Cartwright Case Study

Willfully Harming and Causing Stress and Anxiety to Purposely Frustrate the Court and Ultimately Harm her Client that will likely have very long term

Angus Cartwright III, an investment advisor, was asked to provide investment advisory services for two clients, John DeRight and Judy DeRight. They both wanted to purchase a property that (1) is large enough to attract the interest of a professional real estate management company and (2) has a minimum leveraged return on their investments of 12% after

An example of a defamation case is Zenaida Gonzalez vs Casey Anthony. During the course of the murder investigation Casey Anthony told police that Caylee had been left with a babysitter named Zenaida Gonzalez, and that the babysitter had kidnapped Caylee. During the trial criminal trial Anthony admitted this claims were false. Gonzalez then sued Anthony for defamation

2. Clarence Thomas was accused of sexual harassment and assault by Anita Hill in 1991. Today he is a Judge in the Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. He has been also accused by other women in the 1990s.

Last week, the court saw the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit filed by the now-Catholic priest, Auxiliary Justice Malcom Gray ruling the reports published by News Corporation Australia as ‘substantially true’.

Zenger's lawyers were James Alexander and William Smith. Alexander was the editor of the Journal. The two lawyers challenged the right of Judge Delancey to preside over the trail. As a result, the Judge expelled both of the lawyers from their positions. Andrew Hamilton, the most famous lawyer in the colonies, became Zenger’s new attorney. The jury had to decide whether Zenger was the one who printed the Journal; and if he did print the stories, he was ordered to be convicted. Hamilton said that, “the jury had the right, if it chose to assert it, to decide both the law and facts.” Hamilton challenged the idea that truth is not a defense against libel. "If libel is understood in the unlimited sense urged by the attorney general, there is scarce a writing I know that may not be called a libel or scarce a person safe from being called to account as a libeler. Moses, meek as he was, libeled Cain- and who is it that not

New Yorker Magazine it states that there must be clear intent to tarnish one’s reputation in order for libel tort law to come into effect. This case was very similar in regards that there was enough evidence that suggest there was intent to hurt the reputation of those mentioned in the articles. Also in the case Anderson v. Liberty Lobby it states the plaintiff must be able to prove that there was in fact damage done to one’s reputation and be able to proof to judges that there was actual malice. As with this case, the court of appeals must take in consideration if the ruling can be made in favor of the plaintiff and that if the summary judgement would go in favor of the plaintiff. The judges want to make sure that they are not wasting time and that there was actual damage done to the plaintiff which can be awarded for punitive

The court case of New York Times vs Sullivan was a case that involved public officials and how they were libeled in the press in the year of nineteen sixty four. L.B. Sullivan was one of three elected commissioners of Alabama. The respondent was L. B. Sullivan was a public official from Alabama and brought a lawsuit against an clergymen, a negro and against a petitioner of the New York Times Company. L.B. Sullivan sued all of these people because he felt that he was libeled in a advertisement of the New York Times. The case had to deal with if the constitutional protections of speech and press limit the states power to award damages for the libel action brought by a public official against the critics of his official conduct.

To sum, the case is about an advertising the newspaper included some inaccurate story about the civic leaders, civil right events, and Sullivan. Sullivan (a public official) believed that the defamatory comments that were made of him were making a negative impact on his life, thus he sued the New York times. The court in Alabama at the time ruled “The law … implies legal injury from bare facts of publication itself, falsity and malice are presumed, general damages no need to presume.” Thus, the court from Alabama gave Sullivan a compensation of five hundred thousand dollars. New York times decided to take this case to the supreme court because they believe their 1st amendment rights were being violated. Therefore, a new question arose whether the first amendment protects defamatory, false statements concerning public officials? The court ruled that the 1st amendment does protect the publication of all statements, even false ones, concerning the conduct of a public official except when the statement was made with actual malice. Once again, we notice the irony of freedom of speech the issue is citizens are not informed that under the 1st amendment there is sufficient rights guarantee. It is not solely having the right to express our emotions towards the government, it is to expose information to citizens and have the citizens decided for themselves. Democracy does not work if the government or public official try to hide information from its citizens. Democracy function when there is a clear majority of press that expose the truth and allow people to determine what the issue is. Press must be able to protect us against an overreaching government. Sometimes executive power tries to control the press because they do not want to inform the truth about that for example the Watergates scandal, Edward Snowden, Wiki leaks and

I know it" (p.71) , when in fact the court did not find her innocent. Because

The majority consisted of Justice Earl Warren, Hugo L. Black, William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John M. Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron R. White, and Arthur J. Goldberg. The majority opinion was made by William J. Brennan, to protect the right to freedom of expression in the First Amendment, the Court rule that the criminal libel law should follow the same standards as civil libel law. True statements regardless of its malicious value will not be considered libel. While statements that are intentionally false or created with a rash disregard for the truth are considered to be libel and can be punished by the law. The restriction was modeled from a prior case, New York Times v. Sullivan, freedom of speech protection should not be exercise separately to a civil libel statute than to a criminal case. The Court concluded that the Louisiana Criminal Defamation Statute was unlawfully broad and that it breaches the protections of the First Amendment’s free

According to the First Amendment, it is one’s freedom to voice his/her opinions without fear of punishment and this is a fundamental right which is protected under the Constitution of the United States. However, free speech does have limits from protecting those lead to illegal activity, violence, obscenity or defamation. In this case, from my perspective, I think the Supreme Court would affirm the lower court’s decision, holding that judge’s instruction and jury’s verdict were constitutionally permissible since Donnelly is actually liable for libel and slander as she was claiming erroneous statement which directly harmed Lohrenz’s reputation.

Subsequently, it is much harder for a public figure to prove libel because he or she must prove actual malice, that the medium actually intended to hurt the person with these words. More over, I feel that libel is worse because it is the actual publishing or broadcasting of the information that can hurt a person and once it is published you cant take it back. However because of this, the idea of false light, private facts and libel are very closely connected here.

If the Indian courts started taking action against falsehood the case of perjury would outnumber all other categories of cases. But the Best Bakery Case, as indeed the Jessica Lal Murder Case, have become high profile and are therefore being highlighted and discussed in detail.

|Employee Profile / |Employees have low productivity, fail to meet work |Increased productivity, high morale, low grievance |