FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – Thursday was an emotional day in court for families who lost loves ones in the Parkland school massacre.
They are challenging a shooting survivor over rights to the killer’s name and money.
The hearing provided a window into the friction between the most severely wounded of the 17 Parkland survivors — Anthony Borges — and some of the families of the 17 murdered in the 2018 school shooting, to include the parents of Luke Hoyer.
“The fact that we are here today after four people were killed in a shooting yesterday, my heart goes out to those families because I know where they have been, but the fact that we are here talking about exploiting this tragedy for money is just sickening to me,” said Tom Hoyer, Luke’s father.
At issue is a settlement agreement Borges struck with the convicted Parkland shooter, granting Borges ownership of the killer’s name.
Borges’ attorney, Alex Arreaza, said the intent was to ensure the murderer never profits from his ghastly crime.
“We have every right to enter into that,” Arreaza said. “Why anybody would have a problem with us shutting down the killer and not letting him give interviews and torture anybody is beyond us. The reality is we are fighting about this and every one of them had an opportunity to sue (Nikolas) Cruz like we did and now they are upset with the agreement that we came out with.”
David Brill, who represents some families of the murdered, said Florida’s Son of Sam law allows the state to distribute funds by guidelines set in statute and that the shooter never had rights to negotiate with or barter.
Brill, who believes Borges is being “greedy,” said, “They want more than their fair share, but the issue of money is secondary. The first and most important issue is the issue of taking the rights, the First Amendment rights the killer has over every victim’s tale, and that offense is greater than any other I can fathom. ‘The cut’ is secondary to the control. They do not want the Borges’ to dictate if and when this story is told. They don’t want it ever to be told. They live with it every day. They don’t need someone else putting it out there in some fictional or other account to cause more pain.”
The agreement, he said, is only allowed if all parties agreed to it.
“Yes, there is a difference in magnitude that words are insufficient to express between the loss of a child and an injury to a child, particularly to one who thank God has recovered as well as he has,” said Brill. “They are far better off than the clients we represent who have lost their children and I can’t believe I have to make that argument.”
“A victim has the right to sue someone who hurt them. The Son of Sam law doesn’t stop the victim form suing,” Arreaza said.
Brill added, “How dare they take for themselves the singular authority to decide whether and when to publish what about this tragedy, as if it is theirs and theirs alone? Thirty-four people suffered enormous pain -- 17 the worst kind imaginable -- there are a slew of folks who have PTSD from this event. None of them should have to give their rights to their own story, their tragedy, their suffering, to anyone of those victims, and that is what they purport to do, and that is wrong, no matter how you want to analyze it, under the Son of Sam provision or what simply is the correct or incorrect thing to do to another.
“You just don’t take that which is not yours and the worst thing to take is the narrative of your pain and that is what they purport to do and then you want to exploit it and monetize it? Arreaza has said repeatedly that they intend to get a ‘cut of it’ -- that is what their deal was and isn’t it funny how that settlement agreement was never filed with the court or provided to her honor.”
During the hearing, the judge said she felt like she was “behind the eight ball” since she did not have a copy of the settlement agreement.
Arreaza said he did not bring it with him to court, and it wasn’t filed with the court. She asked him to upload it for her review.
“We could go dollar for dollar about what you got -- you got a free house, my understanding is that [Borges’ dad] is driving around in a new Mercedes Benz and has a new Harley Davidson in the garage,” said Brill. “Are we saying he is not entitled to that? No. Spend the money however you want, although it is his son’s money, so I am not sure why he is buying those things.”
Then came arguments about an annuity, life insurance money the shooter’s adopted mother gave him after she passed. In the Borges deal, that family gets it all -- about $400,000 -- but Brill told the judge they had agreed to a distribution strategy in a previous verbal agreement.
“Mr. Borges has given the killer what he craves, he has given him attention,” said Hoyer. “We had a deal -- it was a fair deal -- we would split it five ways, and he is just trying to take the money for himself. The deal still stands and if he agrees to that, we are done, we are not back here.”
Said Arreaza: “Why? We are not in a communist country. They threw us out of the group, so what are we supposed to do? Take what we settled for and give it back to the people who kicked them out of the group? Anthony had a promising soccer career and all his dreams went out the window. He has PTSD, more than a million dollars in medical bills -- do any of them care? He didn’t ask for this. This is probably the most sensitive case that I have ever handled in 30 years. Sometimes you can clear bad blood, sometimes you can’t.”
Brill’s settlement agreement says 4/5 of the annuity goes to his clients, so 1/5 -- around $80,000 -- would go to Borges.
Brill says Borges is apparently not satisfied with the $80,000 and wants the full $400,00.
Plus, you may remember the judge overseeing the criminal trial said all funds in the shooter’s commissary would go to restitution for all the victims.
There is also the issue of outstanding judgments.
“We have four final judgments,” said Brill. “Fifty million for each of the wrongful death cases and $40 million for Mandy Wilford. We can execute on those judgments at any time and if this is some sort of race to the annuity, those judgments take precedence. But this is about holding folks to the bargain, doing what is right. This bad blood, at least on our side, we have always done what is right for the Borges’ notwithstanding that history at every turn.”
Read the motion below: