Blogger Threatens Law Suit


You would think it would be the fiery blogger and Deerfield Beach civic activist Chaz Stevens who would be sued for defamation.

This time it’s Stevens who is threatening his long-time nemesis, Commissioner Sylvia Poitier, with a slander suit.

Poitier, a former county commissioner, had earlier made noise about suing Stevens for his postings.

Will this one end up in court?  Will they sue each other? Will blogs end up as a new source of income for the courthouse crowd?

Ain’t the Internet fun?

Stay tuned.

(click on letter to enlarge them)


27 Responses to “Blogger Threatens Law Suit”

  1. good luck says:

    “falsity of the statement could injure the plaintiff”

    Good luck proving that element, i think there may be a few out there that think he is a

  2. Las Olas Lawyer says:

    Even a “shithead,” as Good Luck so eloquently wrote, can not be slandered under the law.

    In addition, the woman doesn’t have the money to fight a suit in court. A lawsuit against her would hit her in pocket.

  3. Chaz Stevens says:

    Shithead? Agreed. Hell, I’d even go as far as “major douchebag”.

    That being said, here in Deerfield Beach, I am *the thin line* holding our local officials accountable for their actions.

    Just remember what that fucking terrorist George Washington once said — “trust those in power less.”

  4. Richard J. Kaplan says:


    It may be wrong, but years ago our city attorney advised me that Elected Officials have immunity from slander when speaking on something during a Commission Meeting.

    I am not exactly sure how far this goes as applied to this case, but if true, it makes it an interesting question.

    Personally I never wanted to test this out.

    If true, then Poiter may have immunity in a civil matter.


    I don’t know if that is true or false.

    However, such a provision would seem unfair. That means an office holder can get on the podium and say any foul thing about anybody and not be held accountable in court.

    Mr. Stevens would not be protected by such a law.

  5. Tammy says:

    Couldn’t happen to a more deserving public official. Go get her!

  6. Boy in a glass house says:

    If this actually ends up in litigation Ms. Poitier circle back around to Buddy and let us know.
    The character witnesses against him would run out of the front door of the court house and down the street.

  7. dear lol says:

    so he sues and gets a judgment against someone who has no money.

    but in reality he wont sue because as you know that will open up the door to depose him and no one likes that.

  8. Chaz Stevens says:

    Dear LOL

    Depose me all you want. Apparently you don’t read my blog. I’ve never once worried about my perceived credibility based on how you feel about me.

    Already been deposed in the Gonot trial.

    I am glad you don’t give a fuck about me as I arrived at that decision about you years ago.

    What matters is a shitty politician is being held accountable. You are a total fucking idiot when you make this about me.

    $2.6M in unaccounted for with the Mango Festival. Apparently I am the only one that cares.

    Truthfully, it gives me a sizeable boner to be hated. The thought of being your friend is way too tiresome to consider.


    PS. I am taking bets that Steve Gonot gets 5 years.

  9. Richard J. Kaplan says:

    It doesn’t have to do being fair or unfair. I believe it is related to the sovereign immunity provisions, which some would contend is unfair.

    Laws are not always fair (some would say often). They are just the law.

    I am sure that Chaz’s attorneys will now be checking it out. I would love to know what they come up with.

    Fortunately, I can’t recall of a situation where this concern came up.

  10. Chaz Stevens says:


    There is Florida case law that we’ve found that sort of muddles the issue.

    We intend to find out.

  11. Phil Heck says:

    Thomas Wright, Stevens’ attorney, says that Poitier “specifically stated as fact” that Stevens (appearing to quote her) was “arrested in Palm Beach County for beating his wife.”

    In fact, Poitier did not say “as fact” he was “arrested… for beating his wife.” This is not an accurate quote, or even close.

    I’m not a court reporter but this is nearly verbatim: “Somebody sent me proof he beat his wife in West Palm Beach and went to jail.”

    She added, “He might want me in jail because he’s been there.”

    Anyone who is interested in hearing Poitier’s actual comments for themselves can view the video on the Deerfield Beach city website at 01:29:38 into the meeting.

    Thank you for your comment.

  12. ExCompassionate Conservative says:

    Buddy, did she on the record say that Mr. Stevens was arrested for battery on his wife as a public official ?

    If this goes further, will the taxpayers be picking up her legal tab since this was done while offical city business was occuring?

  13. Frank White says:

    If she said that somebody sent her information, then she probably would get the immunity if it was through her city email.

  14. Chazzer Oink oink says:

    Truthfully, it gives me a sizeable boner to be hated. The thought of being your friend is way too tiresome to consider.

    Its thinking patterns such as this that make it surprising that Chaz was married as many as one time as long as 3 months at the age of 19.
    Many debilitating psychiatric conditions don’t appear until ones mid to late 20’s.

    Of all the truthful stalking, cyberstalking Chaz does, you dont have to pull the “how often does Chaz Stevens beat his wife” card Ms. Portier. How bushleague -especially with so much material to work with.

    Chaz, I dont know if this will give you a boner or not, but I for one dont hate you. I pity you.

    Still pushing that tired website relentlessly, Chaz. Well I can say without any fear of a libel suit that that website link has linked to geriatric gay male porn.

    I guess geriatric gay male porn gives Chaz a boner the way he has pushed it on that website link.

    That’s good, because as Chaz enters his lonely unloved no relationship middle and old age, he can look at his geriatric gay male porn and have something to look forward to besides the family, home, hearth, little Timmies that normal people find so fulfilling.

    Chaz, it gives me a boner to see you unloved, alone with no hope of that every being different.

  15. Nuclear option says:

    I have to laugh at C.S.’s claim that he is some important voice in the community.
    Talking about delusions of grandeur!
    His chronic blogging and know-it-all attitude is surely a cover for someone who is insecure and uncomfortable with human contact.
    I am not sure about what C.S. has said about Ms. Portier or how she has fired back, but I do know that he blogs about matters of which he is totally uninformed and frequently gets his facts totally wrong.
    Just look at his writing style. His constant use of vulgarities is indicative of an uneducated and unrefined individual.
    To believe that he has the chutzpah to claim that someone stated an untruth about him after he chronically blogs untruths about other people is a real hoot.
    Be careful on the law C.S. because you may not be a “private” person under the law (with your public postings on various blogs!) and if it turns out (by way of a subpeona duces tecum)that you provided the legal correspondence to Buddy to publish on this blog, well your damages if any would be less than a dime. In other words, it will tough to argue that you are not a public person when you are a chronic blogger with your own blog site and who claims to be the “thin blue line”. Try it and let me know if it flies.
    Finally, if I represented Ms. Portier I would have a Subpeona Duces Tecum for C.S’s I.P. address sent to every blog in south Florida (including the Sentinel, JAABLAW, Broward Beat, the Daily Pulp, et. al.). I would then gather up at least ten clients whom C.S. has defamed.
    Then my friends…we’d be off to the races!

  16. Chazzer Oink oink says:

    C’mon, be practical Nuclear option. Who would waste a nickel or a minute suing Chaz Stevens for anything?

    What would be the point?

    If you win, what are you gonna collect? His bicycle? Dibs on his childhood (and middle age) room at mom’s house? His geriatric gay male porn collection? His sizeable boner?

    A silly nebbish like Chaz is not worth the filing fee to bother with a suit.

  17. Chaz Stevens says:

    Dear Subpeona Duces Tecum.

    Shut the fuck up and/or bring it.

    No need to supoena my IP —

    Silly twat.

  18. Chazzer Oink oink says:

    ATT. IPhone, I guess. But there are LANs. Starbucks, McDonalds, the bench across the street from Jack Seiler’s office.

    And, again, what’s the point? Might as well sue the “the end is near” guy on the corner with a bullhorn.

    Chaz is judgment proof and maybe almost as rational as the bullhorn guy.

  19. Phil Heck says:

    @Buddy @Phil Heck

    My pleasure.

    I feel certain, after reflecting on Poitier’s comments, that Wright, III, Stevens’ attorney, wrote his cease-and-desist letter before he viewed Poitier’s comments.

    It’s too bad a lawyer has been dragged into this publicity stunt, but he’s long represented Stevens and should know better.

    Two things I’m thinking about: Could a bar complaint be written against Wright, III, for misrepresenting the facts; and, who pays for all this legal work on behalf od Chaz Stevens?

  20. Chazzer Oink Oink says:

    Not good for business for Wright to portrayed so publicly, playing so fast and loose with the facts, representing a person thought by many (not me, of course) to be delusional on a good day.

    Especially if Wright isnt getting paid his legal fees out of all the consulting, expert fees and author’s royalties that dont exist and never will.

