Justice Watch Discussion Board "Ramseys are SUED!" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Ramseys are SUED!, New York Lawyer, 16:44:35, 5/11/2000 EEEEEEEHHAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW, Bobby, 16:53:34, 5/11/2000, (#1) Happy, happy, happy day!!!, mary99, 17:44:23, 5/11/2000, (#2) Enlighten me--does this mean, fiddler, 18:10:32, 5/11/2000, (#3) Whoa, Lacey, 18:19:07, 5/11/2000, (#4) I say....., LabMom, 18:20:05, 5/11/2000, (#5) Hey fiddler, docg, 18:20:48, 5/11/2000, (#6) Hey Lacey!, docg, 18:24:13, 5/11/2000, (#7) Suing sing along..., Greenleaf, 18:53:56, 5/11/2000, (#12) WOW!, Morgan, 18:31:50, 5/11/2000, (#8) WoW!, Ribaldone, 18:48:15, 5/11/2000, (#11) DocG, momo, 18:38:07, 5/11/2000, (#10) Gosh ,NYL, momo, 18:35:50, 5/11/2000, (#9) High Five, Darnay, Seashell, 18:59:51, 5/11/2000, (#14) Well Done Counselor!, Paralegal, 18:57:51, 5/11/2000, (#13) Wooo Hooooooo!, greenbean, 19:23:15, 5/11/2000, (#15) Darnay's Plan, docg, 19:27:28, 5/11/2000, (#16) DocG, greenbean, 19:31:41, 5/11/2000, (#18) docg, v_p, 19:33:33, 5/11/2000, (#19) Docg, momo, 19:43:24, 5/11/2000, (#20) HI FIVE. DARNAY>>, ayelean, 19:29:14, 5/11/2000, (#17) NY Lawyer, sabrina, 20:02:48, 5/11/2000, (#21) Interesting move Darnay, SJ, 20:05:53, 5/11/2000, (#23) Way to GO!!!, chebrock, 20:03:50, 5/11/2000, (#22) Darnay, Ribaldone, 20:16:20, 5/11/2000, (#24) NYL..., shadow, 20:26:28, 5/11/2000, (#26) By popular request . . . , docg, 20:31:02, 5/11/2000, (#27) Docg , momo, 21:24:53, 5/11/2000, (#29) Darney~, Aurora, 20:24:06, 5/11/2000, (#25) Is this for real?, starry, 20:45:34, 5/11/2000, (#28) Aside from all the frivolity, Gemini, 21:55:04, 5/11/2000, (#30) Well?, darby, 22:01:16, 5/11/2000, (#31) Lawsuit Consequences, Tedleg, 22:02:24, 5/11/2000, (#32) Heh heh, MrsBrady, 03:04:05, 5/12/2000, (#33) Starry, Bobby, 05:12:19, 5/12/2000, (#34) Bobby, Watching you, 05:31:59, 5/12/2000, (#35) All The Way With Darnay! & LOL Morgan, Cassandra, 05:36:33, 5/12/2000, (#36) Gem, Tedleg, Bobby, fly, 08:21:35, 5/12/2000, (#38) It's possible to, Ruthee, 08:19:03, 5/12/2000, (#37) Ah, NYL..., Jellyjaws, 09:01:18, 5/12/2000, (#41) Hi, docg! Are you really, fiddler, 08:55:35, 5/12/2000, (#40) Fly, Tedleg, 08:53:18, 5/12/2000, (#39) Tedleg, fly, 09:08:20, 5/12/2000, (#42) My first thought, JR, 10:41:50, 5/12/2000, (#43) V I C T O R Y!, Edie Pratt, 10:43:58, 5/12/2000, (#44) Thanks Fly & WY, Bobby, 11:13:17, 5/12/2000, (#45) Edie Pratt, LOL!!!, fiddler, 15:23:15, 5/12/2000, (#46) Read #29--Think of Burke , darby, 17:16:39, 5/12/2000, (#47) Cripes!, Ginja, 17:48:04, 5/12/2000, (#48) Ginja, JR, 18:00:44, 5/12/2000, (#50) Hoffman, lake, 17:56:17, 5/12/2000, (#49) ................................................................... "Ramseys are SUED!" Posted by New York Lawyer on 16:44:35 5/11/2000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ROBERT CHRISTIAN WOLF, ) ) Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION ) v. ) 00-CIV-1187 (JEC) Judge Julie Carnes ) JOHN BENNETT RAMSEY & ) PATRICIA PAUGH RAMSEY, ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT Robert Christian Wolf, by his undersigned attorneys, respectfully states his Complaint for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Extreme and Outrageous Conduct against John Bennett Ramsey and Patricia Paugh Ramsey as follows: Statement of the Case On the night of December 25, 1996, or during the early morning hours of December 26, 1996, the defendant Patsy Ramsey sexually assaulted, and killed her daughter JonBenet Ramsey, either accidentally or intentionally, in their Boulder, Colorado home. In an elaborate and transparent attempt to cover up her crime, Patsy Ramsey prepared a handwritten kidnap ransom note in the hope of making her crime look like the work of a third party intruder. Over the next three and one half years, Patsy Ramsey, along with the knowing help of her husband, defendant John Ramsey, willfully, intentionally, maliciously, and with a reckless disregard for the truth, directed suspicion away from herself by hiring private detectives to investigate the personal lives of innocent Boulder citizens such as the plaintiff Robert Christian Wolf, turning that information over to the Boulder Police and District Attorney in the hope of encouraging the authorities to arrest the plaintiff for the murder of her daughter. Although the plaintiff has been cleared of all suspicion by authorities, the defendants continue to this day in their efforts to cast suspicion upon the plaintiff by publishing a book in which the plaintiff is publicly named as a murder suspect in the brutal sexual assault and horrific slaughter of their daughter. The defendants have also repeated this false allegation against the plaintiff in television interviews promoting their book. Because of the defendants' conduct, which was certain or substantially certain to cause severe emotional distress, and which is so extreme, outrageous and shocking that it is intolerable and goes beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized society, the plaintiff has suffered extreme humiliation, embarrassment, and emotional distress as a result of the defendants' having made him the unwanted focus of a murder investigation into the sexual assault and death of a six year girl. The defendants' conduct has caused the plaintiff to be shunned, hated, ridiculed and held in contempt by members of his community. He has suffered and continues to suffer substantial injury as a result of the false accusations made against him by the defendants. The plaintiff seeks general and punitive damages. The Parties 1. Plaintiff Robert Christian Wolf resides in Boulder, Colorado. 2. Plaintiff Robert Christian Wolf is a citizen of the State of Colorado for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under U.S.C. 1332. 3. Defendant John Bennett Ramsey resides in Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Defendant John Bennett Ramsey is a citizen of the State of Georgia for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under U.S.C. 1332. 5. Defendant Patricia Paugh Ramsey resides in Atlanta, Georgia. 