Justice Watch Support JW "Ramseys Answer Chris Wolf" [ Main ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Ramseys Answer Chris Wolf, New York Lawyer, 20:06:25, 4/04/2001 #12..., Dunvegan, 20:18:39, 4/04/2001, (#1) Here we go, RiverRat, 20:30:23, 4/04/2001, (#2) Yep, dustii, 20:31:20, 4/04/2001, (#3) Many of these answers , FT, 20:38:57, 4/04/2001, (#4) Today show thread, dustii, 20:45:40, 4/04/2001, (#5) Here's my summary, janphi, 21:07:16, 4/04/2001, (#6) Which is it?, listener, 22:22:02, 4/04/2001, (#7) FT: A beautiful tune you bow on your violin..., Dunvegan, 23:04:26, 4/04/2001, (#8) LW, JR, 23:22:40, 4/04/2001, (#9) I think this answer by attorney Wood..., Dr. Who, 06:07:41, 4/05/2001, (#10) Dr. Who, Watching you, 06:16:18, 4/05/2001, (#11) JR, Greenleaf, 06:49:09, 4/05/2001, (#14) Geenleaf, JR, 13:24:31, 4/05/2001, (#18) A question, freebird, 06:35:07, 4/05/2001, (#12) Sounds good to me, Cassandra, 06:38:11, 4/05/2001, (#13) My take, doScubie, 09:17:04, 4/05/2001, (#15) John Ramsey knows Patsy..., Imbackon, 10:21:43, 4/05/2001, (#16) NYL!, janphi, 12:04:10, 4/05/2001, (#17) Test, JR, 16:26:40, 4/05/2001, (#22) Most Intersting, New York Lawyer, 16:06:01, 4/05/2001, (#19) Test, JR, 16:23:58, 4/05/2001, (#21) I always knew, Greenleaf, 16:20:12, 4/05/2001, (#20) ................................................................... "Ramseys Answer Chris Wolf" Posted by New York Lawyer on 20:06:25 4/04/2001 The following is a summary of the 17 page formal answer filed yesterday (4/3) by Ramsey attorney James Rawls, who is lead counsel defending the Ramseys on behalf of the publisher's libel insurance carrier (Media Professionals Insurance MP/I). Discovery, including depositons, starts in 30 days. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ROBERT CHRISTIAN WOLF Plaintiff, vs. JOHN BENNETT RAMSEY & PATRICIA PAUGH RAMSEY. Defendants. CIVIL ACTION No. 00-CIV-1187 (JEC) ANSWER Answer to Wolf's Amended Complaint Defenses 1-5 (In summary) the Wolf complaint "fails to state a claim" unpon which relief may be granted, for actual, compensatory or punitive damages, for presumed or inferred damages or for special damages. 6. Patsy did not killer her daughter 7. Patsy did not write the ransom note 8. John Ramsey knows Patsy did not kill their daughter and is not an accessory to the murder 9. Neither John nor Patsy did anything to "cover up" any crime connected to the murder 10. John and Patsy don't know who murdered their daughter or who wrote the ransom note. 11. The Ramseys have not tried to direct suspicion from themselves but sought information and evidence to find the intruder 12. The information in DOI is true 13. In the book, Wolf was described as one of numerous suspects, not as the murderer. 14. The police named Wolf a possible suspect and Wolf spoke on TV about being a suspect BEFORE the Ramseys book was published. 15. The lawsuit is not being brought because of real injury but as "a publicity stunt". 16. If anyone other than the ramseys had written those same things about Wolf, Wolf would not be suing. He is only sung because the authors are the Ramseys and that violates their first amendment rights. 17. Wolf's claim that the Ramseys killed their daughter is not supported by the actions of the authorities -- the Ramseys have never been charged, the gj didn't indict them. 18. As a limited public figure, Wolf has to prove the book was written with "actual malice", that the Ramseys knew it was false and didn't care. Wolf can't prove that. 19. To prove "actual malice", Wolf has to prove the Ramseys had serious doubts about the accuracy of their statements and he can't do that. 20. To prove "actual malice", Wolf has to prove the Ramseys knew their statements were probably false and he can't do that. 21. DOI is substantially accurate. 22. DOI is, in part, a "good faith report based on information received from police." 23. DOI is protected by the legal doctrine of fair comment. 24. Some of the claims are barred by the statute of limitations. 25. Some or all of the statements in DOI about Wolf are stated as opinion and are privileged. 26. The statements in DOI were made in good faith. 27. The statements in DOI were not made with any ill will or malice. 28. Wolf never demanded a retraction so his claim for punitive damages is barred. 29. Statements in DOI about Wolf were "made in good faith and in pursuit of a public duty." 30. Statements in DOI about Wolf were "made in good faith and in pursuit of a private duty." 31. Statements in DOI were made "bona fide and in good faith in the intent to protect the interests of the defendants." 32. The statements in DOI are not defamatory. 33. Wolf was injured by third parties, not the Ramseys. 34. The actions of the Ramseys were not the "proximate cause of any injury to the plaintiff." 35. Wolf suffered no severe emotional distress because of the Ramsey actions. 36. A reasonable person would not be offended by the Ramseys hiring private investigators to follow leads in in connection with the murder of their daughter. 37. Wolf admits to being limited public figure here so being investigated by those investigators was not "outrageous." 