    Further, it isnt hard to come up with a list of similar threatening letters sent by Wright on behalf of his star client, with even more spurious, loosely construed “facts”, sent to other individuals.

    So, Wright’s letter here has publicly established that he is either careless or plays fast and loose with facts and acts precipitously, if not recklessly.

    And its very likely that the schlepper hasnt even been paid for his efforts.

    Oh well. To each his own. Have to buy a lot of ads on a lot of bus benches to make up for that.

  21. Black letter law says:

    C.S.= public figure
    C.S./Public Figure must prove “actual malice”.
    Game, set, match to the defendant.

  22. City Activist Robert Walsh says:

    To Comm.Poiter you state that you are being harassed because of Chaz Stevens continued accusations about you. You requested that The Commisison pay for you to get a lawyer to go after Mr.Stevens. First of all your approach is wrong. Taxpayer dollars cannot go to fund your lawyer to go after Mr.Stevens I’m assuming for Defamation. The only reason you would have grounds is if say you went for a job and the potential employer did not hire because of what Mr.Stevens writes about you. So if you can substanchiate that your on your way. In other words Mr.Stevens can say or write anything he wants regardless if it has merit. Defamation grounds have strict criteria. If you can get that on record that the potential emplyer won;t hire you because of his actions than you have a case. So you would have to expierence finacial hardship, health issues etc. in order to sue him. So for you to ask the Deerfield Comm. to fund your lawsuit was dead in the water before you even brought it to the Commission. That being stated if what he writes about you, and you have gone through these issues you have a case. Get ready though Defamation suits are not cheap. Usually the lawyer will ask for a retainer of about 5 grand. One thing in your corner is Chaz Stevens if the information is right about him lives w/ his mother, so I hardly think he can fight you($$). Bottom line unless you meet these guide lines you have no case. I sympathize w/ you although. Enough is enough you reprted about her Chaz and all her dealings. So its up to the State Att. Off. to go after her , not you. Be careful Chaz because if what you write about has major ramifications on someones lively hood you could very well be sued. Take note others.

  23. Chaz Stevens says:

    Put a fork in her. She’s done.

    To my detractors, I say this with all the love I can muster.

    Eat me.

  24. please make c.s. go away says:

    Just because it turned out that Poitier finally got nabbed does not diminish the thoughts from the posters above. I, along with many other still find C.S. offensive and quite odd. A grown man who spends so much of his time on the computer blogging about nonsense is concerning. The sad part is that he takes himself so damn seriously.
    In re: Poitier, and C.S., just remember, a broken clock is still right twice per day.

  25. Chazzer Oink Oink says:

    Attorney Thomas Wright seems to have a history of threatening and actually instituting frivolous legal actions and demands on Mr. Steven’s behalf.

    Here is a link to another example besides the one above:

    In the April 19 entry linked above, the frivolous lawsuit Mr Wright filed for Stevens is described in the last paragraph of the last page of the blog attachment. Scroll past Steven’s alleged dog feces throwing. And Steven’s alleged assault by spit. And Steven’s alleged credit card fraud, and alleged identity theft.

    There is at least one other victim of Steven’s harassment and abuse who has experienced the frivolous legal threats of Mr Wright.

    State Bar of Florida. Timothy R Stevens is a slow trainwreck of self destruction-repulsive, yet fascinating at the same time. Nothing the Bar can do about him.

    But, attorney Thomas Wright playing loose with facts and threatening and repeatedly taking frivolous legal action as Steven’s attorney? Cant the bar take action regarding this “Jack Thompson Jr”?

  26. Myperspectiveis says:

    I contacted the Florida Bar in regard to this Law Firm and Mr. Thomas Wright III, Esq sending out these letters threatening legal action using materially false information provided by his client. They basically said that I should submit a copy of the letters and what is wrong with them. But he stated that a lawyer does not have to verify information provided by their client. They can state that they wrote the information based on material information provided by their client. What a bummer! Especially since this Lawyer is helping an individual make a mockery of the legal system, it’s a genius plan though!

  27. Chazzer Oink Oink says:

    Pretty sleazy. So, if attorney Thomas Wright carefully parses his words in the letter he sends in order to help Steven’s with his harassment intimidation and bullying campaigns, everything is fine.

    Uh, state bar, you sure got on Jack Thompson, and all he was doing was complaining about video games. And, who backs Stevens fear intimidation and harassment campaigns with letters?

    Well , at least in this case, attorney Tom Wright.