Filing # 122882844 E-Filed 03/10/2021 06:10:00 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. CACE18021101 DIVISION 25 JUDGE Carol-lisa Phillips

William Elmore
Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner(s)
v.
Barbara Stone
Defendant(s) / Respondent(s)
____________________________/

PARTIAL FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING A PERMANENT INJUNCTION

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Plaintiff, William Elmore’s, Complaint and his

Motion for Permanent Injunction against Defendant, Barbara Stone, (collectively, the “Parties”),

and the Court having reviewed same, having held an evidentiary hearing on August 20, 2020, and

having been otherwise fully advised in the premises, makes the following findings:

DECISION OF THE COURT

Plaintiff has established a clear legal right to a permanent injunction, an inadequate remedy

at law, and that irreparable harm will arise absent injunctive relief. See Hollywood Towers Condo.

Ass'n, Inc. v. Hampton, 40 So. 3d 784, 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“To obtain a permanent injunction,

the petitioner must establish a clear legal right, an inadequate remedy at law and that irreparable

harm will arise absent injunctive relief.”). The Court finds: (a) the existence of a clear legal right is

met by proof to a reasonable certainty of the causes of action stated in the complaint for

defamation, tortious interference, and an injunction, (b) Plaintiff demonstrated irreparable harm by

Defendants’ tortious interference with his business, the loss of existing and potential clients, and

relationships with his employees, and (c) the remedy at law, an action for damages, would be

inadequate because the damages would be speculative and unascertainable and Defendant has

demonstrated that monetary awards are an insufficient deterrent to her misconduct. Accordingly,
 CaseNo: CACE18021101
Page 2 of 10

this Court finds Plaintiff has right to a permanent injunction pursuant to Zimmerman v. D.C.A. at

Welleby, Inc., 505 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Complaint contains three counts. Count I is for defamation per se. Count II is for

tortious interference with Defendant’s present and prospective clients. Count III is for injunctive

relief. All three counts arise out of and relate to defamatory statements made by Defendant.

Plaintiff alleged in his Complaint that his and Defendant’s paths crossed in connection with a

guardianship proceeding initiated by Defendant for her own mother in the Circuit Court for the

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County (Case No. 12-4330GD 01). See Compl. at

¶ 6. Plaintiff further alleged that upon conclusion of the guardianship proceedings, Defendant

began publishing defamatory statements directed at all involved, including counsel who

represented Defendant’s brother, Alan Stone, and the Court itself. Id. at 9. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant began a campaign to stain Plaintiff’s business and his personal reputation, because

Plaintiff hired Alan Stone and refused to fire Alan Stone at Defendant’s request. Id. at 15-17.

Plaintiff alleged Defendant published defamatory posts and reviews on various websites that

among other things accused Plaintiff of being a “fraudster who colludes with predators who exploit

elderly adults”, “harboring criminals in his office”, and “colluding with crony judges” to illegally force

vulnerable adults into guardianships. See Compl. at 23-31. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant sent a

mailer and memorandum to neighbors of Defendant’s son, which accused Defendant of a multitude

of crimes relating to the guardianship of her mother and Defendant’s employment of Alan Stone. Id

. at 32-35 and Exhibit “A” attached thereto.

Defendant’s Answer and numerous other papers filed in this action all but admit the truth of

the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant’s Answer contain statements and allegations that

are either identical, nearly identical, or are very similar to the substance of the defamatory

statements alleged in the Complaint. In addition, Defendant in her Answer contends that this
 CaseNo: CACE18021101
Page 3 of 10

lawsuit is a result of her efforts to “expose” the allegedly criminal acts of the Plaintiff and his

employment of Alan Stone. See Answer at p. 5, § II, ¶ 1.

On July 14, 2020, Defendant, a permanently disbarred attorney, filed a document titled

“Notice” which designated August 20, 2020 at 1:30 pm for a one hour hearing on Plaintiff’s request

for a permanent injunction, which Defendant referred to as her “lynching.” Plaintiff filed a notice of

the hearing and served a copy on Defendant. Defendant subsequently filed a document titled

“Notice Revocation” which revoked her designation of August 20, 2020 on the grounds that this

proceeding is rigged and meaningless. Defendant had notice of the evidentiary hearing scheduled

for August 20, 2020 AT 1:30 pm. This is a time that was originally designated by Defendant.

Defendant failed to appear for the hearing on August 20, 2020.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Defendant authored and published disparaging and false statements about

Plaintiff.

Defendant has posted false, defamatory, and disparaging statements regarding Plaintiff

throughout Plaintiff’s son’s neighborhood and on the Internet, including www.ripoffreport.com

(“RipOffReport”), www.pissedconsumer.com (“PissedConsumer”), and www.thepetitionsite.com

(“ThePetitionSite”).

On September 13, 2016, a review was published on the PissedConsumer website

entitled “Oppenheimer and Co – Crooked stockbroker William Earl Elmore in Ft Lauderdale FL

with Oppenheimer.” This review can be accessed online at https://oppenheimer-and-

co.pissedconsumer.com/review.html.

On September 16, 2016, a review was published on the RipOffReport website entitled

“William Earl Elmore Oppenheimer Financial exploiter of elderly adults Ft. Lauderdale

Florida.” This review can also be accessed online at

 CaseNo: CACE18021101
Page 4 of 10

https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/william-earl-elmore/ft-lauderdale-florida-33301/william-

earl-elmore-oppenheimer-financial-exploiter-of-elderly-adults-ft-lauderdale-flor-1328604.

On May 28, 2017, a review was published on the PissedConsumer website entitled

“Corrupt William Elmore manager at Oppenheimer in Ft Lauderdale, Fl.” This review can

also be accessed online at https://oppenheimer-and-co.pissedconsumer.com/corrupt-

william-elmore-manager-at-oppenheimer-in-ft-lauderdale-fl-201705281053241.html.

An undated petition was also published on the ThePetitionSite website entitled “Boycott

Oppenheimer Funds and their stockbroker manager William Earl Elmore and demand this

firm be shut down.” This petition can also be accessed online at

https://www.thepetitionsite.com/557/419/416/boycott-oppenheimer-funds-and-william-earl-

elmore-and-demand-this-firm-be-shut-down/.

Another undated petition was published on the ThePetitionSite website entitled “William

Earl Elmore at Oppenheimer runs a protection racket for stockbrokers who scam seniors.”

T h i s p e t i t i o n m a y b e a c c e s s e d o n l i n e a t

https://www.thepetitionsite.com/552/084/583/william-earl-elmore-at-oppenheimer-runs-a-

protection-racket-for-stockbrokers-who-scam-seniors/.

The Court finds that the statements about the Plaintiff on the foregoing websites to be false,

including but not limited to the following:

● “Every complaint to William Elmore was met with a cover up – he is harboring criminals in
his office.”

● “William Elmore is a corrupt stockbroker/manager at Oppenheimer in Ft Lauderdale,

Florida. He is basically a cover up fraudster and shield for his stockbrokers who churn and
bilk the accounts of their senior customers.”

● “William Elmore is nothing but a predator and a scam artist and the stockbrokers in the Ft
Lauderdale office are dirty dirty dirty.”

● Plaintiff “uses his crony stockbrokers as a front for his backdoor corruption ring where he
scams the assets of his senior citizen clients and rewards the stockbrokers he manages
 CaseNo: CACE18021101
Page 5 of 10

for their financial exploitation of elderly adults.”

● Plaintiff covered up an alleged “extortion and financial exploitation taking place in his
office.”

● Plaintiff “doesn’t care about protecting senior citizens who give Oppenheimer their
retirement funds, their pension funds, their investment portfolio and their savings. William
Earl Elmore doesn’t care if his senior customers are intentionally subjected to abuse and
financial defrauding. William Earl Elmore doesn’t care if [sic] intentionally participates in
guardian extortion plots and schemes and other devious scams to defraud Florida’s
vulnerable adults.”

● “William Earl Elmore is a fraudster who colludes with predators who exploit elderly adults.”

● “William Earl Elmore breaches his professional duty to protect his elderly customers, He
[sic] covers up their being financially defrauded. He colludes with their abuse. He money
launders their assets in his protection racket. He steals the money of the vulnerable adults
that he is mandated to protect by defrauding them of their assets.”

● “Oppenheimer Funds and their employee and stockbroker manager, William Earl Elmore
target and prey on vulnerable adults to profit from the theft of their assets.”

● “Oppenheimer Funds and William Earl Elmore have a culture of corruption.”

● Oppenheimer and Elmore cover up suspicious activity involving the accounts of their
elderly clients and are “accomplice in order to exploit vulnerable adults and profit from their
extortion and money laundering of their assets.”

● “Oppenheimer Funds and William Earl Elmore collude with crony judges and use their
firm to open illicit accounts of vulnerable adults who have been illegally forced into
guardianship, a diabolical ruse to steal their life savings.”

● Oppenheimer and Elmore “collude with and are accomplices” to a “criminal racket.”

The substance of Defendant’s 62 page answer is strikingly similar to the foregoing false

statements and contains numerous instances of identical phrases such as “culture of

corruption” or similar phrases. In addition, Defendant has a well-established history of

 CaseNo: CACE18021101
Page 6 of 10

publishing similar posts to RipOffReport, PissedConsumer, and ThePetitionSite.

