TALHASSEE – Florida Court of Appeals Wednesday pursuing honor-loss lawsuits against Pulitzer Prize Committee members in a dispute rooted in an organization that awards the New York Times and the Washington Post I have clarified how to do this. Elections in 2016.
Three judges on the Fourth District Court of Appeals declined to argue that the case should be dismissed against Pulitzer board members and others related to the board living outside of Florida.
The lawsuit Trump filed in Okeechobee County in 2022 alleges was slandered by a statement posted online by the Pulitzer Board. The statement comes after Trump demanded that the board withdraw the 2018 joint awards to two newspapers.
The board commissioned two independent reviews of Times and Post Stories, and refused to withdraw the award decision. A board statement, posted later online, said “the review has converged to conclusions.” In any of the winning submissions, texts, headings, competitions or assertions were said to have been discredited by the facts that appeared following the award. ”
Pulitzer Committee members argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the 19 defendants were not Florida residents. They argued that as a result, the Florida courts had no legal “jurisdiction” over these defendants. The only other defendant was Neil Brown, president of the St. Petersburg-based Pointer Institute, which owns the Tampa Bay Times.
Circuit Judge Robert Pegg refused to discuss jurisdiction involving out-of-state residents, leading the accused to appeal. However, a panel of the appeals courts supported Pegg’s decision on Wednesday.
“Trump’s operation fully accused the defendant of the conspiracy to slander him,” wrote Judge Jeffrey Kunz, who wrote judges Burton Connor and Ed. Altau added. “In addition, the defendant issued an official website statement at the request of Trump, a Florida resident. They did so at a meeting attended remotely by Florida resident (Brown).
This opinion does not resolve the underlying claims of the lawsuit.
However, Altau has released his consent opinion, referring to the current accused allegations that “he (Trump) conspired with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election.” Altau said Trump “fulfils his burden of establishing jurisdiction and makes a statement by a non-resident defendant who acted in actual malicious intent or who was a Florida resident defendant in a statement. He has moved forward with the claim that by slandering the president by recklessly ignoring the truth.”
“The court therefore correctly denied the non-resident defendant’s claim to dismiss the President’s alleged disclosure of “fake news,” Altau wrote.
A brief summary, submitted in August, lawyers for members of the Pulitzer Committee disputed that the statement released by the board was defamatory.
“The board’s statements state that the award-winning article on Russian interference in US elections and its relationship with the Trump campaign are “discreeted by subsequent emergence” sections, headlines, competitions or assertions. They claim it is not included. To award the award. “The statement is not slanderous and does not show that the board positively supported the meaning because it does not reasonably convey the meaning of Trump conspiring with Russia,” Brief said. “In addition, even if a Board statement conveys its meaning, it will disclose all facts on which the conclusion is based (as mentioned in the article itself) and make the Board statement an invalid “pure opinion” I’ll do it. ” Therefore, the board’s statement corresponds to “tort” and non-resident defendants are not subject to Florida’s personal jurisdiction. ”
The lawyer also argued that “the members who drafted the board’s statement did so outside of Florida. Members who approved the board’s statement did so outside of Florida, and that the board’s statement online The staff who announced did so outside of Florida. Similarly, the board did not direct the board to Florida is beyond controversy. The precedent is that in these circumstances, non-resident defendants would have It is clear that it is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida as a legitimate procedure issue.”
The Pulitzer Committee issued a statement following Wednesday’s ruling, which vowed to continue fighting the lawsuit.
“The lawsuit concerns threats from the press and those who support it. And we are not threatened,” the statement said. The Pulitzer Committee continues to recognize the achievements of the finest journalists, writers, artists and composers. I look forward to continuing to defend journalism. ”
Kuntz’s opinion mentioned 19 members of the Pulitzer Committee. However, the board brief said the 19 out-of-state defendants included board members, former board members and administrators.
Jim Sanders, Florida news service
