Ritter v. Sarasota Herald-Tribune Motion To Dismiss

Filing # 41868427 E-Filed 05/23/2016 05:48:24 PM
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA
CARL RITTER and
CAROL RITTER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Case No. 2016-CA-000733
HALIFAX SARASOTA, LLC, JESSICA FLOUM,

ANTHONY CORMIER, MICHAEL BRAGA,
PATRICK DORSEY, BILL CHURCH, and
EMILY LE COZ,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS

OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendants Halifax Sarasota, LLC (the Herald-Tribune), Jessica Floum (Floum),
Anthony Cormier (Cormier), Michael Braga (Braga), Patrick Dorsey (Dorsey), Bill
Church (Church), and Emily Le Coz (Le Coz) (collectively Defendants), pursuant to Fla.
R. Civ. P. 1.140, or alternatively, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c), hereby move for an Order dismissing
with prejudice the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Carl Ritter (Mr. Ritter) and Carol Ritter
(Mrs. Ritter) (collectively Plaintiffs), as follows:
Summary of Argument
This case is about the downfall of a prominent Sarasota charity, The Center for Building
Hope (the Center), and the decisions of its Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Ritter, that contributed
to its failure. This case is also about whether the First Amendment and Florida law protect the
Herald-Tribunes meticulous investigative journalism covering the Centers downfall and
Mr. Ritters role in its demise. Mr. Ritters leadership ultimately led to his termination by the
Centers Board of Directors (the Board). Between June 7, 2015 and February 3, 2016, the
Herald-Tribune ran thirteen (13) articles that in some way described the Centers troubles, and
the role Mr. Ritter played in them (the Articles). These Articles addressed the Centers
financial problems, Mr. Ritters business background, and his strategic decisions that were
revealed to be ethically questionable and ultimately, financially disastrous. In publishing the
Articles, the Herald-Tribune relied upon numerous publicly-filed government records fully
disclosed to all readers, often including links to the complete public record referenced in the
Articles. Braga Aff., Exhs. 1-14; Article 1. 1 In the course of reporting on these events of great
public concern to the community, the Herald-Tribune even published Mr. Ritters defense of his
conduct and the Centers defense of him. See Article 1.
In a sprawling and wildly imprecise Complaint, Mr. Ritter now claims that all 13 of the
Articles, and all one hundred and twenty-six statements referenced therein (the Statements),
somehow defamed him. In doing so, Mr. Ritter ignores and asks this Court to do likewise:
(a) his own published admissions of the truth of many of the Statements, (b) constitutional
guarantees of free speech and free press, (c) Floridas Fair Report Privilege (among many others)
protecting the medias ability to rely and opine upon the content of disclosed public records;
(d) basic and fundamental pleading rules (both generally and specific to libel claims), requiring
1
The Court is free to consider and dismiss the Complaint based upon the Articles attached to the Complaint
including the documents and public records to which the Articles link, as those linked documents are part of the
Articles. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130. For instance, because Article 1 is attached to the Complaint and considered
part of the pleading, and because it impliedly incorporates the referenced legal documents into the article, the
Court may consider it in deciding this motion. See One Call Prop. Servs. Inc. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 165 So.3d
749, 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ([W]here the terms of a legal document are impliedly incorporated by reference
into the complaint, the trial court may consider the contents of the document in ruling on a motion to dismiss.);
Adelson v. Harris, 973 F. Supp. 2d 467, 483-85 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (court may consider hyperlinked documents in
deciding a motion to dismiss). The Court should also consider these documents and the other public records
the Articles relied upon pursuant to Rule 1.510. Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c), Defendants rely upon the
following summary judgment evidence in support of this Motion: the Affidavit of Michael Braga and the
exhibits attached thereto filed on even date herewith (hereinafter cited as Braga Aff., Exh. __). Many of the
public documents relied upon in the Articles are too voluminous to file with the Court, so only the relevant
excerpts are provided. Defendants will produce full copies upon the Courts request.
proper notice of the precise statements claimed actionable, and how and why those statements
could plausibly be deemed to be false and defamatory or satisfy the many steep hurdles
defamation claims against the press must overcome. This Court should follow established
constitutional and Florida law, and readily dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint, to safeguard, rather
than jeopardize, the significant constitutional interests of free expression and a free and robust
press at stake.
Introduction and Background
The Complaint alleges that 126 different Statements in 13 different Articles, published
from June, 2015 through February, 2016, all defamed Plaintiffs. The 126 Statements are
catalogued in Schedule A to the Complaint. 2 All 126 Statements are relied upon as the basis
for the libel claim in Count I. The content of the Articles is generally summarized as follows.
a.
Mr. Ritter Takes Over the Centers Leadership
As set forth in the Articles, the Center was a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization that
provided free programs to individuals impacted by cancer. Braga Aff., Exh. 1 (2012 Form 990).
In 2009, the Center obtained a $5.5 million bond to build a new facility in Lakewood Ranch,
placing a significant burden on the Centers finances at precisely the time the world economy
was tanking, and, correspondingly, charitable contributions were drying up. 3 Enter Mr. Ritter,
who the Board hired as CEO in September, 2010. Before joining the Center, Mr. Ritter served as
the CEO of Carbiz Inc. (Carbiz), a Canadian company that focused on Buy Here-Pay Here
car dealerships who use their own money to finance vehicles for customers with sub-standard or
For convenience, this Motion will adopt the numbering system set forth in the Schedule A to the Complaint,
e.g., the Articles are referred to as Article 1 through Article 13, and the 29 Statements at issue within
Article 1 are identified as numbered 1.1 through 1.29.
See Article 1; Braga Aff., Exh. 1 (2009 Form 990).
poor credit. 4 As the Herald-Tribune reported, Carbizs publicly available filings with the SEC
reveal that, between 2004 and 2009, Carbiz lost millions of dollars while Mr. Ritters salary
increased. Article 1; Braga Aff., Exh. 4.
When the Board hired Mr. Ritter in September 2010, they were convinced they had
found someone with the financial skills to save center, even though Mr. Ritter had twice filed
for bankruptcy in Canada. 5 After assuming the helm at the Center, Mr. Ritter shifted its focus
from donations to a retail venture. With the Boards approval, the Center took out a $675,000
loan from a prominent community lending organization, The Gulf Coast Community
Foundation, to purchase a small Oregon non-profit that sold used wedding dresses. Article 1.
Renamed Brides Against Breast Cancer (BABC), this new component of the Center held bridal
shows, selling donated wedding dresses and charging vendors to participate. Id. This expanded
retail operation brought with it significant new operating costs. Id. While the Center claimed, and
the Herald-Tribune reported, that BABC generated positive revenue, the Centers finances
continued to deteriorate. Braga Aff., Exh. 1 (2010 Form 990 2014 Form 990).
b.
Mr. Ritter Switches Vendors And Personally Profits
Making matters worse for Mr. Ritter was an apparent conflict of interest between the
Center and another business which he owned with Mrs. Ritter. Plaintiffs own a company that
developed an application for processing credit card transactions for BABC. In February 2015,
Mr. Ritter changed BABCs credit card processor from Eventbrite to a company he and his wife
owned and controlled named Sarasota Finance Management, LLC (SFM) with the entire fee
charged the consumer deposited directly in a bank account in Mrs. Ritters name. Article 2.
According to Center insiders, Plaintiffs charged BABC at least sixteen percent as a processing
4
See Article 1, incorporating a hyperlink to Carbizs 2009 10K filed with the U.S. Securities Exchange
Commission (SEC).
See Article 1, providing links to Mr. Ritters Canadian bankruptcy records. Braga Aff., Exh. 2.
fee, which, according to industry experts interviewed by the Herald-Tribune, was exorbitant and
about eight times the customary rate for nonprofits. Article 2. Various members of the Centers
Board told the Herald-Tribune that only a few of the Board members knew about the
arrangement. Articles 2, 3.
c.
The Center Fires Mr. Ritter; He Sues
On or about July 31, 2015, the Centers Board fired Mr. Ritter. Article 3. On August 10,
2015, the Center closed BABC. Article 6. The next day, on August 11, 2015, Mr. Ritter filed suit
against the Center claiming he was fired without cause and entitled to compensation. Braga Aff.,
Exh. 9 (Mr. Ritters civil complaint against Center). Meanwhile, the Centers financial troubles
came to a head, and on September 3, 2015, it was forced to lay off its remaining staff, and
transition its cancer support services to Jewish Family and Childrens Services (JFCS). Article
9. As the Centers interim CEO, Ron Gelbman, told the Herald-Tribune, the Center could no
longer pay its bills. Id. When Gelbman took over in August, 2015, he discovered the Center
had only $18,000 in cash and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of unpaid bills. Id.
d.
Criminal Charges Filed Against Mr. Ritter
According to a criminal complaint filed with the Sarasota Countys Sheriff Office
(SCSO) by Board member Brian Mariash, the entire Board did not learn about the fee
arrangement with Plaintiffs company until July 10, 2015, months after it was implemented.
There was never a written agreement between the Center and SFM, and, after the arrangements
discovery, Mr. Ritter was immediately instructed by the Board to turn over all funds collected.
Incredibly, Mr. Ritter refused to turn over approximately $20,000. On January 22, 2016, a
Probable Cause Affidavit was sworn out by a Sarasota County Sheriffs Office Detective
detailing Mr. Ritters diversion of funds from the Center, and attesting that probable cause
existed to believe that Mr. Ritter had committed grand theft in violation of Florida law. 6
Through intensive investigation, including numerous interviews and extensive research
into multiple public records, the Herald-Tribune meticulously documented the Centers demise,
and the prominent role Mr. Ritter played in it. 7 Plaintiffs, however, claim the Herald-Tribunes
Articles defamed them. The First Amendment and Florida law do not entitle Plaintiffs to the
press they want, however, and all of their claims fail as a matter of law. 8
ARGUMENT
I.
The Elements of Libel

To state a Florida common law libel claim, Plaintiffs must allege sufficient ultimate facts
establishing: (a) a false and defamatory statement of fact, (b) of and concerning the Plaintiff,
(c) an unprivileged publication to a third party, (d) fault on the publishers part, and (e) damages
proximately caused by the libel. See, e.g., Weintraub v. Halifax Media Group, LLC, Case No.
2014 CA 2822 (Sarasota Co. Cir. Ct. 2014) affd Weintraub v. Halifax Media Group, LLC, 2016
WL 1066265 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 18, 2016) 9 (citing Mile Marker, Inc., v. Petersen Publishing,
LLC, 811 So.2d 841, 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Angelastro v. Novotny, Case No. 2012 CA 98
(Sarasota County Cir. Ct. 2013), affd Angelastro v. Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 145 So.2d 838
See Article 8, relying upon the criminal complaint filed against Mr. Ritter. Braga Aff., Exh. 10 (criminal
complaint and Probable Cause Affidavit).
The Complaint is directed to the thirteen Articles published by the Tribune, twelve of which were authored by
Floum. The Complaint, however, contains no facts, and certainly no ultimate facts, about Defendants Cormier,
Braga, Dorsey, Church and Le Coz. Even viewing the Complaint in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, there are
no allegations establishing those Defendants participation in the purported conspiracy, let alone any facts
suggesting when the supposed agreement to carry out this conspiracy was reached. The claims against those
Defendants are thus implausible and should be dismissed on this ground alone.
It is unclear what the basis for Mrs. Ritters libel claim is. In the Articles attached to the Complaint, Mrs. Ritter
is only mentioned in connection with her ownership of the fee processing company BABC used.
A copy of this Courts Order in Weintraub granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively for
Summary Judgment is annexed hereto for the Courts convenience as Exhibit A.
(Fla. 2d DCA 2014); 10 Hay v. Ind. Newspapers, Inc., 450 So.2d 293, 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
(libel claim requires a defamatory statement of and concerning the plaintiff); Brown v. New
World Communications, Inc., 712 So.2d 395, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Delacruz v. Peninsula
State Bank, 221 So.2d 772, 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Words are defamatory when they charge a
person with an infamous crime or tend to subject one to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt or
disgrace or tend to injure one in ones business or profession. Seropian v. Forman, 652 So.2d
490, 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The first element of the claim, [a] false statement of fact[,] is the
sine qua non for recovery in a defamation action. Hallmark Builders, Inc. v. Gaylord Broad.,
Co., 733 F.2d 1461, 1464 (11th Cir. 1984) (quoting Byrd v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 433 So.2d
593, 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)).
a.
False Statement of Fact
Importantly, the first element, a false statement of fact, means that statements of opinion
are not actionable, and that a statement must generally be capable of being proven true or false to
support a defamation claim. Zorc v. Jordan, 765 So.2d 768, 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). As courts
have uniformly held, there is no such thing as a false idea. From v. Tallahassee Democrat,
Inc., 400 So.2d 52, 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Early, 334 So.2d
50, 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Indeed the ability of any individual (and in particular the press) to
express an opinion freely, without fear of harassing lawsuits, lies at the very cornerstone of the
freedoms protected by the U.S. and Florida Constitutions. Opinion occurs when the defendant
makes a comment or states an opinion based on facts which are set forth in the article or which
are otherwise known or available to the reader or listener as a member of the public. From, 400
So.2d at 57 (plaintiffs position and performance in community provided assumed facts upon
10
A copy of this Courts Order in Angelastro granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively for
Summary Judgment is annexed hereto for the Courts convenience as Exhibit B.
which the author could base his opinion); Rasmussen v. Collier Cty. Pub. Co., 946 So.2d 567,
571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (Commentary or opinion based on facts that are set forth in the article
or which are otherwise known or available to the reader or listener are not the stuff of libel.);
Hay, 450 So.2d at 295. Importantly, whether a statement is one of fact or one of opinion is a
question of law for the Court to decide at the outset. Rasmussen, 946 So.2d at 571.
As set forth in greater detail below, applying this first element of a libel claim knocks out
the vast majority of the Statements at issue here. Indeed, most of the Statements are either
indisputably true, as conceded by Plaintiffs, or are merely expressions of protected opinion based
on fully disclosed facts, most of which are set forth in public records linked to in the Articles. To
give but one example, the very first Statement Plaintiffs allege is defamatory is: Nonprofit
CEOs salary climbs while its finances remain shaky. Compl., Exh. A, 1.1. The Centers tax
returns are public records, expressly referenced in and linked to in Article 1, which reflect both
large financial deficits continuing throughout Mr. Ritters tenure, and increases in Mr. Ritters
compensation during that period. 11 Mr. Ritter has never disputed (nor can he, plausibly) that his
compensation increased while serving as CEO from 2010 to 2014. To the contrary, both
Mr. Ritter, and the Centers Chairman, admitted to the salary increase in the body of Article 1
and in the formal Response to Article 1, which the Herald-Tribune also published via a link in
Article 1 itself. 12 Accordingly, Statement 1.1 is comprised of a factually accurate statement (that
11
12
See Article 1 (online version), attached to the Complaint as Exh. 1(a) thereto. The second sentence of Article 1
references and includes a link to the Centers publicly-available IRS Form 990 for the fiscal year ending in
June, 2014, with specific notations demonstrating both the Centers $787,579 deficit, as well as Mr. Ritters
compensation.
See Article 1 (online version), attached to Complaint as Exh. 1(a) thereto, at p.2 (Response: The Center for
Building Hope wrote a lengthy response to the findings in this story. That response can be found here.
(hyperlink indicated)). Braga Aff., Exh. 8 (the Centers published response). The fourth page of the Response
specifically addresses the Centers justification for Mr. Ritters salary increases. Likewise, Article 1 itself
reflects Mr. Ritters and the Centers admission, and justifications, for his salary increases: The Centers board
members insist the raises are appropriate. Id. at 2. Ritter and others defend his large salary increases, saying
he took on a bigger workload, deferred some of the payments and forgave $100,000. Id.
Mr. Ritters salary climbed), based on public tax records, combined with a characterization
(while the Centers finances remained shaky), that plainly amounts to pure opinion based on
disclosed facts. Thus, Statement 1.1 is simply nonactionable.
As set forth below, this reasoning holds true for the vast majority of the Statements at
issue, which do not satisfy the first, or the remaining, elements of a libel claim.
b.
Reasonably Susceptible of Defamatory Meaning
In addition to the burden of pleading and proving falsity, a libel plaintiff must
demonstrate that each challenged statement is actually defamatory, i.e., materially damaging to
the plaintiffs reputation, given its ordinary meaning in context. As this Court noted recently,
[t]he Court has a prominent function in determining whether a statement is defamatory, and if a
statement is not capable of a defamatory meaning, it should not be submitted to a jury.
Weintraub, Exh. A hereto, at 6, citing Smith v. Cuban American Natl Foundation, 731 So.2d
702 (Fla 3d DCA 1999). Many of the Statements at issue are not susceptible of a defamatory
meaning. To take just one example, Statement 1.14, 13 amounts to nothing more than a
generalized assessment by a disinterested consultant offering his view that nonprofits ought to
refrain from borrowing. As a mere general principle or personal suggestion regarding nonprofit
finance, it cannot reasonably be construed as damaging Plaintiffs, and is thus not capable of
defamatory meaning. 14 Any claims based on such nonactionable, non-defamatory Statements
must be dismissed.
13
14
Compl., Exh. A at 2 (When we work with a nonprofit, our recommendation is that they never borrow money,
especially for a building, because its hard to pay back, said David Condon, a nonprofit consultant based out of
Connecticut. Then the money is going to debt service instead of the organizations mission.)
As with many of the Statements pleaded, 1.14 suffers multiple defects and is subject to multiple privileges.
Aside from not being reasonably susceptible of defamatory meaning, Statement 1.14 is clearly pure opinion,
and not of and concerning Plaintiffs (addressed infra). As noted herein, the Complaints kitchen
sink/shotgun pleading style, lumping together dozens of Statements containing innocuous and irrelevant
content, needlessly complicates the Defendants and this Courts burden in analyzing the issues on this Motion.
c.
Of and concerning Plaintiff
In addition to proving that a challenged statement is factual, provably false, and capable
of defamatory meaning, another fundamental requirement for a libel claim is that the statement is
actually about the Plaintiff himself, rather than some generalized group or nonparty. 15 As set
forth below, many of the Statements at issue here fail this test. Statement 1.25 is one glaring
example. Statement 1.25 generally addresses conditions at the Center before Mr. Ritters arrival,
stating: It [the Center] faced tremendous debt and needed to raise money to avoid foreclosure.
Morale was at an all-time low, said two long-term program facilitators. Compl., Schedule A, 4
(Statement 1.25). Leaving aside Mr. Ritters admissions in the Complaint that the Center was
financially troubled upon his arrival, 16 even if Statement 1.25 were somehow false, because it
concerns the Centers finances and morale before Mr. Ritter took over, it is not of and
concerning Mr. Ritter, and cannot possibly be deemed to defame him. As set forth below and in
the attached Appendix A, a multitude of the 126 Statements at issue here fail the of and
concerning test, and any claims related to those Statements must be dismissed.
II.
The Core Privileges and Defenses That Defeat Plaintiffs Claims:

Fair Report, Pure Opinion, Judicial Proceedings, Common Interest
As noted, many of the Statements pleaded fail to satisfy the basic elements of a Florida
libel claim. Even assuming the Statements pleaded could be deemed factual, false, defamatory,
and of and concerning Plaintiffs, the vast majority of the Statements are nonactionable because
they are subject to one or more of many privileges under Florida defamation law. See, e.g.,
Nodar v. Galbreath, 462 So.2d 803 (Fla. 1984) (addressing multiple privileges); Demby v.
15
16
This requirement arises because plaintiffs often perceive general statements about a group, organization, or third
party to be perceived to reflect poorly upon and damage them, individually, even when that is not a reasonable
interpretation of the statement.
Compl., 53 (prior to Mr. Ritter joining the Center as [CEO] the Center had been operating at significant
annual deficits for years. ).
10
English, 667 So.2d 350, 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (even if statement is false, defendant not liable
if one of many privileges apply). In the attached Appendix A, Defendants have generally
summarized multiple, overlapping, privileges and defenses under Florida law that render each of
the 126 Statements pleaded nonactionable. For brevitys sake, Defendants focus below on the
core privileges that apply to the vast majority of the 126 Statements, and thus to the Articles
taken as a whole in context, rendering them nonactionable and subject to dismissal.
a.
Fair Report Privilege: Under the First Amendment, the Florida Constitution and
Florida common law, the press is given wide latitude to report freely on the contents of public
and governmental records. Without such a privilege, the press could not perform its vital
watchdog function central to our democracy and system of government. Woodward v. Sunbeam
Television Corp., 616 So.2d 501, 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Generally, the press is immune from
liability for fair and accurate reports of the contents of public records. See, e.g., Weintraub v.
Halifax Media Group, LLC, (Sarasota Co. Cir. Ct. 2014) affd Weintraub v. Halifax Media
Group, LLC, 2016 WL 1066265 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 18, 2016); Angelastro v. Novotny, (Sarasota
Co. Cir. Ct. 2013), affd Angelastro v. Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 145 So.2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA
2014) (citing Rasmussen, 946 So.2d at 571.
Because the Articles are largely comprised of and based upon accurate reports of publicly
available records (including the Centers IRS tax records, Carbizs SEC filings, Mr. Ritters
Canadian bankruptcy filings, Oregon Dept. of Justice filings, court filings, and Sarasota County
criminal records), 17 the Articles are protected by the Fair Report Privilege and Defendants are
immune from liability. Here, the grounds for Fair Report Privilege immunity are even stronger
than in most reported cases. Defendants not only summarize, reference and cite to the content of
17
See Braga Aff., Exhs. 1-4, 6-8 and 14 (all of which are linked to in Articles 1 and 10).
11
the various public records substantiating their diligent reporting, the online versions of the
Articles generally included hyperlinks to the public record at issue, with digital highlights to the
particular section or line-item, meticulously corroborating the particular assertion in a given
Article. 18 Thus, any accusation that Defendants selectively cherry-picked particular facts from
public records to support a predetermined narrative falls flat; directly to the contrary, the reader
is invited to view the record for herself, and to then draw her own conclusions. 19
Plainly, the bulk of what Mr. Ritter takes issue with are simply facts that were taken
directly from publicly available records facts Mr. Ritter would prefer to keep quietly tucked
away in the files of the SEC, the IRS, or Canadian Bankruptcy Courts. The factual content of
those public records, however, is both indisputable and incapable of supporting a valid cause of
action for defamation. Rasmussen, 946 So.2d at 571. If by some chance any of the facts reported
from those public records contain errors (which seems unlikely here), Mr. Ritter is more than
free to take the matter up with the government agencies involved, to correct, amend or
supplement the public record in whatever manner he deems fit. What Mr. Ritter cannot do, under
Floridas Fair Report Privilege, is to hold a newspaper liable for publishing those facts or the
18
19
E.g, Article 1 alone includes links to (a) the Centers own tax records filed with the IRS to inform its readers
about the Centers budget deficit and Mr. Ritters increasing salary, (b) Mr. Ritters Canadian Bankruptcy
Records from 1989 and 2002, (c) Carbizs SEC Filings showing Mr. Ritters salary and Carbizs cessation of
business, and (d) Oregon Department of Justice Records naming BABCs predecessor one of Oregons worst
charities. Most of the other Articles include a link back to Article 1.
For example, the Herald-Tribunes statements that Mr. Ritter was in Canadian Bankruptcy Court in 1985 and
2002 for debts of $31,000 and $500,000, respectively, merely recite what appears in Mr. Ritters Canadian
Bankruptcy Reports. Braga Aff., Exh. 2. Similarly, the statements about Carbizs finances and failure, like the
fact that Carbiz never turned an annual profit, were taken directly from Carbizs own SEC Filings. Id., Exhs. 7-9
(Carbiz 2009 Form 10K; [w]e commenced operations in March 1998. We have incurred net losses in each
fiscal year since inception.). The reports detailing the criminal complaint filed against Mr. Ritter merely
recount the criminal complaint itself. Article 8; Braga Aff., Exh. 9 (Mr. Mariash said that on 7/10/15 it was
discovered that [Mr.Ritter], the suspect, had set up his own company, [SFM], and diverted the organizations
donations into that company account. The suspect had no signed agreement to set up such transactions.). The
numbers detailing the Centers faltering finances, and Mr. Ritters ever-improving salary, are lifted straight
from the Centers own Tax Filings. Braga Aff., Exh. 1 (2013 Form 990; showing Centers deficit of $787,492
and Mr. Ritters earnings of over $335,000), (2012 Form 990; showing Centers deficit of $14,579, and Mr.
Ritters earnings of over $207,000), (2011 Form 990, showing Centers gains of $339,689, and Mr. Ritters
earnings of over $125,000).
12
records that contain them. The law is crystal clear that newspapers may freely publish, without
fear of liability, and without confirming the accuracy of, the contents of public records.
Woodward, 616 So.2d at 503. Likewise, it is equally clear that journalists are free to publish
opinions based upon disclosed facts, particularly when those facts are set forth in public records.
Early, 334 So.2d at 52 (characterization of plaintiffs tenure in office as unsuccessful was
opinion and non-actionable). The Articles, and the Statements therein, consist of virtually
nothing more than accounts of facts in public records and opinions based upon those and other
fully disclosed facts. As such, the Articles and the Statements therein are protected by the Fair
Report and other privileges, and Plaintiffs claims must be dismissed.
b.
Judicial Proceedings Privilege: Fair and accurate reports of judicial and quasi-
judicial proceedings have long been privileged under Florida law. Huszar v. Gross, 468 So.2d
512, 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Jamason v. Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., 450 So.2d 1130, 1132
(Fla. 4th DCA 1984). This privilege applies to multiple Statements here because the HeraldTribune accurately reported on Mr. Ritters Canadian bankruptcy proceedings, and his civil and
criminal proceedings related to his termination by the Center. 20 The Complaints allegations that
many of Statements related to the Canadian bankruptcy proceedings, Mr. Ritters civil suit
against the Center, and the criminal charges against him are defamatory are entirely conclusory
and lumped in with all of the 126 Statements. 21 Nowhere does the Complaint even attempt to
identify, which, if any, Statement concerning any of those judicial proceedings is inaccurate
because they are not. The Statements related to those judicial proceedings are fair and accurate,
20
21
See Article 1 (citing and linking to Mr. Ritters Canadian Bankruptcy Court filings); Article 7 (Mr. Ritters
lawsuit against the Center); Article 8 (criminal charges against Mr. Ritter).
See Appendix A (identifying Statements covered by the Judicial Proceedings Privilege, e.g., 1.5, 1.15-1.16,
2.7, 2.12, 3.6, 4.7, 5.4 (Canadian bankruptcy proceeding), 1.24 (Mr. Ritters references bankruptcy
proceedings), 12.1, 13.1 (Centers bankruptcy proceeding), 8.1-8.3, 8.6 (SCSO Criminal Complaint).
13
Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts otherwise, and thus those Statements are privileged and
cannot give rise to liability under Florida law.
c.
Opinion Based on Disclosed Facts: Many of the Statements Plaintiffs complain
of are nonactionable as pure opinion based on disclosed facts. Indeed, many of the Statements
amount to nothing more than the personal view of various experts Defendants consulted in the
course of researching and investigating the Articles. 22 As this Court recently held in Weintraub,
such opinion or commentary based on disclosed facts and records, even harshly worded views
such as fraud, constitutes protected opinion and is nonactionable. 23 Aside from expert
opinions, Plaintiffs also complain of many other general characterizations or conclusions drawn
from the documents or facts set forth in detail in the Articles. Because these characterizations are
based on fully disclosed facts, all are equally protected as pure opinion based on disclosed facts.
Hay, 450 So.2d at 293(affirming dismissal of claim based on opinion calling plaintiff crook
and criminal); Rasmussen, 946 So.2d at 571; Della-Donna v. Yardley, 512 So.2d 294 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1987); Morse v. Ripken, 707 So.2d 921, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (affirming dismissal on
opinion grounds).
d.
Common/Corresponding Interest Privilege: A communication made in good
faith on any subject matter by one having an interest therein, or in reference to which he has a
duty, is privileged if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty, even though it
contains matter which would otherwise be actionable, and though the duty is not a legal one but
only a moral or social obligation. Nodar, 462 So.2d at 809. The common/corresponding interest
privilege is intended to allow those with a shared interest or obligation to speak their mind freely
22
23
See, e.g., Statements 1.7 (opinions of seven experts in various fields); 1.14 (opinion of disinterested consultant);
1.20 (quoting banking professor); 1.28 (retail expert); 1.29 (report by nonprofit watchdog GuideStar); 2.8 (bank
vice president); 2.10 (industry expert).
Weintraub, supra, at 6 (In examining the quotes of commentators regarding the term fraud the Court finds
that as a matter of law the comments are also protected opinion .).
14
to help further those shared interests, without fear of liability in the event a member of the group
disagrees or is offended. In particular, comments made in or about the workplace by co-workers
or volunteers have long been protected by this privilege. See, e.g., McCurdy v. Collis, 508 So.2d
380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (former employers statement that plaintiff was a safety threat
privileged). This privilege shields numerous Statements at issue here, including all quotations or
reports based on the comments and views of numerous individuals with some connection to the
Center, e.g., current or former Board members, employees, consultants, lenders, vendors, donors
or beneficiaries of the Center, or others with any business or social connection to the Center. The
vast majority of any such Statements amount to little more than those individuals expressing
their good faith concern for the Center, its mission, its finances, and the questionable transactions
at issue, and are thus nonactionable and privileged as a matter of law.
e.
Fair Comment Privilege: Matters of public interest are generally considered
legitimate subjects of criticism, however, severe, unless made maliciously. Private corporations
which claim the confidence of the public and seek the possession of public funds are among the
subjects of that may be criticized in accordance with the rules of fair comment. Murphy v.
Daytona Beach Human Soc., Inc., 176 So.2d 922, 923-24 (Fla. 5th DCA 1965). Thus, an
individual is privileged to make a fair comment on a public matter relating to an individual
who has voluntarily made himself newsworthy.
Colodny, 936 F. Supp. at 927. The fair
comment privilege applies here for precisely the same reasons that the Articles touch on a matter
of public concern. They report on the mismanagement and ultimate downfall of a prominent
local charity and its CEO, both of whom depended upon charitable, tax-exempt donations from
the public, or loans from community organizations, for their livelihood.
15
f.
Neutral Report Privilege: Florida courts have recognized a neutral reporting
privilege under which a publication is privileged if it disinterested and neutral. Gross, 468
So.2d at 516; Brake & Alignment Supply Corp. v. Post-Newsweek Stations of Florida, Inc., 472
So.2d 517, 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The neutral reporting privilege bars Plaintiffs claims
because the Herald-Tribune was disinterested in the accusations that others including members
of the Board levelled at Mr. Ritter. Indeed, as noted herein, the Herald-Tribune steadfastly
maintained its neutrality in its reporting by, among other things, repeatedly publishing Plaintiffs
defense of his actions (even if made to other news outlets), and others statements in his defense.
g.
Summary of Key Privileges Applied to Each Article
Plaintiffs Complaint is simply too unwieldy to confront on a statement-by-statement

basis in the body of this Motion. While the pleading as a whole leaves much to be desired, both
in terms in clarity and compliance with the basic pleading rules, it is impractical to parse each of
the 126 Statements in question. Plaintiffs make this point in the Complaint when they allege
most of the Articles repeat information in previous Articles. Plaintiffs allege that 42 separate
statements in Articles 1 and 2 alone are somehow defamatory. Many of these statements, or
some iteration of them, are effectively repeated or paraphrased in the following Articles 3-13.
Simplifying matters further, the Statements on which Plaintiffs entire claim is based fall within
three general categories: (1) Statements related to the Centers finances and Mr. Ritters salary;
(2) Statements related to Mr. Ritters time at Carbiz; and (3) Statements related to SFMs fee
arrangement with BABC. Any Statements in the remaining Articles that do not fall under at least
one of these categories is still not actionable, either because it is true, not defamatory, privileged,
or otherwise nonactionable, and those Statements are addressed in Defendants Appendix A,
which corresponds to Plaintiffs Schedule A annexed to the Complaint. Accordingly, for brevity,
16
the following generally summarizes the gist or sting of each Article and the key privileges and
defenses applicable to each:
1.
Article 1, published June 7, 2015, reported on the Centers financial

situation, before and after Mr. Ritter became CEO, his background, hiring
as CEO, and escalating salary. The gist of the article was that the Center
a well-known charity that depended in large part upon donations from the
public was in financial trouble at the same time it was increasing
Mr. Ritters salary. The Herald-Tribune interviewed and recounted the
statements and opinions of numerous individuals (including Mr. Ritter and
Board members), the Centers lenders, outside experts, and relied upon
and cited numerous public records (e.g. The Centers Tax Filings,
Mr. Ritters Canadian bankruptcy records and Carbizs SEC filings). The
Herald-Tribune even published favorable opinions of Mr. Ritter, as well
as the Centers Response to the Article and defense of Mr. Ritter. Article 1
was comprised primarily of reports and opinions based on disclosed public
records, and is thus protected under the fair comment, fair report, judicial
proceeding, corresponding interest and neutral report privileges.
2.
Article 2, published on July 30-31, 2015, reported that the Centers

Chairman, Jim Braun, resigned from the Board amid accusations that the
Center is involved in a secret business arrangement with a company
controlled by Plaintiffs. The Article details Plaintiffs processing fee
arrangement with BABC, and how only two of the Boards eleven
members knew of the arrangement. The Herald-Tribune published
statements and opinions of members of the Board, the Centers chief
lender and business partner, people familiar with credit-card processing
fee arrangements and a former employee of the Center. The Article also
recounts the Centers financial problems, the hiring of Mr. Ritter, and the
purchase of BABC as noted in Article 1. The gist of Article 2 was thus
that the Centers problems were not limited to its finances, and that
Mr. Ritters fee processing arrangement with BABC was a potential
conflict of interest and outside industry norms. These views were
vindicated as accurate, as Mr. Ritter was terminated shortly after Article 2
appeared, and a Center Board member filed a criminal complaint against
him less than a month later. Again, Plaintiffs allege no specific
inaccuracies in Article 2, and certainly none that alter its gist or sting.
Article 2 is plainly privileged under the fair comment, fair report, judicial
proceedings, corresponding interest and neutral report privileges.
3.
Article 3, published August 1, 2015, reported that the Center fired Mr.
Ritter on July 31, 2015 after learning that he was profiting from the fee
processing arrangement with BABC. It discussed the unusually large fee
Plaintiffs were charging, the Centers other leadership and financial
problems, and the challenges the Center faced going forward. It recounted
information in prior Articles about Mr. Ritters stint at Carbiz and
17
escalating salary. Thus, the gist or sting of Article 3 was that Mr. Ritter
was terminated because of his fee processing arrangement, of which the
entire Board was unaware, the latest in a mounting series of the Centers
problems. Article 3 includes interviews and opinions of Board members,
industry experts, the Centers chief lender, and relies upon publicly filed
government documents. Again, Plaintiffs never allege any particular
inaccuracy, but even if they had, Article 3 would still be privileged under
the fair comment, fair report, judicial proceeding, corresponding interest
and neutral report privileges.
4.
Article 4, published August 4-5, 2015, detailed the challenges facing the
Center in the wake of Mr. Ritters termination and what to do with BABC.
Article 4 describes how BABC provided only 23% of its revenues to the
Centers mission, though it led customers to believe it was much more. It
reports on BABCs falling sales, relying upon public documents, and the
statements, opinions and experiences of board members, experts on
fundraising and vendors who paid to participate in BABCs events. The
gist of Article 4 was that Mr. Ritters decision to change the Centers
focus from donors to BABC was questionable, and the Centers Board had
to decide what to do with BABC. Article 4 was replete with opinions and
proven substantially true, as the Board shut-down BABC less than one (1)
week later. Article 4 was thus privileged under the fair comment, fair
report, judicial proceedings, corresponding interest and neutral report
privileges.
5.
Article 5, published August 6, 2015, reported that the Center fired six
employees, including Mr. Ritters children, and was forced to cancel
fundraising events and withhold paychecks. The article quoted one of the
Centers consultants as attributing the firings to the Centers financial
problems previously reported (thus showing their veracity). The Article
quoted some of the recently-ousted employees, but could not obtain
comments from Mr. Ritters children. Article 5 recapped prior reports on
the Centers financial problems and Mr. Ritters termination, published a
Center insiders opinion of the Boards decisions to hire Mr. Ritter, as well
as one of the fired employees defense of Mr. Ritter and his family. The
gist Article 5 was that the Centers financial problems were continuing
and causing lay-offs, and the Centers ability to continue operating was
questionable. While Article 5 is mostly opinion and substantially true, it is
also privileged under the fair comment, fair report, judicial proceedings,
corresponding interest and neutral report privileges.
6.
Article 6, published August 11-12, 2015, reported that the Center closed
BABC on August 10, 2015. The article noted that BABCs closure was the
latest development in the Centers ongoing financial troubles, relied upon
government records to detail the Centers history of budget deficits, and
recounted some of the Herald-Tribunes earlier reporting on the Center
and Mr. Ritter. Article 6s gist or sting was focused on the failure of
18
BABC and the Centers future, which was growing bleaker. The articles
gist was not directed at Mr. Ritter, but was substantially true and primarily
based upon the opinions of one former Board member. Even so, Article 6
is privileged under the fair comment, fair report, corresponding interest
and neutral report privileges.
7.
Article 7, published August 19-20, 2015, reported on Mr. Ritters lawsuit

against the Center claiming it owed him over $300,000. It recounts prior
reporting on Mr. Ritters tenure, describes his new company, Celebrities
Against Cancer, Inc., which appeared to be operating on a business model
similar to BABC and under a registration number of the Centers parent
company, Health Support Network, and quotes the opinion of the Center
Interim CEO on anothers use of the Centers name and trademark. The
thrust of Article 7 is thus directed at Mr. Ritters civil lawsuit against the
Center, and his new business, and cannot reasonably be characterized as
defamatory or substantially untrue. Like the rest of the articles, however, it
is also fully-privileged under the fair comment, fair report, judicial
proceedings, corresponding interest and neutral report privileges.
8.
Article 8, published September 3-4, 2015, reports that Center Board

member Brian Mariash filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Ritter based
upon his fee processing arrangement with BABC, and Mr. Ritters refusal
to return about $20,000 of the Centers money. It describes Mr. Ritters
ongoing civil suit against the Center, and restates much of Article 7 as to
Mr. Ritters new company. Plaintiffs do not deny that criminal charges
were filed or challenge any other details. Article 8s gist concerns Mr.
Ritters ongoing legal proceedings, and is not only substantially true, but
also privileged under the fair comment, fair report, judicial proceedings,
9.
Article 9, published September 4-5, 2015, reports the Center laid-off its
remaining staff because it could no longer pay its bills, and that its free
cancer services would continue under the direction of JFCS. Article 8
recounts much of the prior reporting. Article 8s gist or sting is plainly
directed at the failure of the Centers leadership as a whole to properly
manage the Centers funds, and the future of the Centers services under
JFCS direction. The article relies upon the statements and opinions of
Center insiders and Board members, Ritters civil and criminal legal
proceedings, as well as JFCS employees. Article 8 is thus comprised
primarily of non-actionable opinion and is substantially true. It is also
privileged under the fair comment, fair repor, judicial proceedings,
10.
Article 10, published September 12-13, merely recaps or, as the articles
title puts it, maps the Centers failure. A plain reading of Article 10
shows that its thrust is directed at the Centers leadership as a whole, and
their failings before and after Mr. Ritter was hired. It relies on and quotes
19
the statements and opinions of Center insiders, board members,

employees, public and government documents, and interviews with those
who defended Mr. Ritter and the Boards decision to hire him in the first
place. Article 10 is thus substantially true, and brimming with opinion. But
even if it were not, it is still privileged under the fair comment, fair report,
judicial proceedings, corresponding interest and neutral reporting
privileges.
24
11.
Article 11, published September 15, 2015, reports on Mr. Ritters recent
appearance on a local television news program where he defended his
conduct, proclaiming the Centers failure was not his fault. When not
using the Herald-Tribunes previous reporting as background, the thrust of
Article 11 is clearly directed at Mr. Ritters self-defense on another news
outlet, and devotes much of its ink to recounting his statements. Whatever
problems Mr. Ritter has with Article 11, the article as a whole is
substantially true and protected by the fair comment, fair report,
corresponding interest and neutral report privileges. Further, Article 11 is
yet another example of the lack of actual or express malice, since it offers
Plaintiffs own view and defense of any claims in the Statements at issue.
12.
Article 12, published December 28, 2015, is apparently and end-of-theyear list of the Top 20 local news items during 2015, containing a
solitary short paragraph recapping the reporting on the Centers collapse.
Because it simply recaps prior Articles, it is protected by the same
privileges and defenses noted above.
13.
Article 13, published February 2-3, 2016, reports on the cancer support
services JFCS offers after taking over for the Center. It contains a lone
sentence about Center firing its CEO and shutting down, while the rest of
the article is devoted to the services JFCS was providing. The gist of
Article 13 thus has nothing to do with Mr. Ritter. Yet even if somehow the
article was deemed substantially untrue, it would still be privileged under
the fair comment, fair reporting, judicial proceedings, corresponding
interest and neutral reporting privileges. 24
The Complaint is pleaded in a needlessly confusing and compound manner. While purportedly identifying
specific Statements complained of in Schedule A, Plaintiffs select everything from broad swaths of entire
articles, to solitary snippets, and even graphs or charts, and simply claim in one Count that all are defamatory.
Yet Plaintiffs never identify how each selected Statement, paragraph or chart is or could be deemed defamatory.
For instance, Plaintiffs fail to identify which Statements contain alleged false assertions of fact, which facts
within the often lengthy Statements are alleged false, which create a false implication or which are based
upon juxtaposition of facts. Instead, Plaintiffs attach 13 Articles and use the same stock paragraph to
summarily conclude each Article is defamatory. Plaintiffs never bother informing the Court or Defendants
precisely how each Article is supposedly defamatory. Dozens of the 126 Statements at issue are redundant,
mere repetitions or paraphrasing of a prior Statement. Adding to the confusion, Plaintiffs lump all thirteen
Articles and 126 separate snippets into a single Count for libel. This shotgun/kitchen-sink pleading style
violates Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110 (Each claim founded upon a separate transaction or occurrence and each defense
20
III.
Plaintiffs Cannot Establish Express or Actual Malice

