8 thoughts on “JUDICIAL RACES …”

  1. 0

    1

    Are the bailiffs ever coming back to work. Is it true that the sheriff is getting rid of them and replacing them with real deputies.

  2. 2

    3

    GORDON WEEKES 2020!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is this ignorant blog going to do now!? What will you people write about??? What will you do with your lives!?!? LOL! For years you all have disrespected this gentleman, and even his wife and children. You all had your fun with your memes and your trashy posts. Week after week, month after month. “Gordon you’re gonna lose big Gordon… it will be a landslide Gordon”. And now what? LOL

    Congratulate your new Broward Public Defender.

    And yes, go ahead and dislike this comment 110 times.

  3. 1

    3

    GORDON WEEKES 2020!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is this ignorant blog going to do now!? What will you people write about??? What will you do with your lives!?!? LOL! For years you all have disrespected this gentleman, and even his wife and children. You all had your fun with your memes and your trashy posts. Week after week, month after month. “Gordon you’re gonna lose big Gordon… it will be a landslide Gordon”. And now what? LOL

    Congratulate your new Broward Public Defender.

    And yes, go ahead and dislike this comment 110 times.

  4. 0

    0

    Another victory for free speech!

    Victory for Broward Lawyer Who Feuded With Another Attorney on Social Media: No Cyberstalking Injunction

    A disbarred Fort Lauderdale lawyer secured a win at the Fourth District Court of Appeal on Wednesday when it reversed a cyberstalking injunction another attorney had brought against her.

    Ashley Ann Krapacs lost her law license in July over what the Florida Bar dubbed a “social media blitz” against Fort Lauderdale attorney Nisha Bacchus, but the appellate panel found the alleged conduct wasn’t enough for an injunction.
    The quarrel began when Krapacs filed a domestic violence injunction against her ex-boyfriend and took issue with his lawyer Russell J. Williams.

    Krapacs wrote an article alleging the attorney had lied to the judge, which prompted Williams to retain Bacchus for a defamation suit against Krapacs.
    Court pleadings outline a series of allegations, claiming Krapacs responded with disparaging social media posts against Bacchus, one of which was a meme on Instagram showing a man with his head through a pet door, facing a child pointing a toy gun at him. Krapacs captioned it, “when opposing counsel tries to use the same exact trick you saw in your last case,” according to Wednesday’s opinion.

    Bacchus said Krapacs allegedly found out the model of Bacchus’ car, threatened to contact her former clients to file bar complaints and malpractice suits, and spent four hours one day re-tagging Bacchus in social media posts while the attorney untagged herself in real time.

    Broward Circuit Judge Stefanie Moon granted Bacchus a temporary injunction against cyberstalking, requiring Krapacs to take down the offending posts, and blocking her from posting about Bacchus on social media, regarding private matters that could cause emotional distress and served no real purpose.

    And because the two lawyers worked in the same building, that meant Krapacs couldn’t hold client meetings in her office and could only go there once a week to collect mail.

    But that was the wrong call, according to the Fourth DCA opinion, because the allegations against Krapacs didn’t actually amount to a series of acts over time demonstrating ”a continuity of purpose,” as required by Florida Statute Chapter 784.

    The appellate panel found Krapacs only crossed a line once — when she spent four hours tagging Bacchus on social media — because the other incidents were constitutionally protected and don’t constitute repeated stalking.

    The appellate panel also found it was unconstitutional to bar Krapacs from posting about, rather than directly at, Bacchus in future because that restricts First Amendment speech.

    Pointing to Third DCA case law that cautions against over broad injunctions, the opinion noted, “it remains clear that injunctions are not available to stop someone from uttering insults or falsehoods.”

    Krapacs had claimed that she turned to social media because her complaints to the bar had fallen by the wayside. Her lawyers Devika Carr of D. Carr Law in Coral Springs and Ron Renzy of Wallberg & Renzy in Coral Springs said they were pleased with the ruling.

    “I believe that today’s ruling is a victory for First Amendment rights on social media, especially regarding unconstitutional “prior restraint” on expression covered by the First Amendment,” Renzy said.

    Carr said the ruling gave much-needed clarification about how social media and the Constitution intersect.

    “I am also thankful to the Fourth District for clarifying available remedies for any individual who considers pursuing legal action against someone else under similar circumstances,” Carr said. “Lastly, as individuals become even more digitally networked, finding themselves socially distanced to a point they are sort of encouraged to increase digital-based interactions, this decision demonstrates the need to for each of us to balance our right to freedom of speech with consequences that may be imposed for what we choose to say.”

    Bacchus and her attorney Joseph A. DiRuzzo III of DiRuzzo & Co. in Fort Lauderdale did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    That said, the panel stressed that Bacchus could seek damages against Krapacs if her statements prove false and rise to the level of defamation.

    The opinion also remarked that, ”Indeed, Krapacs has already faced some consequences for her actions. She has been disbarred from the Florida Bar and ordered to pay $4,777.40 in costs.”

    Fourth DCA Judge Mark Klingensmith wrote the ruling, with Judges Robert Gross and Jeffrey Kuntz concurring.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IBBBP4YZQuqZvnzJBcbuAkWfauJlD2Z3/view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.