I don't understand any of it. But I'll risk much to defend your right to think it.
Quote:"Legal technicality." That is a fine example of spin. The damn law getting in the way and keeping these poor folks from winning their lawsuit.
I suppose you can recite the body of that 'legal technicality' for the forum?
If you can't bring better than that please don't bring anything ....
866 So. 2d 1231, *; 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1580, **;
28 Fla. L. Weekly D 460
NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF TAMPA, INC., d/b/a WTVT-TV, Appellant, v. JANE AKRE, Appellee.
Case No. 2D01-529
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT
866 So. 2d 1231; 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1580; 28 Fla. L. Weekly D 460
February 14, 2003, Opinion Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1] Rehearing granted by, Clarified by, Certification denied by New World Communs. of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2293 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist., Feb. 25, 2004)
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Ralph Steinberg, Judge.
DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The Circuit Court, Hillsborough County (Florida), entered a final judgment on a jury's verdict awarding damages to plaintiff reporter and against defendant television station after the jury found that the television station had violated Florida's private sector whistle-blower's statute, Fla. Stat. ch. 448.102 (Supp. 1998). The television station appealed.
OVERVIEW: The television station hired the reporter and her husband. They began working on a story about the use of synthetic bovine growth hormone. They, and the television station's management and lawyers, disagreed over the story's content. Each time the television station asked them to provide supporting documentation or to make changes, the reporter accused the station of attempting to distort the story to favor the manufacturer of the hormone. The television station then notified them that it was terminating their employment contracts. They responded by threatening to file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) alleging that the station had "illegally" edited the still unfinished report in violation of an FCC policy. The reporter and her husband sued. After the jury found the television station violated Florida's whistle-blower statute, Fla. Stat. ch. 448.102 (Supp. 1998), and awarded damages to her, the appellate court found that the FCC's policy had not been adopted as a rule. As a result, it concluded that the policy was not a "law, rule, or regulation" that the statute required be violated before an actionable claim was involved under the statute.
OUTCOME: The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for entry of a judgment in favor of the television station.
JUDGES: KELLY, Judge. CASANUEVA, J., and GREEN, OLIVER L., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
OPINIONBY: KELLY
OPINION:
[*1232] KELLY, Judge.
New World Communications of Tampa, Inc., d/b/a WTVT-TV, a subsidiary of Fox Television, challenges a judgment entered against it for [**2] violating Florida's private sector whistle-blower's statute, section 448.102, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998). We reverse.
In December 1996, WTVT hired the appellee, Jane Akre, and her husband, Steve Wilson, as a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team. Shortly after Akre and Wilson arrived at WTVT, they began working on a story about the use of synthetic bovine growth hormone ("BGH") in Florida dairy cattle. Their work on this story led to what could be characterized as an eight-month tug-of-war between the reporters and WTVT's management and lawyers over the content of the story. Each time the station asked Wilson and Akre to provide supporting documentation for statements in the story or to make changes in the content of the story, the reporters accused the station of attempting to distort the story to favor the manufacturer of BGH.
In September 1997, WTVT notified Akre and Wilson that it was exercising its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause. Akre and Wilson responded in writing to WTVT threatening to file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") alleging that the station had "illegally" edited the still [**3] unfinished BGH report in violation of an FCC policy against federally licensed broadcasters deliberately distorting the news. The parties never resolved their differences regarding the content of the [*1233] story, and consequently, the story never aired.
In April 1998, Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging, among other things, claims under the whistle-blower's statute. Those claims alleged that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract. After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury. The jury rejected all of Akre's claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC. The jury awarded Akre $ 425,000 in damages.
While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained [**4] by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. The portion of HN1Go to the description of this Headnote.the whistle-blower's statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have "disclosed, or threatened to disclose," employer conduct that "is in violation of" a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102(1)-(3). The statute defines a "law, rule or regulation" as "including any statute or . . . any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business." § 448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). We agree with WTVT that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news - which the FCC has called its "news distortion policy" - does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102.
The FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation with definitive elements and defenses. Instead, the FCC has developed the policy through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters' licenses. The policy's roots can be [**5] traced to 1949 when the FCC first expressed its concern regarding deceptive news in very general terms stating that "[a] licensee would be abusing his position as a public trustee of these important means of mass communications were he to withhold from expression over his facilities relevant news of facts concerning a controversy or to slant or distort the news." See Chad Raphael, The FCC's Broadcast News Distortion Rules: Regulation by Drooping Eyelid, 6 Comm. L. & Policy 485, 494 (2001) (quoting Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246, 1246 (1949)).