Plaintiff adduced evidence at the August 20, 2020 that Defendant has a pattern of engaging

campaigns of defamation against nearly anyone who was unfortunate enough to be

involved even tangentially to her mother’s guardianship, including judges, attorneys, law

firms, persons rendering other professional services, and the family members of such

persons. This pattern consists of Defendant posting and publishing disparaging comments

to websites including, PissedConsumer, ThePetitionSite, and RipoffReport. The posts

contain idiosyncratic statements about guardianships, her mother, elder abuse, her brother,

and fraud. Additionally, as alleged by Plaintiff, Defendant has sent defamatory letters to the

neighbors of her perceived enemies. The posts and letters contain peculiar and unique

language and relate to unique sets of fact particular to the Defendant and her mother’s

guardianship proceeding. Moreover, the website posts and letters direct readers to a

number of online news articles concerning guardianship fraud, and Defendant cited to

these same specific articles throughout her pleadings and filings in this case.

On September 11, 2015, Defendant entered into a criminal plea agreement requiring her to

refrain from publishing disparaging remarks against any parties, participants, counsel, or

judges in her mother’s guardianship proceeding on any blog, internet source, and/or other

social media. See State of Florida v. Barbara Stone, Case No. F13-29726 (Fla. 11th Circ.

Ct 2012). Stone violated this plea agreement by publishing defamatory statements against

parties, participants, and counsel to the guardianship proceeding on websites including

PissedConsumer.com, ThePetitionSite.com, RipoffReport.com.

The Court in her mother’s guardianship proceeding more than once found that Defendant,

undeterred by her plea agreement, continued to publish disparaging remarks about multiple

persons, attorneys, and law firms on websites including PissedConsumer.com,

ThePetitionSite.com, and RipoffReport.com and mail letters to clients of such law firms and
 CaseNo: CACE18021101
Page 7 of 10

attorneys. See In re: Helen R. Stone, Case No. 2012 – 4330 6072 (Fla. 11th Circ. Ct.

2012).

Defendant engaged in a similar pattern and campaign of defamation against attorney Roy

Lustig due to his involvement with the guardianship proceeding of Helen Stone. See Lustig

v. Stone, 15-20150-CIV, 2015 WL 13326350 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2015), report and

recommendation adopted, 15-20150-CIV, 2015 WL 13326383 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2015),

aff'd, 679 Fed. Appx. 743 (11th Cir. 2017).

The foregoing pattern of misconduct, peculiar and identical phrasing, unique facts that

pertain to Defendant in the website posts, and the substance of what Defendant has

pleaded in this action, all lead to the inescapable conclusion that Defendant authored and

published the defamatory and false statements about Plaintiff.

B. Plaintiff has a clear legal right to a permanent injunction.

This Court finds that Plaintiff has a clear legal right to a permanent injunction pursuant to

Zimmerman v. B.C.A. at Welleby, 505 So2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Plaintiff properly

alleged a cause of action for permanent injunction in his Complaint. Id. (“The remaining

requirement, the existence of a clear legal right, is met by proof to a reasonable certainty of

the cause of action stated in the complaint.”). Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s misconduct

constitutes tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship with his

present and prospective clients. See Compl. at ¶¶ 49-53. Plaintiff testified at the hearing

on August 20, 2020 that existing clients of his firm found the defamatory posts published by

Defendant while conducting internet searches on Plaintiff and that the posts had also been

viewed by potential customers. Plaintiff has suffered an immeasurable loss of potential

clients. Thus damages are speculative and unascertainable. The harm is therefore

irreparable and the remedy at law inadequate.

Furthermore, in Lustig, the Court found that money damages cannot always provide the only
 CaseNo: CACE18021101
Page 8 of 10

remedy for defamation because that would mean that a party harmed by a continuing pattern of

defamation would be required to bring a succession of lawsuits if an award of damages was

insufficient to deter the defendant from continuing the behavior. 2015 WL 13326350 at *6 (

quoting Balboa Island Vill. Inn, Inc. v. Lemen, 156 P.3d 339, 351 (Cal. 2007)) (quotations

omitted). This Court finds that Defendant has continued the pattern identified in Lustig

therefore an there is an inadequate remedy at law and irreparable harm will arise absent

injunctive relief.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Permanent Injunction is hereby GRANTED.

2. Defendant is enjoined, restrained, and prohibited from any further acts of

defamation or publication of false statements, comments, or information regarding Plaintiff on

RipOffReport, PissedConsumer, ThePetitionSite, any other public-facing websites, electronic

mail, or otherwise.

3. Defendant is mandated to post retractions, approved by Plaintiff, on

RipOffReport, PissedConsumer, ThePetitionSite, and throughout Plaintiff’s son’s

neighborhood.

