Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Stephen Lynch Murray, Petitioner v. Janelle Irwin Taylor, et al.

No. 22-

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES

STEPHEN LYNCH MURRAY, Petitioner

v.

JANELLE IRWIN TAYLOR, ET AL, Respondents

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

District Court ofAppeal, Fourth District

State ofFlorida, West Palm Beach, Florida

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

APPENDIX

Stephen Lynch Murray, pro se

stephenmurrayokeechobee@gmail.com

+1 305.306.7385

Stephen Murray

1414 S Parrott Ave. #141

Okeechobee, FL 34974

APPENDIX

A.

FL Fourth District Court of Appeal

Order Affirming Dismiss Complaint

la

B.

FL 19th Judicial Circuit Order

Dismiss Complaint With Prejudice

2a

C.

FL Fourth District Court of Appeal

Denies Rehearing

15a

D.

FL Supreme Court Administratively 16a

Rejects Jurisdiction

E.

First Amendment and Florida

Statute 784.048

18a

F.

Fake “No Social Media11 Bond

Condition and Actual Warrant

22a

G.

Arrest Affidavit Using Perjury

to Attack Political Speech

25a

H.

Respondents' False Article Text

32a

I.

Respondents Boast State Court

Anti-IA Political VIP Privilege

34a

J.

Pinellas Sheriff Calls Petitioner

Speech “toxic”

36a

K.

FL Attorney General Asserts

Unlimited State Power

37a

L.

Circuit Civil Complaint

38a

M.

Dismissed Complaint Appeal Initial

61a

N.

O.

Dismissed Complaint Appeal Reply

77a

Motion for Rehearing (Denied)

81a

(

APPENDIX A

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE

OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

STEPHEN MURRAY, Appellant,

v.

JANELLE IRWIN TAYLOR, an individual,

PETER D. SCHORSCH, an individual, and

EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES MEDIA, a Florida

LLC, Appellees.

No. 4D21-2586

[December 9, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth

Judicial Circuit,

Okeechobee County;

Rebecca I. White, Judge;

L.T. Case No. 21CA000035CAAXMX.

Stephen Murray, Okeechobee, appellant.

Mark Herron of Messer Caparello, P.A., Tallahassee,

for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, KLINGENSMITH and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* **

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for

rehearing.

la

APPENDIX B

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA

STEPHEN MURRAY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No.: 21-CA-000035-CAAXMX

JANELLE IRWIN TAYLOR, an individual,

PETER D. SCHORSCH, an individual, and

EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES MEDIA, a

Florida LLC,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

This Cause came before the Court upon

Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs

Complaint. Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging

defamation and seeking damages in excess of

$500,000.

Defendants moved to dismiss the

complaint pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. Rule 1.140(b)(1)

and Fla. Stat. § 770.01. The Court has carefully

considered the matter and is fully advised in the

premises.

2a

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Stephen Murray (“Murray”) filed the

instant action against Defendants claiming

defamation and alleging that he “suffered damage to

his immediate and prospective future personal and

business associations and relations, emotional

suffering, and other losses and financial damages in

excess of $500,000.” See Compl. 1) 1)32-33, 38.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff, Stephen

Murray (“Murray’), is a private citizen living in

The

Okeechobee, Florida. See Compl. 1) 1.

Complaint alleges that Defendant, Extensive

Enterprises Media, LLC, is a Florida LLC with its

principal office in Pinellas County, Florida; that

Defendant, Janelle Irwin Taylor, an individual, is a

legal resident of Pinellas County, Florida, who

conducts business as an author on the website

floridapolitics.com; and that Defendant, Peter D.

Schorsch, an individual, is a legal resident of

Pinellas County, Florida, who is the "publisher" of

the website floridapolitics.com. See Compl. 1) 1)2-4.

The Complaint further alleges that the website

floridapolitics.com, transmits files, media, and

general content via the internet. See Compl. 1) 1)2-4.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants

published an article on its website with the headline

"Okeechobee man arrested for stalking Chris

Sprowls' wife.” The article referenced Murray.

Compl. 1) 7. See also Exhibit D.1 The article is based

1AI1 referenced exhibits are exhibits attached to the Complaint.

3a

official court documents attached to the Complaint.

See Exhibit C.

According to a warrant issued against Murray,

on January 6th, 2021, Murray allegedly sent an

email to Phil Archer, the State Attorney for the 18th

Judicial Circuit, stating: “Hey Phil, look at the

attached photo. Is pimping legal in Florida? Because

I am going to make the bitch in the attached photo

my whore. You understand me?” See Exhibit C pg.

7.2. Attached to the email was a photograph of

Shannon Sprowls and President Donald Trump. Mrs.

