Ну как можно быть таким тупым ... "Chess requires a chess set and a board for you to play on," Chess For DummiesRaanan Katz recently filed amazingly unconstitutional motion with Miami Court "MOTION TO EXCLUDE VIDEO CAMERAS AND STILL PHOTOGRAPHY FROM COURT PROCEEDINGS"
"Plaintiffs, R.K./FL MANAGEMENT, INC.; R.K. ASSOCIATES VII, INC.; 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RAANAN KATZ; DANIEL KATZ; RK HALLANDALE 1, LLC; RK HALLANDALE LIMTTED PARTNBRSHIP; 18100 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD; RK 17600-17632 COLLINS, LLC; RK. ASSOCIATES # 2, INC.; R.K. ASSOCIATES XVIII, LLC; R K CAUSEWAY PLAZA, LLC; RK BISCAYNB PLAZA, LLC; CALIFORNIA CLUB MALL SHOPPING CENTER, LTD.; RK SANS SOUCI PLAZA, LLC and RK SAGE PLAZA, LLC, and Counter-Defendants, ANDREW ZIDAR, KENNETH CATO, SUZANNE KATZ and ALAN KLUGER, file this Motion to exclude Video Cameras and Still Photography From Court Proceedings, and state as follows:
This Court should prohibit the presence of video and still cameras in this case in accordance with Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.450(a), and as a result of Defendants' pervasive misconduct both in and out of court, and their track record of distorting information in their tortious efforts to harm Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants...Defendants have sought to make a mockery of these proceedings more than once...
Moreover, Defendants caused a videographer to videotape the injunction hearing that was held in this case in November 2012, and then caused the video to be posted on the internet in an effort to cause further harm to Plaintiffs. See, e.g., video at www.youtube.com/watch?v=81_10KhrdUE. Defendants have also posted other videos on the internet. These videos present information that is taken out of context, and through these videos Defendants seek to further defame Plaintiffs or tortiously interfere with their relationships. See, e.g., videos posted at www.youtube.comlwatch?v=IS6zk2N82aE; and https://rkcentersusa.wordpress.com/tag/ raanan-katz...
Defendants' actions, which would be further burgeoned by video and still photographs, must be curtailed as they have a particular, substantial adverse effect on the participants in these proceedings, adversely affect the decorum of these proceedings and threaten the fair administration of justice.
Preliminarily, pursuant to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.450 (b), video cameras are only
permitted in "any trial or appellate court proceeding." This language of the Rule does no
provide for the presence ofvideo cameras during pretrial hearings in the trial court. Fla. R. Jud, Admin. 2.450(b)(1). This is further evidenced by the different language in Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.450(b)(2) and (3), which permit—subject to the Court's ability to exclude in the exercise of its diseretion—still carneras and audio systems for radio broadcast purposes "in any proceeding in a trial or appellate court." (emphasis added). There is elear distinction in the wording of the Rule regarding where and when video carneras, as opposed to still carneras, may be used. This is because the trial court retains the sound "discretion to hold certain judicial proceedings or portions thereof in camera." Court Commentary to fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2,450.
Moreover, according to Fla. R. Jud. Adm. in. 2.450(a), the determination of whether to allow any cameras or audio equipment at all into the courtroom is '[s]ubject at all times to the authority of the presiding judge to: (i) control the conduct of proceedings before the court; (H) ensure decorum and prevent distractions; and ('iii) ensure mc fair administration of justice in the pending cause . . . ." (emphasis added). See Morris Publ'g Co., LLC v. State, No. 1D10-226, 2010 WL 363318 (Fla. ist DCA Jan 20, 2010) ("The trial court retains the authority ... to prohibit the use of any device which as a factual matter, the court finds causes a distraction to the jury or otherwise causes a disruption of proceedings.").
In addition, "upon a finding that [medial coverage will have a substantial effect upon the particular individual, which would be qualitatively different from the effect on members of the public in general and such effect will be qualitatively different from coverage by other types of media" then "the presiding judge may exclude electronic media coverage" of court proceedings. Sunbeam Television Corp. v. State, 723 So. 2d 275, 278 "
And Miami judge Lisa Walsh ruled on this motion... to be continued