Justice Watch Discussion Board "Ramseys Sue the New York Post" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Ramseys Sue the New York Post, New York Lawyer, 14:03:34, 5/08/2000 Thanks, NYL!, Ev, 14:06:10, 5/08/2000, (#1) Madder Still, NYL, Jellyjaws, 14:11:27, 5/08/2000, (#2) NYL, fly, 14:31:46, 5/08/2000, (#3) Yes!, New York Lawyer, 15:27:05, 5/08/2000, (#4) oops, pat, 15:45:54, 5/08/2000, (#5) Pat, momo, 15:56:07, 5/08/2000, (#10) Thanks, NYL, Cassandra, 15:46:15, 5/08/2000, (#6) That's absurd!, darby, 15:47:01, 5/08/2000, (#7) If...., fran, 15:59:00, 5/08/2000, (#13) NYL,, AutumnBorn, 15:56:46, 5/08/2000, (#11) Also, darby, 15:53:57, 5/08/2000, (#9) I'd bet, momo, 15:50:14, 5/08/2000, (#8) Just for fun, momo, 16:04:04, 5/08/2000, (#14) Repeat of Lizzie post..., ibnora, 15:57:35, 5/08/2000, (#12) Now I understand..., AutumnBorn, 16:14:37, 5/08/2000, (#16) Things might be different in CA, Cassandra, 16:09:42, 5/08/2000, (#15) The key in the CA case, janphi, 16:40:06, 5/08/2000, (#18) Thanks, Nora & Lizzie, darby, 16:26:13, 5/08/2000, (#17) Legal Question, Ajila, 16:44:59, 5/08/2000, (#19) I do not want to be , v_p, 17:31:01, 5/08/2000, (#21) I don't think JW could , fiddler, 17:24:56, 5/08/2000, (#20) Betting . . ., Hyacinth, 17:56:13, 5/08/2000, (#23) lawsuits, ace21214, 17:50:13, 5/08/2000, (#22) I think it , Ribaldone, 18:43:02, 5/08/2000, (#24) I need some help, Ruthee, 19:16:18, 5/08/2000, (#25) I remember that statement, SJ, 19:41:11, 5/08/2000, (#27) Ruthee, starry, 20:13:13, 5/08/2000, (#31) Always use Burke for the lawsuits, chebrock, 19:31:57, 5/08/2000, (#26) I remember , momo, 19:50:07, 5/08/2000, (#28) Those people are going to convict themselves, sally denver, 20:00:21, 5/08/2000, (#30) Can anyone explain?, Ryder, 20:00:01, 5/08/2000, (#29) Well, Patsy, Kelly, 20:44:51, 5/08/2000, (#32) More questions??, canadiana, 21:01:25, 5/08/2000, (#33) These people must be nuts....., sds, 05:19:17, 5/09/2000, (#34) bump, Kelly, 16:49:49, 5/09/2000, (#35) I think, Real Stormy, 18:14:27, 5/09/2000, (#36) ................................................................... "Ramseys Sue the New York Post" Posted by New York Lawyer on 14:03:34 5/08/2000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------X TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED JOHN RAMSEY and PATSY RAMSEY, as Parents and Natural Guardians of BURKE RAMSEY, a minor, Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT -against- Case # NYP HOLDINGS, INC., doing business as THE NEW YORK POST, Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiffs JOHN RAMSEY and PATSY RAMSEY, as Parents and Natural Guardians of BURKE RAMSEY, a minor, complaining of the Defendant NYP HOLDINGS, INC., doing business as THE NEW YORK POST, respectfully alleges as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This defamation action is brought by Plaintiff JOHN RAMSEY and PATSY RAMSEY, as Parents and Natural Guardians of BURKE RAMSEY ("BURKE"), now age 13, against The New York Post for publishing an article which falsely alleged, inter alia, that BURKE was the killer of his sister, JonBenet Ramsey, was "the prime suspect" in her murder, and that his representatives were engaged "in secret plea bargain negotiations" with the prosecutor. THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiffs JOHN RAMSEY and PATSY RAMSEY are individuals who resides in Atlanta, Georgia. BURKE is their natural son. 3. Defendant NYP HOLDINGS, INC., doing business as THE NEW YORK POST, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. 4. Defendant has its principal place of business and corporate headquarters in the City and State of New York. 5. Defendant owns, operates and publishes a daily newspaper known as The New York Post (hereinafter, Defendant NYP HOLDINGS, INC., doing business as THE NEW YORK POST, shall be referred to as The New York Post). 6. The New York Post is primarily distributed in the States of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Georgia for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332. 8. Defendant is a citizen of the State of New York for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332. 9. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 in that complete diversity of citizenship exists and the amount in controversy exceeds Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. 10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 in that Defendant conducts business in this district, a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to plaintiff's claims occurred in this district, and Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 11. On the night of December 25, 1996 or during the early morning hours of December 26, 1996, while BURKE was sleeping in his family's home in Boulder, Colorado, his six-year-old sister, JonBenét Ramsey, was brutally murdered. 12. At the time of his sister's murder, BURKE was nine (9) years old. 13. Since the date of her death, the murder of JonBenét Ramsey has been the subject of a massive investigation by law enforcement officials in the State of Colorado, including members of the City of Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney's Office. 14. The investigation of the murder of JonBenét Ramsey has included a grand jury investigation in Boulder County, Colorado, commencing in September of 1998 and ending in October of 1999 without criminal charges or indictments being brought against any individual. 15. Since the date of her death, the murder of JonBenét Ramsey and the investigation into her murder have been the subject of massive local, national and international print and broadcast media coverage. 16. As of the date of this Complaint, no criminal charges have been filed against any individual in connection with her tragic and brutal death. 17. Prior to the murder of his sister, and at all times subsequent thereto, BURKE was and is a private citizen and has never attained the status of a public figure. THE MAY 13, 1999 HEADLINES 18. The front page headline of the May 13, 1999 edition of The New York Post libeled BURKE by publishing the following false and defamatory statement about him: JonBenet bombshell Report: Jealous brother eyed in her killing 19. The headline on page 5 of the May 13, 1999 edition of the New York Post libeled BURKE by publishing the following false and defamatory statement about him: Parents' Deal Could Be Bombshell BROTHER, 9, MURDERED JONBENET: MAG THE MAY 13 ARTICLE 20. The May 13, 1999 edition of the New York Post libeled BURKE by publishing the following false and defamatory article about him (the "Article"): The prime suspect in the murder of baby beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey is her then 9-year old brother, Burke, a supermarket tabloid claims. Star magazine says JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, are in secret plea-bargain negotiations with prosecutors in Boulder, Colo., to end one of the most sensational murder cases in history. Star claims District Attorney Alex Hunter and John Ramsey's high-powered lawyer, Hal Haddon, have been talking privately about the plea bargain in recent days. Star says Hunter wants to cut a deal in order to avoid a long and costly trial. And the magazine claims he also wants Patsy punished for her alleged role in faking a ransom note and trying to cover up the murder. Star said Hunter wants to force some kind of counseling or treatment for Burke. "A trial of Patsy and/or John might take a year just to begin, and then it could go on for months more," says a Star source. "And in the end, the Ramseys would probably walk." Hunter's spokesman, Bill Wise, refused to talk about the report. "We can only say the claim that DA Hunter and Mr. Haddon have talked at all, and that they have talked about serving up Burke Ramsey as the fall guy in this case - that's false," Wise said. Haddon did not return phone calls. "The story of how JonBenet was killed, and why, is at bottom an incredibly sad one, more than a criminal one," Star quotes an "authoritative" source as saying. "It's time to put this tragic case behind us." It's unlikely that Burke, now 12, could face any criminal charges for the 1996 Christmas night slaying because of his age at the time. The magazine said Burke was resentful of his little sister's celebrity. Investigators have generally believed that JonBenet's murder was some kind of "inside job" - or a domestic squabble that went tragically wrong. Star takes those beliefs further. It says authorities believe the "flash point" for the festive night horror was when 6-year-old JonBenet wet her bed and - as she often did - went down the hall to Burke's room and climbed into bed with her brother. "They believe that Burke let loose his pent-up rage at his sister that night and lashed out at her physically, say sources, " according to Star. "The cops' first inkling of suspicion came in the morning after JonBenet's body was found in the basement room when Burke was taken to a friend's house without asking a single question about why all the police were in his house - or where his sister was. "Two weeks later, Burke shocked a police psychologist by shouting: 'I know what happened. She was killed. Someone took her quietly and took her down in the basement . . . took a knife out . . . hit her on the head." At that point, only the police knew that Burke's Swiss Army knife had been found next to JonBenet's body. The weekly says that on a previous occasion, Burke slugged JonBenet in the face with a golf club, cutting her cheek. Star says JonBenet died from a combination of being viciously struck in the head with a heavy object - probably a flashlight - and of being strangled by a garrote-like rope. . . . 21. Accompanying the Article was a reproduction of the cover of the May 25, 1999 issue STAR MAGAZINE, a nationally distributed weekly tabloid, containing the following banner headline appearing over the picture of BURKE and his sister JonBenét Ramsey: WORLD EXCLUSIVE Ramseys in top secret plea bargain talks as evidence shows. . JONBENET WAS KILLED BY BROTHER BURKE Heartbreaking inside story 22. BURKE did not murder his sister, JonBenét Ramsey. 