent to destroy her reputation.
This is almost impossible to prove. Then again, there are no guarantees.

This article could easily be an attempt to scare people and make them stop. I don't know.

The best way to protect yourself is to make sure before you post state "this is my opinion" or words along those lines. Again, no guarantees.

Don't be nasty and mean. There is no need.

This is unlikely but it could happen: Someday you may have to defend what you posted somewhere on the Internet.

Tricia

I am so scared 😳. She did it bottom line!!!

 

[86Violet]

This is a good reminder my friends that you all are responsible for what you say here or anywhere on the Internet.

You are not really anonymous. If someone sues you or if LE wants to find you there are ways to do so.

Now, it is EXTREMELY hard to sue someone who is now a public figure but that doesn't mean someone won't try.

To prove libel Adelson's lawyer would have to prove you knew the truth about her and still you posted lies with the intent to destroy her reputation.
This is almost impossible to prove. Then again, there are no guarantees.

This article could easily be an attempt to scare people and make them stop. I don't know.

The best way to protect yourself is to make sure before you post state "this is my opinion" or words along those lines. Again, no guarantees.

Don't be nasty and mean. There is no need.

This is unlikely but it could happen: Someday you may have to defend what you posted somewhere on the Internet.

Tricia

I did some of my own research. I don't believe WA would be considered a public figure per Florida laws. That means they would not have to prove our intent was to destroy her reputation.

Accusing someone of a crime of moral turpitude is "defamation per se" - meaning she would not have to prove our intent or any actual harm to her reputation. Accusing someone of murder or similar crime IF they are innocent is automatic defamation.

Additionally, couching your accusation in words like "In my opinion" or "I believe that" DOES NOT insulate you from a defamation suit. If your statement is a fact, presenting it as your opinion DOES NOT matter. You cannot say "In my opinion, person X is guilty of murder" and shield yourself from a defamation suit. If you take away the opinion words, you have a statement of fact, and that's what matters. There is clear case law on this.

In order to be defamation, the statement in question must be a FALSE statement of FACT. Truth is ALWAYS a defense to defamation. Florida courts are split on whether it is the Plaintiff's burden to prove the statement is FALSE or whether it is the Defendant's burden to prove the statement is TRUE if they are using that as a defense. Either way, discovery could be conducted into the truth of the alleged statement in the form of depositions, interrogatories, requests for production of documents, etc.

*This is not to be construed as actual legal advice* - I am not your lawyer and I am not advising you! This is just based on the research I conducted via google. Do your own research and seek your own attorney if you're concerned!

Do I think any of the alleged conspirator's in this case are going to go through the trouble of paying the filing fees to file suit, subpoena'ing Websleuths for our identities, hailing us to court in God-knows-what jurisdiction (I really don't know and don't feel like researching), and opening themselves up to the possibility of being set for a deposition and putting the truth of our statements at issue? Probably not. But in light of my research, I'll probably keep my truest opinions among my close friends. I think we should continue to share news, court filings, updates, and our comments on those, obviously!

 

[Deleted member 173651]

Any idea why Lat's post focuses on WS specifically?

 

[GordonX]

given the address "coincidence" of the attorneys i have a renewed curiosity about who is paying KM's attorney fees, who is the conduit/communication link for those payments, and if there is a conflict of interest present. has her apparent decision to go to trial rather than plea been influenced by a third party? and are her attorneys acting in her best interest?

(f) Compensation by Third Party. A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless:
(1) the client gives informed consent;
(2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and
(3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by rule 4-1.6.

https://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/482043D3FC06842B852571710054B87B

 

[Jerri_Blank]

In the thousands of comments out there outside of WS, there are hundreds and hundreds of comments that are objectionable per Lat's post. Does that matter at all?
Any idea why Lat's post focuses on WS?

The comments at WS are mild compared to other sites, but we comment on his editorializing.

 

[Pawns123]

We all know who is paying for KMs defense! Guilty grandmama bear!!!!!

I did some of my own research. I don't believe WA would be considered a public figure per Florida laws. That means they would not have to prove our intent was to destroy her reputation.

Accusing someone of a crime of moral turpitude is "defamation per se" - meaning she would not have to prove our intent or any actual harm to her reputation. Accusing someone of murder or similar crime IF they are innocent is automatic defamation.

