Justice Watch Discussion Board "Ramseys Sue Time-Warner" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Ramseys Sue Time-Warner, New York Lawyer, 13:57:35, 5/08/2000 well, pat, 14:02:52, 5/08/2000, (#1) How sad, Sioux, 14:04:15, 5/08/2000, (#2) Lin Wood, Ev, 14:07:58, 5/08/2000, (#3) "Legalese" question.... , LabMom, 14:15:21, 5/08/2000, (#5) Makes Me Mad..., Jellyjaws, 14:08:06, 5/08/2000, (#4) Time article, ibnora, 14:59:08, 5/08/2000, (#6) Repeating false stories grounds for lawsuit, LizzieB, 15:11:26, 5/08/2000, (#7) humour, maxi, 15:32:18, 5/08/2000, (#8) More TV time!, Cassandra, 15:40:08, 5/08/2000, (#9) I hope Time-Warner, momo, 15:44:44, 5/08/2000, (#10) Let's see: Rupert Murdoch owns NYPost, Cassandra, 15:55:27, 5/08/2000, (#11) Labmom, Msracoon, 16:11:40, 5/08/2000, (#12) Cassie, Seashell, 16:24:13, 5/08/2000, (#15) The Son Sometimes Rises, janphi, 16:19:01, 5/08/2000, (#13) The Ramseys , momo, 16:24:00, 5/08/2000, (#14) hmmmm, darby, 16:55:45, 5/08/2000, (#16) This is getting interesting--, fiddler, 17:20:22, 5/08/2000, (#17) This SCREAMS, v_p, 17:26:17, 5/08/2000, (#18) another Ramsey lawsuit, Kelly, 20:32:46, 5/08/2000, (#19) poor burke, Kip, 22:39:17, 5/08/2000, (#20) st lawsuit, pavement, 22:43:34, 5/08/2000, (#21) NYL - Joinder of Ramseys - Third Party claim, CommonSense, 05:11:26, 5/09/2000, (#22) janphi., Holly, 05:13:51, 5/09/2000, (#23) Commonsense, maxi, 07:03:52, 5/09/2000, (#24) I just don't get it, Watching you, 09:04:20, 5/09/2000, (#25) T/W Shouldn't Settle! , Jellyjaws, 11:51:46, 5/09/2000, (#26) While, Gemini, 12:09:19, 5/09/2000, (#27) Burke Does Have A Right to Seek Justice , CommonSense, 13:19:04, 5/09/2000, (#28) Burke, JR, 13:49:54, 5/09/2000, (#31) CommonSense, Edie Pratt, 13:33:34, 5/09/2000, (#29) Ooooooooh, Edie Pratt, , gaiabetsy, 13:48:08, 5/09/2000, (#30) Kids as Libel Plaintiffs, Tedleg, 14:29:26, 5/09/2000, (#32) Could Burke sue his parents?, Seashell, 15:14:08, 5/09/2000, (#33) Burke Could Sue Parents for JonBenet's Wrongful Death, CommonSense, 15:36:28, 5/09/2000, (#34) CommonSense, Kelly, 15:56:47, 5/09/2000, (#35) BIG QUESTION?? to me..., canadiana, 16:17:06, 5/09/2000, (#36) Hey Darnay!, Shaggy, 16:39:10, 5/09/2000, (#37) ................................................................... "Ramseys Sue Time-Warner" Posted by New York Lawyer on 13:57:35 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 # TIME WARNER COMPANIES, INC., Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiffs JOHN RAMSEY and PATSY RAMSEY, as Parents and Natural Guardians of BURKE RAMSEY, a minor complaining of the Defendant TIME WARNER COMPANIES, INC., respectfully alleges as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This defamation action is brought by Plaintiffs JOHN RAMSEY and PATSY RAMSEY, as Parents and Natural Guardians of BURKE RAMSEY ("BURKE"), now age 13, against defendant TIME WARNER COMPANIES, INC., for publishing an internet article which falsely alleges, inter alia, that BURKE was the killer of his sister, JonBenét Ramsey. THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiffs JOHN RAMSEY and PATSY RAMSEY are individuals who reside in Atlanta, Georgia. BURKE is their natural son. 3. Defendant TIME WARNER COMPANIES, INC., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is authorized to conduct business in the State of New York. 4. Defendant maintains its principal place of business and corporate headquarters in the City and State of New York. 5. Defendant owns, operates and publishes an internet site accessible to the public known as TIME.com. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Georgia for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332. 7. Defendant is a citizen of the State of New York for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332. 8. 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. 9. 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 10. 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. 11. At the time of his sister's murder, BURKE was nine (9) years old. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. As of the date of this Complaint, no criminal charges have been filed against any individual in connection with her tragic and brutal death. 16. 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. 17. Beginning on May 13, 1999 and continuing through the present, TIME.com published an article on its website: http://www.time.com/time/daily/0,2960,24623,00.html (the "Article"). 18. The headline of the Article libeled BURKE by publishing the following false and defamatory Headline about him: Extra: Tabloid Solves JonBenet Case! Star magazine reports that police now think the brother did it. Don't laugh 19. In the Article, defendant libeled BURKE by publishing the following false and defamatory statements about him: Well, that settles that - the brother did it. The supermarket tabloid Star magazine reports that the gruesome tale of JonBenet Ramsey's murder is about to get even more chilling. An "authoritative source" told the magazine that parents John and Patsy Ramsey, long the de facto suspects in the case, are quietly hammering out a deal with prosecutors that would pin the crime on JonBenet's older brother Burke (then 9, now 12) without charging him. According to the magazine, Burke was frustrated by the attention