Independent Publisher Review Confirms Misrepresentation of Florida Injunction by Angie Wong
This webpage was published by Jared Craig and is based exclusively on evidence and communications supplied by Your News.
Overview
An independent third-party publisher, Your News, obtained and reviewed primary court records and related correspondence after Angie Wong attempted to force the removal of factual, court-record-based reporting from the Your News platform concerning public judicial proceedings.
Based on its independent review, the publisher determined that Ms. Wong materially misrepresented the scope and legal effect of a Florida state court injunction in both private takedown demands and subsequent public statements through proxy and alias accounts - Documents attached.
Foundation: Palm Beach Dismissal and Miami Injunction
The Palm Beach County civil action publicly cited by Ms. Wong, and covered by the Daily Mail, was dismissed , with prejudice, on the merits as legally insufficient. That dismissal served as the procedural foundation relied upon in subsequent Miami proceedings as alleged motive for acquiring the injunction. The Daily Mail Article (sourced to Wong) covering the lawsuit was submitted as evidence by Angie Wong at the Miami Trial, that publication also now proven meritless as to the court and FEC reporting based on the Palm Beach docketed evidence. The Daily Mail did not even get basic information correct from sourcing a story to Wong, VFAF was founded in 2015 , Mr.Fitzgerald joined in 2020 so it would be impossible for Mr.Fitzgerald to be the founder as the title of Rob Crilly's story claimed. For dismissal order see: https://lstrategies.org/articles/pro-se-stan-fitzgerald-and-jared-craig-esq-defeat-angie-wong-defamation-case-filed-in-palm-beach-dismissed-on-all-counts-with-prejudice
The Palm Beach Docket is public record with almost 500 exhibits from both Palm Beach, and the Miami Trial which factually overlapped, and can be researched as a guest: https://appsgp.mypalmbeachclerk.com/eCaseView/ After log in enter a search for Angie Wong by name.
Because the Palm Beach case was dismissed as meritless, the Miami injunction—frequently inaccurately described by Ms. Wong as “permanent”—is subject to established legal mechanisms , including it's current appeal status and post-judgment motions for termination.
Accordingly, claims that the Miami injunction is permanent, irrevocable, or bars lawful speech, or that the mentioning of Angie Wong's name results in violations are demonstratively false by reviewing the order below. For accuracy and consistency, the Miami restraining order is referred to here as an injunction, reflecting its legal character and appellate posture.
Attempted Removal of Factual Press Coverage by Angie Wong
Your News received a written takedown demand sent by Ms. Wong seeking removal of factual press coverage that allegedly summarized public court rulings and relied on official filings and certified orders without supplying the complete order.
The demand asserted that:
• A Florida injunction prohibited any publication referencing Ms. Wong • Continued publication constituted contempt, defamation, or harassment • Media platforms and publishers were legally bound by the injunction • Failure to remove content would expose publishers to civil and criminal liability (Criminal as under FL law violating this type of injunction may result in criminal charges, and following up on her Linkedin page, MS Wong states criminal reports were filed)
The publisher determined these assertions were not supported by the actual court order.
Concealment of the True Scope of the Injunction by Angie Wong
During the takedown effort, only a portion of the injunction was initially provided to the publisher.
After obtaining and reviewing the full, certified order, the publisher confirmed that the injunction:
• Applies solely to the named respondent • Regulates personal conduct such as contact, proximity, and harassment • Does not bind journalists, publishers, platforms, wire services, or third parties • Does not impose any prior restraint on publication • Does not prohibit factual reporting on public court proceedings • Does not restrict use of a party’s name by non-parties or respondent. In plain language there is no gag order in place on respondent or associates of respondent.
No language in the injunction authorizes enforcement against the press.
Independent Publisher Review
Following review of the complete injunction and related filings, the publisher conducted an independent legal assessment and concluded:
• The reporting at issue consisted of third-party journalism based on public records • The content contained no false statements of fact • The reporting did not meet any standard for defamation • No enforceable court order applied to the platform or its contributors • An injunction against an individual cannot extend to unrelated publishers absent explicit language
Based on these findings, the publisher declined to remove the content at this time.
Public Escalation and Chilling Effect
After the takedown demand was rejected, Ms. Wong publicly asserted on her LinkedIN page that multiple media organizations and distribution services could face liability for publishing content that referenced her name.
These claims identified no court order binding those entities and amplified the original misrepresentation, creating a chilling effect on lawful journalism.
Lawful Reporting Targeted
The content targeted for removal consisted of lawful press releases and independent reporting that summarized:
• Public court rulings • Judicial dismissals entered on the merits • Certified court filings and orders
All reporting was authored by independent third parties and relied exclusively on public records.
Recruitment and Misuse of Third Parties to Amplify False Claims
The record further shows that Ms. Wong misled, or recruited, a Georgia resident to target the respondent, Mr. Stanley Fitzgerald, through online activity and bulk email campaigns. These communications asserted that any mention of Ms. Wong’s name by Mr. Fitzgerald, or third parties, constituted a violation of the injunction and exposed speakers and publishers to legal consequences. The independent publisher’s disclosure and review of the certified injunction establishes that these claims are false made by the Georgia resident.
The injunction contains no provision prohibiting the use of Ms. Wong’s name, no restriction on speech by non-parties, and no language extending enforcement beyond the named respondent. The order is, in substance, a no-contact injunction regulating personal conduct, and it remains on appeal.
These false assertions were presented as settled law despite being directly contradicted by the plain language of the injunction, which is included among the attached exhibits below for public review to cure the image of those affected by the disinformation campaign sourced to Angie Wong exposed by YourNews.
False take down statement by Angie Wong:
From: Angie Wong <Angie.wong@XXXXXX)
Date: Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 6:34 AM
Subject: Formal Notice and Demand: Immediate Removal of Defamatory Content Published on YourNews in Violation of Court-Ordered Injunction
To: <info@yournews.com>
This letter serves as my third formal notice and demand in three years that YourNews immediately remove all articles and content published about me on its platform that were submitted by Stan Fitzgerald, and by or through his known aliases, affiliated entities, and associates, including but not limited to Jared Craig, Christi Tasker, Veterans for America First (VFAF), and other third parties acting at his direction or in concert with him.
Attached to this correspondence is a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Stalking Violence (attached), entered by the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, and served on Stan Fitzgerald. This injunction is final, permanent, and enforceable, and expressly prohibits Mr. Fitzgerald—and any third party or organization acting on his behalf—from publishing or disseminating any content containing my name.
YourNews is now on actual notice of the following:
-
Stan Fitzgerald is my court-adjudicated stalker, as determined by the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court.
-
A final judgment and permanent injunction bars Fitzgerald and any third party, proxy, or affiliated organization from publishing content that references me by name.
-
Despite this injunction, Fitzgerald has repeatedly and maliciously violated the court order by publishing content on YourNews—often through aliases, associates, or organizational fronts including Veterans for America First (VFAF).
-
The content published about me is false, defamatory, retaliatory, and part of a documented pattern of stalking and harassment, not legitimate journalism or protected commentary.
-
YourNews has been repeatedly notified of these facts, yet the unlawful content remains publicly accessible.
Because YourNews holds itself out as a news and publishing platform, continued hosting of this material after notice of a valid court order constitutes knowing facilitation of injunction violations, defamation, and harassment. At this point, any claim of good-faith publication or neutrality is no longer tenable.
Accordingly, I demand the following actions immediately:
-
Permanent removal of all YourNews-hosted content referencing me that was submitted by or on behalf of Stan Fitzgerald, Jared Craig, Christi Tasker, Veterans for America First (VFAF), or any affiliated proxy or entity.
-
Account-level enforcement, including disabling or banning accounts associated with Stan Fitzgerald, VFAF, and related aliases from submitting any future content referencing me.
-
Written confirmation that these actions have been completed and that safeguards are in place to prevent re-publication.
This matter is neither new nor unclear. YourNews has now been placed on notice multiple times. Continued inaction will leave me no choice but to escalate this matter through counsel and the issuing court, with YourNews’ continued publication activity placed formally on the record.
I expect confirmation of removal without delay.
