A poster at another forum has angrily denounced Fleet White for demanding his deposition remain sealed (as has Lou Smit, BTW) and further states that Fleet would most certainly have been asked his opinion on who killed JBR and he is deliberately trying to keep the public from knowing his opinion. This poster seems obsessed with this issue, so maybe we should sort it out for her. I strongly disagree with this poster. I do not believe it is proper procedure to ask a witness to speculate on who he believes may have committed a crime. Sworn testimony of a witness is based on facts, not speculation. I would be very surprised if the question were asked in the first place and totally shocked if opposing attorneys allowed White to answer, even if he were dumb enough to answer, which I doubt. Maybe someone who knows more about these things could elaborate. I don't think I am wrong.
ya know Maybe he just said "I do know that Burke and John didn't do it".... OK, not funny. But you are right, they don't ask for opinions..just the facts.
Epstein deposition Please re-read this depostion. In it LinWad chides Darnay for his ability to take a deposition and specifically mentions FW and Patsy's depositions. 0001 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 2 ATLANTA DIVISION 3 ROBERT CHRISTIAN WOLF, 4 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 00-CIV-1187(JEC) 5 vs. 6 JOHN BENNETT RAMSEY and PATRICIA PAUGH RAMSEY, 7 Defendants. 8 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 9 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 10 GIDEON EPSTEIN 11 12 May 17, 2002 21 MR. HOFFMAN: Come on, Lin, stop 22 trying to be a wise guy. 23 MR. WOOD: Now, I'm not trying to 24 -- you don't have the right -- 25 MR. HOFFMAN: Stop trying to be a 0190 1 wise guy, Lin, which is what you're doing right 2 now. 3 MR. WOOD: You do not have the -- 4 MR. HOFFMAN: I'm just analogizing. 5 I'm treating it as if it were a direct 6 examination for the purposes of trying to make 7 this analogy understandable, and, very simply, I 8 will not go outside the bounds of what was 9 asked at this deposition as if it had been a 10 direct examination at trial. 11 MR. ALTMAN: I think we're on the 12 same page on that. 13 MR. HOFFMAN: That's a pretty simple 14 concept. 15 MR. WOOD: I thought the question 16 was whether -- don't you agree you don't have 17 the right to conduct a direct examination on our 18 dollar. 19 MR. HOFFMAN: Absolutely not. All I 20 want to do is just simply allow him to answer 21 a few of the questions that he might not have 22 been allowed to answer more fully that were 23 asked on your, you know, on your dime, so to 24 speak. 25 MR. WOOD: So you do agree that you 0191 1 do not have the right to do a direct 2 examination on our dime. 3 MR. HOFFMAN: Well, no, no. I 4 don't agree that there's any law or authority to 5 that effect so to that degree I don't agree 6 that you have a legal right to make that as a 7 requirement. 8 However, as far as to just simply 9 what I'm going to do is I'm certainly not going 10 to try and take advantage of the situation. 11 You certainly could have gone the full seven 12 hours. I appreciate the fact that you're 13 extending my witness the courtesy of letting him 14 leave so he can catch his flight and also 15 shorten your examination to give me a little 16 time to what I hope will be a legitimate 17 attempt to try and just let him augment some of 18 the answers that he had given in response to 19 your earlier questioning. 20 But you have no legal authority, in 21 my opinion, to limit it, and in that degree I 22 don't agree with you. However I'm telling you 23 that I will simply abide by our gentleman's 24 agreement that we're making right here that I 25 will limit it only to those areas that were 0192 1 gone into when you questioned him originally. 2 MR. WOOD: I haven't made any 3 agreement with you today. I don't think Jim 4 Rawls has made any agreement with you today. 