The policy did not begin to take shape, however, until 1969 when the FCC was called upon to investigate complaints regarding news distortion. Raphael at 494. Notably, the FCC did not take the initiative to investigate these complaints, but rather acted only after Congress referred complaints it had received to the FCC. In a series of opinions issued in licensing proceedings between 1969 and 1973, the FCC stated that when considering the status of a broadcaster's license, it would take into consideration proven instances of "deliberate news distortion," also called "intentional falsification [**6] of the news" or "rigging or slanting the news." In re CBS Program "Hunger in America", 20 F.C.C. 2d 143, 150-51 (1969). This series of FCC opinions has come to be known as the FCC's news distortion policy.
Akre argues that the FCC's policy is a rule as defined by section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes [*1234] (1997), which provides:
HN2Go to the description of this Headnote."Rule" means each agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits any information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule.
Even if we agreed with Akre that the FCC's news distortion policy was a "rule" as defined by section 120.52(15), her argument overlooks the fact that HN3Go to the description of this Headnote.the whistle-blower's statute specifically limits the definition of "rule" to an "adopted" rule. § 448.101(4). "This limitation to 'adopted' material only appears deliberate, and well serves the public by hinging civil liability upon matters of which due notice, actual or imputed, has been conveyed." Forrester v. John B. Phipps, Inc., 643 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). [**7] We find the legislature's use of the word "adopted" in the statute to be a limitation on the scope of conduct that will subject an employer to liability under the statute.
It is undisputed that the FCC's news distortion policy has never been "adopted" as defined by section 120.54, Florida Statutes (1997). In that regard, Akre notes that federal agencies may announce general policies and interpretive principles through the adjudicative process and argues that the fact that "the FCC adopted the news distortion policy through an adjudicative process does not affect its validity or enforceability as a matter of federal law." This argument is flawed in two respects. First, HN4Go to the description of this Headnote.federal law recognizes a dichotomy between rulemaking and adjudication; it does not equate the two. See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 102 L. Ed. 2d 493, 109 S. Ct. 468 (1988) (Scalia, J., concurring). Second, HN5Go to the description of this Headnote.while federal agencies may have discretion to formulate policy through the adjudicative process, the same is not true under Florida law. The Florida Legislature has limited state agencies' discretion to formulate policy through the adjudicative process by [**8] requiring agencies to formally adopt each agency statement that fits the definition of a "rule" under section 120.52. See § 120.54. As noted above, the legislature's use of the word "adopted" in the whistle-blower's statute was deliberate and was intended to limit the scope of conduct that will subject an employer to liability. This limitation is consistent with the legislature's requirement that agency statements that fit the definition of a "rule" be formally adopted. Recognizing an uncodified agency policy developed through the adjudicative process as the equivalent of a formally adopted rule is not consistent with this policy, and it would expand the scope of conduct that could subject an employer to liability beyond what Florida's Legislature could have contemplated when it enacted the whistle-blower's statute.
Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of WTVT.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA, J., and GREEN, OLIVER L., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
Quote from above, "The Dallas Morning News
DALLAS - (KRT) - After commanding the operation that toppled Saddam Hussein, Gen. Tommy Franks suggested that President Bush publicly mark an end to major combat in Iraq - an idea that led to the president's politically controversial appearance aboard an aircraft carrier.
Bush's announcement, under a banner that read "Mission Accomplished," took place just six weeks after the start of the war, generating harsh criticism as being a premature celebration and political grandstanding."
If numbers mean anything in war, "major combat operatings" really began after Bush made the announcement "the end of major combat operations." No, Lash, we are not privy to any clues to military terminology as used by Bush; but then only a few righties liike yourself understands his rhetoric. Have you recently asked anybody in the US Army or Marines now in Iraq if they thought "the end of major combat operations" occurred after Bush's speech?
Note to Revel: None of the insurgents are Americans.
The point of which you missed completly was that those in Iraq are not happy about targeted; the civilians didn't choose to fight for my rights to think the way I do. (referring to your previous post) I imagine they wished that we were more sucessful in the aftermath of the war in keeping a lid on the explosion of the resistance which was our responsiblity as occupuyers so that they would not now be dying so heavily.
Note to Cyclop: Unless you are the reincarnation of Jeanne Dixon, you probably don't have the capability to state what other people think or mean.
OE doesn't believe lives have been saved as a result of the invasion of Iraq and this is in the face of a long and well documented history of Saddam's regime.
I wonder if I'll ever live long enough to understand how liberals think the way liberals think. Maybe I just don't want to.
I prefer to focus on the good, the possibilities, the probabilities, the hope, and the capacity of humankind to improve and become better.
The U.S. wants less capabilities for terrorists to accomplish their stated purpose to harm us, hurt us, destroy us.
JURY VERDICT OVERTURNED
ON LEGAL TECHNICALITY cow
Welcome to the online news source for anyone who drinks milk or consumes other dairy products and depends on the news media to report suspected health concerns accurately and honestly.
Here you will find behind-the-scenes details about how a large share of America's milk supply has quietly become adulterated with the effects of a synthetic hormone (bovine growth hormone, or BGH) secretly injected into cows and how pressure from the hormone maker Monsanto led Fox TV to fire two of its award-winning reporters and sweep under the rug much of what they discovered but were never allowed to broadcast.
After a five-week trial and six hours of deliberation which ended August 18, 2000, a Florida state court jury unanimously determined that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH." In that decision, the jury also found that Jane's threat to blow the whistle on Fox's misconduct to the FCC was the sole reason for the termination... and the jury awarded $425,000 in damages which makes her eligible to apply for reimbursement for all court costs, expenses and legal fees.
Fox appealed and prevailed February 14, 2003 when an appeals court issued a ruling reversing the jury, accepting a defense argument that had been rejected by three other judges on at least six separate occasions. CLICK HERE for more details on latest ruling. CLICK HERE to view how Fox13 reported the ruling.
The whistle-blowing journalists, twice refused Fox offers of big-money deals to keep quiet about what they knew, filed their landmark lawsuit April 2, 1998 and survived three Fox efforts to have their case summarily dismissed. It is the first time journalists have used a whistleblower law to seek a legal remedy for being fired by for refusing to distort the news. Steve and Jane are now considering an appeal to the Florida state Supreme Court.
The journalists happen to be married to each other and this website, created by their friend and former television news producer Jon Duffey, was posted on the day the whistleblower suit was filed. It continues to provide details of the suit and subsequent appeals, as well as recent developments regarding rBGH and other genetically engineered foods.
Click the buttons to the right to learn more about this lawsuit and the controversy surrounding milk and other genetically modified foods and how they are being covered in the media, learn what you can do to help, and even post your own thoughts on our Bulletin Board. New developments in the journalists' lawsuit and the latest important news about BGH and GE foods and media coverage issues are posted regularly. You are invited to return often and click the blue box at the top of this page to keep up to date with these important issues.
Newspeak, doublethink, the mutability of the past. He felt as though he were wandering in the forests of the sea bottom, lost in a monstrous world where he himself was the monster. He was alone. The past was dead, the future was unimaginable. What certainty had he that a single human creature now living was on his side? And what way of knowing that the dominion of the Party would not endure for ever? Like an answer, the three slogans on the white face of the Ministry of Truth came back to him:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
I'm not saying that the UN sanctions were perfectly working. I'm not saying, I'd prefer Saddam in power to what's happening now.
But was there no other possibility? I don't think so. The United Nations didn't think so. A majority of all the countries around the world didn't think so. A majority of all the people around the world didn't think so.
And, Foxy, many of them might have good reasons (to oppose invading Iraq). So it might be worth listening to what they are saying. I believe it is unproductive to say something like
Quote:
I wonder if I'll ever live long enough to understand how liberals think the way liberals think. Maybe I just don't want to.
Frankly, I hated when Bush said "you are either with us or with the terrorists". Because it means: when you criticize us, you're a terrorist, too. Black and white. Good versus Evil.
If ican711nm's joke is in this context, then it is plain stupid. If it isn't, then I didn't understand why he posted it on this thread.
Meanwhile the U.N. inspectors reported being stonewalled and thwarted at every turn despite periodic ultimatums delivered to Saddam.
We invaded Iraq however, not for humanitarian reasons, but rather to deal with the WMD that almost everybody, included most of those in the UN, believed Saddam had and obliterate the terrorist training camps inside Iraq.
When the WMD were not found, what they did find would have been justification enough for the invasion.
And I hate it when I read about, listen to, or talk face to face talk with brave young men and women who have been over there and hear them say that they believe the terrorists are encouraged and urged to double their attacks because they hear the pacifists bashing the President and the military
I do believe if you put the President's words in context, however, he was clearly saying you are either with us or against us and anybody who gives aid, comfort, support, or shelter to the terrorists will be considered a terrorist. (Different meaning and intent from the way you remembered it.) Diplomatically imprudent? Perhaps.
But those of us who like this President like him mostly because he speaks from the heart and he says what he means. At the time when the WTC and Pentagon were still smouldering, it was the right thing to say.
In this matter, the liberals that I most criticize are those who seem to place sympathy and/or understanding with the terrorists and none with our leaders and military.
