Lin Wood Threatens Dominick Dunne!

Leroy Lincoln oughtta get a life!

From USA Today's interview with Dominick Dunne:

Dunne had a recent ''scary'' phone call after appearing on Larry King's
TV show. A caller asked about the JonBenet Ramsey case. Dunne made a
30-second remark and moved on. The next day Dunne had calls on his message
machines at both his unlisted phone in New York and his unlisted phone at his
home in Connecticut. "It was a lawyer for the Ramseys, saying, 'I hope we will not
have to meet in court.' ''

Says Dunne, ''I'm allowed to have an opinion. I called him back and said, <b>'Listen,
don't ever call me in that tone of voice again, like I'm quivering with fear. I'm not.' "</b>


WHAT DUNNE SAID:

CALLER: Yes, hello, thank you. I'd like to know Mr.
Dunne, what you think actually happened in the Jon Benet
Ramsey case? And I'd also like to know how good or
accurate, do you think the tabloids are at investigating these
types of cases?

DUNNE:...Now, the other half was -- oh, the Jon Benet Ramsey. Now
look, this is what I feel about that. Again, it's like a Skakel
thing, there is privilege in being involved in the Jon Benet
Ramsey thing. When that case went before the grand jury in
Boulder, Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, who were in effect the chief
suspects in that case, were allowed to on, on video tape, so
that the grand jury never actually saw them, and I think it's
so important to see the body language and everything. I
don't think they should have been in control of that. I can't
tell you who actually did it, but certainly in every interview
that I've watched, with Katie Couric and Barbara Walters,
when they've been on -- they know more than what they're
saying. And I -- you know, they're kind of stuck with each
other for life too.

<b>Thanks to maxi at Websleuths for this find.</b>

 

More Woody Antics

That man is so ANNOYING!

From Law.com:

Which State's Law Will Apply in Ramsey Libel Case?

Richmond Eustis
07-12-2002


Before a federal court decides if John and Patsy Ramsey's defamation case can proceed against Court TV, it must decide which state's law will apply.

The Ramseys sued Court TV in 2001, accusing it of publishing a press release and broadcasting a panel show in which it falsely identified JonBenét Ramsey's brother, Burke, as a one-time suspect in the murder investigation. Ramsey v. Courtroom Television Network, LLC, No 1:01-cv-1561 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 14, 2001).

The show and the press release found a nationwide audience. During a hearing Wednesday the Ramseys' Atlanta lawyer L. Lin Wood Jr. told U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper that Georgia law should apply, while Court TV's lawyer Cameron A. Stracher of Levine Sullivan & Koch in Washington, D.C., contended the New York law is more appropriate.

This issue could make a big difference later in any possible trial. In Georgia, the plaintiffs would have to show only that Court TV was negligent in the statements it made about Burke Ramsey, whom Wood intends to argue is a private figure. On the other hand, in New York, the plaintiffs would have to show that Court TV acted with "gross irresponsibility" -- a slightly higher standard.

In choice of law disputes, federal courts apply to rules of the forum state. In Georgia, that's lex loci delicti, which Wood argued should apply in this case. However, Judge Cooper noted that the principle doesn't apply when the complaint concerns a multistate defamation action, and told the lawyers from the bench that he wouldn't apply it. Rather, he said, he would apply the nine factors from the Restatement of Conflict of Laws, § 150, to decide which state's law should govern.

THE NINE FACTORS

That set both sides into a flurry of factor-counting -- each lawyer trying to rack up more notches for his side. The nine factors the restatement establishes are:

• the state where the plaintiff lives;

• the state where the defendant is said to have done alleged defamation;

• the state where the plaintiff suffered the most harm;

• the state where the defendant lives or is incorporated;

• the location of the defendant's main publishing office;

• the state where the alleged defamation circulated most;

• the place the defamatory information came from;

• the state where the defamation was seen first; and

• the state of the forum.

Wood claimed one, three, "half" of five and eight, and nine. Stracher, however, said Georgia could legitimately claim only three factors: one, three and nine. On the other hand, he said, the defendant's home state, main office, the state of primary circulation, and place of emanation all favor New York. That, he said, leaves four factors favoring New York, three favoring Georgia, and two neutral, or favoring the law of Colorado, where the murder occurred. "With all due respect to Mr. Wood's math, he's counting out nine and coming up with 10," Stracher said.

Wood countered that the court shouldn't give each of the factors equal weight. Court TV, he said, is a New York company. But it injured a Georgia resident. The more important factors, he said, are the ones that favor applying Georgia law. "You have to weigh the factors," Wood said. "He's got four singles but I've got three home runs."

Stracher scoffed at Wood's suggestion that the court weigh the factors. "There's no case authority for that anywhere," he told the judge. Judge Cooper said he would not rule until next Friday. But he reminded the lawyers that whatever he decides might affect the defense's outstanding motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs' outstanding motion for summary judgment. The arguments Wednesday included the former but not the latter.

---snip---

 

Limpwood

has chosen a relatively easy kind of lawyering, I think. It's like playing the odds, being a civil case lawyer - they know large corporations with deep pockets don't, as a rule, waste time or money fighting $80 million lawsuits. They will settle because they are nuisance suits to them. Limp knows this. Is it still true that he has never had to go to court on one of his lawsuits because they were all settled out of court?

He is cocky and arrogant (I'll bet that cocky word is censored, LOL) and I've really never understood the hero worship some have bestowed upon him. He looks like his horse and he is unattractively brazen in his threats toward those who would breathe the same air as the Ramseys. You can be sure he has banked a good deal of money from the lawsuits that have been settled. Why he thinks he has the right to threaten anyone, though, is beyond me. But, let's face it - anyone even remotely connected to the mental midget at the swamp just doesn't have all his marblers together.

I have this feeling that the NY Post is going to take some of the wind out of Woody's sails. It is not going as he expected. So many litigants have folded up their tents and settled with the Ramseys rather than waste time and money on their frivolous suits - that's just good business tactics. The Post, however, is on the trail like a pack of bloodhounds. They have been successful in getting evidence turned over to them on discovery that could eventually hurt the Ramseys. Maybe they want to be the ones who break this case wide open and they consider this their chance to get the real facts from discovery items. Maybe that's why they haven't gotten rid of this nuisance suit, too.

The pendulum is swinging, Lurker, and I think if we all hold our water, we'll see it is starting to swing the other way. It has to eventually. If the Post refuses to settle this thing, I believe Woody is in deep doodoo.

 

Who Says John Ramsey is Unemployed?....

Seems to me that he is working full time watching the media, publishers, case characters etc. just waiting for the odd set of words, and framing them into a lawsuit which he immediately shuffles over to the Waiting Linwood for processing....

Pretty busy and lucrative full time career if you ask me!

However, I think that WY is correct here...I think that the Post is different from the other law suits given the nature and solid reputation of their business.....their reputation as a prime supplier of news and truth is at stake here....for a mainstream newspaper, this is of utmost importance to maintain their credibility....

The "plus factor" here is that it would be a huge coup for the Post to break open this murder case finally by putting together some evidence that is gleaned from the recently court ordered release of documents in this latest judicial decision....

This may be the last best chance for any real resolution in the Ramsey Murder case......one more time getting our hopes raised eh?

 

They have been confident

in their drive to clear Burke's name because they (mistakenly) thought the BPD's records on Burke would never be given over in discovery. They also thought their own investigative records were off limits. They claim Burke was never a suspect. They claim Alex Hunter said Burke was never a suspect. I don't believe that. Burke had to have been a suspect, if only for a short time. They didn't just clear him on principle.

The BPD sure didn't want their records released - makes you wonder why. Limpwood says the Post is trying to uncover evidence against the Ramseys. (Original sentences deleted - I was wrong).

BTW, I thought the Court TV suit was settled long ago. Now I see where that one is still open. Someone must have gotten their wires crossed.

 

whipee wy

"Limpwood says the Post is trying to uncover evidence against the Ramseys - and he also says there could be evidence that could be injurious (in so many words) to the Ramseys. That was his argument in trying to block certain discovery items. "

I sure as heck hope the Post does uncover evidence against the Ramseys - injurious evidence is even better. Why would they be afraid the Post would uncover evidence against the Ramseys if they were as innocent as they claim to be?? Makes you kinda go hhhmmm. :clap:

 

Okay, duh, I got that wrong

It was in the decision handed down on the discovery materials in the possession of the Ramseys; i.e., their own investigation.

***Second, to the extent that the Ramseys authorized the creation of the investigative documents at least in part to facilitate their defense in the event that either was charged by the Boulder prosecutors, we see a potential danger to them if these materials are released to the defendant with no restriction on their use. In that event, we view it as quite possible that portions of the information may come into the hands of the District Attorney, to the detriment of the Ramseys' legal position.***

That is a long ways from what I said. I read it so quickly, I thought Limpwood was making these statements.

 

People for Sale

What it all comes down to is the dollar and the Ramseys have (had) a lot of them.

Why is it that, depending on who you are, freedom of speech is an entitlement? Lin Wood and everyone else have gotten rich off this case, and still getting richer every day. They are so busy fighting people off and shutting people up that it's started the whole world fighting over this case.

I don't care about fighting, but what about the pure and simple truth? It exists plain and clear in the "Ransom Note." And people, it's NOT copyrighted by the author! ;-) I don't think there is a payoff possible for that. It's fair game.

I just think the truth should come out simply and easily. It might if the Ramseys divorce! But then, there will be plenty more people for sale.

There's no end it seems! There has been no justice. The answer is in the Ransom Note!!