Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Casey Anthony defamation lawsuit motion

Casey Anthony defamation lawsuit motion

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9,425 |Likes:
Published by Pamela Engel
Motion filed by Casey Anthony's lawyers June 10, 2013.
Motion filed by Casey Anthony's lawyers June 10, 2013.

More info:

Published by: Pamela Engel on Jun 20, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Case No.
Debtor, C
asey Marie Anthony (“Ms. Anthony”), hereby
supplements her response to the Memoranda (Doc. Nos. 89 and 90) she filed in response to the Motionsto Lift Stay filed by
Zenaida Gonzalez’s
and Roy Kronk 
ThisMemorandum also addresses the
Chapter 7 Trustee’s Suggestions on
Procedure (Doc.107), which is related to the foregoing filings.1.
IntroductionThe gist of the motions to lift that is stay it would be more efficient if the staywere lifted so that the claims of Gonzalez and Kronk could be tried in State court. Infact, the opposite is true. Ms. Anthony will not reiterate the facts that have been thesubject of her prior filings, but a review of the record demonstrates without doubt thatthere is no trial set in either case and it would be many months -- and likely many yearsgiven the appeals that would ensue from any adverse judgments -- before any proceedings returned to State court were finally resolved. The far more efficient process to resolve this matter is for this Court to address the dischargeability issuesfirst, as the Trustee apparently suggests. In that regard, the Court should require the present movants to file claims if they wish to pursue them.
Case 8:13-bk-00922-KRM Doc 111 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 8
The Claims At IssueThe motions to lift stay were filed by Zenaida Gonzalez and Roy Kronk, Neither of those alleged creditors have filed claims. Instead, they have sought leave todelay doing so because Ms. Anthony has made no secret that she would respond to anysuch claims by filing motions for summary judgment that she believes would eliminatethe claims as a matter of law.A.
The Gonzalez MotionGonzalez
’s Motion
conveniently overlooks or understates three critical facts.First, the State case would have been over in January of 2013 if Gonzalez hadnot moved for a continuance on the eve of trial. Instead of going to trial, Gonzalezsought to delay the case until after the date it erroneously
 perceived Ms. Anthony’s
Fifth Amendment rights would expire.Second, because the Gonzalez State-case was taken off of the trial docket, itwould be many months, and probably no earlier than mid-20l4, before the case could berescheduled for trial, even if the stay were now lifted. In fact, numerous motions werestill pending in Gonzalez on the date the petition was filed, including motions tocompel, a motion to strike a request for punitive damages, and a myriad of motionsdirected to the evidence that would be permitted at trial.Third, and perhaps most importantly for present purposes,
Judge Munyon’s
Summary Judgment Order threw out the bulk of 
s claim. Judge Munyon ruled
that Ms. Anthony’s “
statements to law enforcement on July 16, 2008, cannot be the
false statements that form the basis of plaintiff’s claims,” Order, p. 4
. She held that thesole issue remaining to be determined was whether a single sentence uttered by Ms.
Case 8:13-bk-00922-KRM Doc 111 Filed 06/10/13 Page 2 of 8
3Anthony during a forty-five (45) minute jailhouse meeting (recorded over the jailhouse
video visitation system) between Ms. Anthony and her mother was “of and concerning”
Plaintiff or was otherwise defamatory, and, if so, what damages Plaintiff suffered fromthat statement.The pertinent statement that Ms. Anthony made to her mother was
that “
when [the
Orange County Sheriff’s Office] went and interviewed that girl down in Kissimmee, they
never showed me a picture of her.
Judge Munyon viewed this fragment of a sentence as
“susceptible to two competing inferences, both of which are reasonable….”
Summary Judgment Order 
, at p. 3.The
express holding that the statement at issue is “susceptible to two comp
etinginferences, both of which are
” eliminates as a matter of law the possibility
itcould give rise to a liability that would be non-dischargeable. Therefore, this Courtshould not delay this proceeding by lifting the stay so that it can return to State courtwhere judicial resources will be wasted and the rights of Ms. Anthony under Title 11 of the U.S.C. will be, at best, delayed, because that, even if Gonzalez won, she would stillhave a non-dischargeable claim.B.
The Kronk Motion
Kronk’s pr 
ospective claim is spurious on its face. In all events, service of processwas never effected in that case and a trial of that matter, assuming Kronk was able to get past the motion stage, would not occur until late 2014 or sometime in 2015. This Courtshould address this spurious claim now.
Case 8:13-bk-00922-KRM Doc 111 Filed 06/10/13 Page 3 of 8

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->