Sprowls is the wife of Chris Sprowls, the current

Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. Id.

at 8. The email was signed off “SM cops2prison.org,”

and records indicated that the corresponding email

account is controlled by Murray. Id. at 8. A Twitter

account alleged to belong to Murray had previously

posted various tweets directed at Mr. and Mrs.

Sprowls. Id. at 6.

On January 24, 2021, a vehicle owned by

Murray entered Pinellas County, the county of

residence of the Sprowls family. Id. at 9. Due to the

fact Murray had no known associates in Pinellas

County and no legitimate purpose for traveling to the

county, and given his emails and Twitter posts, a

warrant was requested for the arrest of Murray

under charges of stalking. Id. 9-10. Judge Phillip

Federico issued the warrant on January 24, 2021, id.

at 1, and Murray was arrested the next day, see

Exhibit A at 1.

4a

On February 12, 2021, Defendant Janelle

Irwin Taylor wrote a story published on the Florida

Politics website detailing the criminal complaint, the

warrant, and Murray’s arrest. Id. The article in its

original form made repeated references to the

warrant and court records on which it relied. Id.

Murray contacted the Defendants on February

14th, averring that the published story contained

false, inflammatory, and damaging assertions. See

Exhibit E at 1. Murray requested specific

information as to what threats he had issued, the

beliefs of Judge Federico, and any supporting

documentation that Murray’s truck crossed the

bridge as alleged. Id. Defendant Peter D. Schorsch

replied, stating that the assertions were not made by

Defendants, but by the criminal complaint upon

which Defendants had relied for the story. Id.

Murray demanded that Schorsch clean up the story

with “corrections, clarifications, and retractions.” Id.

A series of back-and-forth emails between

Murray and Schorsch led to Defendants voluntarily

correcting, clarifying, and retracting certain

statements from the original story. See e.g., Ex. E.

These revisions included removing a statement that

Judge Federico had issued the bench warrant as he

was “concerned Murray would act on his threats to

the Speaker’s wife” and removing the words

“incendiary” and “critical” from a sentence which had

stated that the cops2prison.org website contained

“incendiary posts critical of the police, criminal

5a

justice system and other institutions.” Id. at 4, 6.

Additionally, Schorsch attached the public criminal

complaint in its entirety to the article. Id. at 4.

Despite these revisions, Murray continued to

maintain that Defendants had defamed him, and

that the ultimate issue is that the article stated he

was arrested for stalking someone. Id. at 6-9.

On February 15, 2021, Murray forwarded a

version of the complaint filed in this case to

Schorsch. Id. at 8-9. Murray filed the Complaint in

the above captioned case on February 17, 2021.

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss is appropriate where a

complaint fails to allege “ultimate facts” - the “final

and resulting facts reached by processes of logical

reasoning from detailed or probative facts.” See 40

Fla. Jur. 2d Pleadings § 25 (citing Fla. R. Civ. P.

1.110(b)(2) and Kreizinger v. Schlesinger, 925 So. 2d

431, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). While “courts must

liberally construe, and accept as true, factual

allegations in a complaint and reasonably deductible

inferences therefrom,” courts should dismiss

complaints that rely on “conclusory allegations,

unwarranted deductions, or mere legal conclusions.”

W.R. Townsend Contracting; Inc. v. Jensen Civil

Construction, Inc., 728 So. 2d 297, 300 (Fla. 4th DCA

1999).

When determining whether plaintiffs have

met their burden to survive dismissal, a court is

6a

limited to the specific allegations stated on the face

of the operative complaint and its attachments.

Santiago v. Mauna Loa Invs., LLC, 189 So. 3d 752,

755 (Fla. 2016). Any contradictions between the

allegations in the complaint and the attached

exhibits are resolved in favor of the exhibits. Id. at

756 (“It is also true that exhibits attached to a

complaint control over the allegations of the

complaint when the two contradict each other.”)

(quoting Paladin Properties v. Family Investment

Enterp., 952 So.2d 560, 563-64 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)).

If a complaint cannot be amended to state a

justiciable claim, the complaint should be dismissed

with prejudice. See Doe v. Am. Online, Inc., 718 So.

2d 385, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that the

trial court did not err by not allowing the plaintiff to

amend his complaint because it could not be

amended to overcome the defendant's immunity from

the lawsuit).

III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Has Failed to State a Claim Upon Which

Relief May be Granted

Under Florida law, defamation requires proof

of five elements: “(1) publication; (2) falsity; (3) actor

must act with knowledge or reckless disregard as to

the falsity on a matter concerning a public official, or

at least negligently on a matter concerning a private

person; (4) actual damages; and (5) statement must

be defamatory.” See Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997

7a

So. 2d 1098, 1106 (Fla. 2008).

