Wolf suit court records

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by MJenn, May 29, 2002.

  1. MJenn

    MJenn Member

    In for the long haul, I hope....

    These are the most recent filings listed by the online Pacer service. I've been a member for a couple of years now. Anyone can have access to this service; it only takes a couple of weeks after applying to get your ID stuff. Cost 7 cents a page. They bill you periodically. These are only federal case court filings on motions, replies, etc., however: civil and criminal, and only courts that agree to belong to the service. Info is limited to just legal jargon, so I have to struggle with interpreting it all.

    http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/index.html

    Anyhow, I check in every so often on the Ramsey cases. Here are the latest filings in the Wolf civil suit. As far as I can tell...if this goes to trial, we're talking sometime in the fall at the earliest. Maybe winter. Says here that the judge isn't allowing any extensions for the final briefs past September, though. Yeah, sure she won't....

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    3/25/02 61 Joint MOTION by plaintiff and defendants to set certain
    filing deadlines (jph) [Entry date 03/26/02]

    4/9/02 62 ORDER by Judge Julie E. Carnes GRANTING [60-1] joint motion
    to extend time thru 5/31/02 for discovery, Discovery ends
    5/31/02 (cc) (jph) [Entry date 04/10/02]

    4/9/02 63 ORDER by Judge Julie E. Carnes GRANTING [61-1] joint motion
    to set certain filing deadlines, Motions for sum jgm due
    7/31/02; responsive briefs due 8/30/02 and reply briefs due
    9/30/02. Due to the age of the case the Judge will not
    grant any extensions that would continue the submission of
    the final brief beyond 9/30/02. (cc) (jph)
    [Entry date 04/10/02]
     
  2. MJenn

    MJenn Member

    Oh, Motions for summary judgment

    In case you don't know, this part-->>"...Motions for sum jgm due
    7/31/02..."-->>means motions for summary judgment.

    From "Guide to Legal Investigations," Scott and Lisa Hatch, p.18-19:

    "motion for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment is a pretrial request by a party that a decision on an issue be made on the basis of the pleadings and discovery without having to go through an entire trial. A party who requests summary judment attempts to convince the judge that there are no issues of material fact which exist between the parties and thus a decision should be rendered by the judge without the necessity of jury consideration."

    In other words...the motioning party says both sides agree on the issues of fact, which prove thus and so. The motions would be for the judge to: dismiss the case on behalf of the defendants (motion for summary judgment brought by the defendants), probably based in the argument in this case that the discovery and evidence the plaintiff brings does not prove Patsy wrote the note; render a judgment that the evidence does in fact prove that Patsy wrote the note and therefore the judge should render a judgment on behalf of the plaintiff (motion for summary judgment brought by the plaintiff.)

    I'm not sure that the plaintiff--Wolf--would make this motion, though. Seems to me he'd want a jury to render the verdict and decide the damages. But I'm not sure on this point at all, so if anyone knows how this usually goes on the plaintiff's side, please fill us in....
     
  3. imon128

    imon128 Banned

    Summary judgment

    It is NOT Chris Wolf who'd call for a summary judgment. It is Patsy Ramsey's attempt to get off the hook for a full trial, I believe.
     
  4. MJenn

    MJenn Member

    Thanks, imon

    Yeah, after awhile, my long-term memory resurfaces sometimes...and I think you're right. I guess what threw me was the plural "motions" for summary judgment.

    Anyhow, it's common for the defendant to make a motion for summary judgment in civil trials. So don't anyone get all upset when it happens. ALL DEFENSE LAWYERS do it. It's like imon says, the defendants' effort to stop the trial from taking place.

    So much to remember, so few little brain cells left....

    Thanks again, imon.
     
  5. imon128

    imon128 Banned

    MJenn

    You're too funny! You've got lotsa brain cells and that's evidenced by your good posts. You do LOTS of thinking. I posted to you on another thread that I'm with you on the JAR thingy. Big time.
     
  6. LurkerXIV

    LurkerXIV Moderator

    imon and MJenn,

    No doubt about it, we have the smartest posters here, even if we have lost a few grey cells since it all started in 1996. I've been visiting several other forums on Chandra, and I just keep shaking my head, especiallywhen it comes to forensics. Our group has learned a lot about criminology over the past six years. I think we could give the poor, besieged FBI a hand!
     
  7. MJenn

    MJenn Member

    LOL yeah, Lurker...

    I've been thinking about volunteering my services to the FBI....

    I'm sure they'd be soooooo grateful.... :D
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2002
  8. MJenn

    MJenn Member

    Imon....

    I'm so glad you're here.
     
  9. LurkerXIV

    LurkerXIV Moderator

    Wolf Suit News

    Is Darnay losing witnesses? Here's what hir is reporting:

    "Thursday, after Lin Wood had cross-examined Dr. Robert Stratbucker for approximately 3 hours (of a planned 7 hour deposition), Darnay Hoffman suddenly and permanently withdrew Stratbucker as an expert witness in the Wolf case. "

    Stratbucker was Darnay Hoffman's expert witness on stunguns. Hoffman had hoped he would demolish the stun gun testimony of Lou Smit and Mike Dobersen.

    Wood purportedly had a " folder full of information " with which to counter Stratbucker's testimony.

    According to the Hickory informant, " the deposition ended when Stratbucker was withdrawn as a witness."
     
  10. Thor

    Thor Active Member

    Thanks Lurker. I hadn't heard this. I truly believe the Ramsey's and hir are the antichrist. Damn.
     
  11. MJenn

    MJenn Member

    Ah, who cares?

    The Rams are so deep in the murder of their child, what difference does it make how many magic tricks they come up with?

    They are guiltyguiltyguilty....
     
  12. LurkerXIV

    LurkerXIV Moderator

    Yeah, MJenn,

    But I would like to see Darnay win one for a change. He's put in an awful lot of pro bono time pursuing those damRams. Sometimes I think that Darnay is the Last Man Standing when it comes to justice for that sweet little girl, JonBenet. You know he's not doing it for the money, like that skank Lin Wood. Darnay is a man of principle. Just once in awhile, I'd like to see a nice guy finish FIRST.
     
  13. Dunvegan

    Dunvegan Guest

    BTW, Lurker...this is a timely local court decision...

    Full article at <b><a href="http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2002/04/18/rtr574484.html">Forbes.com:</a></b><ol><b>"Skank" Not Libel, California Appeals Court Rules</b>
    Reuters, 04.18.02, 4:34 PM ET

    SAN FRANCISCO, April 18 (Reuters) - It may not be OK to be a skank but legally it is OK to be called one.

    A California state appeals court has ruled it is not libel to call someone a "skank" or even a "big skank" on the radio -- describing the word as "a derogatory slang term of recent vintage that has no generally recognized meaning."
    ***Snip

    Edited for compliance of "fair use."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 19, 2002
  14. LurkerXIV

    LurkerXIV Moderator

    HEH!

    Lin Wood cannot sue me for libel. He sort of resembles that last definition, though, being known as a swinger in Hotlanta and posing as "available" in Jezebel magazine.
     
  15. MJenn

    MJenn Member

    Okey dokey....

    Henceforth, I will only use the term "skank" or "big skank" in insulting certain sue-happy people.

    As in, Patsy is a "skank," a "big skank, " and John is a "big skank skank."

    Hunter is a "big skank," too. And Lurker, I think you've aptly illustrated that Wood is a "bigbigbigbig skank"!

    I can go on, but you get the idea.
     
  16. LurkerXIV

    LurkerXIV Moderator

    Rams VS. NY Post Terminated

    reports coming out that an order for administrative closure has been handed down in this case. Whether the Post proffered a settlement which was accepted, or whether the case was thrown out, has not been ascertained yet.

    In any event, it looks like the files from Boulder will not be opened to the Post.

    More later.....
     
  17. MJenn

    MJenn Member

    Why would the Post settle?

    They haven't even seen the evidence they fought so hard to get yet.

    And how could the judge throw the case out when discovery is still underway, and the important evidence still sitting in the DA's Office?

    Think THE RAMS FOLDED? hahahahahahahahahaha

    I'm sure it'll play something like this: THE RAMS WON AGAIN!! THEY CAN'T BE BEAT!! THE POST ADMITTED THEY WERE WRONG AND PAID THE RAMS AN UNDISCLOSED SUM PROBABLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $50 MILLION DOLLARS!

    OH! BUT THE RAMS ARE STILL POOR! THIS MONEY IS ALL BURKE'S. HE'LL HAVE TO LIVE IN A TRAILER FOR NOW, BUT WHEN HE TURNS 18--HE'LL BE RICHRICHRICHRICHRICH! JOHN AND PATSY, HOWEVER, ARE STILL ARE BROKE AND MUST SELL ONE OF THEIR HOMES, THOUGH JOHN CAN KEEP HIS PLANE SINCE HE NOW CAN AFFORD THE GAS TO RUN IT....

    OH HAPPY DAY!! THE KILLAS...I MEAN, RAMS ARE VINDICATED YET AGAIN!!
     
  18. Thor

    Thor Active Member

    Well, I for one am thoroughly ****ed off and you will see many, many astericks in my posts on this subject now. I just asked one of the attorneys I work with (who knows about the Ram case) what this means. He had never heard of this before. I truly believe the antichrist is alive and well. Folks, it is time to throw in the towel. The ****ers have gotten away with murder and are thumbing their ****ing noses at the world. Always have been, always will. I don't give a chit who has cancer, a baby has died and someone in that ****ing house knows who did this. I say let all the information out. All of it. Those bastards in Boulder have no desire to do anything with this case while that poor baby is in her grave with her parents simply getting away with it. I don't wish death on anyone but someone needs to be held accountable. What is so ****ing secret about those files on Burke? If the little chit had nothing to do with it and the Rams say so (therefore suing the tabs), let it all out. Prove it to the world, John & Patsy. Why is everything such a goddamned secret in this case? How far up the ladder does the coverup go?

    Sorry but this case needed to be solved a long time ago. I wanna know just what this crapola means. Did they settle? What is going on here? I feel like I'm in the goddamned twilight zone. Now, I'll go drink a glass of water and calm down.
     
  19. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    NY Post vs Rams discussion moved to a new thread.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice