#Wrongful Death Attorney Lutz

[anissakmorris]

WRONGFUL DEATH LAWYER RUSKIN

In the state of Florida, personal injury lawsuits have been on the rise for many years now. With each passing year it seems that more and more individuals are choosing to resolve issues through courtroom litigation, as opposed to other, less effective means of negotiations. In this past year, wrongful death lawsuits have increased far more than anyone might have expected. According to Ms. Anissa Morris, the Top Wrongful Death Lawyer Dade City has to offer, a wrongful death claim can be defined as a civil lawsuit that can be brought to litigation in the event of a wrongful act of negligence, that causes the death of another individual. As with other types of personal injury claims, in which a negligent party is at fault, the victim or injured party can obtain monetary, compensatory damages. These damages are used to in a way, make the family of the deceased party “whole” – and while they surely will not make up for the loss of life, and the emotional toll that individuals death may have had on his or her family, its really the closest thing our legal system allows for.

[archivist-crow]

Paranormal Casefile

Amityville Case (1975)

Controversial and sensational haunting of a house in Amityville, Long Island, New York, in the 1970s. The case has been the subject of numerous investigations, intense publicity, claims and counterclaims, lawsuits, books, and films. It has been upheld and debunked, with no resolution. It is best known as "The Amityville Horror," a term that is now a registered trademark.

Background

The house at 112 Ocean Street was the scene of a grisly multiple murder on November 13, 1974. Six members of the DeFeo family—parents, two sons, and two daughters—were found shot to death with a 35-caliber rifle. Their estimated time of death was three A.M. A third son, 23-year-old Ronald "Butch" DeFeo, was charged with the murders. DeFeo pled insanity, based on his history of drug abuse, but he was convicted of six counts of second degree murder and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

The DeFeo house sat empty until December 1975, when newlyweds George and Kathy Lutz decided to purchase it.

They were informed of the murders by a real estate agent, but the house was a bargain. The couple and Kathy's three children by a previous marriage—Daniel, nine, Christopher, seven, and Melissa, five—moved into the house on December 18. They were able to stay only 28 days.

At the insistence of a friend, the Lutzes sought to have the housed blessed and were put in contact with Father Ralph J. Pecoraro (for a long time identified by the pseudonym Father Mancuso). When Pecoraro performed the blessing, he heard a deep male voice ordering him to "Get out." He told the Lutzes to avoid a room on the second floor—the former bedroom of the murdered DeFeo sons.

The Lutzes, according to their account, were immediately subjected to horrible phenomena. Voices told them to "get out"; there were swarms of flies in the cold of winter; Kathy had nightmares about the murders; the apparition of a "demon boy" who could shape-shift into a demonic pig was seen; green slime oozed from walls; a crucifix hanging on a wall was turned upside down; Kathy's face transfigured before George into a horrid hag; mysterious noises sounded in the middle of the night; the apparition of a little girl became Melissa's playmate; unseen presences embraced Kathy; cloven hoofprints appeared in the snow outside the house; locks and doors were damaged; and so on. Their behavior and mood deteriorated. The children couldn't attend school, and George was unable to work.

The Lutzes tried to bless the house with prayer themselves, but their efforts had no effect. Finally, they were subjected to events that terrified them so badly, they knew they had to get out. The Lutzes never disclosed all the things that happened on their last terror-filled night, but among the phenomena were bangings and a menacing hooded apparition that appeared on the stairs and pointed at George. They left the house in a rush on January 14, 1976, and went to the home of Kathy's mother in Deer Park, New York. They left most of their belongings behind and sent a mover to collect them later.

Investigations

Demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren were contacted and met with the Lutzes and Father Pecoraro. They visited the house after it was vacated. On their first visit, they brought with them a television anchorman, a professor from Duke University, and the president of the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR). The Warrens determined that the phenomena fit the characteristics of a demonic possession, which the Lutzes, who knew nothing of demonology, could not have fabricated. The Warrens took numerous photographs, including one purporting to show the face of the demon boy peering out from a bedroom. Hans Holzer was another investigator.

Controversy

The Lutzes soon wondered if something wrong about the house itself might have influenced DeFeo to commit the murders. They contacted William Weber, DeFeo's attorney. Weber was already weighing book offers about the DeFeo murders, and he found the angle of a malevolent haunting to be appealing. For several hours, they discussed ideas for such a book.

The Lutzes decided not to work with Weber however. They especially did not like Weber's intention to give a share of profits to DeFeo. The Lutzes moved to San Diego, California, where they struck a deal with author Jay Anson. Anson's nonfiction account, The Amityville Horror, was published in 1977. He never visited the house, but based the book on 45 hours of taped interviews that the Lutzes provided him. The book was adapted to film in 1979.

The case became a media sensation. Anson's account was immediately controversial, and skeptics began claiming the entire haunting was a hoax. Discrepancies in Anson's story—which may have been embellished for the purposes of dramatization—were highlighted. For example, there was no snow in Amityville on the day that the cloven hoofprints were supposed to have been seen. The assertion that part of the problem was due to the house's location on a place where Shinnecock Indians had once abandoned mentally ill and dying people was refuted by Native Americans. Father Pecoraro said he did not go to the house to bless it; the Lutzes always asserted that he did. Many more points of controversy surfaced. Even the Warrens and George Lutz acknowledged that Anson's book was not entirely accurate, but attributed it to Anson’s lack of familiarity with demonology and not due to any deliberate acts on the part of George Lutz. Among the skeptics were Jerry Solfvin of the Psychical Resench Foundation, Karlis Osis and Alex Tanous of the ASPR, all of whom visited the house but conducted no investigations, opining that the phenomena were subjective, not paranormal.

For years, the case was repeatedly debunked, validated, debunked, and validated. One later skeptic was Stephen Kaplan, a self-styled vampirologist of Long Island, who wrote a book, The Amityville Conspiracy, basing his claims of hoax on inaccuracies in Anson's book. He declined to produce evidence that he stated he had in his possession. He later apologized publicly to the Warrens, admitting that he had fabricated his hoax story. Kaplan died of a heart attack shortly after publication of his book.

Lawsuits

In 1977, the Lutzes filed a lawsuit against Weber and Paul Hofman, a writer working on the story; Bernard Burton and Frederick Mars, two clairvoyants who had been to the house; and Good Housekeeping, The New York Sunday News, and the Hearst Corporation, which had published articles on the haunting. The Lutzes sought $5.4 million in damages for invasion of privacy, misappropriation of names for trade purposes, and mental distress. Weber, Hoffman, and Burton countersued for $2 million, alleging fraud and breach of contract. The Lutzes' claims against the news organizations were dropped.

The Lutzes' case went to trial in district court in Brooklyn, New York, in 1979. The judge dismissed their suit, saying that from testimony, "It appears to me that to a large extent the book is a work of fiction, relying in a large part upon the suggestions of Mr. Weber."

The couple who purchased the house from the Lutzes said nothing unusual happened to them. However, they were so annoyed by the publicity and steady stream of curiosity seekers that they sued Anson, the Lutzes, and publisher Prentice Hall for $1.1 million. They received a settlement for an unspecified smaller amount. Father Pecoraro sued the Lutzes and Prentice Hall for invasion of privacy and distortion of his involvement in the case. He received an out-of-court settlement.

Aftermath

The Lutzes stuck to their story for the rest of their lives. Their supporters have pointed out that Anson's discrepancies do not discredit what happened at the house. The Lutzes divorced in the 1980s. Kathy died of emphysema on August 17, 2004. George, who had moved to Las Vegas, died on May 8, 2006, of heart disease.

Anson died of a heart attack in 1980. He had shared copyright for the book with the Lutzes, but retained sole rights to the film. Father Pecoraro is no longer living.

The Amityville case has gone on to become a mini-industry, spawning books, films, articles, and websites, as well as endless debate.

Abridged text from The Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Spirits, Third Edition by Rosemary Ellen Guiley (Checkmark Books - 2007)

[bigyack-com]

Clint Eastwood’s ‘Richard Jewell’ Is at the Center of a Media Storm

ATLANTA — Clint Eastwood received a standing ovation on Tuesday when he was introduced by the Georgia House speaker, David Ralston, for the red-carpet premiere of “Richard Jewell” at the Rialto Center for the Arts in downtown Atlanta. The audience broke into applause again at the climax of the fact-based film Mr. Eastwood directed about the security guard who was suspected by the F.B.I. of planting a bomb at the 1996 Summer Olympic Games.The reaction was a contrast to how the film was received Wednesday at a screening arranged by Cox Enterprises, the owner of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, at a theater near the newspaper’s headquarters. During a scene in which a Journal-Constitution reporter is shown offering sex to an F.B.I. agent in exchange for information — a scene the paper has called “false and defamatory” — an audience member hissed.The film shows Kathy Scruggs, a law enforcement reporter, sidling up to the F.B.I. agent at a bar days after a pipe bomb packed with nails had exploded at Centennial Olympic Park in the city’s downtown area, causing two deaths and injuring 111 people. “Give me something I can print,” says Ms. Scruggs, who is played by Olivia Wilde.The agent is played by Jon Hamm. Using crude language, he implies that he would not give her the name of the leading suspect in the bombing even if she were to have sex with him. After the reporter’s hand climbs up his thigh, he relents, saying the F.B.I. was looking into Mr. Jewell, a man who had been hailed as a hero in news reports for his discovery of the bomb, a heads-up move that led to the clearing of the park, greatly limiting casualties.The movie, which is being released on Friday, depicts the reporter as grateful for this piece of information. “Want to get a room, or just go to my car?” she asksIn most respects, “Richard Jewell,” based on a 1997 Vanity Fair article, “American Nightmare,” and a recently published nonfiction book, “The Suspect,” is faithful to the events it describes. But the scene in which Ms. Scruggs, who died in 2001 at age 42, trades sex for a scoop did not appear in either the article, by Marie Brenner, or the book, written by Kent Alexander, the United States attorney in Atlanta at the time of the bombing, and Kevin Salwen, a journalist who was based in Atlanta for The Wall Street Journal.As the movie shows, Mr. Jewell was indeed a suspect, and The Journal-Constitution reported that fact in a front-page article. After a CNN anchor read the story aloud on the air, other networks and newspapers joined the media herd. The suspect, who was never charged, spent his days holed up in his apartment as reporters staked him out, an ordeal that ended only when he was exonerated three months after the bombing.In 2005, Eric Robert Rudolph, a serial bomber, confessed to the crime. Mr. Jewell died in 2007, a symbol for those who have faced trial by media during the 24-hour news cycles that came about when cable television was on the rise, a syndrome that prefigured the rushes to judgment of the social media era.Tom Johnson, who was the president of CNN at the time of the bombing, said the news media’s handling of the story was regrettable. “We were almost saying that he was guilty,” he said in an interview. “Nobody wrote that, but the unbelievable amount of coverage that was being given to Richard Jewell and the way in which all of us were trying to investigate it and report on it — it was incredibly complex, but it was unsettling.”(The New York Times played down Mr. Jewell’s status as a suspect at the time in an article that focused on the media reaction, cautioning that there was not enough evidence to charge him.)Mr. Eastwood’s film, written by the veteran screenwriter Billy Ray, follows the standard practice for movies based on real-life events by taking liberties with certain facts to speed the story along. But it uses Ms. Scruggs’s real name while giving a new one to the F.B.I. agent, raising the question of whether the filmmakers risked damaging the reporter’s reputation in their efforts to convey how Mr. Jewell lost his.This week, The Journal-Constitution sent a letter to Warner Bros. and the filmmakers, hinting at legal action for what it characterized as a defamatory depiction of Ms. Scruggs and an incomplete portrayal of how the paper arrived at the article naming Mr. Jewell as a suspect.