1. The Publication was Substantially True

Truth is a defense to defamation. See Lrx., Inc.

v. Horizon Assocs. Joint Venture, 842 So. 2d 881, 886

(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2003). Based upon the

exhibits attached to the Complaint, the published

article is substantially true and thus not libelous.

See Rasmussen v. Collier Cty. Pub. Co., 946 So. 2d

567, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“The trial court

concluded correctly that the publications were

substantially truthful and, consequently, not

libelous.”).

While Murray claims he had not been charged

with a crime at the time of his email exchange with

Defendant Schorsch, and that the headline that he

was arrested for stalking was false, see Compl.

20, 27, the criminal complaint attached as Exhibit C

contradicts these assertions. Specifically, on page 10

of Exhibit C, the affiant, Detective Robert Weil,

requested a warrant for Murray’s arrest so Murray

could be “made to answer the charges of Stalking,

pursuant to F.S. Chapter 794.048(l)(d).” (emphasis

added). The exhibits are controlling. See Santiago,

189 So. 3d at 756.

Murray disputes the charges against him and

argues that Defendants “had no interest to discover

or publish the truth.” Compl.

28. Defendants,

however, are under no obligation to verify the

veracity of allegations in official documents, such as

8a

a criminal complaint. See Ortega v. Post-Newsweek

Stations, 510 So. 2d 972, 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)

(“The press has no duty to go behind statements

made at official proceedings and determine their

accuracy before releasing them.”).

Here, it is true that a criminal complaint was

issued against Murray for charges of stalking. See

Ex. C at 1, 10. It is true that the same criminal

complaint alleged Murray sent an email regarding

Mrs. Sprowls to State Attorney Phil Archer that

resulted, in part, to the charges of stalking, and

alleged that a vehicle belonging to Murray crossed

the Skyway Bridge into Pinellas County. Id. at 7, 9.

The same complaint also alleged an association

between the email address controlled by Murray and

the website cops2prison.org. Id. at 6. Defendants

relied specifically upon the court documents and

warrant in their publication. See Ex. A at 2, 6. The

full criminal complaint is now attached to the article

and available for any individual to verify the truth of

the article’s claims.

As such, Murray has not shown that

Defendants published any false statements against

him. Defendants merely reported on the criminal

complaints and the allegations contained within.

Because Murray has failed to plead facts to prove an

essential element of defamation, and because the

exhibits attached to the Complaint show that no

such facts exist, the Complaint should be dismissed

with prejudice.

9a

2. Defendants are Protected by the Fair Reporting

Privilege

Florida courts acknowledge the fair reporting

privilege. See Stewart v. Sun Sentinel Co., 695 So. 2d

360, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Under the privilege:

The news media has been given a

qualified privilege to accurately report

on the information they receive from

government officials. This privilege

includes the broadcast of the contents

"of an official document, as long as their

account is reasonably accurate and

fair," even if the official documents

contain erroneous information.

Woodard v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 616 So.2d

501, 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

News media will be protected by the privilege

so long as a report regarding an official document is

an accurate summary. See Carson v. News-Journal

Corp., 790 So. 2d 1120, 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001);

Walsh v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 80 So. 2d

669, 671 (Fla. 1955).

The article at issue details an official

government document, the criminal complaint

against Murray. In fact, Murray concedes that the

article is based upon the criminal complaint. See

Compl. H 11. While Murray argues that the criminal

complaint includes false and unfounded statements,

10a

so long as the Defendants’ account of the details of

the criminal complaint is accurate, the privilege

shields them from defamation, even if the document

they relied upon contains erroneous information. See

Woodard, 616 So. 2d at 502; see also Rasmussen, 946

So. 2d at 571 (“The trial court concluded, and we

agree, that the Daily News fairly and accurately

described matters of public record, including the

criminal informations.... Accordingly, the fair report

privilege shielded the Daily News from libel.”).

Here, a comparison of the published article in

its current form and the criminal complaint,

attached to the Complaint as Exhibits F and C

respectively, makes clear that Defendants’ article

accurately detailed the claims found within the

criminal complaint. The criminal complaint details

the context of the email concerning Mrs. Sprowls, the

charge of stalking against Murray, and the

association with the website cops2prison.org. While

the criminal complaint does not ever state that

Judge Frederico viewed the email as a threat or that

any “truck was driven over a bridge with the

intention to engage in prostitution,” Compl. ^ 23, it

is reasonable to conclude that Judge Frederico

believed the email constituted a threat as he issued a

warrant for Murray’s arrest.

As such, it is clear that the published article is

a fair and accurate report of the official criminal

complaint against Murray. Defendants are therefore

shielded from any claim of defamation based upon

the fair reporting privilege, and the Complaint

11a

should be dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff did not Provide Requisite Notice for

Correction or Retraction

Florida law requires as a condition precedent

to a lawsuit for defamation concerning a publication

or broadcast that a plaintiff provide at least five

days’ notice, in writing, to the Defendant. See Fla.

Stat. § 770.01. The notice must specify the

statements alleged to be false and defamatory. Id.

The publisher may then correct, retract, or apologize

for any misleading or false statements. See Fla. Stat.

§ 770.02.

Murray first notified the Defendants of the

statements he believed defamatory on February 14,

2021. He provided notice via email. See Ex. E.

Assuming the email constituted proper written

notice, the earliest Murray date upon which he could

file his lawsuit would have been February 19, 2021.

On February 15, 2021, Murray forwarded a version

of the complaint filed in this case to Schorsch. Id. at

Murray, however, filed the Complaint on

8-9.

February 17th, 2021.

Dismissal is appropriate when pre-suit notice

has been insufficient. See Plant Food Systems, Inc.

v. Irey, 165 So. 3d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)

(affirming a dismissal with prejudice for failing to

follow pre-suit notification requirements in a

defamation action); see also Canonico v. Callaway, 26

So. 3d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (same); Mancini v.

12a

Personalized Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., 702

So.2d 1376, 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding that

failure to provide notice under section 770.01 prior to

commencing libel suit required dismissal).

Murray has failed to follow statutory pre-suit

requirements by not providing Defendants a full five

days’ notice. The Complaint should be dismissed

with prejudice for failing to follow mandatory pre­

suit notification requirements.

IV.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED

that:

Defendants’ Amended Motion to

1.

Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint is GRANTED;

2.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE; and

Any other pending motions are

3.

DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE and ORDERED in Okeechobee County,

Florida on this 27 day of August, 2021.

WJufaL

REBECCA IVY WHITE

CIRCUIT JUDGE

13a

Copies to:

Stephen Murray

stephenmurrayokeechobee@gmail.com

Plaintiff

Mark Herron

mherron@lawfla.com

Patrick Scott O’Bryant

pobryant@lawfla.com

Cindy Lowell

clowell@lawfla.com

Counsel for Defendants

14a

APPENDIX C

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE

STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT,

110 SOUTH TAMARIND AVENUE,

WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401

January 10, 2022

CASE NO.: 4D21-2586

L.T. No.: 21CA000035CAAXMX

STEPHEN MURRAY v. JANELLE IRWIN TAYLOR,

et al.

Appellant / Petitioner(s) Appellee / Respondent(s)

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

ORDERED that appellant's December 4, 2021

motion for rehearing en banc, clarification, and

written opinion is denied.

Served:

cc: Mark Herron Stephen Murray

kr

LONN WEtSSBLUM, Clerk

Fourth District Court of Appeal

15a

APPENDIX D

Filing# 142270697 E-Filed 01/19/2022 04:10:37 PM

Supreme Court of Florida

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2022

CASE NO.: SC22-81

Lower Tribunal No(s).: 4D21-2586;

472021CA000035CAAXMX

STEPHEN LYNCH MURRAY vs. JANELLE IRWIN

TAYLOR, ET AL.

Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

This case is hereby dismissed. This Court lacks

jurisdiction to review an unelaborated decision from

a district court of appeal that is issued without

opinion or explanation or that merely cites to an

authority that is not a case pending review in, or

reversed or quashed by, this Court. See Wheeler v.

State, 296 So. 3d 895 (Fla. 2020); Wells v. State, 132

So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 2014); Jackson v. State, 926 So. 2d

1262 (Fla. 2006); Gandy v. State, 846 So. 2d 1141

(Fla. 2003); Stallworth v. Moore, 827 So. 2d 974 (Fla.

2002); Harrison v. Hyster Co., 515 So. 2d 1279 (Fla.

1987); Dodi Publ’g Co. v. Editorial Am. S.A., 385 So.

2d 1369 (Fla. 1980); Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d

1356 (Fla. 1980).

No motion for rehearing or reinstatement will be

entertained by the Court.

16a

A True Copy

Test:

^22

John A, Tomasino

Clerk. Supreme Court

CASE NO.: SC22-81

Page Two

td

Served:

MARK HERRON

STEPHEN LYNCH MURRAY

HON. REBECCA IVY WHITE, JUDGE

HON. JERALD DAVID BRYANT, CLERK

HON. LONN WEISSBLUM, CLERK

17a