lavished on his beauty-queen sister, and when one night JonBenet wet her bed and then climbed into bed with her brother, Burke blew up. OK, we know. Consider the source. But the Star story was written by Richard Gooding, a former writer and editor for the New York Daily News who is well-respected in the journalism business. And Burke's Swiss Army knife was indeed found next to the body. The scenario fits in well with investigators' longtime suspicions that the murder was an "inside job" - a theory bolstered by medical examiners' analysis of the crime scene. Certainly, a guilty Burke would explain a lot. A spokesman for District Attorney Alex Hunter was keeping mum - "We can only say that reports that D.A. Hunter and Mr. Haddon (the Ramseys' lawyer) have talked at all, and that they have talked about serving up Burke Ramsey as the fall guy in this case - that's false," he told the New York Post. But the way this investigation has been conducted, well, you might want to go with the supermarket tabloid on this one. 20. Accompanying the Article was a picture of BURKE and his parents. 21. BURKE did not murder his sister, JonBenét Ramsey. 22. 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. 23. Police did not think that BURKE killed his sister. 24. BURKE was not frustrated by the attention lavished on his beauty-queen sister and did not blow up in his bed and murder his sister. 25. Prior to the publication of the Article, 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. 26. Upon information and belief, prior to the publication of the Article, no employee, reporter, editor or representative of defendant contacted the Boulder County District Attorney or officials in his office to seek confirmation as to the truth of the defamatory Article published about BURKE . 27. Upon information and belief, prior to the publication of the Article, no employee, reporter, editor or representative of defendant attempted to contact the Boulder County District Attorney or officials in his office to seek confirmation as to the truth of the defamatory Article published about BURKE. 28. 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 29. The 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. 30. In publishing the Article, defendant acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties. 31. As a proximate cause of the false and defamatory statements contained in the Article, members of the public were led to believe that BURKE was JonBenét Ramsey's killer. 32. As a proximate cause of the false and defamatory statements contained in the Article, BURKE has suffered permanent injury to his reputation, has suffered public hatred, and contempt and ridicule. AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM - MALICE 33. Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs marked and designated "1" through "32" herein as if set forth in full and at length hereafter. 34. Defendant possessed knowledge that the defamatory statements contained in the Article were false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of these statements. 35. The misconduct of defendant was willful and evinces a want of care and/or a conscious indifference to consequences. 36. BURKE is entitled to an award of punitive damages from defendant in order to punish, penalize and deter defendant from repeating its unlawful conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs JOHN and PATSY RAMSEY, as parents and natural guardians of BURKE RAMSEY, demands judgment against the Defendant 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 - - TIME WARNER COMPANIES, INC., 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 2, 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. "well" Posted by pat on 14:02:52 5/08/2000 Ain't that special???Why am I not surprised,,must be time to start paying the bills again for the rams. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "How sad" Posted by Sioux on 14:04:15 5/08/2000 How sad, to have John and patsy as parents. If Burke did it, this is no way to protect him. If THEY did it, Burke never had protection, and never will. Poor Burke. Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Lin Wood" Posted by Ev on 14:07:58 5/08/2000 (or whatever his name is) has his work cut out for him. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. ""Legalese" question.... " Posted by LabMom on 14:15:21 5/08/2000 Can someone translate this? L. Lin Wood GA State Bar No. 774588 (application pending for admission pro hac vice) Does this mean that LW is applying for admission to the Georgia State Bar? Anyone know in what state(s) he is currently allowed to practice? I'm just curious.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Makes Me Mad..." Posted by Jellyjaws on 14:08:06 5/08/2000 are these folks going for the deep pocket out of court settlement, is that it, NYL? They better watch out for Time-Warner. They called Disney's bluff recently! Ramsey's are redecorating a house with dollar signs in their eyes. Or more a "A strong offense is the best defense.?" Thanks, NYL, for the depressing news. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Time article" Posted by ibnora on 14:59:08 5/08/2000 It seems the article referred to in the above mentioned suit has been removed from the Time Magazine website. However the "lead in" to the article still appears ... "15. Time Daily - May 13, 1999: "Extra: Tabloid Solves JonBenet Case!"; Star magazine reports that police now think the brother did it. Don't laugh - 13-May-1999 - (81%)" This much alone seems to indicate that Time was reporting on something that was reported by Star. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 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 ] 8. "humour" Posted by maxi on 15:32:18 5/08/2000 I took the article to be humourous and written tongue-in-cheek. If satire is no longer allowed for fear of defamation suits, the publishing world will soon be pretty bland. I hope Time fights on this one. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "More TV time!" Posted by Cassandra on 15:40:08 5/08/2000 Interviews and publicity coming up! Let's see, though. They can't do interviews on stations they're suing, can they? I forget. Which tv station does Time Warner own? CNN??? Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "I hope Time-Warner" Posted by momo on 15:44:44 5/08/2000 does not back down on this one. Would they be able to get J&P on the stand and ask questions? I am not the most keen individual when it comes to law so I am curious about this. Would their attorneys have "free reign" on the Ramseys? Would someone please answer me on this. Thanx, momo [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Let's see: Rupert Murdoch owns NYPost" Posted by Cassandra on 15:55:27 5/08/2000 and Fox, right? Disney owns ABC. GE owns NBC. Who owns CBS? Time Warner, too? I've lost track of the inbreeding of news organizations. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Labmom" Posted by Msracoon on 16:11:40 5/08/2000 My understanding of that haec thing is that Wood is applying to "play" in another state's courtroom. I don't think that means he is going to take the Bar for the appearance only that he wants to appear for something in particular in that state's courtroom. I always did think that latin word sounded gross, like someone's got a cold or something. lol. Let me know if that is incorrect, DH, a/k/a NYL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Cassie" Posted by Seashell on 16:24:13 5/08/2000 "I forget. Which tv station does Time Warner own? CNN???" Ramsey and Mr. CNN Honcho are buds. Maybe not anymore, eh? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "The Son Sometimes Rises" Posted by janphi on 16:19:01 5/08/2000 From the lawsuit above (bold emphasis mine): "32. As a proximate cause of the false and defamatory statements contained in the Article, BURKE has suffered permanent injury to his reputation, has suffered public hatred, and contempt and ridicule." From the online chat 3-20-00: "ABCNEWS.com's Buck Wolf: Nita from Georgia and others ask: "How is Burke doing today? How do you shield him from publicity? What sort of questions does he ask about JonBenet?" Patsy Ramsey: Burke is asleep right now. We don't have a television, we don't subscribe to any magazines or newspapers. And our school has been very good about sheltering him any time there is...being chased by tabloid reporters and the like. John Ramsey: Burke has a good set of friends who care about him and tease him about things a normal 13-year-old boy gets teased about. But I don't think they discuss anything that they might see in the news or the supermarkets." So, which is it? A bunch of teenagers kidding their buddy or a group of nasty adults who harrass him every time he leaves the mansion or individuals who look at him funny or maybe the average person on the street who averts their gaze so he won't see the pity in their eyes when they realize who he is and who his parents are? Oh, duh, I just remembered, it's those beer can collectors with that website that they just can't help reading. Sorry, but I think this is their imagination...I mean their "ugly thoughts" as they like to describe those ideas people have of JB acting "sexy" in pageants. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "The Ramseys " Posted by momo on 16:24:00 5/08/2000 have put Burke in the position he is in. I don't believe he has suffered any of what the lawsuit says he has. If people look at Burke in any way it is with pure pity. His parents have done him the greatest injustice. nuf said [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "hmmmm" Posted by darby on 16:55:45 5/08/2000 If the Ramseys killed or know who killed JBR, then this case is a whole lot different than the successfully prosecuted one in California. It would be like Sirhan Sirhan suing on behalf of that poor farmer the book named as RFK's assassin. Besides, Sirhan Sirhan had already been found guilty and had even lost his appeal when the Globe reprinted the book's false claims. The jury is frankly still out on the JBR case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "This is getting interesting--" Posted by fiddler on 17:20:22 5/08/2000 the defendants are getting more reputable all the time. I hope this one goes to depositions, and they're not sealed. Well, I can dream, can't I? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "This SCREAMS" Posted by v_p on 17:26:17 5/08/2000 Guilty for the Ramseys. Where the hell is the lawsuit against Steve Thomas??? He didn't pussy-foot around at all. He stated, in no ambiguous terms, PATSY KILLED JONBENET. All this lawsuit tells me is that Burke did not kill his sister -- they are damned sure of that. It also tells me that they HAD to have killed her or they would be garrote deep in lawsuits for defamation of THEIR characters. For chits sake. V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "another Ramsey lawsuit" Posted by Kelly on 20:32:46 5/08/2000 What a way to make a living............ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "poor burke" Posted by Kip on 22:39:17 5/08/2000 ibnora--thanks for posting what remains on Time's site re the story maxi--i don't remember reading that story, but just from the lead-in ("Don't laugh, but..."), it sounded like it was making fun of the original tab story and...what the heck are the Ramseys thinking? (Nothing they do should surprise me anymore, but it always does.) In recent weeks, they've said a couple of times that Burke is well-adjusted and doing great. So they make those public statements, then bring two suits saying those articles two years ago turned him into a basket case. That ought to make Burke feel great. That, plus the whole Burke-did-it thing being dredged up and talked about again. He'll really enjoy it if it comes to a jury trial and his parents put a bunch of psychiatrists and psychologists on the stand saying he's damaged goods. I feel real sorry for Burke, but I hope Time-Warner doesn't [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "st lawsuit" Posted by pavement on 22:43:34 5/08/2000 ...if I am reading this thing right, the offense (publication of article) occurred on May 13\99. Almost a year ago. I don't think the fat lady has sung yet regarding a possible ST suit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "NYL - Joinder of Ramseys - Third Party claim" Posted by CommonSense on 07:45:52 5/09/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:45:52, 5/09/2000 If I were defending these media giants - I'd first ask that John and Patsy be removed as the guardians for purposes of these lawsuits. They should be disqualified because it is their involvement in the underlying events and failure to fully cooperate that has put Burke in this position. Under a theory of equitable estoppel, they should not be allowed to benefit directly or indirectly by their own actions. So . . . first, motion to disqualify them and get the judge to appoint a person to be guardian for Burke with his own independent counsel. Next, I'd be looking for a way to join Patsy and John as parties to the suit. The only reason that Burke has been put through this mess, the only reason that the articles were written is because of the actions and inaction of Patsy and John. If it can be proven that Burke was actually up and heard on the 911 call - the parents put Burke in jeapordy by their lies to the authorities. Once the Ramseys became public figures by their use of the media through staged press conferences and CNN, and calls to Larry King Live, tney had a duty to acurately represent the facts to the media. It was the fraudulent misprepresentations to the media that have put both Burke and the newspaper defendants in their current situations. Therefore, the attorney representing Burke may also want to think of a claim against the Ramseys on Burke's behalf. Anyway - the media defendants shouldn't should take it - they should go on the offense. John and Patsy WILL NOT sue anyone on their own behalf regarding their involvement in the crime, these media defendants must make that the issue to make these cases go away. If the media defendants are interested in justice, they will use these cases to take depositions, obtain documents (including Patsy's medical records), and in other ways fully investigate this case the way that it should have been investigated by Hunter's office. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "janphi." Posted by Holly on 05:13:51 5/09/2000 If you or I were sensitive to the public scrutiny of our daughter's murder and the impact on our innocent son, wouldn't we make sure tabloids in WalMarts were avoided? It seems to me that the claim that Burke has suffered emotional scarring is at least in part, their own fault. And you are right, they have never backed up that claim in public when asked. He's always doing well. In fact, he seems to be thriving, according to Nedrea and his parents. I think Burke may have Aspberger's Syndrome. They will reach a settlement stage and trot out medical records claiming the media didn't do enough to discover Burke has high functioning autism, IMO. It will be a sympathy settlement. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Commonsense" Posted by maxi on 07:03:52 5/09/2000 That's really good. I hope the attys for Time Warner are familiar enough with the details of the case to think of that strategy. I'm afraid they may just fold and settle since a kid is involved and there is so much feeling in the news community about the "tabloidization" of the news. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "I just don't get it" Posted by Watching you on 09:04:20 5/09/2000 since no one has been charged and convicted of killing JBR, I don't see that BR really can be eliminated as a suspect, even if Alex Hunter has cleared him. There has never been an acceptable (to me) reason given for clearing him. Why is it unacceptable for people to have an opinion that BR MAY have been involved in his sister's death? How can the Rams continue to sue for defamation when it has never been proven in a court of law, through the evidence, that BR was NOT involved. No, I don't believe BR killed his sister - I never have believed that. But, he was in that house, and I've said before, if there was enough evidence to clear BR, they had to know who the killer was. CommonSense - everything you said is right on. But, you know and I know the bottom line is money. The owners of these magazines will not care about principles; their only care will be, will it cost more to fight this or to settle it. The Rams and their slimey attorney know this. They are counting on it. Really pisses me off, since these magazines have the money to make a difference in this case - call the Rams' bluff and go to trial. I suspect that won't happen, because money is primary and foremost concern. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "T/W Shouldn't Settle! " Posted by Jellyjaws on 11:51:46 5/09/2000 After reading other posters and sleeping on the subject, I do believe Time/Warner could hang tough on this suit. T/W has a much bigger bankroll than the Ramsey's and a much bigger legal department, as well. Discovery can drag on for years and how long is Lin Wood willing to work on contingency? As poster CommonSense said, they could get a hold of all sorts of medical and psychitric, financial, school and phone records and more. The Ramsey's are not particularly sympathetic to the majority of people (just guessing?). Time/Warner can parlay the suit into it's own version of "Justice for JonBenet," freedom of press principles, refusal to cave into extortionists. God, think of all the publicity; negative or positive will make money for TW. Time/Warner and The NY Post Aren't The Globe. This could get very interesting, indeed! Thank you, Common Sense. You got me over my "chit-fit" over the NERVE of these people. They and their lawyer may have bitten off more than they can chew. Let's hope so! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "While" Posted by Gemini on 12:13:49 5/09/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:13:49, 5/09/2000 several of you are intent on forming a flying buttress against any actions taken by the Ramseys, you seem to forget Burke (as all children) is a person, separate and apart from his parents. Although his parents (or another appointed guardian) must, by law, represent him while he's underage, I think it's a big mistake to leap to the assumption he has no say-so in all this. IMO, you're doing him a disservice by refusing to recognize HIS rights. At thirteen (oh yeah, I do remember it well :-) ), I thought for myself to a large extent, and was as sensible as many adults. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Burke Does Have A Right to Seek Justice " Posted by CommonSense on 13:19:04 5/09/2000 I have suggested that Burke does have a right to seek redress for wrongs done against him. However, a guardian should be appointed with an independant attorney to protect his interests. Burke would not be in this place if his parents had, at a minimum, secured their home, and if you believe the evidence, not killed his sister. Burke also would not have been subject to tabloid articles if his family had fully cooperated and provided all known facts to the police ASAP. Instead, the Ramseys misrepresented facts to the police and refused to turn over evidence and to sit down for formal interviews. This huge delay caused by the Ramseys is what caused tabloids to speculate about the killer. So, yep, Burke has rights and some say - but he shouldn't be letting the fox guard the hen house. Get Burke a court appointed guardian. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Burke" Posted by JR on 13:49:54 5/09/2000 1) I believe Burke can file his own suit until the age of 21 so it is not necessary for his parents to file one for him. 2) I hope the courts require all monies to go into a trust fund until Burke reaches at least age 18 so that his parents can not benefit from these suits. 3) I too would like to see TW fight this and have a real trial forcing all facts and depositions to come out into the open once and for all. 4) I hope NYL or someone can send the intrview quotes to the TW lawyers so they can use it i arguement. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "CommonSense" Posted by Edie Pratt on 13:33:34 5/09/2000 do you think Burke even KNOWS about the suits on his behalf? If one or both of his parents killed his sister, do you think they'd actually discuss anything about it with him? If he knows who did it, that would be surreal, at best. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Ooooooooh, Edie Pratt, " Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:48:08 5/09/2000 do you think just the way I do about all this? Yep, I believe so. It's not like these people haven't had a forum too "set things straight". Yooou'd better believe we've had less forum to do so. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Kids as Libel Plaintiffs" Posted by Tedleg on 14:30:30 5/09/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:30:30, 5/09/2000 You usually don't see young kids as libel plaintiffs because it is pretty hard to prove any serious money damages. Libel suits seeks to redress harm to a person's reputation that adversely affect that person in a measurable way. The way you measure stuff in civil suits is with money. Burke's earning potential as a 12 year old can't be much and figuring future damages would be pretty speculative. I guess they could make some kind of emotional distress-type argument. I think all of this buttresses Commonsense's good point that JR and PR may have a conflict here--hell, they are maybe as responsible for Burke's emotional distress as anybody. I would not, however, jump to the conclusion that JR and PR are pursuing these suits for money--they may not be getting much money from these suits and money may not be their goal. Has anyone heard the settlement terms of their earlier Burke suits? That would be interesting to know. Their goal may be to advance the continued public relations effort they are waging. If that is so, it tends to advance even more Commensesense's conflict of interest point--i.e the Ramseys aren't advancing Burke's interest, they are advancing their own public relations campaign. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Could Burke sue his parents?" Posted by Seashell on 15:14:08 5/09/2000 That has a delightful ring to it! The Star had a chance to seek justice and it folded. If T/W owns CNN, and the prez of CNN and JR are buds, T/W will not only fold but probably pay the Ramseys big bucks. Who owns CNN? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Burke Could Sue Parents for JonBenet's Wrongful Death" Posted by CommonSense on 15:36:28 5/09/2000 Yes, just as the Goldman's and Browns sued O.J. for the wrongful death of their loved ones, Burke could sue his parents for the wrongful death of JonBenet. He would have to prove that more likely than not his parents were responsible for her death. So . . . if a guardian could be appointed for Burke . . . . . . . My thoughts on why the Ramseys are filing the suits - The Ramseys have had Lin Wood all over the media with his threats to sue someone. The Ramseys then end up looking stupid and guilty over the polygraph. Now, the Ramseys have to come back with something. Patsy can't just quietly sit by and let things happen - she has to dive in. The Ramseys are hoping that the public will read that they filed defamation law suits and that the public will not notice that the Ramseys have NEVER filed a defamation law suit regarding statement made about their guilt. They hope that John and Jane Q. Public will say, "see, they aren't guilty because they are filing these defamation claims." However, I think that the public and the media reporters have done a good job of recognizing that truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim, and again, John and Patsy haven't even tried to file a claim about the many statements of their own guilt. In fact, one of the reasons that the Ramseys are so sure that the allegations against Burke are false, is because the Ramseys KNOW who killed JonBenet - and it wasn't Burke. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "CommonSense" Posted by Kelly on 15:56:47 5/09/2000 Burke suing his parents for the wrongful death of JonBenet and all the grief it's caused him is a great idea. I hope he goes for it. I'm almost certain Burke hears everything that is going on. IMO, kids know everything that's going on, in this town news travels between them like seagulls. My husband and I can be sitting here all day and if our son is gone somewhere the phone never rings, but let our son walk in the door and the phone rings off the wall. I don't know how teens are able to hone in on who is where and what is going on with whom but they know. A couple of weeks ago I quietly mentioned to our school principal that I would not mind substitute teaching if they ever needed me on one of my days off. That was the only mention of it there ever was. Then, one day last week, my son came home after school and was about to "go Patsy" because everyone was saying I was gonna be the substitute in his integrated physics and chemistry class the next day. He was horrified at the thought of my being there. I am such an embarrassment and would only show all his friends how stupid I really am. It was quite a scene. It just goes to show how all those kids knew I was gonna substitute teach the next day before I even knew I'd been hired! I wound up not doing it, I hadn't realized it would ruin his life. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "BIG QUESTION?? to me..." Posted by canadiana on 16:17:06 5/09/2000 IF a murder case remains unsolved HOW CAN SOMEONE SUE for damages unless they CAN PROVE THEY DID NOT COMMIT THE CRIME? Yes, I feel terrible for Burke and all he has gone through....BUT the case is UNSOLVED. Anyone could be/is a suspect really. aren't they? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Hey Darnay!" Posted by Shaggy on 16:39:10 5/09/2000 When you see the Rams in court give them my thanks for the URL. I hadn't had a chance to read the story. Since they made it so easy for me to find, I'll just run right over to time.com and take a look. Really! They are suing Time for reporting(and seemingly makes fun of) an article that appeared in the Star? I don't think that holds water... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]