38. Neither John NOR Patsy told their investigators to take any action in regard to Wolf 39. The Ramseys hired investigators to obtain truthful information, not to inflict emotional distress on anyone. 40. Deals with Wolf's suit. STATEMENT OF THE CASE - denied Paragraphs: 1-6 - admitted 7-9 - admitted 10 and 11 - denied 12 - Denied as stated. 13 - denied EXCEPT that "the death of JonBenét Ramsey has been the subject of massive international media coverage." 14 - J&P Ramsey did give the police names in response to police inquiries - the rest of the paragraph is denied. 15 - defendants can't deny or confirm - - they don't have enough information. 16 - admit all but the last sentence - - deny that 17 - admit JR believes patsy is innocent and has said so publicly JR did publish a profile of the killer. It does not fit Wolf. No reasonable person would think JR was describing Wolf. The rest of the paragraph is denied. 18 - admit ramseys hired investigators to follow leads - -rest of paragraph denied 19 - JBR was the victim of a homicide, was 6 years old and may have been sexually assaulted - the rest of the paragraph is denied 20 and 21 - denied 22 - Ramsey investigators did give information on Wolf to Boulder law enforcement -- rest of paragraph is denied 23 and 24 - the quotes are correct, the rest denied 25 and 26 - denied27 - Quote correct, broadcast accurately described, the rest denied 28 - denied 29 - Ramseys admit they wrote the book and spoke out to help find the killer and to keep the investigation alive - - deny the rest. 30 through 33 - "Defendants incorporate the responsive averments to paragraphs 1-29 and deny the rest. Signed by James Rawls and Lin Wood [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "#12..." Posted by Dunvegan on 20:18:39 4/04/2001 12. The information in DOI is true. OK...game's over....winner by default: Chris Wolfe. ....I'm so looking forward to seeing the Ramseys support this one.... [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Here we go" Posted by RiverRat on 20:30:23 4/04/2001 Do you guys think that Steve Thomas should check out these three answers in particular: 14. The police named Wolf a possible suspect and Wolf spoke on TV about being a suspect BEFORE the Ramseys book was published. 15. The lawsuit is not being brought because of real injury but as "a publicity stunt". 16. If anyone other than the ramseys had written those same things about Wolf, Wolf would not be suing. He is only sung because the authors are the Ramseys and that violates their first amendment rights. Just change the names around, and BAM, right back at ya! [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Yep" Posted by dustii on 20:31:20 4/04/2001 Thats the first thing that jumped out at me too. Then... 21) DOI is 'substantially, accurate. How much of it isn't? [ EMAIL dustii ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Many of these answers " Posted by FT on 20:38:57 4/04/2001 look like they could be used in Steve Thomas's defense, e.g.: 18. As a (limited) public figures, [the Ramseys] have to prove the book was written with "actual malice", that [Steve Thomas] knew it was false and didn't care. [The Ramsesys] can't prove that. 19. To prove "actual malice", [the Ramseys] have to prove [Thomas] had serious doubts about the accuracy of his statements and they can't do that. 20. To prove "actual malice", [the Ramseys] have to prove [Thomas] knew his statements were probably false and they can't do that. 21. [ITRMI] is substantially accurate. 23. [ITRMI] is protected by the legal doctrine of fair comment. 25. Some or all of the statements in [ITRMI] about [the Ramseys] are stated as opinion and are privileged. 26. The statements in [ITRMI] were made in good faith. 27. The statements in [ITRMI] were not made with any ill will or malice. 29. Statements in [ITRMI] about [the Ramseys] were "made in good faith and in pursuit of a public duty." 30. Statements in [ITRMI] about [the Ramseys] were "made in good faith and in pursuit of a private duty." And, if Wolf is ruled to be a "limited" public figure, the Ramseys should be ruled to be public figures without a doubt. [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Today show thread" Posted by dustii on 20:45:40 4/04/2001 From the Today Show Transcript thread: "LIN WOOD: He has the right to speak about the case. No one's going to deny Steve Thomas his first amendment rights, although he's trampled on my clients' rights, but he doesn't have the right to go out and falsely accuse someone of a crime; " But they do????? [ EMAIL dustii ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Here's my summary" Posted by janphi on 21:07:16 4/04/2001 "31. Statements in DOI were made ... in the intent to protect the interests of the defendants." [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Which is it?" Posted by listener on 22:22:02 4/04/2001 Defenses: 12. the information in DOI is true. 21. DOI is substantially accurate. Which is it? Defenses: 8. John Ramsey *knows* Patsy did not kill their daughter. Statement of the case: 17 JR *believes* Patsy is innocent Which is it? [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "FT: A beautiful tune you bow on your violin..." Posted by Dunvegan on 23:04:26 4/04/2001 ...is that the "Ramsey Swan Song" I hear? Very good analysis...It really IS a conundrum, isn't it? The World According to the Ramseys If it is not in the Ramseys' interest, it is actionable. Nothing the Ramseys have done, or ever may do, is actionable. Simple, really... [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "LW" Posted by JR on 23:23:21 4/04/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:23:21, 4/04/2001 IMO In his interview with Matt Lauer does exactly what he is trying to claim Steve Thomas did and the Ramsey's did not do with these suits. Good catches all - I won't reiterate them but the same things also popped out for me. 6. Patsy did not killer her daughter Well now...that leaves one does it not? [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "I think this answer by attorney Wood..." Posted by Dr. Who on 06:07:41 4/05/2001 fails to consider the real history of the criminal investigation with regards to co-operation with BPD/Colorado investigators by his clients. As I remember the episode Wood's clients bottled up and refused to talk with the investigators of recond (Boulder/Colorado police investigators) on advice from counsel-except for two sessions years/months after the crime under rules limiting personel and questions that could ask. He seems to believe it all starts with the interview in Atlanta at his office... Thanks for posting this NYL, good luck in the pursuit of justice (small "j")... [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Dr. Who" Posted by Watching you on 06:16:18 4/05/2001 about time you got yourself back here, where have you been? Haha, I knew this was going to happen. In defending their own suits, they essentially named all the reasons their own suit against ST is without merit. Talk about entitlement - it's good for the gooses but not good for the ganders. These people are pathetic. [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "JR" Posted by Greenleaf on 06:49:09 4/05/2001 >>>>"6. Patsy did not killer her daughter Well now...that leaves one does it not?" That put a crazy idea into my head, JR. Suppose that statement is absolutely true. Suppose it was John who killed JB. Then, the law suit would make some sense. If John's the culprit and Steve Thomas has publicly declared that it was Patsy, (as strange as it may sound, the Rams would really have a case against Thomas). Isn't that right, NYL? No doubt Woody knows this and perhaps that is why he is so cocky. GL [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Geenleaf" Posted by JR on 13:24:31 4/05/2001 My thoughts exactly and a husband (except in special circumstances) can't testify against a wife and vice versa. [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "A question" Posted by freebird on 06:35:07 4/05/2001 Since the Ramseys are stating the reasons the Wolf lawsuit is bogus, yet turn around and sue ST knowing he can also claim the same defences as the Ramseys claim in the suit against them, wouldn't that be a nuisance suit meant to cost him 100's of thousands of dollars , could ST turn and sue the Ramseys for the cost of defending himself? [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Sounds good to me" Posted by Cassandra on 06:38:11 4/05/2001 What's sauce for the goose... Cassie [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "My take" Posted by doScubie on 09:17:04 4/05/2001 I have a problem with the: Patsy did not kill her daughter (yeah, right) Patsy did not write the ransom note Neither were involved in a cover up surrounding the murder (or something like that) and... DOI was written in the interest of the Rams ( don't remember exact quote) - but translation: BULL, then JR did it BULL BULL and it's called CYA! Lies, all lies! [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "John Ramsey knows Patsy..." Posted by Imbackon on 10:21:43 4/05/2001 8. John Ramsey knows Patsy did not kill their daughter and is not an accessory to the murder. And just how does John Ramsey know this unless he KNOWS WHO DID KILL HIS DAUGHTER. Correct? Imbackon [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "NYL!" Posted by janphi on 12:04:10 4/05/2001 Hope you already know this, Darnay, but I wanted to put it here in a post, anyway: Common Usage, but not its real name: Santa Barbara Tennis Club 2375 Foothill Rd. Santa Barbara CA 93105 805/682-4722 805/682-6335 ----- Corporation THE TENNIS CLUB OF SANTA BARBARA, INC. Number: C0604272 Date Filed: 7/31/1970 Status: suspended Jurisdiction: California Mailing Address P. O. BOX 30591 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93105 ------- [Correct listing:] Tennis Club Of Santa Barbara SIC Codes: 581302 799702 799705 000000 2375 Foothill Rd Santa Barbara CA, USA 93105-2370 Phone: (805) 6824722 ----------- Do you think the Tennis Club of Santa Barbara actually had some sweatshirts made up with the wrong initials just because a lot of people call it the other name? Just wondering--maybe they did. [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]