Because all thirteen of the Articles are protected under Florida common law privileges, it
is Plaintiffs burden to show express malice. Nodar, 462 So. at 810. To satisfy this burden,
Plaintiffs must allege sufficient facts establishing the primary motive for the statement was an
intent to injure Plaintiffs. Id. at 806. Claiming the Articles are false, Defendants disliked
Plaintiffs, or Defendants failed to conduct an adequate investigation before publishing is not
enough to show express malice. Coogler v. Rhodes, 21 So. 109, 112 (Fla. 1897) (express malice
cannot be inferred from statements falsity); John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Zalay, 581
So.2d 178, 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)(insufficient investigation does not go to express malice);
Nodar, 462 So.2d at 812 (ill will or hostility to plaintiff will not establish express malice).
Plaintiff has no facts to support the claim that Defendants acted out of some unexplained
desire to injure Plaintiffs. Indeed, the content of the Articles directly rebut this. The notion that
Defendants published articles with the primary intent to injure Plaintiffs, while also publishing a
five-page rebuttal to the main Article in the series, and Mr. Ritters interview defending himself,
given to a completely different media outlet, is particularly far-fetched. Boehm v. American
Bankers Ins. Group, Inc., 557 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (It is insufficient that the
speaker have generalized feelings of hostility and malice towards the Plaintiff.). Plaintiffs do
not, and cannot, allege any ultimate facts overcoming Defendants common law privileges. As a
result, the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. 25
25
other than denials shall be stated in a separate count or defense when a separation facilitates the clear
presentation of the matter set forth.). The Complaint is subject to dismissal on these grounds alone.
Because Plaintiffs libel claim in Count I fails as a matter of law, so do their claims for conspiracy and loss of
consortium in Counts II-IV. [I]n order for an actionable civil conspiracy claim to be made, there must be an
actionable underlying tort against at least one of the alleged conspirators. The conspiracy to defame claim
cannot stand where, as here, the defamation action fails. There being no defamation, the gist of the defamation
conspiracy, there can be no conspiracy claim. Pierson v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 2010 WL
1408391, at *24 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2010), aff'd, 451 F. App'x 862 (11th Cir. 2012). Further, Plaintiffs offer
nothing beyond a conclusory assertion of an agreement, and the general allegation of an agreement among
21
Likewise, Plaintiffs claims fail to clear the high hurdles erected by the First
Amendment. Mr. Ritter is at least a limited purpose public figure for First Amendment purposes,
and thus his claim must satisfy the heightened actual malice standard. Gertz v. Robert Welch,
Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 344 (1974). Individuals are considered limited public figures when they
voluntarily involve themselves in public controversies. Mile Marker, 811 So.2d at 845 (public
figure status is question of law for the Court). Here, Mr. Ritter admits he was known and
recognized professionally as an outstanding leader an innovator in the field of venture
philanthropy served as a role model for leadership in the for-profit world and the not-forprofit field in Florida for 13 years, and enjoyed a well-deserved good name and excellent
reputation personally and professionally in the community. Compl., 12-15. Thus, Mr.
Ritter admits he is at least a limited public figure. Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087,
1092 n.4 (holding leader of charity irretractably admitted he was a public figure when he
complained about damage to his public reputation as a charitable leader); Gadd v. News-Press
Publg Co., 412 So.2d 894 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (administrator of hospital at center of
controversy about its operations held limited public figure). 26
A public figure plaintiff pleading a state law defamation claim based on speech on a
matter of public concern must establish with clear and convincing proof not only that the
statements were false and defamatory, but also that they were made with actual malice. Nodar,
26
these many Defendants do not sufficiently state a plausible claim of civil conspiracy in any event. Id. Because
Plaintiffs have no libel claim, their derivative loss of consortium claims must also be dismissed. Bey v. Gee,
2015 WL 4751631, at *11 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2015) (derivative claim for loss of consortium fails in absence of
a viable claim against defendant).
A public controversy swirled around Mr. Ritter, and the Center already a highly public, tax-exempt institution
as it sought money from the public while struggling financially and failing to make required deposits in its
employees tax-exempt retirement accounts. The investigation into the Centers finances and employee
contributions ultimately shed light on Mr. Ritters questionable conduct, and the resulting criminal and civil
proceedings. Mr. Ritter was intimately involved in this public controversy, and voluntarily inserted himself into
it when he tried to publicly defend the Centers conduct. Arnold, 427 So.2d at 219. The Complaints devotion of
so many allegations to show Defendants acted with malice reveals Mr. Ritters recognition that he is at least a
limited public figure.
22
462 So.2d at 806. Actual malice requires knowledge that the allegedly defamatory statement was
false, or was made with reckless disregard as to its truth. Id. at 806. Actual malice requires more
than a departure from reasonable journalistic standards, or alleged failure to investigate. Don
King Prods., Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 40 So.3d 40, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Michel v. NYP
Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686, 703 (11th Cir. 2016). Here, Mr. Ritters claims that Defendants did
not credit his stance that he was blameless for the Centers failure, or interview his preferred
supporters, or emphasize favorable facts (Compl., 42-43, 56) fall far short of demonstrating
actual malice. The failure to print a public figures denials is not evidence of actual malice, nor
does it make other sources less reliable. Dockery v. Fla. Dem. Party, 799 So.2d 291, 296 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2001). The Herald-Tribune was not required to continue its investigation until it found
somebody who would stand up for Mr. Ritter, and the decision on which interviews to include
is at heart an editorial decision best left to journalists, not courts. Levan v. Capital Cities/ABC,
Inc, 190 F.3d 1230, 1243 (11th Cir. 1999); Miami Herald Publg v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258
(1974) (treatment of public issues is exercise in editorial control and judgment which cannot be
subject to government or court oversight).
Regardless, the Articles themselves flatly belie Mr. Ritters characterization of
Defendants newsgathering, and unquestionably demonstrate a thorough, diligent and indeed
meticulous body of investigative journalism. Appel v. Lexington Ins. Co., 29 So.3d 377, 379 (Fla.
5th DCA 2010) (complaint should be dismissed when allegations contradicted by attached
exhibits). Here, the Articles characterizations of the Centers problems and Mr. Ritters conduct
was based upon, among other things, sources within the Center, public records, judicial
proceedings, criminal complaints, probable cause affidavits, consultations with experts, lenders,
vendors and business partners of the Center, and individuals within the community who dealt
23
with Mr. Ritter and the Center. Walt Disney Co., 40 So.3d at 46 (no actual malice where
defendant interviewed people with direct knowledge of events in question, and although it
exercised editorial discretion by creating a particular theme for its program, there is no evidence
that it published the challenged statements with knowledge of their falsity or with any serious
doubt as to their truth).
The Articles on their face also contradict the Complaints half-hearted attempt to satisfy
the actual malice standard. First, Defendants reported Mr. Ritter deferred his own salary. Compl.,
31; Articles 9, 11. Second, Defendants acknowledged BABCs initial success. Compl., 32;
Articles 1, 2, 4. Third, Defendants reported that some in leadership knew about the BABC fee
arrangement. Compl., 32. Articles 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11. Fourth, Defendants repeatedly published
positive statements about Mr. Ritter by the Centers Board and Mr. Ritters references. Compl.,
43; Articles 1, 4. Fifth, the Articles repeatedly acknowledge the Center had financial problems
when Ritter took over in 2010. Compl., 53; Articles 1, 2, 5, 10. Sixth, Defendants published the
Centers complete defense of Mr. Ritter, and Mr. Ritters personal defense of the Centers
finances and his leadership. Articles 1, 11, 10; Michel, 816 F.3d at 703 (including information
contrary to the general conclusions reached in article shows lack of malice); Levan, 190 F.3d at
1241, n.32 (existence of conflicting evidence, allowing plaintiff to defend himself, establishes
absence of actual malice). At bottom, Mr. Ritter never alleges any facts remotely suggesting the
Articles are not protected by the First Amendment. In light of the weighty interests at stake and
the necessity for a free press with plenty of breathing room, Mr. Ritters Complaint must be
dismissed with prejudice. Karp, 359 So.2d at 581 (pretrial disposition of defamation is
particularly appropriate because of the chilling effect libel suits have upon the exercise of First
Amendment freedoms).
24
Conclusion
Mr. Ritter plainly is unhappy with the manner in which our communitys free press has
chosen to report on his conduct, and the results he obtained, at the helm of a prominent local
charity. Few subject to media scrutiny enjoy it or agree with all that journalists report. That is
precisely why a free press, free from harassment by meritless lawsuits, is a fundamental
cornerstone of our democracy and legal system: The constitutional guarantee of a free press
would be meaningless if anyone subjected to fair and legitimate criticism was permitted to tie up
journalists in court with the burdens of endless litigation. To overcome the many hurdles
required to plead a plausible defamation claim takes much more than Plaintiffs offer here. Mr.
Ritters claims in essence come down to displeasure with the publication of undisputed facts, and
disagreement with the opinions drawn from a fair, reasonable and diligent assessment of public
records and extensive sources. Such disagreement or displeasure with anothers opinion, based
on meticulously detailed facts and records, is insufficient to support a claim for defamation. The
First Amendment does not guarantee positive press, or grant the subject of a publication any
editorial control. Even accepting Plaintiffs allegations as true, none of them individually or
collectively overcome the high bar set by the First Amendment and Florida defamation law.
The Complaint fails to plead plausible claims of defamation and must be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the
Court dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint, with prejudice, or alternatively grant Defendants summary
judgment on all claims.
25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 23rd day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the State of Florida e-portal system which will
serve an electronic copy to: Joshua E. Burnett, Esq.
Attachments:
s/Gregory W. Herbert
Gregory W. Herbert
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Florida Bar Number: 0111510
herbertg@gtlaw.com
Colin S. Baker
Florida Bar Number: 66352
bakerco@gtlaw.com
450 South Orange Avenue, Suite 650
Orlando, Florida 32801
(407) 420-1000
Exhibit A: Weintraub Order

Exhibit B: Angelastro Order
Defendants Appendix A (Summary of Key Privileges/Defenses to 126 Statements)
ALB 1930360v11
26
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Defamatory Statements Made in Article 1:

Nonprofit CEOs Salary Climbs While its Finances Remain Shaky
(Published on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Website on Sunday, June 7, 2015)
http://watchdogsarasota.heraldtribune.com/2015/06/07/nonprofit-ceos-salary-climbs-while-its-financesremain-shaky/
Building Hope Losing Money

(Published in Print in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on Sunday, June 7, 2015)
1.1
Statement
Nonprofit CEOs salary climbs while its finances
remain shaky.
1.2
On paper, a Lakewood Ranch charity appears to be in

dire straits. Its most recent tax form came out three
weeks ago, showing a deficit of more than $785,000.
1.3
While the Center for Building Hope struggles to make

ends meet, CEO Carl Ritter has seen his salary almost
triple to more than $335,000 including a recent
bump of about $128,000.
The Centers board members insist the raises are
appropriate. They say they are working toward a
bright future. But the last few years tell a different
story.
When the former CEO left in 2010, the nonprofit
chose an unusual replacement. Ritter, who had never
worked for a nonprofit, once went bankrupt and
oversaw a used car company that funneled hundreds
of thousands into his pocket even as the business was
collapsing.
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
Ritter and the board continue to take financial risks:

They decided to stop relying as much on donors,
bought another nonprofit that was named one of the
worst in Oregon and tried to make money by selling
donated wedding dresses.
The Herald-Tribune spoke with seven experts in
nonprofit governance, retail and accounting, all of
whom questioned whether the Center is headed in the
right direction. Im literally in tears I am so upset
about whats happened to that organization, said
Charlie Ann Syprett, a donor and former board
member. If I were sitting on the board and found out
this was going on, Id do a thorough scrubbing. I
would have immediately fired him.
Missing money
In March, the Centers own employees bore the brunt
of its financial troubles. At least 11 workers
Key Privileges/Defenses
Opinion; Substantially True;
Fair Report (IRS Form 990s);
Fair Comment; Neutral Report.
Not Defamatory; Fair Comment;
Neutral Report; Not Of &
Concerning Plaintiffs
Not Defamatory; Fair Comment;
Neutral Report.
Opinion; Substantially True; Not
Defamatory; Fair Report (Form
990s); Fair Comment; Common
Interest; Neutral Report.
Fair Report (Canadian
Bankruptcy Records, Carbiz
SEC filings); Judicial
Proceeding (Canadian
Bankruptcy); Fair Comment;
Neutral Report.
Fair Report (IRS Form 990s;
Oregon DOJ records); Fair
Comment; Neutral Report.
Fair Comment; Common
Interest; Neutral Report.