4. The Parties are mandated to personally remove all defamatory, disparaging,

libelous, and false statements about Plaintiff that Defendant posted on RipOffReport,

PissedConsumer, and ThePetitionSite, and request that RipOffReport, PissedConsumer, and

ThePetitionSite remove the defamatory, disparaging, libelous, and false statements published

by Defendant about Plaintiff, including those found at the Offending URLs. As for

RipOffReport, specifically, the Parties are mandated to personally remove and request that

RipOffReport remove the following defamatory, disparaging, libelous, and false statements

published by Defendant about Plaintiff:

(a) “Florida’s senior adults are being preyed up by attorneys, guardians and
stockbrokers and others who use guardianship or some other elderly ruse as a front to commit
crimes and financial fraud against elderly adults. [Plaintiff] is a stockbroker at Oppenheimer in
Ft. Lauderdale. [Plaintiff] uses his crony stockbrokers as a front for his backdoor corruption ring
 CaseNo: CACE18021101
Page 9 of 10

where he scams the assets of his senior citizen clients and rewards the stockbrokers he
manages for their financial exploitation of elderly adults. My elderly relative was scammed by
one of [Plaintiff’s] stockbrokers. This stockbroker got a forged power of attorney and is working
with a guardian to terrorize my relative and drain her accounts. When [Plaintiff] became aware
of the extortion and financial exploitation taking place in his office, he did not immediately
commence an investigation. He did not remove the stockbroker from the matter, he did not
report it to his superiors and law enforcement…HE COVERED IT UP. [Plaintiff] doesn’t care
about protecting senior citizens who give Oppenheimer their retirement funds, their pension
funds, their investment portfolio and their savings. [Plaintiff] doesn’t care if his senior
customers are intentionally subjected to abuse and financial defrauding. [Plaintiff] doesn’t care
if [he] intentionally participates in guardian extortion plots and schemes and other devious
scams to defraud Florida’s vulnerable adults. [Plaintiff] is a fraudster who colludes with
predators who exploit elderly adults. See the reviews of Oppenheimer below and their corrupt
culture. [Plaintiff] breaches his professional duty to protect his elderly customers, He covers up
their being financially defrauded. He colludes with their abuse. He money launders their assets
in his protection racket. He steals the money of the vulnerable adults that he is mandated to
protect by defrauding them of their assets. Don’t let [Plaintiff] scam your family members or
other elderly adults. Elder abuse and exploitation is a crime. Boycott [Plaintiff] and
Oppenheimer. Send a clear message to [Plaintiff] and Oppenheimer. Remove your accounts
and never let your families near [Plaintiff] or Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer - culture of
corruption.”

5. The Parties are mandated to request that Internet search engines, such as

Google, Yahoo!, and Bing, remove from their search lists and indices the Offending URLs.

6. The Parties are mandated, as it is foreseeable that the Offending URLs and

statements contained therein will be referenced in other webpages in the future including, but

not limited to, index, directory, and search results pages, to take all actions available under the

law to remove all such webpages from the Internet, including requesting removal of all such

webpages from Internet search engines like Google, Yahoo!, and Bing.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, at Broward County, Florida on 03-10-2021.

CACE18021101 03-10-2021 4:19 PM

Hon. Carol-lisa Phillips
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Electronically Signed by Carol-lisa Phillips
 CaseNo: CACE18021101
Page 10 of 10

Copies Furnished To:

Adam Walser , E-mail : adam@abcactionnews.com
Barbara Stone , E-mail : barbara.stone.usa@gmail.com
Barbara Stone , E-mail : bstone67890@hotmail.com
Calendar , E-mail : calendar@17th.flcourts.org
Jerrold Nadler , E-mail : devull_jerrold.nadler@convio.com
John Pacenti , E-mail : jpacenti@pbpost.com
Judge Carol Lisa Phillips , E-mail : jphillip@17th.flcourts.org
Judge Phillips , E-mail : div25@17th.flcourts.org
Judge Tuter , E-mail : div07@17th.flcourts.org
Mark Raymond , E-mail : stacy.smith@nelsonmullins.com
Mark Raymond , E-mail : mark.raymond@nelsonmullins.com
Valentin Arenas, Esq. , E-mail : valentin.arenas@nelsonmullins.com
Valentin Arenas, Esq. , E-mail : yusimy.bordes@nelsonmullins.com
Valentin Ignacio Arenas , E-mail : valentin.arenas@nelsonmullins.com
Valentin Ignacio Arenas , E-mail : rosemary.benguria@nelsonmullins.com
Valentin Ignacio Arenas , E-mail : Roberto.espinoza@nelsonmullins.com
William Everett Baldwin , E-mail : traci.lewis@nelsonmullins.com
William Everett Baldwin , E-mail : william.baldwin@nelsonmullins.com