“For a film that purports to be about the besmirching of someone’s reputation to proceed to smear Ms. Scruggs and the paper she reported for in this manner is highly offensive,” said the letter, which was also signed by Cox Enterprises, the owner of the newspaper and one of the country’s largest cable companies. Cox hired the litigator Martin D. Singer, known for his work on behalf of celebrities like Charlie Sheen and Bill Cosby, to represent the paper.Warner Bros. fired back with a statement that said, “It is unfortunate and the ultimate irony that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, having been a part of the rush to judgment of Richard Jewell, is now trying to malign our filmmakers and cast.”Weeks before the film’s release, The Journal-Constitution published an article headlined “The Ballad of Kathy Scruggs.” It described a “hard-charging” police reporter who used “salty language,” wore “short skirts” and did not leave crime scenes “until her notebook was full.” The article also said the film version of Ms. Scruggs “veers from reality, according to people who knew and worked with her, in suggesting she landed scoops by offering to sleep with sources.”The film’s bar scene has turned a cinematic examination of privacy, due process and the excesses of the news media into a target for critics who have called it the latest example of Hollywood’s sexist take on women in journalism. The trope of female reporters sleeping with sources or story subjects has appeared in the HBO limited series “Sharp Objects,” the Netflix show “House of Cards” and the movie “Thank You for Smoking,” among other productions.Kelly McBride, a onetime police reporter who is the senior vice president of the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit organization that supports journalism, said the portrayal of Ms. Scruggs did not reflect reality. “It is so exceedingly rare,” she said. “And yet this male-dominated world of Hollywood needs to cast female reporters as subject to the whims of nature.”“I think Clint Eastwood is showing his age, frankly,” she added of the 89-year-old director.Critics have noted that a film focused on a low point for law enforcement and the press was directed by a prominent conservative at a time when President Trump has vilified the F.B.I. as an arm of the so-called deep state and has repeatedly called the news media “the enemy of the people.”In the Vanity Fair article, Ms. Brenner wrote that an unnamed staff member at The Journal-Constitution referred to Ms. Scruggs as a “police groupie.” But the article did not report that she had used sex to learn that Mr. Jewell was a suspect or had a sexual relationship with any F.B.I. agent on the case.Ms. Scruggs shared a byline for the July 1996 article naming Mr. Jewell as a suspect with Ron Martz. In an interview, Mr. Martz, who spent 26 years at the paper before leaving in 2007, said that he had not been contacted by anybody working on the film and that its portrayal of his colleague was false. “She could be flirtatious, but she wouldn’t have done that sort of thing, because she was very conscious of her role as a reporter and she wanted to be known as a top-notch reporter,” he said.He added, “That sort of portrayal of her, it’s an insult not only to her, but to just about any other woman who’s been a reporter.”At an awards-campaign talk in Los Angeles last month, the film’s screenwriter, Mr. Ray, said he had spoken with people involved in the case. “I will stand behind every word of the script,” he added.Ms. Wilde defended the role in a thread she posted on Twitter on Thursday in which she expressed support for journalists and said that, in her understanding of the role, Ms. Scruggs and the F.B.I. agent “were in a pre-existing romantic relationship, not a transactional exchange of sex for information.” While the movie shows the pair having an earlier acquaintance, there is no indication that their relationship was romantic.Mr. Alexander and Mr. Salwen, the authors of the book that served as source material, met with Mr. Eastwood over the summer. “We realized we had the same motivation,” Mr. Salwen said. “This is the story of a man who should have a statue for the lives he saved, but, instead, this unsung hero is misunderstood.”The book refers to Ms. Scruggs’s “reputation” for sleeping with sources but reports that she got the tip about Mr. Jewell from someone in the Atlanta police department before having it confirmed by the F.B.I. agent. In a statement, the authors said: “We have been asked repeatedly whether we found evidence that Scruggs traded sex for the story. We did not.” They declined to discuss their input on the bar scene.After the screening held for Journal-Constitution staff members on Wednesday, Ken Foskett, an investigations editor at the paper, interrogated the authors of “The Suspect” in a question-and-answer session. The film is fair in its treatment of Mr. Jewell, Mr. Foskett said, but not Ms. Scruggs. “Why are the liberties taken with her?” he asked. “That’s my question. And why is that defensible?”“I will leave that to Warner Bros.,” Mr. Salwen said.The discussion also went into the question of whether the newspaper had been right, in the weeks after the bombing, to report that Mr. Jewell was the leading suspect and to describe him as someone who “fits the profile of the lone bomber.” (A libel lawsuit filed against the newspaper was dismissed in 2007.)“I think it’s worth addressing the broader criticism, regardless of what the movie got right or wrong,” Meris Lutz, a reporter at the paper, said. Of the bar scene, she added: “It felt so unnecessary. If they had cut that, I don’t think it would have affected the movie at all.”Brooks Barnes contributed reporting from Los Angeles. Read the full article

