Justice Watch Discussion Board "Ramseys are SUED! (2)" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Ramseys are SUED! (2), Ginja, 05:53:28, 5/14/2000 DARBY: "My Problem", Ginja, 05:55:39, 5/14/2000, (#1) BUSDRIVER: "Ginja", Ginja, 05:58:07, 5/14/2000, (#2) SDEAN1: "So Darnay", Ginja, 05:59:26, 5/14/2000, (#3) TEDLEG: "More Stuff About the Lawsuit", Ginja, 06:02:01, 5/14/2000, (#4) COMMONSENSE: "Complaint States Cause of Action:, Ginja, 06:03:49, 5/14/2000, (#5) TEDLEG: "But, CommonSense", Ginja, 06:05:31, 5/14/2000, (#6) FIDDLER: "Tedleg and CommonSense--", Ginja, 06:07:04, 5/14/2000, (#7) Wouldn't the Ramseys, Househazard, 06:24:35, 5/14/2000, (#8) NYL, sabrina, 06:57:48, 5/14/2000, (#9) Falwell v. Flynt, and comments on Notice Pleadings, CommonSense, 07:15:14, 5/14/2000, (#10) Disrespect, docg, 07:47:23, 5/14/2000, (#11) Hurts more than Helps, Ginja, 08:32:41, 5/14/2000, (#12) Actually..., Ginja, 08:36:34, 5/14/2000, (#13) A sheep in Wolfe's clothing (?), JR, 09:45:27, 5/14/2000, (#14) My Fellow Americans..., JR, 09:54:52, 5/14/2000, (#15) Answers, New York Lawyer, 12:01:27, 5/14/2000, (#17) Am I Missing Something?, Paralegal, 11:55:25, 5/14/2000, (#16) Paralegal, Ginja, 15:14:52, 5/14/2000, (#25) You're right, Paralegal, but, New York Lawyer, 12:33:40, 5/14/2000, (#19) I Trust Your Judgment Darnay,, Paralegal, 12:51:24, 5/14/2000, (#21) Furthermore, Paralegal, 12:06:51, 5/14/2000, (#18) Yes, but Paralegal..., Ginja, 16:47:23, 5/14/2000, (#27) Out In the Open, Paralegal, 17:13:51, 5/14/2000, (#29) Right you are Paralegal, and, New York Lawyer, 12:35:39, 5/14/2000, (#20) So True Darnay, Paralegal, 12:54:30, 5/14/2000, (#22) Trust, Aurora, 14:13:33, 5/14/2000, (#23) You're so clever, Darnay, Ginja, 14:47:44, 5/14/2000, (#24) Who Paralegal Works For, Paralegal, 15:36:46, 5/14/2000, (#26) NYL- were they actually served?, sabrina, 17:05:02, 5/14/2000, (#28) Service of Process, Paralegal, 17:33:04, 5/14/2000, (#31) Well, lake, 17:31:23, 5/14/2000, (#30) ................................................................... "Ramseys are SUED! (2)" Posted by Ginja on 05:53:28 5/14/2000 I'm carrying over the last few pertinent posts from the first thread. I'm also going to post them individually in the hopes it'll shorten the loading time. Our Legal Beagles were posting into the wee hours last night and with 76 posts in that thread, I didn't want our webbies to miss out on the writings of posters who know or understand the law. If you ask me, Hoffman should have passed this 'complaint' by us BEFORE he filed! :-) [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "DARBY: "My Problem"" Posted by Ginja on 05:55:39 5/14/2000 Posted by darby on 23:14:26 5/12/2000 ...is that I know nothing about the law. (Others on the forum may also be in this boat.) Plus, I can't tell whether NYL is just playing a game to get the Ramseys to sue him, as docg postulated (I think that's what he postulated). So I'm basically in a wait-and-see mode. It does seem odd that in his suit, Hoffman says that Patsy Ramsey killed JBR--when currently nocharges have been filed against her or anyone else. In theory, I agree that murderers should not be accusing others of doing the deed when the murderers KNOW that nobody else did it. But even if Patsy Ramsey did it, the truth is that in the eyes of the law at this point in time, she did NOT do it. Questions: In a murder case, is it wrong for an INNOCENT public figure to publicly speculate aboutprivate figures as possible suspects? Is there a difference between the Ramseys pointing a finger at Chris Wolf and the Globe saying that Burke did it? I'm asking because I just don't know, (You who do, don't pounce on me just cuz I'm ignorant, pleeze.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "BUSDRIVER: "Ginja"" Posted by Ginja on 05:58:07 5/14/2000 Posted by BusDriver on 08:15:53 5/13/2000 Like others on the forum, my legal knowledge is limited. So, the possible insufficiency of Darnay's pleading was not obvious to me. Yet, I must admit that it doesn't look like any other pleading that I have seen. It seems to me that what Darnay is trying to do is to create a Ramsey murder trial in the civil court. When OJ was acquitted, there was a civil trial in which OJ lost and many felt that some very small part of justice had been served. I believe that this was a wrongful death suit. From my point of view, the problem is that neither Hoffman nor anyone else with motivation to bring a suit has standing to bring a wrongful death action. So, this intentional infliction of emotional distress suit is Hoffman's alternative choice. So, I guess that I agree that this is a wrongful death suit "in sheeps clothing." The beauty of the OJ civil case was that it brought the issues into court with a more forgiving standard of proof than was used in the criminal case. And, it helped many people get emotional closure on that case. Given that nobody seems to think that the Ramseys will ever be indicted, I can see why Darnay wants to take this kind of shot at them. The only ethical issue here for me is whether Chris Wolf is fully informed about what Hoffman is doing. Certainly, if Wolf was led to believe that this was the best way to recover money damages from the Ramseys, then Hoffman has not served him well. But, if Wolf is aware that this is a chancy attempt at "wrongful death by proxy," then, it doesn't bother me. I'm not bothered either by Hoffman pulling his Georgia pal into a weak pleading. So long as they can both avoid sanctions for bringing this suit, they probably will gain more from the publicity than they lose in "face." So, maybe this "wrongful death by proxy" suit is Hoffman just urinating into the wind. That's OK with me, so