Sincerely,
Angie Wong
Reply by Sam Anthony:
From: Sam Anthony <yournews11@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 10:35 AM
Subject: Notice and Request for Clarification Regarding Takedown Demand and Alleged Scope of Restraining Order
To: <Angie.wong@XXXXXX)
Cc: <rdm@robertmalovelaw.com>, <pdc.jbc@gmail.com>, <southernpiedmontlaw@gmail.com>, <alexd@lopezdefilippo.com>
Dear Ms. Wong,
We acknowledge receipt of your email requesting removal of content published on the YourNews platform.
At the outset, we note a material factual issue in your demand. The article titled “Palm Beach Court Dismisses Defamation Claims Against Stan Fitzgerald and Jared Craig With Prejudice” was authored and submitted by Jared Craig, not by Stan Fitzgerald. Any assertion or implication that Mr. Fitzgerald is the publisher or author of the referenced content is incorrect.
Your takedown request further appears to imply that an existing restraining order—if any—extends authority over independent third parties, including Jared Craig, Christi Tasker, Veterans for America First, or the YourNews platform itself. No such authority has been provided to YourNews.
To date, YourNews has not been served with, nor provided, any certified court order or legal directive that applies to this platform or that lawfully restrains independent third-party publication of factual content concerning public court proceedings. If you contend that a valid, enforceable court order exists that binds YourNews or prohibits publication by non-parties, please provide the complete, certified order reflecting that authority so it may be reviewed by counsel.
YourNews is a neutral free-speech publishing platform, not a traditional news outlet or editorial publisher. We do not create or author content submitted by independent contributors. The material you reference consists of a third-party press release reporting on a public judicial action, based on court filings and official rulings. Based on our review, the content contains no false statements of fact and does not meet the legal standard for defamation.
An injunction or restraining order issued against an individual does not automatically extend to unrelated persons, organizations, or publishing platforms absent explicit language naming and binding those parties. Accordingly, unless and until YourNews is served with a valid court order that expressly applies to this platform, we have no legal obligation to remove lawful, non-defamatory content reporting on public court matters.
YourNews takes lawful court orders seriously. If you believe such an order exists with jurisdiction over this platform or the identified third parties, please provide it in full so it may be properly evaluated.
Absent that, YourNews will continue to operate consistent with applicable law and the First Amendment.Sam Anthony
CEO & PresidentNico Ventures, Inc.
The Press Release https://yournews.com/2026/01/23/6262319/palm-beach-court-dismisses-defamation-claims-against-stan-fitzgerald-and/
Screen Shot of Press Release:
Press Release Transcribed:
PALM BEACH, Fla. — A Palm Beach County Circuit Court judge has dismissed all defamation and conspiracy claims against pro se defendants Stan Fitzgerald and attorney Jared B. Craig, Esq., ruling that no genuine issues of material fact existed and granting judgment in their favor as a matter of law.
The ruling, filed January 23, 2026 (Filing #240127758), stems from a defamation lawsuit brought by Angie Wong and L-Strategies. Judge Maxine Cheesman granted the defendants’ Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts I, II, and IV of the complaint, dismissing all claims against Fitzgerald and Craig with prejudice.
In the court’s order, Judge Cheesman found that the plaintiff, identified as a public figure, failed to establish or plead allegations of actual malice, a requirement under Florida law for defamation claims involving public figures.
“No genuine issue of material facts exist concerning them,” the court stated in its order.
The ruling further noted that the defendants did not dispute the contents of the reports, press releases, or social media posts referenced in the complaint. However, the court found that the alleged defamatory material was derived from the Spartan Investigation Report authored by Patrick Collis, who was identified as the only party alleged to have published original investigative content.
According to the order, subsequent press releases and social media posts either referenced the Spartan Investigation Report or content created and published by the plaintiff herself on her own social media accounts.
As a result, the court concluded that Fitzgerald and Craig were entitled to judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510.
Jared Craig, Vice President of VFAF, responded to the ruling by stating, “Justice has been served. The court order speaks for itself.”
The case, Wong v. Fitzgerald et al., Case No. 50-2023-CA-015235-XXXA-MB, was formally dismissed as to Fitzgerald and Craig on all counts with prejudice, barring the claims from being refiled.
The order was issued and entered in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida.