Additionally, couching your accusation in words like "In my opinion" or "I believe that" DOES NOT insulate you from a defamation suit. If your statement is a fact, presenting it as your opinion DOES NOT matter. You cannot say "In my opinion, person X is guilty of murder" and shield yourself from a defamation suit. If you take away the opinion words, you have a statement of fact, and that's what matters. There is clear case law on this.

In order to be defamation, the statement in question must be a FALSE statement of FACT. Truth is ALWAYS a defense to defamation. Florida courts are split on whether it is the Plaintiff's burden to prove the statement is FALSE or whether it is the Defendant's burden to prove the statement is TRUE if they are using that as a defense. Either way, discovery could be conducted into the truth of the alleged statement in the form of depositions, interrogatories, requests for production of documents, etc.

*This is not to be construed as actual legal advice* - I am not your lawyer and I am not advising you! This is just based on the research I conducted via google. Do your own research and seek your own attorney if you're concerned!

Do I think any of the alleged conspirator's in this case are going to go through the trouble of paying the filing fees to file suit, subpoena'ing Websleuths for our identities, hailing us to court in God-knows-what jurisdiction (I really don't know and don't feel like researching), and opening themselves up to the possibility of being set for a deposition and putting the truth of our statements at issue? Probably not. But in light of my research, I'll probably keep my truest opinions among my close friends. I think we should continue to share news, court filings, updates, and our comments on those, obviously!

 

[Razz]

We all know who is paying for KMs defense! Guilty grandmama bear!!!!!

Well, how do you know that? Do you have proof other than just your exclamation?

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[mbradley5087]

Rjrjff

 

[Razz]

We all know who is paying for KMs defense! Guilty grandmama bear!!!!!

Sorry Pawns123: Didn't mean to sound like a dweeb. But I read it as you really knew something that I didn't know (and maybe you do) because past history and or behavior of the A' s
has shown me they are probably splitting the cost.[emoji6]

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[reallybusy]

I did some of my own research. I don't believe WA would be considered a public figure per Florida laws. That means they would not have to prove our intent was to destroy her reputation.

Accusing someone of a crime of moral turpitude is "defamation per se" - meaning she would not have to prove our intent or any actual harm to her reputation. Accusing someone of murder or similar crime IF they are innocent is automatic defamation.

Additionally, couching your accusation in words like "In my opinion" or "I believe that" DOES NOT insulate you from a defamation suit. If your statement is a fact, presenting it as your opinion DOES NOT matter. You cannot say "In my opinion, person X is guilty of murder" and shield yourself from a defamation suit. If you take away the opinion words, you have a statement of fact, and that's what matters. There is clear case law on this.

In order to be defamation, the statement in question must be a FALSE statement of FACT. Truth is ALWAYS a defense to defamation. Florida courts are split on whether it is the Plaintiff's burden to prove the statement is FALSE or whether it is the Defendant's burden to prove the statement is TRUE if they are using that as a defense. Either way, discovery could be conducted into the truth of the alleged statement in the form of depositions, interrogatories, requests for production of documents, etc.

*This is not to be construed as actual legal advice* - I am not your lawyer and I am not advising you! This is just based on the research I conducted via google. Do your own research and seek your own attorney if you're concerned!

Do I think any of the alleged conspirator's in this case are going to go through the trouble of paying the filing fees to file suit, subpoena'ing Websleuths for our identities, hailing us to court in God-knows-what jurisdiction (I really don't know and don't feel like researching), and opening themselves up to the possibility of being set for a deposition and putting the truth of our statements at issue? Probably not. But in light of my research, I'll probably keep my truest opinions among my close friends. I think we should continue to share news, court filings, updates, and our comments on those, obviously!

This is murkey and I defer to the lawyers (86Violet).
If Wendi did pursue legal action, is she indeed considered Private? It’s quite possible that’s the case. However, might she be considered a Limited-Purpose Public? In other words, an in-between of Public vs Private. It’s an interesting topic. I don’t know.

