On this Friday July 13 Judge Frank Buczynski rejected Steve Langert's claims of defamation and denied him any immediate relief due to failure to show cause and lack of proof for any wrong doing by The Lakewood View. The judge found that there was no urgent need for intervention by imposing restraints on TLV and denied any further request of discovery. And because of the disputed facts he could not grant Langert any relief.
Some Facts About the Case:
The Plaintiff brought forward allegations of defamation by TLV which has posted accurate media information pertaining to the behavior and/or MISbehavior of an elected official.
TLV maintains that there was no intent on their behalf other than to provide public information to the public.
Further, TLV claims plaintiff's action is nothing less an attempt to suppress criticism and freedom of speech that is constitutionally protected.
Anyone that shares the interest of pursuing the integrity of this matter is welcome to contact us at TLV by contacting the Admin Email:yonah@thejview.com,
All replies will be held strictly confidential
Judge Frank Buczynski is apparently a very straight shooter, and unimpressed with the typical Lakewood nonsense.
If the discoveries do proceed, Mr. Langert will essentially be allowing himself to be interrogated under oath regarding all of the alleged practices, and all connections he and his associates allegedly had with Mr. Weinstein - under the penalty of perjury.
The Federal prosecutors will no doubt be watching this closely.
Its time to call it quits Mr. Langert.
Before you may implicate someone - or yourself.
Can you please provide the readership with the court docs on this?
I, for the life of me, just don't get it!!!
You say: that Judge Frank Buczynski rejected all claims of defamation and denied "any immediate relief due to failure to show cause and lack of proof for any wrong doing by The Lakewood View."
Therefore, yelamdeinu Rabeinu, why during these tragic historic days of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza do we need to pursue "the integrity of this matter"
For the RBSO sake, please explain to me Why? Why? Why?
You won!!!
Your integrity is IMPECCABLE!!!
You won.
Hooray.
Genuk Shoin.!!!
Put it to rest.
Luz shoin up!!!
Let bygones be bygones.
WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG? ( A Californian quote for the ex -Californian defendant)
TLV won. Celebrate.
HH won. Celebrate.
Now move on.
RBSO. Please.
Aseh L'man H-Shem.
Please. Maybe in your z'chus of moving on with achdus and coming together, H-Shem will say to all our tzaros Dahy.
May we have a good chodesh and may the mo'ed of Av come speedily in our days.
why did it take a week to put this up?
Dear TLV,
Why dont you post that Shain's lawsuit against BMG lost and got thrown out???
Nice spin harold. Why dont u tell everyone what it REALY means.
Judge Buczynski was following the rules and the law. He is a very fair judge.
I am not sure what the merits really are here, but I do condemn Herschel in the strongest terms. If he was mature enough to appreciate what he is doing, he would think twice, maybe three times, before he ruins the lives of other people.
That being said, who was his attorney? Was it David? Ben? Dauber?
as it has been said many time anyone can sue anybody that does not prove a thing
to many people are sue happy the minute tey dont like what is being said
Down with Langert. We, Lakewood residents need Hershkowitz running the show in Lakewood. I beleive that he will end all of the curruption in this currupt town.
"Dear TLV,
Why dont you post that Shain's lawsuit against BMG lost and got thrown out???"
Fact:
Attorneys for Lakewood and the endowment fund of Beth Medrash Govoha, the world’s largest university for Talmudic studies, filed a motion to dismiss the 2010 lawsuit brought by plaintiffs Joseph DeFalco and Yehuda Shain, both of Lakewood. Their motion to dismiss the case was based on a time limit typically used on land deal lawsuits.
However, Judge Vincent J. Grasso on June 5 denied the motion, contending a time limit was not enough to warrant dismissing the suit.
Everyone has a YH. Give the guy a break - can you trust yourself til the Olam HaEmes?
Baruch Hashem, everyone's crazy. Time to look within - that takes guts.
The point here is that so far nobody won the fight. The first round however goes to HH.
HH wanted the suit dismissed and Steve wanted a restraining order issued. The judge denied relief to both of them. What this means is that Steve now has to go to trial to press his defamation claim. He will be deposed and testify. This is the reason why politicians usually never sue for defamation. They don’t want to testify because once they are under oath, the defendant (in our case HH) can ask him certain pointed questions which Steve will have to answer and not be able to claim the 5th. So from a practical point, Steve either drops the case now (and HH can make a claim for his legal costs to be reimbursed alleging that it was a frivolous suit) or Steve testifies under oath. Given the load of innuendo about various activities and business dealings that is said about Steve, I would advise him to drop. His lawyer is not giving him honest advice if he tells him to press forward.
When Ralph Zucker sued the other blog, he had the upper hand because that blogger wanted to remain anonymous. Had that blogger been willing to come out publicly and defend himself, Ralph would have been in the same uncomfortable position. Ralph also had a lower burden of proof because the burden of proof for a public figure plaintiff in a defamation claim is higher than the average person.
another of TOPAS'S conquests great pr for his rep.lol
We all knew this was a frivolous suit brought about by Langert. In retaliation to the slightest incident that he feels is an affront to him, he wants people fired, arrested, sued, etc. he is just a little boy trying to use his political power around to get his way. Maybe now he will have some pride in himself and stop the games.
What do you expect ? when was the last time Reuel Topas ever won a case ? When dealing with Topas your lucky if he does not Backstab you after Billing you Ridiculous sums of Money for doing nothing
To Esq. Jul 20th 2012 11:37 AM
How did Ralph Zucker have the upper hand? The blogger from what i understand DID remain anonymous.
They removed the site which personally i believe was foolish of them but based on the court documents, it seems Ralp lost and never found out who the blogger was, and no where in the document does it say that the blogger needed to remove the site.
He was not a public figure and lost, what chances does Steve have in winning?
I just spoke to Shain and he said that the are APPEALING the judge's ruling on the dormitory. Typical is to wait till the 45th day and file a notice of appeal. Yup. he even has the funds already for the appeal.