23. BURKE did not let loose pent-up rage at his sister on the night of her death and he did not physically lash out at her. 24. No plea bargain negotiations took place between officials in the Boulder County District Attorney's office and attorneys for BURKE based on the belief of law enforcement officials that BURKE killed his sister. 25. The Boulder County District Attorney never wanted to force BURKE to undergo counseling or treatment because he killed his sister but could not be charged with a crime due to his age. 26. The Boulder County District Attorney was never closing in on BURKE as the person responsible for the murder of his sister, JonBenét Ramsey. 27. Prior to the publication of the May 13, 1999 edition of The New York Post, officials with the City of Boulder Police Department had publicly stated that BURKE was a witness, not a suspect, in connection with the investigation into the murder of his sister. 28. Upon information and belief, prior to the publication of the May 13, 1999 edition of The New York Post, no employee, reporter, editor or representative of The New York Post attempted to contact the Boulder County District Attorney or officials in his office to seek confirmation as to the truth of the defamatory headlines and Article published about BURKE. 29. Upon information and belief, prior to the publication of the May 13, 1999 edition of The New York Post, no employee, reporter, editor or representative of The New York Post attempted to contact the Boulder County District Attorney or officials in his office to seek confirmation as to the truth of the defamatory headlines and Article published about BURKE. 30. On May 20, 1999, the Boulder County District Attorney issued a public statement that BURKE was not a suspect in the death of his sister, JonBenét Ramsey, and was not being looked at as a possible suspect. AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM - GROSS IRRESPONSIBILITY 31. The May 13, 1999 Headlines and Article defamed BURKE by falsely portraying him as an individual who killed, or who likely killed or was the prime suspect in the murder of JonBenét Ramsey. 32. In publishing the May 13, 1999 Headlines and Article, The New York Post acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties. 33. As a proximate cause of the false and defamatory statements contained in the May 13, 1999 Headlines and Article, members of the public were led to believe that BURKE was JonBenét Ramsey's killer. 34. As a proximate cause of the false and defamatory statements contained in the May 13, 1999 Headlines and Article, BURKE has suffered permanent injury to his reputation, has suffered public hatred, and contempt and ridicule. AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM - MALICE 35. Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs marked and designated "1" through "34" herein as if set forth in full and at length hereafter. 36. The New York Post possessed knowledge that the defamatory statements contained in the May 13, 1999 Headlines and Article were false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of these statements. 37. The misconduct of The New York Post was willful and evinces a want of care and/or a conscious indifference to consequences. 38. BURKE is entitled to an award of punitive damages from The New York Post in order to punish, penalize and deter The New York Post from repeating its unlawful conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs JOHN and PATSY RAMSEY, as parents and natural guardians of BURKE RAMSEY, demands judgment against the Defendant NYP HOLDINGS, INC., doing business as THE NEW YORK POST, in the sum of Two Million ($2,000,000.00) Dollars in compensatory charges plus prejudgment interest, the sum of Two Million ($2,000,000.00) Dollars in punitive damages, with all costs and disbursements of this action being assessed against Defendant, and respectfully requests that the Court direct such other and further relief as it may deem just and proper. DATED: Melville, New York May 8, 2000 GALASSO, LANGIONE & GOIDELL 225 Old Country Road Melville, New York 11747 (631) 761-7500 BY: Mark E. Goidell, Esq. (MEG-4786) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS WOOD & GRANT Suite 2140 The Equitable Building 100 Peachtree Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 522-1713 BY: L. Lin Wood GA State Bar No. 774588 (application pending for admission pro hac vice) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------X JOHN RAMSEY and PATSY RAMSEY, as Parents and Natural Guardians of BURKE RAMSEY, a minor, Plaintiffs, - - against - - NYP HOLDINGS, INC., doing business as THE NEW YORK POST, Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------X PURSUANT TO RULE 1.9 of the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and to enable Judges and Magistrate Judges of the Court to evaluate possible disqualifications or recusal, the undersigned counsel for plaintiffs JOHN RAMSEY and PATSY RAMSEY, as Parents and Natural Guardians of BURKE RAMSEY (a private non-governmental party) certifies that there are no corporate parents, affiliates and/or subsidiaries of said party which are publicly held. DATE: Melville, NY May 8, 2000 GALASSO, LANGIONE & GOIDELL BY: MARK E. GOIDELL (MEG-4786) Attorneys for Plaintiffs 225 Old Country Road Melville, NY 11747 (631) 761-7500 [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Thanks, NYL!" Posted by Ev on 14:06:10 5/08/2000 Shoot --gotta make some money somehow! Jury trial, eh? This is getting more interesting by the day. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Madder Still, NYL" Posted by Jellyjaws on 14:11:27 5/08/2000 NUTS! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "NYL" Posted by fly on 14:31:46 5/08/2000 Is there any precedent for a newspaper or other news entity being sued for defamation, libel, etc. when they are reporting on a story published by another source? Will the key in this suit be showing that the paper had reason to believe the original story was false? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Yes!" Posted by New York Lawyer on 15:27:05 5/08/2000 A newspaper can be sued for "republishing" a libel. This is the theory that is being used by Lin Wood. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "oops" Posted by pat on 15:45:54 5/08/2000 if an entity can be sued for publishing the original offending article,,,can we be sued for having posted it on JW. I guess pats needs something to replace all those trees,,like lawsuits. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Pat" Posted by momo on 15:56:07 5/08/2000 I thought about something also. Wonder if they try to sue JW for quoting from their book? We might better start being careful. The Rams are on the warpath. I hope TW and the NYP call their bluff and go to court. If we never see a murder trial, I at least hope the people they sue put them on the stand and interrogate them. I think we can expect that from the Chris Wolf lawsuit with Darnay. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Thanks, NYL" Posted by Cassandra on 15:46:15 5/08/2000 This should be interesting to watch. Hope it's on Court TV. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "That's absurd!" Posted by darby on 15:47:01 5/08/2000 Upon re-reading this, it seems to me that the Post was very clear that it was merely reporting what the Star said, and even identified the Star as a tabloid. I see nowhere that the Star's report is shown as fact. Every sentence regarding Burke's alleged involvement says that it was a claim made by the Star. Also, the Post included a denial by Bill Wise about those claims. How can the Post be successfully sued for this? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "If...." Posted by fran on 15:59:00 5/08/2000 If the R's were ever 'officially' cleared they would be zillionaires. They would sue every newpaper from here to Russia. But then THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN! They are so busy sueing mags they don't have time to look for the killa. I really, really don't like these people. Even if they were inocent, I still wouldn't like these people. Their priorities are so screwed up. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL fran ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "NYL," Posted by AutumnBorn on 15:56:46 5/08/2000 do you think this will be thrown out of court? It seems to me that the Post was simply reporting about a story done by the tabloid. Can they seriously be held libel for printing a story about a story? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Also" Posted by darby on 15:53:57 5/08/2000 How come John and Patsy aren't suing all the newspapers who say that one of them did it? Are they just being selfless? :-) I'm just sure the Ramseys will also soon be suing tabs on behalf of the Santa McReynolds for all the lies printed about them. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "I'd bet" Posted by momo on 15:50:14 5/08/2000 that Burke never sees a dime of any of the money they win pursuing lawsuits pertaining to him. I think Burke can't wait til he is 18. Poor thing. I also hope he feels compelled to come forward with the truth if he knows anything. I think he does know something. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Just for fun" Posted by momo on 16:04:04 5/08/2000 SUE SANTA SUE. Santa ought to sue the hell out of the Rams and whoever else they have implicated (I know CW has filed a lawsuit). Those people p me off. Not one bit concerned about what the media has said about them, are they? Oh God, what next? There is a payday a coming! Be sure, your sins will find you out! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Repeat of Lizzie post..." Posted by ibnora on 15:57:35 5/08/2000 From the Time/Warner thread. 