long as all the parties on his side know exactly what they are doing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "SDEAN1: "So Darnay"" Posted by Ginja on 05:59:26 5/14/2000 Posted by SDean1 on 15:52:23 5/13/2000 Just how long will it before the Ramseys must appear in court? Will they have to attend the firsthearing? Do you have a specific date in which all of you will be in court? I know this tread is long but it just keeps getting longer. ;) Sue [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "TEDLEG: "More Stuff About the Lawsuit"" Posted by Ginja on 06:02:01 5/14/2000 Posted by Tedleg on 21:12:37 5/13/2000 There are a couple of things about this suit that seem odd to me. First, this suit is not a suit for libel--it is a suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress. This is the same sort of suit Jerry Falwell filed against Hustler magazine when Hustler ran a parody ad that depicted Falwell as a drunk who had sex with his Mother. Falwell pursued an intentional infliction cause of action because he hoped to avoid the "public figure" rule that applies to libel suits. The "public figure" rule says that in order for a plaintiff who is a public figure to prevail in a libel suit, the plaintiff must show the publisher acted with "actual malice". Actual malice is a showing the publisher knowingly lied or recklessly disregarded the truth. Falwell wanted the more favorable negligence standard to apply. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled against Falwell--they said even if you style your suit as intentional infliction, the actual malice standard still applies. I've been trying to think of a reason Hoffman would file an intentional infliction suit as opposed to a libel suit. I haven't thought of anything yet. The second funny thing about this suit is that it is filed in Federal Court, not State Court. That means that Hoffman's suit must conform to the federal rules of civil procedure that call for "notice pleading." "Notice pleading" means you only allege the facts sufficient to notify the defendant of what the suit is about. Many states, on the other hand (I'm not sure if Georgia is one) allow "fact pleading". Those states arguably allow you to allege all the detail Hoffman does in this omplaint. My guess is this complaint will be dismissed for failure to conform to the notice pleading rules. Hoffman will almost certainly be allowed to file an amended complaint that is in conformity with the federal rules. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "COMMONSENSE: "Complaint States Cause of Action:" Posted by Ginja on 06:03:49 5/14/2000 Posted by CommonSense on 21:24:45 5/13/2000 Notice pleading doesn't mean that you aren't by law allowed to plead more than what puts the other party on notice. Notice pleading means that you don't have to say more than what is required to put the other party on notice. The Complaint does state the basic elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the standard of what will be "beyond the bounds of human decency" is a very tough one. I personally think that if what the Complaint says is true - Patsy killed JonBenet and then tried to get the public to believe that Chris Wolfe did it - then the standard is met. However, the cases are tough on Plaintiffs. I think one of the hardest things for the Plaintiff to show here is that it was the Ramseys who fingered Chris. I think that the evidence will show that the girlfriend is the one who put him out there to police. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "TEDLEG: "But, CommonSense"" Posted by Ginja on 06:05:31 5/14/2000 Posted by Tedleg on 22:36:19 5/13/2000 Notice pleading does not allow a plaintiff to lard up their complaint with allegations that areirrelevant or immaterial to the cause of action they are pleading. When that happens, courts can either strike the offending portions of the complaint or dismiss the complaint entirely. See e.g., Salahuddi v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1988). The Ramseys, I think, will obviously move to have all of Hoffman's murder stuff stricken from the complaint. They'll argue they are entitled to that because: (1) it's really not legally relevant to an intentional infliction cause of action; and (2)therefore probably won't be admitted at trial, and (3) therefore shouldn't be included in the complaint that the jury will read. My guess is, Hoffman probably realized that he's probably not going to get this murder stuff in at trial and hoped that if he threw it in the complaint, he'd get to prove t. I bet it doesn't happen. I bet it gets stricken. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "FIDDLER: "Tedleg and CommonSense--"" Posted by Ginja on 06:07:04 5/14/2000 Posted by fiddler on 05:13:43 5/14/2000 The whole thing seemed pretty over-the-top to me too, but I'm not a lawyer, so it's interesting to hear this stuff. However, in order to prove "reckless disregard for the truth", isn't it necessary to show that the Ramseys DO know who killed JBR, and that it isn't Wolfe? I mean, Wolfe obviously WAS in fact a suspect at one point--so is it enough that the police cleared him to establish the "truth" that he is innocent? Second, how much is the substance of someone's complaint based on the "facts of the case" the plaintiff's attorney alleges? To some degree, obviously, but isn't that what the discovery process is for--to see what substance a case actually has? Lin Wood would dispute WHATEVER Hoffman stated, wouldn't he? So what difference does it make if NYL throws in the kitchen sink? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Wouldn't the Ramseys" Posted by Househazard on 06:24:35 5/14/2000 have had to say something like "Chris Wolfe was cleared by police, but we think he did it and our investigators are looking further into this matter" or something like that. Even when John says that when the police got a hold of Wolfe he thought this is him. This is the one; those are his feelings at that time. It's misfortunate that Wolfe got caught up in all of this, but he did nonetheless and I would think that statements about his involvement (cleared) would still be allowed to be made because it IS part of the whole story so far. I don't know how Hoffman plans on getting his "Patsy did it" theory in. How much revelance does it have to the case? Hoffman is not stupid, he must be up to something else. HMMMMMmmmmm. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "NYL" Posted by sabrina on 06:57:48 5/14/2000 Can you explain to us why this suit was filed this way and not a simple libel suit? AND were they actually served? Why was the case dismissed in NY? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Falwell v. Flynt, and comments on Notice Pleadings" Posted by CommonSense on 07:15:14 5/14/2000 DIDN'T SEE THE NEW THREAD: REPOST FROM . . . No. 86-1278 Jerry Falwell v. Hustler and Larry Flynt SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 485 U.S. 46 Argued December 2, 1987 Decided February 24, 1988 Syllabus Respondent, a nationally known minister and commentator on politics and public affairs, filed a diversity action in Federal District Court against petitioners, a nationally circulated magazine and its publisher, to recover damages for, inter alia, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the publication of an advertisement "parody" which, among other things, portrayed respondent as having engaged in a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The jury found against respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts . . . or events," but ruled in his favor on the emotional distress claim, stating that he should be awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioners' contention that the "actual malice" standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, must be met before respondent can recover for emotional distress. Rejecting as irrelevant the contention that, because the jury found that the parody did not describe actual facts, the ad was an opinion protected by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the court ruled that the issue was whether the ad's publication was sufficiently outrageous to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress. Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a "public figure" for First Amendment purposes, and the lower courts' finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be accepted. "Outrageousness" [47] in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here. Pp. 50-57. . . . . As to Notice Pleadings - So what - the Ramseys complain that the facts are too long in the pleadings. I doubt that the judge will give a hoot. Most district judges (Georgia isn't in the 2nd Cir.) don't like any motion regarding the pleadings. But let's say that the judge says, you're right Ramseys, the pleadings are too long - well, they'll just get a chance to draft it in a more vague fashion. Complaints aren't thrown out because pleadings are too long. The Plaintiff is always given an opportunity to amend. Hoffman doesn't care about that. He and Chris Wolfe just wanted that stuff in for the initial shock value and hoping that as absolutely privileged, material in a lawsuit is privileged, that writers all over the country would print it again and again and again. Also, intentional infiction of emotional distress is hard to show. I would argue that in order to put the Plaintiff's on notice for this particular tort, that the Complaint must be fact specific or the cause of action is not made out. Only when you know the details of what Patsy did is the tort shown to be "beyond all bounds of human decency." Why not a simple libel case or a combination libel and intentional inflection of emotional distress claim? I'm not sue why Hoffman did this. Perhaps Hoffman was thinking that the RAmseys can defeat a libel claim by merely saying these are out opinions and they are protected free speach. On the other hand, that is not usually the focus in an intentional infliction case. However, I think that the Falwell/Flynt case shows that free speech can still be used as an affirmative defense. Obvsiously, there are some huge differences between the FAlwell case and here. In Falwell's case, the material was never meant to be accepted as true. It was a political satire. Here, the Ramseys really wanted the reader to think that Chris Wolfe committed this crime. There is nothing "political" about it. Also, while the subject of the parody, FAlwell, was a public figure, Chris Wolfe is not a public figure for purposes of a libel claim. Also, the defendant in the Falwell claim (Hustler and Flynt) were putting out a magazine - a media defendant. The RAmseys are not media defendants for purposes of the lawsuit. So why did Hoffman choose this route? I'm not exactly sure. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Disrespect" Posted by docg on 07:47:23 5/14/2000 As Ginja sed, Darnay should have run this by us-all before actually filing it in a real court with real judges in it. I for one definitely feel dissed!!! Whats the matter Mr. Noo Yawhk Lawyer, what are we a bunch of hicks, or what? We coulda TOLD ya this thing wouldn't fly! Now you've gone and spent what, $118.00? filing the thing and they're gonna toss it in the nearest dumpster. And one more thing. Watch out because sometimes we DO get what we wish for and what then? Suppose your dream comes true, you DO get on the stand and you ARE given the opportunity to prove Patsy dunnit? Think! How you gonna do that? Her pad and pen? Her paintbrush? Anyone in that house would have had access to those things. Her fibres sticking to an item that was probably lying around the house anyhow? An item that was found lying gum side down on a blanket that could already have had her fibres on it? Cina Wong says Patsy wrote the note? The Secret Service says she didn't! You and Steve Thomas and that Lacey person have NOTHING! Garbage! So, if your dream comes true and you ARE sued, Darnay, you WILL lose. Unless, of course, you bring in some of your pals here (who only want the best for you) as consultants. Before I take the job, however, I want to see an apology. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Hurts more than Helps" Posted by Ginja on 08:32:41 5/14/2000 Hoffman's not stupid? After reading his missive, aka "complaint", I'm not so sure! Between this thread and the first, he hasn't so much as 'defended' his actions...or at the very least, explained them. As far as I'm concerned, he's showboating. I loved Tedleg's comment about larding up the complaint! :-) As far as I know, the only person(s) who can bring a civil action for wrongful death is someone directly 'wronged' (for want of a better word) by that death. In other words, a parent, sibling or spouse of the victim. So if I'm not mistaken, there are only three people who could sue for the wrongful death of JonBenet: her father, her mother, her brother (and her step-siblings?). Hoffman isn't in that list, yet he persists in filing these missives in various courts and in various forms accusing the Rams of murder. As much as I hate to spit this out, he's opening himself up for a chitload of legal battles, none of them good, none of them winable. The Ramseys are, legally and constitutionally, innocent...until proven guilty. More than three years of intense scrutiny and investigation, together with an 18 month grand jury investigation that didn't indict, pretty much sows it up for them. Blame it all on whoever or whatever, the bottom line is no one can touch them for wrongful death until it's proven (even if only by a preponderance of the evidence) that they're guilty. And the only people who can do that don't include Hoffman. The last I heard, none of those people have asked him to file anything on their behalf. If anyone's being wronged here, it's Wolfe. Unless he's in on this 'publicity stunt'. That would be foolish, because if I'm not mistaken, Wolfe does have a cause of action against the Rams. Because, again if I'm not mistaken, the Rams have stated in their book and in their television appearances (can you believe that?! that Wolfe was a suspect for JonBenet's murder. It may have been his girlfriend who fingered him, but it was the Rams that continually pointed it out. And in every instance, they failed to mention Wolfe's been cleared. And because the Rams are public figures and he's not, he has cause, especially if it could be found that because of the attention the Rams brought to Wolfe, they turned him into a public figure...at least, that's what I would think. :-) CG, thanks for posting that opinion. Clearly, some of the reasoning based on public figure status would go to Wolfe's benefit. Likwise, it looks to me as though it would not rule in the Rams favor. I'd have to check out the Sullivan(?) case to be sure. It may explain why the Star suit was settled before discovery even began...for both litigants! Although I don't believe the Star published the Burke article with actual malice, one has to query how reasonable it was for the Star to believe (in good faith?) that such plea bargaining on Burke's behalf would/could even be taking place knowing they (actually) never would or could because of Burke's minor status. (Did I say that right? :-) ) DocG, why don't you tell us what's really on your mind? LOL You've got a way with words, my friend. I love it! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Actually..." Posted by Ginja on 08:36:34 5/14/2000 ...I think I goofed. An immediate family member can bring a wrongful death suit at any time, they don't need for it to have been proven in a criminal case ala OJ. Duh! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "A sheep in Wolfe's clothing (?)" Posted by JR on 09:45:27 5/14/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:31:51, 5/14/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:30:12, 5/14/2000 IMHO, DH has laid down the gauntlet for the Ramsey's to sue him for liable. If they don't sue we have to question why not since they are suing or threatening to sue a long list of people for the same thing. Hopefully, Chris Wolfe is aware that DH was intentionally baiting the Rameys and agreed. If Chris is aware then "no harm - no foul." Have we considered that maybe Chris isn't after financial gain but after justice for a little girl? Not everyone in the world has big dollar signs in their eyes (though I agree it is rare not to go after that kind of money if entitled.) In the meantime, if nothing else, DH is taking some of the profits from DOI out of the Ramsey pockets, unfortunately, he is putting them into Lin Woods pocket (at least for the time being.) Finally, one also hopes that DH can and will re-file this motion properly if supposition here is correct. I suspect that the Ramsey's will call foul and say the jury pool has been tainted because this hit the net. Any bets out there? Sorry, forgot to add edited to correct spacing which came out strange for some reason. Edited to say: I apologize - I posted this on thread 1 and have moved it here. Maybe Chris will delete it from thread 1. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "My Fellow Americans..." Posted by JR on 09:54:52 5/14/2000 Ginja wrote: As far as I know, the only person(s) who can bring a civil action for wrongful death is someone directly 'wronged' (for want of a better word) by that death. In other words, a parent, sibling or spouse of the victim. So if I'm not mistaken, there are only three people who could sue for the wrongful death of JonBenet: her father, her mother, her brother (and her step-siblings?). Lets see - Patsy was preparing JonBenet to be a future Miss America and hence, succeeding where she had failed. Can we not, as American's who have a "vested interest" in the pagent of all pagents sue for wrongful death of our future reigning Miss America? (No flames please -I am being factious.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Answers" Posted by New York Lawyer on 12:01:27 5/14/2000 Everyone should read the published decisions to the Stephen Miles v. National Enquirer & John Ramsey libel lawsuit brought by Lee Hill in Denver federal court before there is any more UNINFORMED speculation. OK? You can look the case decisions up in the Federal Supplement published by West Group. For those of you in law offices, it will take you ten minutes, tops. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Am I Missing Something?" Posted by Paralegal on 11:55:25 5/14/2000 You posters keep hammering this suit as a wrongful death claim and debating the validity of it. This suit is based in intentional infliction of emotional distress to Wolfe who was clearly named in the Rams book as a suspect despite their knowledge that he had long been cleared by BPD. The plaintiff's burden of proof is to emotional distress through damage proof, and the intentional infliction of it by defendants, which is clear. This is a no-brainer and as I said in my earlier post, extraneous allegations can be eliminated through amendment of the complaint by Darnay or summary judgment/directed verdict motions prior to trial. There is clearly standing on the legal issue this suit is based upon, and that again is intentional infliction of emotional distress to Wolfe. All else is moot at this point and the judge will only have to consider jurisdictional issues and likelihood of veracity of plaintiff's allegations. It's just that simple. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Paralegal ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Paralegal" Posted by Ginja on 15:14:52 5/14/2000 >You posters keep hammering this suit as >a wrongful death claim and debating >the validity of it. This suit >is based in intentional infliction of >emotional distress to Wolfe who was >clearly named in the Rams book >as a suspect despite their knowledge >that he had long been cleared >by BPD. Key words here, PL, are despite their knowledge that he had long been cleared. The reason we posters are all debating the validity of a wrongful death suit is because that's what your partner filed, a wrongful death suit! >The plaintiff's burden of >proof is to emotional distress through >damage proof, and the intentional infliction >of it by defendants, which is >clear. This is a no-brainer Clearly, PL, I, too, believe this is a no brainer. The damage proof is that the Ramseys maliciously maligned Wolfe numerous times in various public forums/medias as the murderer of their daughter. Wolfe doesn't need to prove, or try to prove, or show cause, or damage proof defendants as the murderers in order to prove his case. This isn't an "I didn't do it, they did" case! All Wolfe need show is that the Ramseys publicly declared him a murder suspect when they knew he had already been cleared of any suspicion. >as I said in my earlier >post, extraneous allegations can be eliminated >through amendment of the complaint by >Darnay or summary judgment/directed verdict motions >prior to trial. Extraneous allegations???!!! And that's why the courts are overwhelmed and backlogged, because of frivolous, malicious suits such as this! You're taking a chance when you misrepresent your claims simply to get noticed or be heard or otherwise work not for your client, but for publicity. This is misuse of the judicial process, especially when you go in with the attitude that you'll amend your complaint later. Do you think adverse counsel is stupid? What makes you think he won't file a motion to dismiss with his answer? What even makes you think Judge Deep South will even entertain (and that's what this is, entertainment!) this kind of misrepresentation from Attorney Pro Hac Vice of NY? >There is clearly >standing on the legal issue this >suit is based upon, and that >again is intentional infliction of emotional >distress to Wolfe. Again, I agree Wolfe has a cause of action. I believe he's suffered from intentional infliction of emotional distress. But it's not because the Ramseys are guilty of murder! It's because the Ramseys maliciously maligned plaintiff knowing he had been cleared of all suspicion and charges. >All else is >moot at this point and the >judge will only have to consider >jurisdictional issues and likelihood of veracity >of plaintiff's allegations. It's just that >simple. Jurisdictional issues is a valid point, I don't disagree. But considering the veracity of plaintiff's allegations? Hoffman will be lucky if he doesn't get sanctioned for this misrepresentation. It's just that simple. (BTW PL, I mean you no harm. This is simply lively discussion and debate) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "You're right, Paralegal, but" Posted by New York Lawyer on 12:33:40 5/14/2000 Specific damages don't have to be proved if you show "actual malice" i.e., willful, malicious, reckless conduct. The jury will award "general damages." Then the issue of punitive damages is decided. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "I Trust Your Judgment Darnay," Posted by Paralegal on 12:51:24 5/14/2000 you know your case better than I. I assumed it would be easier to prove damages due to emotional distress rather than actual malice. Thanks for the correction! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Paralegal ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Furthermore" Posted by Paralegal on 12:06:51 5/14/2000 don't be misled by the lack of indictments from the Grand Jury in CO. It is important to understand that everyone on the case in CO believes there is sufficient probable cause to charge the Rams (including AH et al although he refuses to do so) and that AH's agenda to convene a Grand Jury was never to indict but just merely to satisfy BPD with subpoena power. AH made it clear that the GJ's job, in his opinion, was NOT to indict and that if a "runaway" GJ should choose to, he always reserved his right to decline to file a true bill. So even if there had been indictments ready to go, AH had means to kill that too. A lack of indictment in this scenario means absolutely nothing-not that there is no viable case against the Rams, not that they have been cleared of suspicion, and not that the BPD ever got it's much needed subpoena power anyway. The only good thing about this event in the case was that it preserved the opportunity to prosecute for some later date by some greater advocate of justice than AH has proven to be. Steve Thomas has made it crystal clear that GA authorities have been eagerly participating in this case for quite awhile now, eager to prosecute and merely lacking jurisdictional power over it. If Darnay's case, or anyone else's for that matter, can accomplish change of venue to a truer one, more power to him and we should all applaud the effort! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Paralegal ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Yes, but Paralegal..." Posted by Ginja on 16:47:23 5/14/2000 >don't be misled by the lack of >indictments from the Grand Jury in >CO. It is important to understand >that everyone on the case in >CO believes there is sufficient probable >cause to charge the Rams (including >AH et al although he refuses >to do so) and that AH's >agenda to convene a Grand Jury >was never to indict but just >merely to satisfy BPD with subpoena >power. I understand and I'm not misled, PL. I think it's people like you, Hoffman and Thomas who may not understand what's going on here. Everyone knows a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich. The real question is whether or not you can convict that ham sandwich. This is not your typical case. Probable cause doesn't cut it here. This is not a dna case, it's all circumstantial. And although you might think there's plenty of circumstantial evidence on the side of justice, it's no match for the laws protecting the Ramseys. That's why this case is atypical where you need more than probable cause to make your case. If you go through the Colorado Revised Statutes, you will find that the Ramseys have the affirmative defense that if the State's going to charge them for murder or manslaughter or anything, the State must prove who did what. The law is specific. I've said it over and over, John didn't take hold of one end of the cord, and Patsy didn't take hold of the other, and together they pulled and strangled the last breath from the daughter. There's plenty of probable cause and there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to show that both John and Patsy Ramsey are responsible for the death of their daughter. But that's not the threshold that needs to be met in this case. You could do it in a civil court by way of a wrongful death suit. But as I've pointed out, and Hoffman's refused to confirm or correct, he can't bring such a suit. Only people who are directly affected by the loss of this child, i.e., immediate family, can bring a civil suit. Hell, don't you think that if anyone could bring a wrongful death suit, hundreds would have been filed by now? Getting back to the grand jury, yes, it was convened for it's subpoena power. Everything Thomas complained of not be able to get, was gotten by the gj, from records to reluctant testimony. But it still wasn't enough to cross the threshhold. For probable cause, sure. But what good would it be to take the two to trial when you know up front they'd be acquitted? Double jeopardy attaches and they walk. But what the hey, at least the public now knows the truth, they did kill their daughter. Sorry, but I want it all, PL! As far as I'm concerned, acquittal is not justice. Hell, we already know they killed her! What the hell's so great about letting the rest of the world in on this "secret"? So it doesn't bother me that Hunter decided to 'hold'. "Insufficient evidence at this time" is sweeter than "no indictment" or "acquitted". I don't know how long you've been in this business, PL...but I've been in it long enough to know that three years ain't nuthin'! These people are going to go down someday, in the criminal courts. Many don't believe that, but's it true and will happen. So much evidence has been uncovered since Thomas left, because of that grand jury. One by one, the checklist narrows everything down, not to mention the suspects themselves, out there blabbing away. They'll trip up; they are tripping up! I think it's pretty well established that this was an inside job, Burke didn't do it, and there is no intruder. The evidence is being retested and reevaluated in different ways. Thomas' theory has been debunked...even he admits you have to take a