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
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
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