[biofunmy]

Clint Eastwood’s ‘Richard Jewell’ Is at the Center of a Media Storm

ATLANTA — Clint Eastwood received a standing ovation on Tuesday when he was introduced by the Georgia House speaker, David Ralston, for the red-carpet premiere of “Richard Jewell” at the Rialto Center for the Arts in downtown Atlanta. The audience broke into applause again at the climax of the fact-based film Mr. Eastwood directed about the security guard who was suspected by the F.B.I. of planting a bomb at the 1996 Summer Olympic Games.

The reaction was a contrast to how the film was received Wednesday at a screening arranged by Cox Enterprises, the owner of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, at a theater near the newspaper’s headquarters. During a scene in which a Journal-Constitution reporter is shown offering sex to an F.B.I. agent in exchange for information — a scene the paper has called “false and defamatory” — an audience member hissed.

The film shows Kathy Scruggs, a law enforcement reporter, sidling up to the F.B.I. agent at a bar days after a pipe bomb packed with nails had exploded at Centennial Olympic Park in the city’s downtown area, causing two deaths and injuring 111 people. “Give me something I can print,” says Ms. Scruggs, who is played by Olivia Wilde.

The agent is played by Jon Hamm. Using crude language, he implies that he would not give her the name of the leading suspect in the bombing even if she were to have sex with him. After the reporter’s hand climbs up his thigh, he relents, saying the F.B.I. was looking into Mr. Jewell, a man who had been hailed as a hero in news reports for his discovery of the bomb, a heads-up move that led to the clearing of the park, greatly limiting casualties.

The movie, which is being released on Friday, depicts the reporter as grateful for this piece of information. “Want to get a room, or just go to my car?” she asks.

In most respects, “Richard Jewell,” based on a 1997 Vanity Fair article, “American Nightmare,” and a recently published nonfiction book, “The Suspect,” is faithful to the events it describes. But the scene in which Ms. Scruggs, who died in 2001 at age 42, trades sex for a scoop did not appear in either the article, by Marie Brenner, or the book, written by Kent Alexander, the United States attorney in Atlanta at the time of the bombing, and Kevin Salwen, a journalist who was based in Atlanta for The Wall Street Journal.

As the movie shows, Mr. Jewell was indeed a suspect, and The Journal-Constitution reported that fact in a front-page article. After a CNN anchor read the story aloud on the air, other networks and newspapers joined the media herd. The suspect, who was never charged, spent his days holed up in his apartment as reporters staked him out, an ordeal that ended only when he was exonerated three months after the bombing.

In 2005, Eric Robert Rudolph, a serial bomber, confessed to the crime. Mr. Jewell died in 2007, a symbol for those who have faced trial by media during the 24-hour news cycles that came about when cable television was on the rise, a syndrome that prefigured the rushes to judgment of the social media era.

Tom Johnson, who was the president of CNN at the time of the bombing, said the news media’s handling of the story was regrettable.

“We were almost saying that he was guilty,” he said in an interview. “Nobody wrote that, but the unbelievable amount of coverage that was being given to Richard Jewell and the way in which all of us were trying to investigate it and report on it — it was incredibly complex, but it was unsettling.”

(The New York Times played down Mr. Jewell’s status as a suspect at the time in an article that focused on the media reaction, cautioning that there was not enough evidence to charge him.)

Mr. Eastwood’s film, written by the veteran screenwriter Billy Ray, follows the standard practice for movies based on real-life events by taking liberties with certain facts to speed the story along. But it uses Ms. Scruggs’s real name while giving a new one to the F.B.I. agent, raising the question of whether the filmmakers risked damaging the reporter’s reputation in their efforts to convey how Mr. Jewell lost his.

This week, The Journal-Constitution sent a letter to Warner Bros. and the filmmakers, hinting at legal action for what it characterized as a defamatory depiction of Ms. Scruggs and an incomplete portrayal of how the paper arrived at the article naming Mr. Jewell as a suspect.

“For a film that purports to be about the besmirching of someone’s reputation to proceed to smear Ms. Scruggs and the paper she reported for in this manner is highly offensive,” said the letter, which was also signed by Cox Enterprises, the owner of the newspaper and one of the country’s largest cable companies. Cox hired the litigator Martin D. Singer, known for his work on behalf of celebrities like Charlie Sheen and Bill Cosby, to represent the paper.

Warner Bros. fired back with a statement that said, “It is unfortunate and the ultimate irony that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, having been a part of the rush to judgment of Richard Jewell, is now trying to malign our filmmakers and cast.”

Weeks before the film’s release, The Journal-Constitution published an article headlined “The Ballad of Kathy Scruggs.” It described a “hard-charging” police reporter who used “salty language,” wore “short skirts” and did not leave crime scenes “until her notebook was full.” The article also said the film version of Ms. Scruggs “veers from reality, according to people who knew and worked with her, in suggesting she landed scoops by offering to sleep with sources.”

The film’s bar scene has turned a cinematic examination of privacy, due process and the excesses of the news media into a target for critics who have called it the latest example of Hollywood’s sexist take on women in journalism. The trope of female reporters sleeping with sources or story subjects has appeared in the HBO limited series “Sharp Objects,” the Netflix show “House of Cards” and the movie “Thank You for Smoking,” among other productions.

Kelly McBride, a onetime police reporter who is the senior vice president of the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit organization that supports journalism, said the portrayal of Ms. Scruggs did not reflect reality.

“It is so exceedingly rare,” she said. “And yet this male-dominated world of Hollywood needs to cast female reporters as subject to the whims of nature.”

“I think Clint Eastwood is showing his age, frankly,” she added of the 89-year-old director.

Critics have noted that a film focused on a low point for law enforcement and the press was directed by a prominent conservative at a time when President Trump has vilified the F.B.I. as an arm of the so-called deep state and has repeatedly called the news media “the enemy of the people.”

In the Vanity Fair article, Ms. Brenner wrote that an unnamed staff member at The Journal-Constitution referred to Ms. Scruggs as a “police groupie.” But the article did not report that she had used sex to learn that Mr. Jewell was a suspect.

Ms. Scruggs shared a byline for the July 1996 article naming Mr. Jewell as a suspect with Ron Martz. In an interview, Mr. Martz, who spent 26 years at the paper before leaving in 2007, said that he had not been contacted by anybody working on the film and that its portrayal of his colleague was false.

“She could be flirtatious, but she wouldn’t have done that sort of thing, because she was very conscious of her role as a reporter and she wanted to be known as a top-notch reporter,” he said.

He added, “That sort of portrayal of her, it’s an insult not only to her, but to just about any other woman who’s been a reporter.”

At an awards-campaign talk in Los Angeles last month, the film’s screenwriter, Mr. Ray, said he had spoken with people involved in the case. “I will stand behind every word of the script,” he added.

Mr. Alexander and Mr. Salwen, the authors of the book that served as source material, met with Mr. Eastwood over the summer.

“We realized we had the same motivation,” Mr. Salwen said. “This is the story of a man who should have a statue for the lives he saved, but, instead, this unsung hero is misunderstood.”

The book refers to Ms. Scruggs’s “reputation” for sleeping with sources but reports that she got the tip about Mr. Jewell from someone in law enforcement before having it confirmed by the F.B.I. agent. In a statement, the authors said: “We have been asked repeatedly whether we found evidence that Scruggs traded sex for the story. We did not.” They declined to discuss their input on the bar scene.

After the screening held for Journal-Constitution staff members on Wednesday, Ken Foskett, an investigations editor at the paper, interrogated the authors of “The Suspect” in a question-and-answer session. The film is fair in its treatment of Mr. Jewell, Mr. Foskett said, but not Ms. Scruggs.

“Why are the liberties taken with her?” he asked. “That’s my question. And why is that defensible?”

“I will leave that to Warner Bros.,” Mr. Salwen said.

The discussion also went into the question of whether the newspaper had been right, in the weeks after the bombing, to report that Mr. Jewell was the leading suspect and to describe him as someone who “fits the profile of the lone bomber.” (A libel lawsuit filed against the newspaper was dismissed in 2007.)

“I think it’s worth addressing the broader criticism, regardless of what the movie got right or wrong,” Meris Lutz, a reporter at the paper, said. Of the bar scene, she added: “It felt so unnecessary. If they had cut that, I don’t think it would have affected the movie at all.”

Brooks Barnes contributed reporting from Los Angeles.

Sahred From Source link Business

from WordPress http://bit.ly/35iDoB9 via IFTTT

[anissakmorris]

Wrongful Death Attorney Zephyrhills

Florida Motorcycle Accident Lawyer, if you or a loved one has been injured or killed in a motorcycle crash, contact the experienced injury attorneys of Spinner Law Firm. Our firm has the experience and the resources, including a vast network of accident reconstruction experts, medical specialists, and crash investigators to help you obtain the compensation you need and deserve for your injuries or the death of your loved one. Contact us now for help.