leap here and there. That's not good enough for a jury. Anyway, my point is that the focus and possibilities are being narrowed down to a workable, believable scenario of who did what that night. It's not been easy and there's no quick fix. >A lack of indictment in this >scenario means absolutely nothing- >The only good thing about this event in >the case was that it preserved >the opportunity to prosecute for some >later date by some greater advocate >of justice than AH has proven >to be. Again, I reserve judgment. But if I had to make a judgment call ;-) I would support the State for its determination that indictment at that time would surely mean an acquittal or hung jury. The burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who killed JBR. They have to prove who did it. Can you? What's your best guess, knowing what you know? You obviously believe you know enough, since you're so confident this case is a winner and Hunter's a loser for not going with it. Let the jurors decide, you say. You're a paralegal, haven't you ever worked on the instructions/rules checklist the jurors have to work to in their deliberations? If the State can't show those jurors who did what -- and especially in this case, why (I know the State doesn't have to show motive, but in a circumstantial case, jurors are going to want one and wonder why if there's none) -- then those jurors can't just vote guilty because they "know in their hearts or guts" the parents did it. The Rams have the money to pay a high falootin defense team, and they'll earn it if they have to poll the jurors and move for directed verdict if they thought their clients were going down because of "gut feelings". That's from the State's perspective. From a defense perspective, those same well-paid hifalootin lawyers could spin a no-indictment result to their advantage, simply by noting that even after an 18 month long investigation with subpoena power, a gj still couldn't find enough evidence to indict. They'd further argue as to what more proof would the jury need to convince them their clients have been railroaded. Afterall, everyone knows you can indict a ham sandwich, yet it couldn't indict his clients! >Steve Thomas has made >it crystal clear that GA authorities >have been eagerly participating in this >case for quite awhile now, eager >to prosecute and merely lacking jurisdictional >power over it. If Darnay's case, >or anyone else's for that matter, >can accomplish change of venue to >a truer one, more power to >him and we should all applaud >the effort! Duh! everyone wants to take a chunk out of the Ramseys; everyone knows they did it. But we live in a society of laws and protections, not just for us, but for those accused of crimes. The GA police have helped the BPD in the BPD investigation. They can no more bring charges against the Ramseys than Hoffman can. Unless, of course, the Ramseys break a law in Georgia. This isn't a situation of changing venue. The criminal charges would have to be filed in Boulder first, and then defendants could move for change of venue. And even then, the move is usually only into a nearby district or county. I seriously doubt it would be moved to GA. I think the OK bombing venue change was atypical. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Out In the Open" Posted by Paralegal on 17:13:51 5/14/2000 Ok Ginja, let's get it out in the open, our credentials that is, so we can get past the "who knows more than who" game here. I have my undergraduate degree in pre-law, a year of paralegal school w/a battery of boards to become ABA certified, 25 years of experience working cases as a senior paralegal with advanced skills, teaching the same in paralegal schools and doing public education seminars on these cases. Oh yes, and I'm currently doing my masters work in forensics. So yes, I'm very familiar with jury instructions, and everything else that goes along with these cases. And no, I don't "work for" any attorney, haven't for the last 16 years of my career. I'm an independent practitioner, and contract my services to law firms. And I'm the blessed ex of a Secret Service agent who taught me alot about criminal cases. Now your turn. I'm amazed at how much you seem to know about the CO Grand Jury and what they had and didn't have, what they did and didn't do and why. Where do you get your info? No one else I've ever heard or talked to, including all the public figures in this case, seem to have that kind of info on the grand jury. In fact, it's my understanding the GJ never wrote a report and no info as to what was or wasn't presented to them has ever been publicly disclosed. So where do you get this info about which you propound such devoted belief? At the risk of being redundant, I'll say it again. Darnay's suit is NOT a wrongful death suit. As you so astutely point out, Wolf has no legal standing to bring such cause of action in any court. This is a simple intentional infliction suit with allegations contained for the purpose of goading the Rams into responsive posture. What in the hell is wrong with that? Don't get me wrong, Ginja. I have no prob with your questioning Darnay's suit. Such a discussion would serve to enlighten us all, no matter how much we do know or how much we just think we know. It's the grounds of your argument that floor me completely and your insistence that the case is a wrongful death suit at the same time you impeach yourself, and now such flaunting of facts about the GJ that no one else has had privilege to. Make your argument, but make it soundly and without irrational hysterics is all I ask, so we can discuss it as legal professionals do. I afford you credibility as my peer, I insist on the same respect in return, for me and Darnay, regardless of difference of opinion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Paralegal ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Right you are Paralegal, and" Posted by New York Lawyer on 12:35:39 5/14/2000 OJ Simpson had an even stronger claim: he'd been ACQUITTED by a jury, and yet he was still required to defend a civil suit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "So True Darnay" Posted by Paralegal on 12:54:30 5/14/2000 but the Ramsey case will be the inverse, civil first, criminal out of that. Thank you so much for filing this suit, you will be in my prayers that it doesn't get kicked. If there's anything I can do to help, email me PLEASE! Pro bono and all!! Oh and for all the critics posting here, please tell us that your client is informed so that we can lay that issue to rest. Thanks! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Paralegal ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Trust" Posted by Aurora on 14:13:33 5/14/2000 in Darnay..you guys and wait and see what happens with this. It is the principle of the thing...now. Darnay knows what he is doing and does have a degree in law ya know. Have some faith would you ? After all...this may be the "only" justice we get for JB. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "You're so clever, Darnay" Posted by Ginja on 14:47:44 5/14/2000 Sure, don't defend a thing...tell us to look it up ourselves. Perhaps by reading the law, we can figure out what you're thinking! At least CommonSense had the common sense and courtesy to post the Flynt opinion for open discussion. Ahhhh....maybe that's what you're afraid of?...open discussion? :-) Query why you even bothered to post your complaint in the first place. As far as those of us who work in law firms and can call your cite up within minutes...thanks for nothing, guy. It's Sunday!!! lol Just out of curiousity, does Paralegal work for you? (Kidding!) One last thing...in a later post you corrected me (or was that Paralegal...I get you two confused), explaining wrongful death suits could be filed with or without criminal action being taken. Now I know you really don't bother reading our posts as you missed my correction. Again, one has to wonder what you're really doing here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Who Paralegal Works For" Posted by Paralegal on 15:36:46 5/14/2000 Well now, haven't I put myself right in the middle of it?! For the record, I do not "work for" Darnay Hoffman, I do not even live anywhere near the state in which he practices. It is unfortunate that astute recognition of valuable effort on a lawyer's part begets such pettyminded suspicions (no offense to you either ginja, just intellectual banter!). BTW, legal research can be done on a home computer on a Sunday afternoon, one doesn't need to be physically confined to a law firm. Your inexperience in this field is showing ginja by way of your analysis of Darnay's suit. Do you even have a law degree of any kind, and if so, from whence did it issue? This is a simple IIEO case, don't overread or overanalysis, and for God's sake, don't carry on so about extraneous allegations. If you truly work in the field, with enough exposure to RL cases in a few years, you will find 99% of all civil suits contain extraneous blah blah blah that eventually filter out of the process. For now, what is it about Darnay you dislike, for this certainly seems to be a personal attack rather than a well thought-out and educated discourse. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Paralegal ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "NYL- were they actually served?" Posted by sabrina on 17:05:02 5/14/2000 Were you able to find John at the beer can recycling place? And Patsy at the hot dog stand? (to actually serve them.....) And who is this Altman guy you have in Georgia, any good? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Service of Process" Posted by Paralegal on 17:33:04 5/14/2000 >Were you able to find John at >the beer can recycling place? And >Patsy at the hot dog stand? >(to actually serve them.....) And who >is this Altman guy you have >in Georgia, any good? Probably not yet, Sabrina. The case was just filed and it takes a few days for service to happen. Be patient, the suit will most likely be served on Lin Wood is my guess, or another attorney representing them, then a response. And yes, I would expect a good defense lawyer to challenge the viability of this action and move for dismissal. That's how the game is played and no big secret in the legal field. Will be interesting to watch these goings on! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Paralegal ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Well" Posted by lake on 17:31:23 5/14/2000 The whole thing seems rather clear to me. Hoffman has sense enough to know that Wolfe was a potential suspect or a suspect and was treated as such by Thomas and the BPD. So Ramsey has cover for writing or saying that Wolfe was somebody that he thought should be looked at throughly by the police as a possible prep., IF JR did not know who actually killed JBR. And if JR knew who killed JBR and it was not Wolfe, then there is grounds to sue JR. So, Hoffman will need to prove that JR knew who killed JBR at the time he wrote about Wolfe and spoke about Wolfe as a possible prep. Sounds to me like Hoffman is going to have to prove (51% likley) who killed JBR and that JR knew who killed JBR at the time of the writing and the comments about Wolfe. And that would amount to about the same type of evidence and presentation at a civil trail as a wrongful death suit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]