Fair Comment; Fair Report
(IRA regulations); Neutral
DEFENDANTS APPENIDIX A PAGE 1 OF 35


1.9
1.10
Statement
discovered that a collective $22,000 was missing from
their retirement accounts. At least one employees
account had a balance of zero. Neither the money set
aside by employees nor the amount matched by the
Center had been deposited for more than six months.
....
The departure of Jenny Alday, former vice president
of business development, brought the issue to Ritters
attention in January. Alday resigned to pursue another
job and found her account empty.
....
But the Center followed the rules in the past. It abided
by IRA regulations for two full years after the
accounts were opened. Raymond James gives all new
plan owners paperwork explaining contribution rules,
account adviser John Freeman said. The Center
opened accounts with Freeman in November 2012,
two years after Ritter started as CEO. Everything was
fine until about June 2014, Freeman said. That was
the last time the organization contributed to the
accounts before depositing the missing money last
month, he said. It just appears that something
happened last year, Freeman said. They knew what a
Simple IRA was. They had one before. Freeman
first noticed the Center wasnt regularly contributing
to its employees IRA accounts last August. He said
he called and emailed Ritter at least six times over the
next nine months to remind him his contributions were
due. Quite frankly, I didnt know why they were
withholding it, Freeman said. I cant pry into their
business.... Its the employers responsibility to send
us a check.
Power at the organization is too centralized, Pritchett
said. Were not going to turn our heads. Pritchett
said. Were going to jump in to it and make sure no
laws have been broken and people are on top of this
thing. If organizational changes need to occur theyre
going to occur.
The Center had not finished paying off the $43,000 it
owes to the Ritz-Carlton Sarasota, where it hosted a
Report; Common Interest; Not
Defamatory; Not Of &
Concerning Plaintiffs; Selective
Quotation; Fair Comment.

Neutral Report; Common
Interest; Not Defamatory; Not
Of & Concerning Plaintiffs; Fair
Comment.
Substantially True; Fair Report;
Neutral Report; Not


1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
Statement
gala last November.
Left in the lurch...loss of donor support buried it in
debt.... The organization lost another $500,000 that
year when major donor and Sarasota socialite Diana
Cloud lost almost $7 million in a local Ponzi scheme.
Other donors had to either significantly cut back or
eliminate their pledges.... The board plunged into the
construction of the Centers new building at a time
they were losing donor support, failed to anticipate
increased operational expenses and spent as though
they were flush with cash.
The budget projected an approximate $144,000 deficit
for the next fiscal year.
Defamatory.
Selective Quotation; Opinion;
Substantially True; Neutral
Report; Fair Comment; Not Of
& Concerning Plaintiffs.
Substantially True; Not

Defamatory; Neutral Report;
Not Of & Concerning Plaintiffs.
The Center managed to pay off $2.5 million of the
charitys debt by the time Lockaby left to take another Defamatory; Fair Report (Form
job, but the nonprofit still owed Harris Bank $3
990s); Not Of & Concerning
million.
Plaintiffs; Neutral Report.
When we work with a nonprofit, our recommendation Not Of & Concerning Plaintiffs;
is that they never borrow money, especially for a
building, because its hard to pay back, said David
Neutral Report; Not
Condon, a nonprofit consultant based out of
Defamatory.
Connecticut. Then money is going to debt service
instead of the organizations mission.
An unusual candidate
Board members hired Ritter in September 2010,
Fair Report (Canadian
convinced they had found someone with the financial bankruptcy records, Carbiz SEC
skills to save the Centereven though Ritter had
filings); Judicial Proceedings
trouble paying past debts and the last company he ran (Canadian bankruptcy
failed as he profited.
proceedings); Neutral Report;
Fair Comment.
Ritter first filed for bankruptcy protection in his native Substantially True; Fair Report
Canada in 1985. He was 25 and $31,000 in debt. He (Canadian bankruptcy records);
was back in Canadian bankruptcy court in 2002, this
Judicial Proceeding (same);
time as part of a commercial proposal to pay off a
Neutral Report, Fair Comment.
$500,000 debt.
He settled in Southwest Florida in 2003, then the
steward of a group of buy-here, pay-here used car
Defamatory; Fair Report (Carbiz
lots. These types of dealerships typically deal with
SEC filings); Fair Comment;
people who have bad credit and cannot get traditional Neutral Report.


1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
Statement
loans. Ritters company, Carbiz, changed interest
rates weekly and quickly repossessed vehicles when
people could not repay their loans. Collecting is part
of the business, Ritter said.
Ritter spent 17 years at the helm of Carbiz, which

went public in the U.S. in 2006. During the three
years that Carbiz traded as a penny stock on the overthe-counter marketa volatile exchange often subject
to fraudulent schemesit did not once turn an annual
profit.
The fact that it came out and never made any money
and the fact that it traded for pennies says there was
something wrong from the very beginning, said Irv
DeGraw, a banking professor at St. Petersburg
College who has spent more than 30 years analyzing
and trading stocks. Nobody wants to buy penny
stock because its worthless.
While the company bled, Ritters salary rose. From

Defamatory; Fair Comment;
Fair Report (Carbiz SEC
filings); Opinion; Neutral
Report; Fair Comment.

Fair Report (Carbiz SEC
filings); Neutral Report.
Opinion; Not Defamatory;
Substantially True; Fair
Comment; Fair Report (Carbiz
SEC filings); Neutral Report.


1.22
1.23
1.24
1.25
Statement
2004 to January 2009, Carbiz lost almost $42 million,
and Ritters salary more than tripled. In 2009, Carbiz
paid Ritter $802,000 including a bonus of half a
million dollars. The next year, it closed for good.
Unemployed after the Carbiz failure, Ritter was
casting about for a job.
He turned to a headhunter for help the same
headhunter the Center would use to find its new CEO.
Some experts say it is common for headhunters to
provide their clients as candidates. But such an
arrangement can be a conflict of interest, said Bruce
Dingman, president of The Dingman Co., an executive
search firm in California. Its really not a level
playing field for the employer who has hired them to
go out and find the best possible candidate, Dingman
said. Theyre going to make more money if they also
place the candidate who is paying them.
Carl had background history that fit to what this
organization was looking for, Jim Bos said. But it is
unclear how deeply they checked that background
history. For one thing, at least four of Ritters five
references were linked to Carbiz, and at least two had
financial backgrounds similar to Ritters. Investor
Mel Gilbert failed to pay off a $175,000 mortgage in
1982 and owed the federal government about $23,000
in tax liens in 1991. Former Carbiz Chief Operating
Officer Paul Whitley filed for bankruptcy in 1999 and
owed more than $1.1 million in state and federal tax
liens between 1994 and 2006. Whitley would not
comment on his liens. Gilbert said he didnt recall his
debts. These men attested that Ritter had the highest
character, was a smart businessman and a great
team builder, Shaver said. The board looked no
further into Ritters background. He was hired in
September 2010.
Risky business
....
It faced tremendous debt and needed to raise money to
avoid foreclosure. Morale was at an all-time low, said
SEC filings); Fair Comment.
SEC filing).
Defamatory; Not Of &
Concerning Plaintiffs; Fair

Defamatory; Fair Report
(Whitley bankruptcy filings, lien
filings); Neutral Report; Judicial
Proceedings (Whitley
bankruptcy filings); Neutral
Report; Not Of & Concerning
Plaintiffs.
Opinion; Selective Quotation;

Defamatory; Fair Report (Form
990s); Neutral Report; Common


Statement
two long-term program facilitators.
1.26
1.27
1.28
1.29
Interest; Not Of & Concerning
Plaintiffs.
Ritters plan for the Center was different than what the Substantially true; Not
nonprofit was used tohe replaced almost 70 percent Defamatory; Fair Report (Form
of the money that came from donors with a retail
990s, Oregon DOJ records);
venture that even Ritter acknowledged was risky. The Neutral Report; Fair Comment.
Center acquired a failing Oregon nonprofit that sold
used wedding dresses.
Called Making Memories Breast Cancer Foundation
of America, the nonprofit made the Oregon
Department of Justices 20 Worst Charities list in
2011. At the time, it spent less than 12 percent of its
donations on cancer victims.
Brides Against Breast Cancer made a net profit of
Substantially True; Opinion; Not
about $681,000 during fiscal year 2013 and has been
self-sustaining since its conception, according to
Neutral Report.
unaudited cash flow reports provided by Ritter.
Ritter could not show the Herald-Tribune audited
financial statements from this past year, but he said
the organization is on the right track. Brides Against
Breast Cancer is the savior, Ritter said. But even
Ritter acknowledged that depending on steady income
from wedding dress sales is dicey.
Each year, Brides Against Breast Cancer puts on
about 150 bridal shows around the country. The
group ships donated dresses out on its own trucks and Neutral Report.
pays for its show managers to fly to the shows.
I think that is a hugely costly way to do business and
very complicated and logistically impossible, said
Stan Rutstein, a former retail executive. I dont think
it will work.
....
Still, Brides Against Breast Cancers overhead costs
raise questions about the long-term viability of the
subsidiary, Rutstein said. Do I think thats the
savior? Rutstein asked. I question that.
Ritter gets a raise
The Centers new venture caused overhead costs to go Defamatory; Fair Report (Form
through the roof. The board spent more than $1.5
990); Fair Comment; Neutral
million on salaries in 2012 a 55 percent increase


Statement
from the previous year. New Brides Against Breast
Plaintiffs; Common Interest.
Cancer employees accounted for part of the increased
salary spending. The Center also hired Ritters son
and daughter after he started, and Ritters
compensation increased the most. The Center gave
Ritter a raise of almost 70 percent during the 2011-12
fiscal year, well above the national and state averages
for CEOs at similarly sized organizations. In 2012,
the average compensation increase for Florida CEOs
at like-sized charities was 2.3 percent and the national
average was 2.9 percent, according to a report by
GuideStar, an organization that promotes transparency
in the nonprofit world. The first time the board
increased Ritters salary, they ran the decision by Pete
Smith, a nationally recognized executive
compensation consultant. He told them a 70 percent
increase was not unreasonable. The board knew
there was risk in this, but they felt they needed strong
leadership to turn that around, Smith said. At the
time I was advising them, the board had already made
the decision. Ritters new salary fell above the
national average, but Smith and the board agreed it
was fair considering his new role managing Brides
Against Breast Cancer. The Center gave Ritter
another raise during the 2013-14 fiscal year this
time by nearly $128,000. The Center spent more than
10 percent of that years revenue on his salary alone.
That same year, the nonprofit reported a deficit of
more than $785,000, its worst in history. Again,
Center officials said they gave Ritter a raise because
he took on more responsibilities related to Brides
Against Breast Cancer but the Center also paid an
executive, Amy Paulishak, about $112,000 to oversee
the program. Typically if the organization is not
performing well you wouldnt increase your spending
for the director, said Bethany Carr, an accountant at
Cavanaugh and Co. who has specialized in nonprofit
audits.
The Centers large payroll raised concerns for the Gulf
Coast Community Foundation, which loaned money


Statement
to the Center, Pritchett said.
We look at the whole payroll, Pritchett said. If
thats most of your operations, thats where you have
to make the cuts. During the recession, the Gulf
Coast Community Foundation furloughed its
employees, shrunk its staff by 25 percent and cut
about one third of its operating costs, Pritchett said.
Sometimes you have to make those kinds of
decisions, Pritchett said. You have to look at the
expense side as well as the revenue side.

Center for Building Hope Chairman Resigns Amid Fee Questions
(Published on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Website on Thursday, July 30, 2015)
http://watchdogsarasota.heraldtribune.com/2015/07/30/center-for-hope-chairman-resigns-amid-feequestions/
Charity Official Quits Amid Inquiry

(Published in Print in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on Friday, July 31, 2015)
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Statement
Center for Building Hope chairman resigns amid
fee questions Jim Braun, the chairman of a
Lakewood Ranch cancer charity, resigned
Tuesday amid accusations that the Center for
Building Hope is involved in a secret business
arrangement with a company controlled by its
CEO Carl Ritter and his wife.
Two former employees of the nonprofit say
Ritters company charges a processing fee of at
least 16 percent, eight times the recommended
rate. This is on top of Ritters $335,000 salary.
The business arrangement between Ritters
company and the Center has been in place since
February, but only a few of the charitys 11
board members were aware of it until they were
notified by the Herald-Tribune last week.
There was a real miscommunication and a real
misunderstanding, said Carol Ann Kalish, who
will be stepping in as interim chairwoman along
with board member Brian Mariash. Not
everyone on the board knew about it.
The board held an emergency meeting Tuesday
in which members addressed calls for Ritters
termination. Braun resigned that evening.
We told them as a board they have a duty to
confront Carl with that and ask why he didnt
disclose that, said Mark Pritchett, senior vice
president for community investment at The Gulf
Coast Community Foundation. Carl had a duty
to do that and he didnt. Those are grounds for
dismissal.
Braun was among a select group of the board
members that knew about the deal. He did not
comment on his resignation or the business
arrangement. Neither did Ritter nor board
member Dave Shaver, who previously acted as a
spokesman for the charity.
Credit card fees
The setup essentially means that at least 16 cents
out of every dollar coming into the charity
Substantially True; Not Defamatory;
Neutral Report; Opinion; Fair
Comment.