Three reported points:
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/10/the-dan-markel-case-insights-from-wendi-adelsons-novel/
“It’s not hard to find similarities between Wendi’s art and life, as noted by Dybbuk:”

“Interestingly though, Adelson states that her book purports to tell, in substantial part, her own story. In an afterword to her novel, Adelson states that “I, selfishly, wanted you to know a bit about my story, which has much – but not all – in common with Attorney Lily” (i.e., the main character in the novel).”

http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2016/06/07/adelson-speaks-markels-death-podcast/85575308/
Podcast reveals Adelson's thoughts on Markel murder, marriage
“During the two segments, Adelson appears to be reading writings based on a number of prompts. She speaks about how she found out about the murder, her reasons for marrying Markel, the media's focus on the case and how she's getting on in her new life.”

“Adelson said she told her story because "it felt unfair that I couldn’t at least tell my own story, that the story got told for me. So I think there was an aspect of empowerment, of being able to say ‘no, this is my side of the story, this is what things looked like from my perspective.’”

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/06/the-murder-of-dan-markel-wendi-adelson-speaks-part-2/

“Wendi seems to have major issues with the media; see also her complaint in episode 9 about how the media took her life away from her. But the media should probably be the least of her worries right now.”

Per Lat’s links in his latest piece: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence

Limited-Purpose Public Figures
The second category of public figures is called "limited-purpose" public figures. These are individuals who "have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974). They are the individuals who deliberately shape debate on particular public issues, especially those who use the media to influence that debate.

This category also includes individuals who have distinguished themselves in a particular field, making them "public figures" regarding only those specific activities. These limited-purpose public figures are not the Kobe Bryants, who are regarded as all-purpose public figures, but rather the journeymen basketball players of the league.

For limited-purpose public figures, the actual malice standard extends only as far as defamatory statements involve matters related to the topics about which they are considered public figures. To return to our basketball example, the actual malice standard would extend to statements involving the player's basketball career; however, it would not extend to the details of his marriage.

As regards figures who become prominent through involvement in a current controversy, the law is unfortunately rather murky. In general, emphasis is placed not on whether the controversy is a subject of public interest, but rather:

The depth of the person's participation in the controversy.

The amount of freedom he or she has in choosing to engage in the controversy in the first place (e.g., if they were forced into the public light).

See Wolston v. Reader's Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157 (1979).
Whether he has taken advantage of the media to advocate his cause. See Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1976).


http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/florida-defamation-law

Florida Defamation Law Note: This page covers information specific to Florida. For general information concerning defamation, see the Defamation Law section of this guide.

Elements of Defamation
Under Florida law, the elements of a defamation claim are:
1. the defendant published a false statement;
2. about the plaintiff;
3. to a third party; and
4. the falsity of the statement caused injury to the plaintiff.

Border Collie Rescue v. Ryan, 418 F.Supp.2d 1330, 1348 (M.D.Fla. 2006). A plaintiff must also prove that the defendant's fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence. The elements of a defamation claim in Florida are similar to the elements discussed in the general Defamation Law section, with the following exceptions:

Public and Private Figures
Florida has a broad conception of public officials, a category of government actors who must prove actual malice in order to prevail on a defamation claim. The Florida Supreme Court found a police officer to be a public official where he was a "highly visible representative of government authority who has power over citizens and broad discretion in the exercise of that power." Smith v. Russell, 456 So.2d 462 (Fla. 1984). Florida courts have found that a corrections officer, an administrator of large public hospital, and even a harbormaster were public officials.

Actual Malice and Negligence
In Florida, a private figure plaintiff bringing a defamation lawsuit generally must prove that the defendant was at least negligent with respect to the truth or falsity of the allegedly defamatory statements. Public officials, all-purpose public figures, and limited-purpose public figures must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, i.e., knowing that the statements were false or recklessly disregarding their falsity. See the general page on actual malice and negligence for details on these standards.

 

[minor4th]

I actually lean towards agreeing that Wendi was not involved and did not have knowledge in advance.

I think her crazy family took it upon themselves to eliminate Dan from the children's lives.

This whole family seems very enmeshed. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the parents are the ones who really poisoned Wendi against Dan in the first place - or at least fanned the flames at every opportunity.


*This is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such

 

[minor4th]

Also, I wouldn't go around carelessly slandering anyone, but I wouldn't be too concerned about a slander suit coming from Wendi any time soon.

If she wasn't involved, any lawsuit she brings would subject her to discovery and she would have to reveal whatever she has been told by her family. She's keeping quiet for a reason - so it's a reasonable deduction that she does not care to be questioned about what she may or may not know.


*This is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such