7. "Repeating false stories grounds for lawsuit" Posted by LizzieB on 15:11:26 5/08/2000 It seems that both Time and the NY Post were simply repeating the Star's article about Burke. However, repeating a false story which appears in another book or magazine is also grounds for libel, according to this California Supreme Court case which was reported in November, 1998: Court Rules Tabloid Committed Libel by Repeating Book's Claim By Maura Dolan Los Angeles Times SAN FRANCISCO In a widely watched media case, the California Supreme Court decided Monday that the Globe, a supermarket tabloid, defamed a Bakersfield farmer by repeating a book's false charge that the man was the real assassin of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. The tabloid, backed by many mainstream media, had argued that if it accurately and neutrally reported charges being made in a book or other public controversy, it should not be held liable. But the high court disagreed, unanimously upholding a $1.175 million libel verdict. Khalid Khawar, a grape and citrus farmer, was a private figure, and the media are not protected from libel when they repeat defamatory information about private people in otherwise neutral reporting, the court ruled. The book in question sold only 500 copies before its publisher withdrew it after Khawar sued. The Globe sold 2.7 million copies of the tabloid containing its report. The story continues here: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V118/N55/tabloid.55w.html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Now I understand..." Posted by AutumnBorn on 16:14:37 5/08/2000 the Rams have to get some money together, in a trust for Burke, to live off of because they know they're going to lose everything in the Chris Wolfe suit! As legal guardians of Burke, they've got to provide him with a home, food, shelter, and, what's a mother/father combination worth on a per hour basis? I'll bet they've put everything in the kids' names anyway, in the event that they are successfully sued themselves. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Things might be different in CA" Posted by Cassandra on 16:09:42 5/08/2000 and NY. They could appeal that case all the way to the US Supremes. Lin Wood is a very busy boy. I wonder what the Denver lawyers think of him? I guess if the Rammers collect any money, they'll get some of it, so they must be watching it with interest. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "The key in the CA case" Posted by janphi on 16:40:06 5/08/2000 The key words in the CA case are "private person." Obviously, the private person sued the book publisher, then the tab. We know tabs specifically have legal funds for the lawsuits they expect to have filed against them -- it's much cheaper than their payroll would be for competent journalists and in-depth investigations. The key words with Burke are also "private citizen." Luckily, the Rams can't claim that distinction. I just don't see how they're going to prove Burke has suffered all this irreparable harm from public hatred. How many people feel that way about him? I still say that we, "The World," should sue the Rams for defamation for both slandering us, "The World," and libeling us, "The World," by saying we, "The World," went mad on 12/25 and killed their daughter. I am still offended over this and I refuse to take a lie detector test to prove my innocence. Guess I'll have to lawyer up next. LOL! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Thanks, Nora & Lizzie" Posted by darby on 16:28:21 5/08/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:28:21, 5/08/2000 I certainly can see value in the ruling so as not to perpetuate a false claim against a private citizen. But I wish I could see the Globe report over which the defamation suit was won to see how it compares to the Post report, above. I'm wondering if the Globe balanced what was said in the book with denials by the DA in charge of the case against Sirhan Sirhan. Maybe it doesn't matter. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Legal Question" Posted by Ajila on 16:44:59 5/08/2000 In our posts on these discusssion boards is it enough to write "IMO" or "In My Opinion". Does that even have to be stated at all? How do we protect ourselves from being sued? Getting Paranoid, Ajila [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "I do not want to be " Posted by v_p on 17:31:01 5/08/2000 protected -- I want to make myself perfectly clear: I, Vicki P., totally... TOTALLY, believe Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter JonBenet Ramsey. Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet Ramsey -- neeener neeener neeener!! Sue me --- PLEASE!!!! <---exclamation marks for you PATS V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "I don't think JW could " Posted by fiddler on 17:24:56 5/08/2000 possibly be sued--first of all, it states prominently, many times, that it is an OPINION forum. Opinions are protected speech, flat-out, end of story. Second, the New York Post and Time/Warner may have been in the position to know, or have been able to ascertain, that the stories they were publishing were false. We have no such ability here--unless one of us actually is a Ramsey :) So, I don't think we have anything to worry about. Besides, personally, my net worth wouldn't pay the Ramseys' bills for even a month. We're beer can collectors, after all--far beneath their financial consideration. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Betting . . ." Posted by Hyacinth on 17:56:13 5/08/2000 Lin Wood is going after all the Burke suits because he knows that everyone is afraid of dragging a minor through the muck. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that it wouldn't take much to make a kid, the brother of a brutally murdered little girl, look tremendously tragic and victimized in court. Public relations nightmare at best. Expect to see this lawsuit crumble like the other one. How I wish someone with legal muscle (other than Judge Judy) would step forward and give this Burke-did-it theory a real fleshing-out in court. I'm not cruel and heartless about Burke; it would be terrible for him to have to go through a trial, and when you think how, he's already had the terrible misfortune of having the parents he did --- with all their stupid choices --- it's awful to think of what it would do to him. But at this point, I selfishly wish for all the people who have been screwed by the Ramseys that one of these law suits could be fought in court instead of settling out-of-court. A trial still seems to hold the greatest chance of bringing forth useful testimony from one of the three (or however many) that were in the house when JonBenet were killed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "lawsuits" Posted by ace21214 on 17:50:13 5/08/2000 So the Ramseys are suing the New York Post and Time-Warner. They must need the money really badly to search for the "real killer" of JonBenet. Maybe they should play a round of golf with O.J. and then all three of them can go investigating together. BTW, whatever happened to the suit they were supposedly filing against ST? I haven't heard a word. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "I think it " Posted by Ribaldone on 18:43:02 5/08/2000 speaks volumes that they have now filed THREE lawsuits on behalf of Burke. But none on their own behalf even though Steve Thomas went on TV and publicly stated that "Patsy killed her daughter," and Cyril Wecht stated very plainly that "John killed her in a sex game gone wrong." Very telling indeed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "I need some help" Posted by Ruthee on 19:16:18 5/08/2000 Before the book DOI came out on one of the interviews the Ramseys did announcing the upcoming book, they were ask about Burke. John stated that Burke was just fine and doing well in school, can anyone help me find that or remember which interview it was? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "I remember that statement" Posted by SJ on 19:41:11 5/08/2000 about Burke being fine and doing well in school too, but don't remember when or where he said it! Also, how can the Ramseys say for certain that Burke did NOT do it unless they know who did? That makes no sense to me. And again, they have to prove damages to Burke. What are they? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Ruthee" Posted by starry on 20:13:13 5/08/2000 >Before the book DOI came out on >one of the interviews the Ramseys >did announcing the upcoming book, they >were ask about Burke. >John stated that Burke was just >fine and doing well in school, >can anyone help me find that >or remember which interview it was? > I have it on tape. I'll have to find it tomorrow and let you know, though. Too tired tonight. E-mail me, OK? and I'll mail it to you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Always use Burke for the lawsuits" Posted by chebrock on 03:42:22 5/09/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 03:42:22, 5/09/2000 This is just another ploy to make money. Not only are they using their daughter's death to make money with the POS, NOW they are using their SON and suing on his behalf for CASH. Come on Ramsey's. Why don't you sue on your own behalf. Huh? Why don't you sue because someone thinks you (either one of you) murdered JonBenet? Why hide behind your little boy? The Ramsey's are COWARDS. They can't face anything on their own. They won't take a Lie Detector test. They won't sue on their own behalf. They lived through their daughter They hide behind their son. DESPICABLE :::edited for grammar and spelling::: [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "I remember " Posted by momo on 19:50:07 5/08/2000 on one interview after the grand jury, Patsy said Burke was playing games and listening to music like any other typical teenager. Yeah but what kinds of games and music. I remember that response struck me as odd. That was all she had to say about how Burke was doing. I bet there is no closeness whatsoever in that house. Burke is doing your typical escape fom reality. I'm sure he stays immersed in that stuff. Anything to avoid her and John. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Those people are going to convict themselves" Posted by sally denver on 20:00:21 5/08/2000 Is there a death wish here? For people who just want to have a "normal" life and "get on with their lives" they sure do find a way to stay in the spotlight don't they? I suspect that Time-Warner is not going to roll-over and "settle" with them - I hope to hell TW goes to court - for a long, long trial, that the Ramsey's lose, and, that it costs them a fortune! Burke should be removed from that home for emotional abuse (just having them for parents is abusive) IN MY OPINION! Their actions just make me want to vomit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Can anyone explain?" Posted by Ryder on 20:08:36 5/08/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:08:36, 5/08/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:03:02, 5/08/2000 I am having trouble understanding how one can successfully sue any publication or person whose statements described police suspicion or anyone else's suspicion for that matter. I have not read either the Star article which was successfully sued or the NY Post article which is being sued. Did the first of these publications say that BR did commit a crime or did it say that he was suspected of committing a crime? And does the word "suspect" make any difference here? Isn't that the same as stating an opinion? Did they settle the Star suit out of court? If the NY Post opted not to settle - how would the plaintiffs go about proving their case? If this would be a "falsely accused" complaint - wouldn't they have to get into proof of whether or not BR did/did not commit the crime? How would this suit be different than the Chris Wolff suit, where the Rs might have to be hauled into court to prove that PR didn't do it. If I sound confused by all of this, it is because I am. Does anyone have answers to any of my questions? Can we assume that given the vengeance with which they have attacked any theories of Burke's guilt (rather than their own) that those theories are probably completely wrong? One would think so, otherwise they would not incessantly bring attention to their son. This is very weird. I can sort of understand people taking on the audacity of certain tabloids but this is an article about an article. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Well, Patsy" Posted by Kelly on 20:44:51 5/08/2000 why don't you tell us what happened that night and who killed JonBenet, then Burke will be free of all suspicion and the money you're going after (for him) in all these lawsuits will be HIS TO SPEND, not the killers. This mess has possibly ruined Burke's life. It has had a profound negative effect on it. The killers are the ones that OWE Burke by coming clean and turning themselves in so Burke will be set free from this. That is the best thing that could happen to Burke. Otherwise, he is going to be questioned about JonBenet's death and who he thinks did it the rest of his life. How fair is that to him? Whoever they may be, telling the truth would lift a huge burden off of Burke's shoulders, and give him his life back. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "More questions??" Posted by canadiana on 21:08:02 5/08/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:08:02, 5/08/2000 Do Time-Warner and NYT not have lawyers to advise them regarding the publishing of controversial articles? Why did they feel safe in publishing this article? If the Rs want to be private people, why did Patsy call LKL and describe JB as 'America's People's Princess? (ugh) Why does JR insist on 'reminding us (of the date) the world went mad and killed JB'? (sorry Mr. R. I had NOTHING at all to do with it, NOTHING.) If they want to protect Burke, why do they not take the LD test proving their innocence? Then they can sue everybody with gusto. edited for grammar and spelling.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "These people must be nuts....." Posted by sds on 05:19:17 5/09/2000 With all of these lawsuits saying that Burke didn't do it, they are just backing themselves into a corner. They started out with four people in that house on Dec. 25, one was murdered, and one didn't do it. That leaves two, so they must be witnesses for each other. I'm with SJ, if they can say definitively that Burke didn't do it, then they must know who did it and what happened that night. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "bump" Posted by Kelly on 16:49:49 5/09/2000 I'm just sending this to the top so it can be with all the other lawsuits, what a site. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "I think" Posted by Real Stormy on 18:14:27 5/09/2000 That one of the requirements for a libel lawsuit is "Reckless disregard for the truth." I also think that some of the posts on the forum have come dangerously close to that, particularly in regard to the White family. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]