Opinion; Neutral Report; Fair
Comment; Fair Report (Form 990);
Common Interest.
Substantially True; Opinion; Neutral
Report; Fair Comment; Common
Interest.
Substantially True; Opinion; Neutral

Report; Fair Comment; Common
Interest.

Opinion; Neutral Report; Fair
Comment.
Substantially True; Opinion; Fair

Report (Form 990); Neutral Report;
Fair Comment


2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
Statement
through credit card transactions goes to Carl and
Carol Ritters company rather than to cancer
patients. While not illegal, the arrangement is
another blow to the struggling nonprofit and
the latest way that Ritter is making money off
the Center as it struggles to stay alive.
This summer, the Herald-Tribune detailed how
Ritter, the former head of a failed used-car
company with a history of bankruptcy, saw his
salary spike even as the center fell on hard times.
Despite running a deficit of $785,000 and failing
to contribute at least $22,000 to employee
retirement funds, Ritter was granted a $128,000
raise.
Thats not only exorbitant, you would have to
put it in context with the other shenanigans this
guy has been involved in, said Jody Hudgins,
executive vice president of First National Bank
of the Gulf Coast and a former Sarasota banker.
Ritters company processes transactions made on
Brides Against Breast Cancers website,
including donations to the charity and ticket
purchases for galas, dress shows and smaller
events. Former center information technology
employee Rusty Harris said he set up the feature
that sends money from credit card transactions
into Carol Ritters bank account. The Ritters
take the processing fee and forward the rest of
the money to Brides Against Breast Cancer so it
can pay dress show expenses and manager
commissions. Whatever is left over goes to the
Center, which provides free emotional support to
cancer patients. Thats less people that theyre
helping, Harris said.
The Dodd-Frank Act regulates how much banks
can charge processors, but there are no
regulations for how much a processor can charge
the merchant, in this case Brides Against Breast
Cancer, said Jonathan Gabel, president of
Priority Payment Systems South Florida in Cape
See Article 1; Key

Privileges/Defenses, supra.
Opinion; Fair Comment; Neutral

Report; Common Interest.

Comment; Neutral Report; Not
Defamatory; Common Interest.

Report (Dodd-Frank Act); Neutral
Report; Fair Comment


2.11
2.12
Statement
Coral. Processors sometimes charge extra for
additional industry-specific services. For
example, the Sarasota Orchestra, the Sarasota
Opera and Florida Studio Theater all use
ticketing software called Tessitura Network,
which includes a payment processor. But a 16
percent processing fee is unheard of Gabel said.
Ive never in my life seen a merchant account
that is paying 16 percent, he said. Four percent
is extremely expensive. Most accounts,
especially in the nonprofit sector, should be
hovering around 2 percent.
Processors typically have to explain their
services and related fees in detail when a
merchant account is established in order for the
officer or owner of the organization to sign off
on it. Board members could not produce a
contract between the Center and BABC Mobile,
the processing company owned by the Ritters.
Its like holy crap, said Pritchett of the Gulf
Coast Community Foundation. Youre using a
vendor and you dont have a contract with the
vendor. Its just all around bad.
Board members said they felt they needed a
businessman to turn their organization around.
They were willing to look past Ritters personal
bankruptcy in 1985 and the failure of his buy
here, pay here used car business that racked up
nearly $42 million in losses before collapsing in
2010. Board members called Ritter a savior and
lauded his decision in late 2011 to buy a
nonprofit organization that specialized in selling
used wedding dresses and that had made
Oregons list of 20 Worst Charities that same
year. Ritter promised to turn the nonprofit
now called Brides Against Breast Cancer into
a cash cow that would make up for the Centers
drop in donations. But while contributions to the
center from the acquired nonprofit initially went
up, so did its expenses. Those extra costs forced

Comment; Neutral Report; Not Of &
Concerning Plaintiffs.
See Article 1, supra.


2.13
Statement
the charity to juggle payments to employees and
creditors. The Center stopped making payments
to at least 11 employees retirement accounts
and the Ritz-Carlton Sarasota was not paid in
full as of April for a $43,000 gala it hosted in
November. While the Center was giving Ritter
raises and paying him for his processor, it laid
off at least three employees, defaulted on its
mortgage for a second time and failed to meet
the terms of the Gulf Coast Community
Foundation loan.
Pritchett told Braun that the Center needed to
hire a chief financial officer, to send the
foundation annual financial updates, to pass
along audited financial statements and to get a
better handle on who was handling the Centers
finances and how. Board members needed to
change the way they governed, Pritchett told
Braun. As of this week, the board had not
implemented the foundations recommendations.
We need to get the message out to nonprofits
that you cant do self-dealing, Pritchett said.
You cant keep things from boards. You cant
have a CEO thats leveraging his position at the
threat of taking away donor support. Thats
totally apart from the mission.
See Article 1 supra; Opinion.

Center for Building Hope Fires CEO
(Published on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Website on Saturday, August 1, 2015)
http://watchdogsarasota.heraldtribune.com/2015/08/01/center-for-building-hope-fires-ceo/
Cancer Charity Fires CEO

(Published in Print in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on Saturday, August 1, 2015)
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Statement
The Center for Building Hope fired its CEO,
Carl Ritter, on Friday after learning he was
profiting from a secret business relationship with
the Lakewood Ranch cancer charity.
Ritter-who earned $335,000, according to the
organizations latest federal filings set up a
separate company to process credit card
transactions for Brides Against Breast Cancer, a
subsidiary of the center that sells donated
wedding dresses and uses the proceeds to
provide counseling and therapy to cancer victims
and their families. Ritters company took at
least 16 cents out of every dollar coming into the
center through events where local celebrities
tend bar for cash tips that are donated to the
center.
Ritters company took at least 16 cents out of
every dollar coming into the center through
events where local celebrities tend bar for cash
tips that are donated to the center. Only a few
members of the centers 11-member board were
aware of the arrangement before being contacted
by the Herald-Tribune.
It was clear to the board that it was consistent
with our mission at this time to not have him any
longer in charge of the operations of the
organization, said Carol Ann Kalish, now
interim board chairwoman. Former spokesman
Dave Shaver also resigned from the board.
Earlier this week, chairman Jim Braun departed
the governing body after questions were raised
about Ritter and his company.
We are all worried and concerned for the
governance issues that led us to where we are
today, Kalish said. We are doing everything
we can right now to support the board and the
mission. The centers board will continue to
meet over the weekend. They plan to find an
interim CEO and to set up a governance plan
with the help of the Gulf Coast Community
Foundation. They also will discuss Ritters two
Fair Comment; Neutral Report;
Common Interest.
See Article 2; Privileges/Defenses,
supra.
See Article 2, supra; Opinion;

Common Interest; Not Of &
Concerning.

Defamatory; Fair Comment; Neutral
Report; Common Interest; Not Of &
Concerning Plaintiffs.

Center for Building Hope Fires CEO
(Published on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Website on Saturday, August 1, 2015)
http://watchdogsarasota.heraldtribune.com/2015/08/01/center-for-building-hope-fires-ceo/
Cancer Charity Fires CEO

(Published in Print in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on Saturday, August 1, 2015)
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
Statement
children, who he hired as employees of Brides
Against Breast Cancer, a subsidiary of the center
that sells used wedding dresses.
Ritters termination is the latest episode in a
career marked by bankruptcy, failed business
ventures and questions of self-dealing.
He joined the center after the collapse of Carbiz,
a buy here, pay here used car company that
traded on the over-the-counter stock exchange.
In his 17 years at the helm, Carbiz never turned a
profit, racking up nearly $42 million in losses.
But Ritters salary and bonuses swelled to more
than $800,000 in 2009.
At the center, Ritters career followed a similar
pattern. Even though the nonprofits deficit rose
to more than $785,000 in 2013, Ritters salary
kept getting larger. He received an $82,000 raise
in 2012 and $128,000 more the following year.
Besides his two children, he also hired Richard
Lye, a former Carbiz employee.
According to industry experts, the 16 percent fee
charged by Ritters company is eight times
higher than what processing companies typically
charge.
I have been with First Data for 18 years and
know the industry very well, said Nancy
Walker, who works for one of the globes largest
credit processing companies. The average rate
should be around 2 percent.
We have to see a new direction, and I think
thats what they are working on right now,
Pritchett said.
Substantially True; See Article 1,

supra.
See Article 1, supra; Substantially

True, Not Defamatory.
Opinion; Fair Report; Fair Comment.
Opinion; Fair Report; Fair Comment;

Not Defamatory.

Big Question: What to do with Brides Business
(Published on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Website on Tuesday, August 4, 2015)
http://watchdogsarasota.heraldtribune.com/2015/08/04/big-question-what-to-do-with-brides-buesiness/
A Quandary in Satin and Lace

(Published in Print in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on Wednesday, August 5, 2015)
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Statement
Newspaper reports show that Brides Against
Breast Cancer led customers to believe that as
much as 80% of the money they spend on
dresses goes to cancer support; that the
organization contributes $2 million each year to
people affected by the disease. But that is a lie.
Financials provided by Ritter in June show
Brides Against Breast Cancer has provided an
average of 23 percent of the revenues to the
centers charitable mission since 2012. It has
never contributed more than $681,000 in a single
year.
Lying like that is indefensible, said Doug
White, the director of Columbia Universitys
fundraising management masters program, who
teaches board governance and ethical decision
making. They are in a tough pickle but they can
get out of it by fessing up and reinforcing the
good work they have done, while all the while
acknowledging that they screwed up.
Ritter called Brides Against Breast Cancer the
savior of the center. He promised results within
18 to 24 months, when he spoke to the HeraldTribune in April. But Brides has not been doing
well in recent months. Revenues from dress
sales have dropped 17 percent, while expenses
have gone up by 18 percent. That means the
organization is not generating as much money
for the charity as it did last year.
Substantially True; Fair Report (Form

990s); Fair Comment; Neutral Report.
Opinion; Fair Report; Fair Comment.

Report.


4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
Statement
Opinion; Fair Comment.
Mariash said he and other board members are

working tirelessly to correct these things, to
protect the treatments for cancer patients for our
mission, to protect peoples jobs.
....
I spoke to all of our employees that were out of
town this weekend to assure them that were
doing our best back here to get to the bottom of
this so that we can move forward, he said.
The centers board was willing to look past
Ritters 1985 bankruptcy and the failure of his
buy here, pay here used car chain in 2010.
Ritter persuaded the board to borrow $675,000
from the Gulf Coast Community Foundation to
acquire a failing nonprofit out of Oregon and
turn it into a money-making business that Ritter
later acknowledged was risky. Making
Memories Breast Cancer Foundation of America
made the Oregon Department of Justices 20
Worst Charities list in 2011 because it spent less
than 12 percent of its donations on cancer
victims.
The nonprofit also had a history of self-dealing,
according to a January 2012 article in The
Oregonian newspaper. In 2008, Oregons DOJ
said the organizations financial reporting lacked
precision and asked the director Fran Hansen
and her daughter, Ann Hansen-Orr, to step

Defamatory; Not Of & Concerning


Plaintiffs; Fair Report (Oregon DOJ
records); Fair Comment; Neutral


4.10
4.11
4.12
Statement
down. Approximately 10 members of the
Hansen family are retained or compensated in
some manner by the organization, the DOJ
wrote in a letter to the board.
The DOJ also found the Hansen family used
company credit cards for more than $282,000 of
questionable expenses from 2003 to 2008,
including $4,156 spent on a Disneyland vacation
and $5,694 spent at a spa south of Portland,
Oregon. Despite these issues, Ritter convinced
the centers board that he could turn the Oregon
nonprofit into a cash-generating business that
would support the centers charitable mission.
At first, Ritters claims proved prophetic. Dress
sales and advertising revenues rose by $900,000
the first year. But expenses rose sharply. Brides
Against Breast Cancer doubled the centers
payroll, increasing employee salaries to $1.5
million a 55 percent increase from the
previous year. Ritters salary rose from
$125,000 to $335,000 in two years and he found
jobs for two of his children and Richard Lye, a
colleague from his failed used car venture.
But his tenure was cut short after board members
learned he was benefiting from secret business
arrangement with the charity.
Vendors at the show and at others across the
country say knowing the money goes to a good
cause keeps them coming back despite the price
of admission. They paid $350 for a promotional
table at the Orlando event, expecting to talk to
200 or more brides. I dont think I would have
paid $300 if it werent for the cause, said Tren
Johnson, a family doctor who runs a jewelry
business on the side. In July, she got one or two
brides interested in her business -- just enough to
offset the cost of the table. Daytona-based
photographer Neil Carter said he talked to 25
brides at the two-day Orlando show. He said
event managers told him he would speak with
300 to 400. I walked away thinking I guess this
See Articles 1-3, supra.