6. Defendant Patricia Paugh Ramsey is a citizen of the State of Georgia for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under U.S.C. 1332. Jurisdiction and Venue 7. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction with respect to this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332 as there exists complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. 8. Defendant John Bennett Ramsey is domiciled in the State of Georgia and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391. 9. Defendant Patricia Paugh Ramsey is domiciled in the State of Georgia and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391. General Allegations 10. On the night of December 25, 1996 or during the early morning hours of December 26, 1996, defendant Patricia Paugh Ramsey (Patsy Ramsey) killed her daughter JonBenet Ramsey, either accidentally or intentionally, in the defendants' home at 755 15th Street, Boulder, Colorado. According to the Boulder County coroner's autopsy report, JonBenet received a massive head wound before dying of strangulation from a nylon cord tied around her neck. The coroner found that there was evidence to suggest that JonBenet's vagina had been assaulted and digitally penetrated sometime before her death. 11. In an elaborate and transparent attempt to cover up her crime, Patsy Ramsey wrote a three page ransom note in the hope of making her crime look more like the work of a third party intruder bent on kidnapping and/or sexually molesting her daughter, than like the work of a parent who flew into a rage and assaulted their child. 12. Three questioned document examiners, a forensic linguistics expert, and a Boulder police detective have since determined that defendant Patsy Ramsey was the author of the ransom note found at the scene of JonBenet Ramsey's murder. (Exhibit 1) 13. In order to further cover up her crime, Patsy Ramsey, along with the help of her husband John Ramsey, gave the Boulder Police Department and the Boulder District Attorney's office the names of people who she declared should be "suspects" in the killing of her daughter. As a result of the sensational nature of the crime, and the tearful protestations of innocence by Patsy Ramsey on national television, this case has been subject to massive international media coverage, the likes of which have not been seen since the Lindbergh baby kidnapping or the O.J. Simpson case. 14. John and Patsy Ramsey gave Boulder law enforcement the names of these innocent people willfully and maliciously and with reckless disregard for the truth. John and Patsy Ramsey knew, or should have known, that their conduct in covering up her crime was certain, or substantially certain, to cause severe emotional distress in the people who would become, as a result of the defendants' accusations, police "suspects," and, consequently, the subject of intensive and intrusive law enforcement investigation and worldwide media coverage. 15. Upon information and belief, innocent "suspects" were required to submit to police demands that they produce samples of their blood, hair, saliva and handwriting, while, at the same time, being subjected to intrusive police questioning into their private lives. Frequently, a "suspect's" neighbors would be interrogated by the police with respect to the "suspect's" general character and demeanor, often to the "suspect's" extreme embarrassment and emotional suffering. "Suspects" were also the subject of unwanted and often unflattering media attention and speculation. 16. Patsy Ramsey, along with the defendant John Ramsey, went on national television several times and "warned" the American public that "there is a killer on the loose." John and Patsy Ramsey repeated these statements in a television documentary, at various press conferences, in newspaper interviews, and in a book they co-authored called The Death of Innocence: The Untold Story of JonBenet's Murder and How Its Exploitation Compromised the Pursuit of Truth. (Thomas Nelson, 2000). Patsy Ramsey, willfully, maliciously, and with reckless disregard for the truth, has repeatedly denied any involvement in the death of her daughter despite knowing these statements to be untrue. 17. Defendant John Ramsey also denies any knowledge of the circumstances surrounding his daughter's death, and he has publicly proclaimed a belief in his wife Patsy's innocence. In their book The Death of Innocence John Ramsey describes a profile of what he and Patsy believe to be the characteristics of the person who murdered their daughter. John Ramsey knows, or should reasonably know, that his wife is lying about her responsibility for his daughter's death 18. John and Patsy Ramsey have hired private detectives to investigate and check into the private lives and backgrounds of these bogus murder "suspects," invading the privacy of these individuals through their private investigators, while providing Boulder authorities with information on these "suspects' in what has been, and continues to be, a blatant attempt to direct suspicion away from Mrs. Ramsey. The defendants have done all of this, willfully and maliciously, and with the intent of encouraging the authorities to arrest an innocent person for a crime that Patsy Ramsey has committed. 19. From December 26, 1996 until the present time, John and Patsy Ramsey have been and continue to be engaged, willfully, maliciously, and with reckless disregard for the truth, in a continuing course of conduct designed to direct suspicion away from Mrs. Ramsey by providing the Boulder district attorney's office, the police, and the general public, through the efforts of their private investigators, through interviews on national television, a documentary, and a book, with the names of innocent people, who, because of this continuing course of conduct, have suffered extreme emotional distress as the result of their being publicly named, and privately being investigated, by the John and Patsy Ramsey, as "suspects" in the brutal homicide of a six year girl who may have been sexually assaulted in the process. 20. John and Patsy Ramsey have engaged in this continuing course of conduct willfully and maliciously, knowing full well that Patsy Ramsey was responsible for the death of her daughter. 21. Beginning on or about September 1997, and, upon information and belief, continuing until the present time, private investigators working on behalf of, and at the direction of, John and Patsy Ramsey, have urged and continue to urge the Boulder authorities to investigate the plaintiff, Robert Christian Wolf (Chris Wolf), as a possible murder suspect in the death of their daughter in the hope that he would be arrested and charged with the murder of their daughter. The defendants have done this, and continue to do it, willfully and maliciously, knowing full well that the plaintiff is innocent and that Patsy Ramsey has killed JonBenet Ramsey. 22. On or about August and September 1997, and, upon information and belief, continuing until the present time, private investigators, working at the direction of the defendants, intrusively invaded the privacy of the plaintiff by investigating the private life of the plaintiff, giving the material they had gathered on him to Boulder law enforcement authorities in an attempt to draw suspicion away from Patsy Ramsey with the hope that such information would encourage the police to arrest and charge Chris Wolf for the sexual assault and murder of JonBenet Ramsey. 23. On page 329 of their book The Death of Innocence, which was published in Boulder, Colorado and Atlanta, Georgia on March 17, 2000, the defendants write: "By March 1, 1999, we had reported more information on Chris Wolf to the authorities. One person had seen Wolf go into an angry tirade aimed at me after he read an article about our company printed in the Boulder Daily Camera in early 1996. Apparently Wolf accused the company I worked for, Lockheed Martin, of selling arms to South American countries." (Exhibit 2) These statements are false and the defendants know them to be false, publishing them willfully, intentionally, maliciously, and with a reckless disregard for their truth. The plaintiff has never gone into "an angry tirade" aimed at John Ramsey or "accused Lockheed Martin of selling arms to South American countries." 24. On Page 205 of their book The Death of Innocence, the defendants write "Whatever the police's intentions, Wolf went on our suspect list. He represented too many unanswered questions." (Exhibit 3) This statement is false. Chris Wolf has been cleared by the police and does not "represent too many unanswered questions." The defendants made this statement willfully, maliciously, and with the deliberate intention of publicly casting suspicion upon him as a murderer who sexually assaulted their six-year- old daughter. 25. The sole purpose of publishing these statements was so that the defendants could divert attention away from Patsy Ramsey by directing Boulder authorities and the reading public's attention, through imputation and innuendo, to Chris Wolf as a legitimate murder suspect in the death of their daughter, knowing full well that Patsy Ramsey had murdered JonBenet Ramsey. 26. Defendants knew, or should have known, that Chris Wolf had been cleared of suspicion by the police, along with the hundreds of other bogus murder "suspects," many of whose names had been provided and continue to be provided to authorities by the defendants in their desperate attempt to cover up Patsy Ramsey's crime. 27. On a taped broadcast of NBC television network's morning program The Today Show, hosted by Katie Couric, filmed in New York City on February 2000, and then broadcast on March 24th of that same year, John and Patsy Ramsey were asked why Chris Wolf's name appeared as a murder suspect in their recently published book. John Ramsey replied: "I can tell you when - when we first started looking at - at one particular lead early on - my reaction was, "This is it. This is the killer." And our investigator said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa." He'd say, "Don't do a Boulder Police on me. Don't rush to conclusions." (Exhibit 4) Chris Wolf's photograph was then displayed on national television as Mr. Ramsey spoke these words. John Ramsey made this statement intentionally, maliciously, and with a reckless disregard for its truth, with the express purpose of directing attention to Chris Wolf as the murderer of his daughter. 28. These statements by John and Patsy Ramsey, made in their book and in the media, along with the investigative reports prepared by their private detectives, are meant to suggest and to create, both in the minds of the general public and in the minds of the Boulder authorities, a deliberate, cumulative, and false impression that the plaintiff Chris Wolf is the murderer of JonBenet Ramsey. As a result of these statements, the plaintiff has been the subject of heightened, unwelcome, and unflattering media scrutiny. By way of example, a recent television movie produced and directed by journalist Lawrence Schiller entitled Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, and the book on which it was based, both portray the plaintiff as a potentially violent and unstable murder suspect. In another example, the Boulder Weekly (4/13/00) published a front-page story called: John Ramsey's Prime Suspect: Boulder Weekly Probes the Complicated Life of Chris Wolf. (Exhibit 5) 29. "But for" the elaborate attempt by Patsy Ramsey and her husband to avoid the consequences of Mrs. Ramsey killing her daughter, there would have been no "unsolved" murder, and, therefore, by definition, no need for an intrusive police investigation, news stories or unwelcome media attention. John and Patsy are directly and proximately the cause of the harm created to the plaintiff, and solely responsible for the need for an investigation into the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. It was entirely foreseeable that their conduct in covering up Patsy's killing of her daughter would result in an intrusive police investigation and massive media attention. The defendants have stated repeatedly on television and in newspaper interviews that their sole motivation for writing their book and for publicly speaking out is to find the killer of their daughter and to see that the police investigation does not cease into the whereabouts of the murderer. AS AND FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PATSY RAMSEY FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT 30. Incorporating all of the allegations in paragraphs one through twenty-nine, the plaintiff Chris Wolf alleges that the defendant Patsy Ramsey, in an attempt to cover up the brutal murder and sexual assault of her daughter JonBenet Ramsey, willfully, intentionally, and maliciously, and with a reckless disregard for the truth, has made and continues to make statements to the police, district attorney, and to the public at large, through the reports of private investigators, news conferences, press releases, magazine and television interviews, and a book which she co-authored with the defendant John Ramsey titled The Death of Innocence, intended to create a deliberate, cumulative and false impression that the plaintiff Chris Wolf brutally murdered her six-year-old daughter, JonBenet Ramsey, after sexually assaulting her. The defendant Patsy Ramsey, knowing her statements to be false, knew her conduct was certain, or substantially certain, to cause extreme and severe emotional distress in the plaintiff, and, as a result, she has caused Chris Wolf to experience extreme humiliation, embarrassment and emotional distress by making him the unwanted focus of law enforcement authorities and the general public as a murder suspect in a horrific and brutal death of a little girl. Because of Patsy Ramsey's conduct, which is so extreme, outrageous and shocking that it is intolerable and goes beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized society, the plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer deep and severe emotional pain as the result of being shunned, hated, ridiculed and held in contempt by members of his community, who now think of him as being accused of the brutal murder of a six-year-old girl. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the defendant Patsy Ramsey, the plaintiff has suffered great mental and physical anguish in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000.00). The plaintiff Chris Wolf is entitled to an award of punitive damages from the defendant Patsy Ramsey in order to punish, penalize and deter the defendant from continuing to repeat her unlawful conduct in the amount of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00). AS AND FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST JOHN RAMSEY FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT 31. Incorporating all of the allegations in paragraphs one through twenty-nine, the plaintiff Chris Wolf alleges that the defendant John Ramsey, in an attempt to help his wife Patsy Ramsey cover up her brutal murder and her sexual assault of his daughter, JonBenet Ramsey, willfully, intentionally and maliciously, and with a reckless disregard for the truth, made and continues to make statements to the Boulder, Colorado police, district attorney, and to the public at large, through the reports of private investigators, news conferences, press releases, magazine and television interviews, and a book which he co-authored titled The Death of Innocence, intended to create a deliberate, cumulative and false impression that the plaintiff Chris Wolf brutally murdered his six-year-old daughter, JonBenet Ramsey, after the plaintiff sexually assaulted her. The defendant John Ramsey, knowing his wife's statements to be false, repeated her statements, knowing his conduct, and hers, was certain, or substantially certain, to cause extreme and severe emotional distress in the plaintiff, and, as a result, he has caused Chris Wolf to experience extreme humiliation, embarrassment and emotional distress by making him the unwanted focus of law enforcement authorities and the general public as a murder suspect in a horrific and brutal death of a little girl. Because of John Ramsey's conduct, which is so extreme, outrageous and shocking that it is intolerable and goes beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized society, the plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer deep and severe emotional pain as the result of being shunned, hated, ridiculed and held in contempt by members of his community, who now think of him as a police suspect accused of the brutal murder of a six-year-old girl. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the defendant John Ramsey, the plaintiff has suffered great mental and physical anguish in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000.00). The plaintiff Chris Wolf is entitled to an award of punitive damages from the defendant John Ramsey in order to punish, penalized and deter the defendant from continuing to repeat his unlawful conduct in the amount of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00). WHEREFORE, plaintiff Chris Wolf prays for the following relief: That judgment be entered against defendant Patsy Ramsey for general damages in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000.00); That judgment be entered against defendant John Ramsey for general damages in the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000.00); That judgment be entered against defendant Patsy Ramsey for punitive damages in the amount of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00). That judgment be entered against defendant John Ramsey for punitive damages in the amount of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00). That all costs of this action be assessed against the defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all the issues so triable. Dated: May 9, 2000 Respectfully submitted, _________________________ EVAN M. ALTMAN Georgia Bar No. 014066 Suite 495 5901-C Peachtree Dunwoody Road Atlants, Georgia 30328 DARNAY HOFFMAN PRO HAC VICE (Petition pending) Law Offices of Darnay Hoffman 210 West 70th Street, Suite 209 New York, NY 10023 [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "EEEEEEEHHAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW" Posted by Bobby on 16:53:34 5/11/2000 Thankyou , Thankyou, thankyou ! ! ! ! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Happy, happy, happy day!!!" Posted by mary99 on 17:44:23 5/11/2000 Well written, NYL, may you prevail and may the truth come out!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Enlighten me--does this mean" Posted by fiddler on 18:10:32 5/11/2000 they were actually served? And, apparently, NYL, you found a Georgia lawyer to go in with you? Man, what a circus. I hope you don't fall off the trapeze, NYL. Please tell Chris Wood he has my sympathy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Whoa" Posted by Lacey on 18:19:07 5/11/2000 Cool. . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "I say....." Posted by LabMom on 18:20:05 5/11/2000 YES! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Hey fiddler" Posted by docg on 18:20:48 5/11/2000 Love your post, which I assume is *intentionally* amusingly ambiguous!? Darnay is NOT as much of a fool as this document might make him seem. He has a plan, no doubt about it. Should I tell them, Darnay? Or should we let them figure it out for themselves? LOL DocG [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Hey Lacey!" Posted by docg on 18:24:13 5/11/2000 THERE you are! You SURE you want Darnay to sue the Ramseys on the basis of Lacey/Thomas? No doubts atall??? You sound excited!!!! Any special reason? :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Suing sing along..." Posted by Greenleaf on 18:53:56 5/11/2000 Suing in the morning, suing in the evening, suing at supper time Gotta get that Woodpecker suer to sue some friends of mine Ain't no use knowing that they are all just fine Gotta get that Suer to scrape me up some slime Oh, suing in the morning, suing in the evening, suing at supper time Throw me out some suet so I can keep those pigs in line Ain't no use telling that the Rams committed a crime Gotta get me a new Suer to sue their butts this time Greenleaf p.s. Up until a few min. ago, I have not been able to post. Don't know why. Maybe the Rams have been practicing voodoo on me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "WOW!" Posted by Morgan on 18:31:50 5/11/2000 That's a bitch slap and a half! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "WoW!" Posted by Ribaldone on 18:48:15 5/11/2000 Seeing everything spelled out in a legal document sent chills down my spine. Thank you!!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "DocG" Posted by momo on 18:38:07 5/11/2000 you better tell us what you know!!!! NOW!!!! lol I am serious. What is the plan???? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Gosh ,NYL" Posted by momo on 18:35:50 5/11/2000 I didn't know you could put all that in there. Wow, did I count $50,000,000? You are one brave man. Good Luck! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "High Five, Darnay" Posted by Seashell on 18:59:51 5/11/2000 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all the issues so triable. I think this is what docg meant, right, docg? Darnay, you fox you!! :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Well Done Counselor!" Posted by Paralegal on 18:57:51 5/11/2000 Wonder if this could be parlayed into a class action suit. . .many have suffered intentional infliction as a result of this. My kudos and encouragement to pursue this to trial and get those Rams on the stand! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Paralegal ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Wooo Hooooooo!" Posted by greenbean on 19:28:31 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:28:31, 5/11/2000 I'd love to hop on the IRT down to your office and shake your hand!!! APPLAUSE!!! and best wishes and luck to a brave, fellow New Yorker!!!!! Can you hear me 'cross town? Forget Giuliani, THIS is NEWS!!!!! greenbean :::edited to correctly spell Giuliani (Bronx cheer}::: [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Darnay's Plan" Posted by docg on 19:27:28 5/11/2000 OK, I can't hold out any longer than what is it 10 minutes at a time? Darnay's plan, which he himself may not realize yet what he's doing, is NOT to actually sue the Ramseys on behalf of this "client" of his. He may THINK that's his plan. But no! Because this law suit is so clearlyl frivolous it will not even make it as far as the judge's clerk's secretary's niece. For one thing, the Ramseys haven't even been indicted for the crimes he's alleging. And for another, simply fingering someone as a suspect is NOT something you can be sued for. If the Ramseys collaborated with one of the Tabs to concoct some outrageous journalistic hatchet job on the guy, that would be a different story. They did NOT. So no! THAT is not Darnay's plan. Darnay's plan is to . . . But if I tell you what it is, then it might not work! Do you REALLY want me to give it away??? DO you???? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "DocG" Posted by greenbean on 19:31:41 5/11/2000 No, we don't. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "docg" Posted by v_p on 19:33:33 5/11/2000 >>But if I tell you what it is, then it might not work! Do you REALLY want me to give it away??? DO you????<< Yes, please. :o) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Docg" Posted by momo on 19:43:24 5/11/2000 you big tease! Come on! Don't make me have to reach in my computer and ring your neck! Oh, sorry, hope I don't sound too Patsy!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "HI FIVE. DARNAY>>" Posted by ayelean on 19:29:14 5/11/2000 Way to go. Just let Woody try to convince anyone that this one is frivolous but his are not! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "NY Lawyer" Posted by sabrina on 20:02:48 5/11/2000 I want to know what beer can recycling place you found John to serve him, and what hot dog stand Patsy frequents.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Interesting move Darnay" Posted by SJ on 20:05:53 5/11/2000 I hope you prevail and the outcome is justice for JonBenet. I really like your complaint. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Way to GO!!!" Posted by chebrock on 20:03:50 5/11/2000 This is great! I especially like #29. She caused it all by her original actions. Way to go! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Darnay" Posted by Ribaldone on 20:17:44 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:17:44, 5/11/2000 have they been served? If so, when. Edited to say: Do they get served? Or do you just file it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "NYL..." Posted by shadow on 20:26:28 5/11/2000 LOL!!!!!!!! I mean if the Ramseys are suing everyone in sight, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, I've been told... shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "By popular request . . . " Posted by docg on 20:31:02 5/11/2000 I've decided to give away Darnay's "secret" plan. Darnay does not really believe his lawsuit will go anywhere but out the window. So why is he doing this? Because, well, is the guy stupid or what? No. (Not really.) (At least possibly not.) His plan is to be SO outrageous -- give the Ramseys SO much grief, give Linn Wood so much aggravation, get them all SO worked up, that they will NOT be able to control themselves and in spite of everything, flying in the face of their own self interest, even despite all the darkest direst warnings, even despite this very post, which is giving away Darnay's extremely clever, devious, plan, they will actually be so reckless as to sue DARNAY!!!! And when THAT happens . . . Well, when THAT happens . . . Uh. Darnay. You there? When THAT happens, if Darnay is smart (which possibly he actually might be, maybe just a little?) he'll hire DocG as a consultant. If only to help him figure out what to do next. ('Cause Patsy-did-it will NOT cut it, folks.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Docg " Posted by momo on 21:24:53 5/11/2000 I thought the lawsuit seemed a little out there. But I guess I didn't want to insult an attorney. I believe that Patsy was the main perp. But it was just so graphic a depiction in the printed lawsuit, that it through me for a loop. Darnay Hoffman as well as Steve Thomas have a "method to their madness" so to speak. They know what they are doing. I think we might all be thoroughly impressed with the results of their labors. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Darney~" Posted by Aurora on 20:24:06 5/11/2000 Out of the darkness...you shall...shine more ...light! It is about time the tables were turned on the Ram's. Let some justice be served to them! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Is this for real?" Posted by starry on 20:45:34 5/11/2000 I mean, really real? I gotta run over the slimey snake pit and see hir doing hir taz act. I wanna be the first one to tell WY in the morning. Good luck NYL. You've got brass balls. NY style. :0) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Aside from all the frivolity" Posted by Gemini on 22:04:07 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:04:07, 5/11/2000 If Mr. Hoffman should be ... aahh ... shall we say ... less than successful in winning this suit for his pawn ... er ... I mean, client, what's the worst case scenario Chris Wolfe should anticipate (aside from the libility of court costs)? Wolfe may, indeed, deserve some sympathy. (crap! my keyboarding sucks tonight! 'scuse the double edit) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Well?" Posted by darby on 22:01:16 5/11/2000 What happens next? Does Chris Wolfe automatically get a trial by jury just because he demands one? Can the Ramseys ignore the lawsuit? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Lawsuit Consequences" Posted by Tedleg on 22:02:24 5/11/2000 One of the consequences of this lawsuit, and its fairly detailed complaint, is that it provides cover from the derivative lawsuits that the Ramseys have been filing. The Ramseys have been suing the tabs and others because they merely repeated the alleged libels and slanders of 3d parties who cannot realistically be sued. Court pleadings are, however, "privileged" from libel suits in most of the jurisdictions about which I am aware. That means the tabs and others can simply refer to this complaint as the source of their allegations and they are probably protected from suit. Here's a suggestion that might benefit a friend of the case. . . .If Darnay and company would amend their complaint and list Steve Thomas's book as an attached exhibit, they may provide him a good defense to any libel suit because the contents of his book would be protected by the same privilege that protects their complaint. In effect, the Ramseys could not claim any damages from Thomas's book because the contents of that book have been "published" in a privileged forum. I haven't researched this, but if any of you have an inside track to Hoffman, you might ask him to look into this. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Heh heh" Posted by MrsBrady on 03:04:05 5/12/2000 Starry: "I gotta run over the slimey snake pit and see hir doing hir taz act." Love the image! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Starry" Posted by Bobby on 05:16:04 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 05:16:04, 5/12/2000 Okay I'll admit it I am really slow. How do I find hir's slimy snake pit? Thanks. Edited to fix typos and ask are you still up nights now? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Bobby" Posted by Watching you on 05:33:05 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 05:33:05, 5/12/2000 I could take you there, but I don't think Chris wants that fruitloop's URL here. You might do a search for sites on JonBenet Ramsey. Jameson's website is most likely in there somewhere. I have it bookmarked on my computer so I can hop over there now and then to watch the newest meltdown. So, DocG, do you think they will bite? You know how they seem to want to have the last word on everything. I see a lot of possibilities here, it should get interesting. I mean, did you ever in your life see anything so confounded convoluted? Everyone is sueing everyone, it's like the whole world has gone crazy. It tickles me that Hoffman is so ballsy (that's a good thing, NYL), I like it when you sock it to the Rams - I think you should consider what Tedleg said about including Thomas' book, too, although I wonder if it is a little after the fact. This suit has satisfied somewhat the little perverted place in me that wants to see the Ramseys get it shoved up their behinds as far as "it" will go. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "All The Way With Darnay! & LOL Morgan" Posted by Cassandra on 05:36:33 5/12/2000 Wishing you great success! Please tell us about the service! Morgan: "A bitch slap and a half!" LOL Well put! Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Gem, Tedleg, Bobby" Posted by fly on 08:21:35 5/12/2000 Tedleg - Interesting concept. Protection might be retroactive? Gem - LOL, and very apt. Bobby - Polzin's JBR site is a treasure trove of URL's for everything JonBenet. You're looking for the JonBenet forum listed on his page. http://www.execpc.com/~kopolzin/jbramsey.html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "It's possible to" Posted by Ruthee on 08:19:03 5/12/2000 Amend the complaint to add exhibits or to id any Jane or John Doe, it's also possible to include additional alligations. The named parties just have to be served with a copy of the amended action. I'd like to add this. Docg, you're right, Patsy Ramsey had not been charged with anything. It has been mentioned to the general public via the media that she was the "target" of a grand jury investigation. It's not a far stretch to suggest that since she and John were targets of a murder investigation, that they would attempt to knowingly and falsy accuse a person of the murder that they knew to be not involved in any aspect of the circumstances being investigated by the Grand Jury. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Ah, NYL..." Posted by Jellyjaws on 09:01:18 5/12/2000 whatever your so-called secret plan (or sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!), I'm rooting for you 100%. These developments have all the makings of the, "Shootout at the OK Corral." I plan to get a BIG bucket of popcorn, pull up to the rail and watch the fireworks. Thank you NYL. You're giving us an education in civil litigation. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Hi, docg! Are you really" Posted by fiddler on 08:55:35 5/12/2000 privy to Darnay's "secret" plan, or is the above just speculation? What struck me about the complaint is how vehemently and specifically over-the-top it is. It seems to me that Wolf's case for libel could be brought without specifying any other perp (after all, the point is that Wolf has cooperated with and been cleared by police, yet he continues to be accused by the Ramseys, right?)--let alone going after Patsy so dramatically. So I thought there must be some kind of weird, twisted legal reason for doing things this way. Maybe Tedleg is onto something. As for "ambiguity"--well, I'm ambiguous about that :) I do sympathize with Wolf because I think his life has been substantially, and senselessly, damaged by the Ramseys. I also sympathize because almost any court proceeding is a battle which can be as hard on the plaintiff as the defendant. Especially when the plaintiff doesn't have a lot of money or power and this kind of stuff isn't "business as usual" for him. I hope I don't have to sympathize with Wolf because of Darnay's tactics backfiring--I really hope the whole thing ISN'T thrown out. I think the guy really does have a valid complaint, and it isn't right to use his earnestness just as a battle tactic (unless, of course, Wolf agreed to that). So, NYL....what's your secret plan? You're just going to tell us to wait and see and then periodically drop tantalizing hints, right? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Fly" Posted by Tedleg on 08:53:18 5/12/2000 What I'm suggesting in my earlier post wouldn't really be a "retroactive" protection for Thomas's book from a liability standpoint. What I am suggesting is that it may be hard for the Ramseys to prove much damages. Even if we assume that the book was libelous, the fact that it is later incorporated into a privileged document would allow Thomas to argue that the Ramseys have sufferred no real damages because the book was later disseminated in a forum where damages are imposible to obtain. It's a bit of a stretch, but it would give the Ramsey lawyers something to think about rather than filing countless law suits. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Tedleg" Posted by fly on 09:08:20 5/12/2000 I see what you're saying. Clever. Is there a down side? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "My first thought" Posted by JR on 10:41:50 5/12/2000 Is that the Ramsey's must now sue DH because if they don't IMHO they can't sue Thomas or anyone else in their own behalf. If the Ramsey's don't sue DH then all the other people on their "long list" can question why not (bias?) - why are they being targeted for statements which are not so clearly and cleanly libelous? In either case, if this goes to court or the Ramsey's now sue DH he will have the right to question them and one would hope he "rips them a new one" on the witness stand. On the other hand - maybe this will force the lie detector issue if the Ramsey's really believe they can pass one. Great plan and good luck DH/NYL! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "V I C T O R Y!" Posted by Edie Pratt on 10:43:58 5/12/2000 DHNYL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Thanks Fly & WY" Posted by Bobby on 11:13:17 5/12/2000 Someday when it's a little slow I will check out LH Forum-sounds wild. For now keeping up with you guys is the best I can aspire to. Hi Greenie great song. :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Edie Pratt, LOL!!!" Posted by fiddler on 15:23:15 5/12/2000 I'm having a bumper sticker printed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Read #29--Think of Burke " Posted by darby on 17:16:39 5/12/2000 "29. "But for" the elaborate attempt by Patsy Ramsey and her husband to avoid the consequences of Mrs. Ramsey killing her daughter, there would have been no "unsolved" murder, and, therefore, by definition, no need for an intrusive police investigation, news stories or unwelcome media attention. John and Patsy are directly and proximately the cause of the harm created to the plaintiff, and solely responsible for the need for an investigation into the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. It was entirely foreseeable that their conduct in covering up Patsy's killing of her daughter would result in an intrusive police investigation and massive media attention. The defendants have stated repeatedly on television and in newspaper interviews that their sole motivation for writing their book and for publicly speaking out is to find the killer of their daughter and to see that the police investigation does not cease into the whereabouts of the murderer." Reading #29, I also thought of others who have been unjustly accused in this case. Burke Ramsey immediately came to mind. This says exactly what I have been trying to put into words concerning the Ramseys' recent lawsuits on behalf of their son, Burke. This is why I take issue with these two particular people benefiting from any lawsuit concerning Burke. Re-read the first sentence above, and tell me, WHY SHOULD THE RAMSEYS BE ABLE TO PURSUE SUCH A LAWSUIT? Then read the rest. John and Patsy Ramsey, of all people know that the tabs would never have said that Burke was the killer had his parents admitted that one of THEM killed his sister. Don't get me wrong. I think it's reprehensible that any publication would make such a false claim about any private person, and especially a child. My point is that the ultimate responsibility for the unfortunate speculation about Burke rests solely with the very people who are doing the suing! I'm actually wondering why the RAMSEYS couldn't be sued on Burke's behalf by some third party in a suit similar to that of Chris Wolf. Certain factors have been in play that have caused rampant speculation about Burke, and I believe that Burke's parents are absolutely to blame. Three people are known to have had complete opportunity to have committed the murder. Two of them have displayed a united front of public denial in a crime that was obviously an "inside job" (as John himself called it on 12/26/96). Because it's hard for some people to fathom that one parent would cover for the other, many have conjectured that Burke must have done it. Though John and Patsy certainly have never themselves said that Burke did it, the bottom line is that nobody else would have ever considered that possibility had the Ramseys either not committed the murder in the first place or promptly admitted that one of them did it. No doubt that the tabs should pay for what they did to Burke. But John and Patsy Ramsey should pay as well, for what THEY did to Burke. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Cripes!" Posted by Ginja on 17:48:04 5/12/2000 If this so-called Complaint bears any resemblance to the one filed in NY, it's no wonder it got thrown out of court! Never, in over 25 years of legal work, have I ever seen a complaint like this one! I've never seen a statement of the case written up in the complaint. I've never seen such detail that has nothing to do with the charge! Why in hell is all this background information and malicious allegations against the Ramseys doing in the complaint? What should have been filed with the court was a complaint against the Ramseys for defamation and slander against Wolfe. Instead, it's a wrongful death action against them masked as a slander suit. IOW, it's malicious and has no legal standing. Wood's gonna get that one thrown out of the Georgia court system as fast as he got it thrown out of the NY system. There's a way to file lawsuits. This isn't it!!! All Hoffman had to do was file a simple slander/defamation suit, enumerating the various counts as to how the Ramseys defamed and/or slandered Wolfe. If he had done that, he might have had a chance. What he's done is layed out this whole scheme of what he thinks happened to JonBenet...who killed her and how. Discovery may open in this case, but it won't get to trial, believe me! Hoffman's an idiot! How the hell does he propose to prove who killed JonBenet and how they did it? Besides, that's not the case...or supposed to be. The case is supposed to be about Wolfe and how the Ramseys damaged him. Hoffman's so stuffed with himself he's willing to screw his own clients! He is no hero...not to Wolfe, not to JonBenet, not to the internet or people who care. You might think so...but that's understandable as you don't have much experience with court systems. If you file a suit for slander, then dammit, that's what the suit's supposed to be. Instead, Hoffman's layed out this whole scheme that he HAS TO PROVE. What is he proving? Supposedly, slander, but not! Not with this complaint. This complaint is a wrongful death action disguised as something entirely different. Once the court catches on, with what I'm sure will be an excellent retort by Wood, this case will be thrown out. And so it goes on and on and on. Again, no justice for JonBenet. Lin Wood is really going to be pushed up the ladder with this joke of a suit. And he's going to be laughing all the way to the bank. Count on it! I can't believe this guy (Hoffman) not only made it through law school, but studied under Scheck! He obviously didn't pay attention in his ethics class! O woe is me! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Ginja" Posted by JR on 18:00:44 5/12/2000 Try reading DocG's post/s. Some of us think there is an ulterior motive to this suit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Hoffman" Posted by lake on 17:56:17 5/12/2000 Is a flea on show horses ass. He will be swatted soon enough by a judge. I wonder who the moron in Atlanta is that Hoffman got to join his flea circus? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]