Plaintiffs; Fair Comment; Neutral


4.13
Statement
was just a donation, said Teresa Johnson, owner
of Artistic Wedding Cakes in San Diego. It
wasnt anything to benefit the vendors. Johnson
attended two Brides Against Breast Cancer
shows in San Diego, but she stopped going back
because it was really, really dead both times. It
wasnt really until it was all over and I looked
back on it and considered doing it again and
thought, that really kind of sucked, Johnson
said.
Alex Howell has performed as a DJ and master
of ceremonies at 15 bridal shows in the last two
years. Brides Against Breast Cancer show
managers asked him to MC at their July show in
Orlando, promising him exposure to brides who
might hire him for their weddings. His friends in
the wedding industry joked that he was still on a
learning curvethat the rate of return would not
be great at this type of boutique event. But
Howell, who suffered from testicular cancer, was
happy to buy a $350 vendor ticket that would go
to the cause. Smiling, he broadcast the
organizations talking points over the
microphone. Dont forget that 75 percent of
your donation goes to people with cancer! he
trumpeted after congratulating another bride who
said yes to the dress. The event was not what
he expected. More than 70 percent of
preregistered brides did not show up, according
to numbers show managers gave him. There
were only three other vendors specific to the
wedding industry. They said that 78 percent of
every dollar raised was going toward the cause,
Howell said. Obviously that was not a true
statement.

Report.

Charity Fires Ex-CEOs Children
(Published on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Website on Thursday, August 6, 2015)
http://watchdogsarasota.heraldtribune.com/2015/08/06/charity-fires-ex-ceos-children/
Workers Lose Jobs at Troubled Charity

(Published in Print in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on Thursday, August 6, 2015)
5.1
5.2
5.3
Statement
The embattled Center for Building Hope fired at
least six employees this week, including the
children of former CEO Carl Ritter, whose
questionable financial practices cost him his own
job last week.
Dress sales have been falling in recent months at
the charitys Brides Against Breast Cancer
subsidiary, while expenses have been rising.
That has left the Center with less money to
pursue its mission of providing free counseling
and services to cancer victims and their families.
The Center has been forced to juggle payments
to employees, vendors and creditors. It
defaulted on its $2.7 million mortgage last
summer. Gelbman would not say how many
employees had been fired. The Herald-Tribune
learned that three of those terminated were event
marketing coordinators, whose nationwide
fundraising efforts net thousands of dollars for
the charity. One of the ousted employees,
Marisa Merlino, raised $8,500 at a celebrity
bartending event on Friday in Alexandria,
Virginia, according to records she showed the
Herald-Tribune. Merlino received a termination
letter upon arriving at work Monday but wasnt
told the reason for her ouster. Receiving a
similarly vague termination letter Monday was
Ashley Zipf, another event marketing
coordinator who said the Centers interim cochair Brian Mariash fired her over the phone and
refused to provide a reason, saying only that the
letter would explain it. It did not. Zipf and
Merlino also learned that the charity wouldnt
pay them their 10 percent commission from
recent events, as stipulated in their employment
contracts. The commissions help offset the
employees $25,000 annual salaries. I raised
$8,000, Merlino said. Now they cant even
afford to pay peoples salaries on time. Where is
that money going?
Others fired were Ritters children, Ashley and
Substantially True; Opinion; See
Article 2.

Report.


5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
Statement
Justin, and one of his long time business
associates, Richard Lye.
As a sales director, Ashley Ritter oversaw
dozens of fundraising events nationwide,
including the one Merlino recently held. Justin
Ritter served as logistics director for the agency.
Lye was in charge of coordinating volunteers.
Ashley Ritter declined to comment. Neither Lye
nor Justin Ritter could be reached. Their father,
meanwhile, listed for sale on Sunday the
familys 3,000-square-foot home in the gated
University Park Country Club subdivision,
which the Ritters have owned since 2003,
according to Manatee County Tax records. Built
in 1999, the lakefront property features
numerous, recent improvements, including a
new kitchen with high-end appliances, new
marble floors and a new Pebble Tec pool
surfacing. Ritter paid $665,000 for the house in
August 2003. He is asking $839,000.
And they were willing to overlook his 1985
bankruptcy and the failure of his buy here, pay
here used car business.
In 2012, Ritter convinced the board to buy a
failing Oregon non-profit that sold donated
wedding dresses at shows around the country.
That organization now known as Brides
Against Breast Cancer provides about two
thirds of the Centers revenues. But expenses
under Ritters tenure have shot up, his own
salary rising from $125,000 to $335,000 in just
three years.
Ritters fatal mistake was that he set up a
company to process credit card transactions for
Brides Against Breast Cancer and charged the
organization a 16 percent fee eight times the
amount considered normal. Two board members
Jim Braun and Dave Shaver knew about
the business arrangement. Both resigned at
about the same time that Ritter was fired.
It is incredulous to me that the board disregarded
Not Of & Concerning Plaintiffs; Fair
Report; Fair Comment; Neutral
Report (Manatee County Property
Appraiser records).



Statement
due diligence in hiring Carl Ritter, a bankrupt
used car salesman with no non-profit experience
for the CEO job in the first place, said Janet
Cameron, who was involved with the Center for
six years as a cancer victim, volunteer and parttime marketing director. Then to add insult to
injury, they disregarded their fiduciary
responsibilities to the donors to stay on top of
exactly what he was doing.
Report.

Brides Against Breast Cancer Closes
http://watchdogsarasota.heraldtribune.com/2015/08/11/brides-against-breast-cancer-closes/
Breast Cancer Nonprofit Folds

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
Statement
The closure is the latest development in a saga
that began when center board members learned
that former CEO Carl Ritter was charging the
Lakewood Ranch charity exorbitant fees for
processing credit card transactions through
secret business arrangement. The center fired
Ritter two weeks ago, then fired his two
children, and two board members resigned.
Substantially True; See Article 2,
supra.
The center started having financial trouble in

early 2011 after hiring Ritter. Tax documents
show that revenues exceeded costs by more than
$1 million for each of the three years preceding
his arrival in September 2010. Then, deficits
suddenly began to mount.
Ritter promised proceeds from dress sales would
allow the center to make up for dwindling
donations. But a Herald-Tribune investigation
found that the centers expenses spiked with the
purchase of Brides Against Breast Cancer.
Revenues from dress sales fell and contributions
to cancer patients dropped by more than 50
percent.
See Article 1, supra; Opinion; Fair

Report (Form 990s).


True; Not Defamatory; Opinion; Fair
Report (Form 990s).

Ousted Nonprofit CEO Files Lawsuit, Starts New Fundraising Organization
(Published on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Website on Wednesday, August 19, 2015)
http://watchdogsarasota.heraldtribune.com/2015/08/19/ousted-nonprofit-ceo-files-lawsuit-starts-newfundraising-organization/
Ousted CEO Starts Company

7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
Statement
Three days later, he started a new fundraising
company, Celebrities Against Cancer Inc., with
his wife and daughter.
A new website, Funding Partners, also cropped
up. Its mission is to raise funds for nonprofit
organizations by operating small events through
a large network of partners across the country.
The website was still partially in development
Tuesday, but was selling tickets to a
microevent where real estate agents would
bartend, raising tips to later be donated to
charity. The website was wiped clean
Wednesday following Herald-Tribune inquiries.
Funding Partners mission is identical to a
fundraising model used by Brides Against Breast
Cancer, a subsidiary of Ritters former
employee.
Earlier this month, the Center for Building Hope
fired Ritter, his son and his daughter after the
Herald-Tribune detailed how the former CEO
siphoned money from the Center through a
secret business arrangement in which he charged
a 16 percent fee for an app that organized events
and processed credit card transactions.
Two board members who knew about the deal -former chairman Jim Braun and board member
Dave Shaver resigned. On Aug. 10, the
Center shut down its Brides Against Breast
Cancer subsidiary, which sold donated wedding
dresses at events around the country.
Brides Against Breast Cancer employees sold
tickets to celebrity networking events around
the country using BABC Mobile, an event
organization and credit processing application
owned by Ritter and his wife. A ticket purchase
on Funding Partners showed BABC Mobile as
the credit processor. A gift receipt showed the
same Florida Division of Consumer Services
registration number as the Center for Building
Hope. It certainly is not ours, said Ron
Substantially True; Fair Report
(Florida Dept of State Records); Not
Defamatory.
See Article 2; Article 3, supra.
See Article 2; Article 3; Article 6,

supra.

Comment; Neutral Report; Common
Interest.

Ousted Nonprofit CEO Files Lawsuit, Starts New Fundraising Organization
(Published on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Website on Wednesday, August 19, 2015)
http://watchdogsarasota.heraldtribune.com/2015/08/19/ousted-nonprofit-ceo-files-lawsuit-starts-newfundraising-organization/
Ousted CEO Starts Company

Statement
Gelbman, who has volunteered as interim CEO
of the center since Ritter left. BABC is a
trademark owned by the Center for Building
Hope. Other than that, we dont have any other
information on that organization. Center
officials declined to comment on whether they
will take legal action against Ritter. In general,
we would be concerned about somebody using
our name in a registration and one of our
trademarks, Gelbman said.

Charitys Ex-CEO Faces Criminal Investigation
(Published on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Website on Thursday, September 3, 2015)
http://watchdogsarasota.heraldtribune.com/2015/09/03/charitys-ex-ceo-faces-criminal-complaint/
Ex-CEO Faces Criminal Complaint

(Published in Print in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on Friday, September 4, 2015)
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
Statement
Charitys ex-CEO faces criminal investigation
A volunteer board member of a Lakewood
Ranch cancer charity has filed a criminal
complaint against Carl Ritter, accusing the
organizations ousted CEO of diverting
donations into his own companys bank account.
The Center for Building Hope fired Ritter last
month after the Herald-Tribune reported that he
set up a deal in which his company took an 18
percent fee for event registration and processing
credit card transactions made with the centers
subsidiary, Brides Against Breast Cancer. There
was no signed agreement between the center and
Ritters company, according to the complaint
that is now being investigated by the Sarasota
County Sheriffs Office.
The Center also fired Ritters son and daughter,
whom Ritter hired in violation of the
organizations nepotism policy to help manage
Brides Against Breast Cancer.
Last month, the Center closed the subsidiary, a
donated wedding dress business that was
supposed to save the Center but ended up
weighing it down with added costs, including
Ritters $335,000 annual salary.
The criminal complaint filed by Center board
member Brian Mariash said that Ritter continues
to hold about $20,000 of the centers money.
We have very little money and I want every
dime we have to help cancer patients, Gelbman
said.
From February to August, Ritters company
received an 18 percent processing fee, a third of
which was meant to pay him back for the cost of
developing the software application at the heart
of his credit card processing business.
At least three board members knew about
Ritters private deal with the Center former
chairman Jim Braun, Dave Shaver and Carol
Ann Kalish. Both Braun and Shaver resigned.
(SCSO records).
(SCSO records).
See Article 2; Article 3, supra; Fair

Report (SCSO records).

True; Opinion; Fair Comment;
Neutral Report; Not Defamatory.
See Article 5.
Fair Report (SCSO records).


Charitys Ex-CEO Faces Criminal Investigation
(Published on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Website on Thursday, September 3, 2015)
http://watchdogsarasota.heraldtribune.com/2015/09/03/charitys-ex-ceo-faces-criminal-complaint/
Ex-CEO Faces Criminal Complaint

(Published in Print in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on Friday, September 4, 2015)
8.10
Statement
Kalish remains the interim chairwoman of the
organization.
He also started his own fundraising business,
Celebrities for a Cause, with his wife and
daughter. A few days later, a website called
Funding Partners popped up online It
disappeared after the Herald-Tribune reported
that the organization not only used the Centers
state registration number on its gifts receipts, but
also used same business model as Brides Against
Breast Cancers micro events.
Community members would volunteer as
bartenders at Brides Against Breast Cancers
celebrity networking events and proceeds from
ticket sales and tips would be contributed to the
center. The Funding-Partners website resurfaced
this week. As of Monday, visitors to the site
could buy tickets to five events in five different
cities. Two of the five events will be held at
World of Beer, an organization that previously
worked with the Center for Building Hope.
Fair Report (Dept of State Records);
See Article 7; Substantially True; Not
Defamatory; Fair Comment; Neutral
Report.

JFCS to Take Over Center for Building Hope Programs
(Published on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Website on Friday, September 4, 2015)
http://watchdogsarasota.heraldtribune.com/2015/09/04/jfcs-to-take-over-center-for-building-hopeprograms/
Cancer Charity is Folding

(Published in Print in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on Saturday, September 5, 2015)
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
Statement
The transition of the Center marks the end of a
tumultuous month in which the board of
directors fired the organizations former CEO
Carl Ritter after discovering he was benefiting
from a private business arrangement with the
charity.
The board also fired Ritters two children, who
were hired in violation of the centers antinepotism policy. It then shuttered its Brides
Against Breast Cancer subsidiary, which sold
donated wedding dresses at events around the
country. And it accepted the resignation of two
members who knew about Ritters private
business arrangement.
For cancer patients, who have benefited from the
centers services, news of the layoffs was
greeted with anger and grief. There were a lot
of people who gave their heart, soul, hours and
hours of time and significant dollars all to help
people facing cancer, said former board
member Charlie Ann Syprett. It is
heartbreaking to learn the apparent greedy
mismanagement and the lack of oversight by the
board led to the demise of what we all worked so
hard to build. Syprett lost her father, mother
and, most recently, her sister to cancer.
Losing that building is like losing my sister all
over again, she said.
He said he got involved out of frustration with
the way in which the charity was being
managed. It so aggravated me because I think
the general public walks away thinking thats the
way the world operates, Gelbman said. People
get to do what they want, and thats not-forprofits.
Revenues exceeded costs by an average of $1.5
million the three years before Ritter took over.
But within a year of Ritters arrival, donors fell
off, expenses climbed by more than $1 million
and the organization was reporting a $210,000
Substantially True; Opinion; See
Article 3, supra.
See Article 2; Article 5; Article 6;

Article 7; Article 8, supra.


See Article 1, supra; Fair Report

(Form 990s).

JFCS to Take Over Center for Building Hope Programs
(Published on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Website on Friday, September 4, 2015)
http://watchdogsarasota.heraldtribune.com/2015/09/04/jfcs-to-take-over-center-for-building-hopeprograms/
Cancer Charity is Folding

(Published in Print in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on Saturday, September 5, 2015)
9.6
9.7
9.8
Statement
deficit.
Ritter convinced the board that the problems
were not his fault and suggested that the
organization buy a failing Oregon thrift that sold
donated wedding dresses at events around the
country and donate the proceeds to cancer
patients.
Ritter saw his own salary balloon from $125,000
to $335,000. But he agreed to defer $100,000 in
return for a secret business arrangement in which
his company would charge the center an 18
percent fee for processing credit transactions
with the Brides Against Breast Cancer
subsidiary. Only a few board members knew
about the arrangement. When the rest found out,
they fired Ritter and one of their members
Brian Mariash filed criminal charges against
him
Employees at the Center gathered on Thursday
afternoon to await the fate of the Center and
of their jobs. One of the two single moms
brought in her three-year-old. Both were upbeat.
No one is happy, but they all felt good about
things, Gelbman said. They knew what was
happening They knew it was unlikely that we
were able to be successful, but they were ecstatic
about the services. Most people dont go into
the not-for-profit world to get rich.
See Article 1; Article 2; Article 3;

Article 8, supra; Substantially True;

Plaintiffs; Common Interest; Not
Defamatory.

Mapping the Failure of the Center for Building Hope
(Published on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Website on Saturday, September 12, 2015)
http://watchdogsarasota.heraldtribune.com/2015/09/12/mapping-the-failure-of-the-center-for-buildinghope/
Mapping Charitys Collapse

(Published in Print in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on Sunday, September 13, 2015)
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
Statement
While teary-eyed patrons volunteered at the
organizations desk and brought in $50 checks to
try to keep the Center for Building Hope alive,
two volunteer executives struggled to pay off the
centers hundreds of thousands of dollars of
unpaid bills and showed the nonprofits
remaining board members how leaderships
actions ultimately sunk the organization.
Board members trusted ousted CEO Carl Ritter
when he told them in his 2010 job interview that
the collapse of a used car company that funneled
hundreds of thousands into his pocket was not
his fault.
They supported him when he shifted the
charitys focus away from donor support and
toward the acquisition and aggressive expansion
of a failing nonprofit out of Oregon, which
caused the centers expenses to skyrocket.
They did not stop Ritter from hiring his adult
children in violation of the charitys antinepotism policy and did not question his
consolidation of power over the organizations
finances.
While the center struggled to make ends meet,
the board approved a threefold increase in
Ritters compensation to more than $335,000.
The boards three most-involved members
defended him when he failed to deposit his
employees pay withholdings into their
retirement accounts.
But at least seven of the centers board members
worked in the financial industry during the last
five years and at least two were aware of a secret
business deal where Ritter skimmed 18 percent
of credit transactions through an event
application he owned with his wife.
Secret dealings, brazen new business plans and a
web of lies woven by Ritter left the organization
with so little cash and such little hope that
people questioned how the nonprofits board
Substantially True; Fair Comment;
Neutral Report; Not Defamatory; Not
Of & Concerning Plaintiffs.

supra.

supra.


supra; Opinion.


10.9
10.10
10.11
10.12
10.13
10.14
10.15
Statement
members including some of the regions most
prominent businessmen, attorneys and public
figures could have let the organization fail.
Carls pathological optimism ended up being
really destructive, Kalish said. It got away
from us before we could realize what had
happened.
The Center managed to pay off $2.5 million of
the charitys debt by the time Lockaby left to
take another job in 2010, but the nonprofit still
owed Harris Bank $3 million.
They hired the candidate they said had the
strongest interviewa Canadian businessman
who had financial troubles of his own.
That Ritter had trouble paying past debts and ran
a used car company that eventually traded for
pennies per share and collapsed as he funneled
hundreds of thousands of dollars into his pockets
apparently did not trouble them.
From 2004 to January 2009, Carbiz lost almost
$42 million, but Ritters salary more than
tripled. In 2009, Carbiz paid Ritter $802,000
including a bonus of half a million dollars. The
next year, it closed for good.
Shaver went even further to explain Ritters
past: Carls former world is not a very black
and white world, Shaver told the newspaper.
Its made to look like youre losing money
when youre actually making money. Ritter
shifted the Center for Building Hopes business
model shortly after he started. Donor support
fell off and the centers $1.5 million surpluses
turned into a more than $210,000 deficit all
within the first year of his tenure.
By the time the center fired Ritter last month,
the nonprofit had tripled his salary and faced a
more than $785,000 debt. It still owes hundreds
of thousands of dollars to venues, vendors,
speakers and contractors that it is unable to pay.
Looking at it now, I can draw very clear


See Article 1; Opinion; Fair

Comment; Fair Report (Form 990s);
Neutral Report; Common Interest.


10.16
10.17
10.18
10.19
Statement
parallels, Kalish said. But we felt like we
understood why that had happened to him, why
his business had failed. We felt he had an
explanation for that.
In 2011, Ritter convinced the board to acquire
Making Memories Breast Cancer Foundation, a
failing Oregon nonprofit that sold donated
wedding dresses and made the Oregon
Department of Justices 20 Worst Charities list
in 2011 because it spent less than 12 percent of
its donations on cancer victims. The nonprofit
also had a history of self-dealing, according to a
January 2012 article in The Oregonian
newspaper.
But Brides never contributed more than
$681,000 to the center and caused expenses to
skyrocket. Ritter told Paulishak that Brides
contributed 77 cents out of every dollar to
charity so her team advertised that, she said. In
reality, it contributed an average of 23 percent in
the three years before the center shut it down.
We felt like he was always honest with us,
Kalish said. He came across as being candid.
He came across as being business-minded.
Running the show
....
The board also looked the other way when Ritter
violated the centers anti-nepotism policy by
hiring his two adult children to work for Brides
Against Breast Cancer. Shaver denied the
existence of a nepotism policy while Kalish said,
When he hired his kids, it was supposed to be
that they wouldnt report to him and that they
were supposed to be supervised by someone
else. Thats not how it worked out.
Ritters daughter, Ashley, ended up managing
the micro-event business, through which Ritter
and his wife generated 18 percent fees for an
application that processed credit card
transactions and managed event registration.

supra.

supra; Opinion; Fair Comment;
See Article 5; Article 5, supra;

Comment; Neutral Report; Common
Interest.

supra..


Statement
The deal had no contract and most of the board
was unaware of it.
10.20 In March, Ritter sent Kalish, Braun and Shaver a
draft of a license and royalty agreement for use
of his app, according to documents obtained by
the Herald-Tribune. But Kalish didnt realize
that the deal had been in place since February,
she said.
10.21 Ritter also brought in two associates from Carbiz
to drive trucks and redo the books.
10.22 At least 10 former employees and board
members complained about Ritters
management style in conversations with the
Herald-Tribune, saying he belittled any board
member and threatened any employees who
questioned him. Working in financial services
and businesses with dominant male leaders, I
had a high tolerance for someone coming down
hard on you, Paulishak said. This was a
completely different level. Sixteen people left
the board during Ritters first three years. But
the ones who stayed defended him. Everybody
loves a savior and wants a good story and wants
to be able to end up on the other side, Paulishak
said. I think thats why everyone believed and
maybe looked the other way and didnt trust
their instincts because they wanted the story to
end up the opposite of how it did.
Fair Comment; Neutral Report; Not
Defamatory; Common Interest.
Substantially True; Neutral Report;

Not Defamatory; Fair Comment.
Comment; Fair Report (Form 990s);

Fired CEO: Charitys Failure not his Fault
(Published on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Website on Tuesday, September 15, 2015)
http://watchdogsarasota.heraldtribune.com/2015/09/15/fired-ceo-charitys-failure-not-his-fault/
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
Statement
The center fired Carl Ritter after the board
learned that he had set up a secret business deal
in February where he took 18 percent off the top
of all credit transactions with the centers
subsidiary through an event management
application he owned with his wife.
At the time, the center had a deficit of more than
$785,000, owed hundreds of thousands of
dollars to venues, vendors and speakers and had
only $18,000 in cash.
Ritters claim that board members knew about
his application contradicts what he and interim
board chair Carol Ann Kalish told the HeraldTribune in a March interview, when they both
denied the existence of an application. There is
no app, Ritter told the newspaper in March. He
and Kalish said there could be the vestiges of an
app in which Ritter said he invested $400 to
$500 to develop years earlier.
Within Ritters first year, donor support fell off
and the centers $1.5 million surpluses turned
into a more than $210,000 deficit. Carl
apparently had opportunities to court donors that
he wasnt particularly successful at, Kalish told
the Herald-Tribune last week.
Substantially True; Fair Comment;

Neutral Report.
See Article 1, supra; Fair Report

(Form 990s); Opinion; Common
Interest.

Top 100 Moments from 2015
(Published on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Website on Monday, December 28, 2015)
http://extra.heraldtribune.com/2015/12/28/100-moments-20-1/
12.1
Statement
7. Charity exposed: A Herald-Tribune summer
investigation about a local cancer charity
revealed that ousted CEO Carl Ritter siphoned
18 percent of transactions made with the center
through a secret business deal with a credit
processing company he owned with his wife.
He also received large raises as the Center for
Building Hope struggled financially and
acquired a failing nonprofit out of Oregon,
which the center shut down following a HeraldTribune examination of the venture. The
nonprofit fired Ritter and his children, whom he
hired, and two board members resigned
following the investigation, which also
examined how inaction by board members
including some of the regions most prominent
businessmen, attorneys and public figures
contributed to the organizations failure. Ritter
sued the center and started another fundraising
company with a business model identical to an
operation he ran at the center. He is now being
criminally investigated. Jewish Family and
Childrens Services took over the Center for
Building Hopes cancer support services before
the organization shut down and filed for
bankruptcy in October.
See Articles 1-10, supra.

Group Carries on Cancer Support Groups
(Published on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Website on Tuesday, February 2, 2016)
http://www.heraldtribune.com/2016/02/02/article/160209911/
A Place to Heal
(Published in Print in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on Wednesday, February 3, 2016)
13.1
Statement
The Center for Building Hope shut its doors and
filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy after the HeraldTribune reported that its CEO siphoned 18
percent of credit transactions into a private
company and saw his salary triple while the
nonprofit hemorrhaged money.
(Center Bankruptcy Records) (IRS
Form 990s); Judicial Proceeding
(Center Bankruptcy Records) (SCSO
records); Neutral Report; See Articles
1-10, supra.

Ritter v. Sarasota Herald-Tribune Motion To Dismiss

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ritter v. Sarasota Herald-Tribune Motion To Dismiss

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Filing # 41868427 E-Filed 05/23/2016 05:48:24 PM

CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Case No. 2016-CA-000733

HALIFAX SARASOTA, LLC, JESSICA FLOUM,

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS

Mr. Ritter Takes Over the Centers Leadership

Mr. Ritter Switches Vendors And Personally Profits

The Center Fires Mr. Ritter; He Sues

Criminal Charges Filed Against Mr. Ritter

The Elements of Libel

False Statement of Fact

Reasonably Susceptible of Defamatory Meaning

Of and concerning Plaintiff

The Core Privileges and Defenses That Defeat Plaintiffs Claims:

Opinion Based on Disclosed Facts: Many of the Statements Plaintiffs complain

Common/Corresponding Interest Privilege: A communication made in good

Fair Comment Privilege: Matters of public interest are generally considered

Colodny, 936 F. Supp. at 927. The fair

Neutral Report Privilege: Florida courts have recognized a neutral reporting

Summary of Key Privileges Applied to Each Article

Plaintiffs Complaint is simply too unwieldy to confront on a statement-by-statement

Article 1, published June 7, 2015, reported on the Centers financial

Article 2, published on July 30-31, 2015, reported that the Centers

Article 7, published August 19-20, 2015, reported on Mr. Ritters lawsuit

Article 8, published September 3-4, 2015, reports that Center Board

the statements and opinions of Center insiders, board members,

Plaintiffs Cannot Establish Express or Actual Malice

Exhibit A: Weintraub Order

Defamatory Statements Made in Article 1:

Building Hope Losing Money

On paper, a Lakewood Ranch charity appears to be in

While the Center for Building Hope struggles to make

Ritter and the board continue to take financial risks:

Opinion; Substantially True;

DEFENDANTS APPENIDIX A PAGE 1 OF 35

Defamatory Statements Made in Article 1:

Building Hope Losing Money

Opinion; Substantially True;

DEFENDANTS APPENIDIX A PAGE 2 OF 35

Defamatory Statements Made in Article 1:

Building Hope Losing Money

Substantially True; Not

Defamatory Statements Made in Article 1:

Building Hope Losing Money

Ritter spent 17 years at the helm of Carbiz, which

Substantially True; Not

Substantially True; Not

Opinion; Substantially True; Not

DEFENDANTS APPENIDIX A PAGE 4 OF 35

Defamatory Statements Made in Article 1:

Building Hope Losing Money

Opinion; Substantially True; Not

Opinion; Selective Quotation;

DEFENDANTS APPENIDIX A PAGE 5 OF 35

Defamatory Statements Made in Article 1:

Building Hope Losing Money

Defamatory Statements Made in Article 1:

Building Hope Losing Money

DEFENDANTS APPENIDIX A PAGE 7 OF 35

Defamatory Statements Made in Article 1:

Building Hope Losing Money

DEFENDANTS APPENIDIX A PAGE 8 OF 35