5 MR. ALTMAN: Why don't we do this? 6 Why don't we proceed forward, and if you have 7 an objection, state your objection as we go. 8 MR. RAWLS: Let me -- Darnay, I 9 don't know if we're together. I understand what 10 I said to you, I'm not sure I understand your 11 intentions. 12 But rather than your explaining them 13 to me, let me say we will object if you 14 attempt to use any part of today's deposition, 15 all of which we've paid for, none of which 16 you've paid for, nor, as I understand the 17 witness' testimony, are you ever going to pay 18 for. 19 So if you attempt to use any part 20 of this in a way that I consider the subject 21 of a direct examination designed to get any 22 opinions of this witness into evidence in the 23 case, we will not only object, but we're late 24 in the afternoon on a Friday, we'll need to 25 call Judge Carnes about that. 0193 1 MR. HOFFMAN: You know what normally 2 happens in depositions? 3 MR. WOOD: Darnay, we don't need to 4 hear that. I've been taking depositions for 25 5 years. You haven't taken depositions -- I bet 6 you haven't taken five depositions in your whole 7 life. 8 MR. HOFFMAN: Hey, Lin, given the 9 fact that you've never tried a libel case in 10 front of a jury -- 11 MR. WOOD: Darnay Hoffman, let me 12 tell you something -- Darnay, you've never -- 13 the only case you ever tried you got hit for 14 $45 million when Bernie Getz was found guilty 15 for a crime he walked from in a criminal case. 16 Listen, I have tried cases for 25 17 years. I've tried more cases than you could 18 count in your sleep, big boy. 19 MR. HOFFMAN: -- your first libel 20 case, okay. 21 MR. WOOD: Darnay, I don't have to 22 try a libel case to know how to try a case, 23 but after listening to Fleet White's deposition 24 it was obvious to me that you don't know how 25 to take a deposition. 0194 1 MR. HOFFMAN: That's okay. 2 MR. WOOD: Why don't you tell us 3 how many depositions you've taken in your 4 illustrious career? 5 MR. HOFFMAN: I've taken plenty. 6 MR. WOOD: I bet you haven't taken 7 25. 8 MR. HOFFMAN: Can I tell you 9 something? I'm the only -- 10 MR. WOOD: I've tried more cases 11 than you've taken depositions. So don't lecture 12 me. 13 MR. HOFFMAN: Hey, I'm the only man 14 on the planet that's taken Patsy Ramsey's 15 deposition, and plenty have tried, so don't -- 16 MR. WOOD: Let me tell you 17 something, and it was a joke. You didn't know 18 what you were doing. 19 MR. HOFFMAN: I hope that's what you 20 believe because I hope you prepare your trial 21 case accordingly, underestimating me. 22 MR. WOOD: You're not going to see 23 a trial in this case. You're going to get 24 booted on summary judgment just like you got 25 booted out in Linda Hoffman Pugh's criminal 0195 1 case. 2 MR. HOFFMAN: Sorry, you're wrong. 3 I'm sorry, you're wrong. When you went -- 4 MR. WOOD: I'm sure you're 100 5 percent certain like this guy sitting across the 6 table is. 7 MR. HOFFMAN: If I was supposed to 8 be out of here, I would have been out on that 9 motion to dismiss, but you guys -- 10 MR. WOOD: You got by that motion 11 to dismiss by the thinnest of threads, only 12 because you were willing to plead anything, 13 despite the fact that you can't prove it. 14 MR. HOFFMAN: And the judge paid me 15 the complement of actually quoting extensively 16 from my brief. 17 MR. WOOD: I don't think the judge 18 paid you any complements. 19 MR. HOFFMAN: Hey, I'm here, and all 20 I can tell you -- 21 MR. WOOD: You're here and you 22 haven't even bought the deposition -- 23 MR. HOFFMAN: And you guys couldn't 24 do what 95 percent of the lawyers in 25 America -- 0196 1 MR. WOOD: You're so proud of Patsy 2 Ramsey's deposition, you haven't even bothered to 3 pay for it. You haven't even paid the court 4 reporter for taking it down yet. 5 MR. HOFFMAN: Come on, who cares -- 6 MR. WOOD: You haven't even paid the 7 court reporter for taking down Patsy Ramsey's 8 deposition. 9 MR. HOFFMAN: All right, so what? 10 MR. WOOD: You never got a copy of 11 it. I thought you were proud of it. 12 MR. HOFFMAN: So what's your 13 problem? 14 MR. WOOD: You don't have the money 15 to pay for it. It's a frivolous lawsuit filed 16 by a frivolous lawyer and you don't even have 17 the money to pay to come down and sit with 18 your own deposition witness. You never even met 19 your own client. 20 MR. HOFFMAN: Hey, Lin, don't talk 21 to me about frivolity and the fact that I had 22 to go to an expert because your daughter had a 23 horse show that you had to attend and you 24 couldn't be a real lawyer over a weekend, you 25 actually had to twist everything into God knows 0197 1 what in order to be able to -- 2 MR. WOOD: I just wanted to make 3 damned sure that I would be there in Nebraska 4 to shred Robert Stratbucker. 5 MR. HOFFMAN: -- your family 6 outings -- 7 MR. WOOD: I'm going to eat him 8 alive. Be there. Be there, okay. Guess 9 what? I'm going to be at my daughter's horse 10 show and I'm also going to be in Omaha, 11 Nebraska to rip Stratbucker a new rear end, and 12 I bet you what, you aren't going to be there. 13 You ain't going to bother to be 14 there, neither is Evan Altman, because you don't 15 have the money and you're not willing to spend 16 the money on this frivolous case. You got 17 that? I'll see you in Omaha. Are you going 18 to be there or are you going to show up by 19 telephone? 20 MR. HOFFMAN: How can I not miss 21 this invitation to be in Omaha? Okay? 22 MR. WOOD: You be there. You be 23 there. I bet you a thousand dollars you won't 24 be there. Want to bet? 25 MR. HOFFMAN: Lin -- 0198 1 MR. WOOD: Because you're afraid to 2 fly. 3 MR. HOFFMAN: -- I would never, 4 never bet you, you know better than that. 5 MR. WOOD: You're afraid to fly; 6 aren't you? That's what you told Susan Bennett 7 -- Jamison. 8 MR. HOFFMAN: I liked the AirTran to 9 Atlanta, I told you that when I got there. 10 MR. WOOD: It looked like you were 11 scared to death. 12 MR. HOFFMAN: Only of you, Lin. 13 You frighten me. 14 MR. WOOD: Well, that may be the 15 only smart damned thing you've said since I laid 16 eyes on you the first time. All right, I've 17 vented enough. 18 All I'm saying is this: I don't 19 intend to sit here and listen to you lecture me 20 one damned second about how to take a 21 deposition. I know more about taking 22 depositions on the thumbnail of my right thumb 23 than you'll ever learn in your damn life. Do 24 we understand each other? 25 MR. HOFFMAN: Lin, I'll just have to 0199 1 take your word on that one. 2 MR. WOOD: You can take the word of 3 anybody that's ever had the opportunity to go up 4 against me in a courtroom. I'll talk to people 5 you've -- if we can find somebody. 6 MR. HOFFMAN: Lin, this sounds like 7 rank speculation on your part. Just drop it. 8 MR. WOOD: Let me tell you 9 something, if I am lucky enough, you will have 10 your day with me, sir. 11 MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, I hope so, and I 12 hope -- 13 MR. WOOD: And it will be the 14 pleasure of my career when I take you down, and 15 that day may yet come because you still run 16 your mouth to the media so much that you're 17 going to get yourself sued eventually, you're 18 going to get your experts sued eventually, so 19 you just keep the business coming, Darnay. It's 20 really good for my pocketbook. I'm taking a 21 recess. 22 MR. HOFFMAN: I know in this case 23 that the Ramseys aren't paying a penny, the 24 insurance company is paying you finally, okay, 25 which is nice -- 0200 1 MR. WOOD: Hey, I made more money 2 handling the Ramsey case than you've made in 3 your whole damn career practicing law, Darnay. 4 MR. HOFFMAN: -- instead of settling 5 for chump change, which you've done in all these 6 other cases, you're actually getting paid a 7 decent -- 8 MR. WOOD: I've made more money in 9 the Ramsey case than you've made in your entire 10 career as a lawyer, you want to bet on that? 11 MR. HOFFMAN: You mean you've made 12 more than a hundred dollars? 13 MR. WOOD: Yes, I have made for 14 than a hundred dollars, Darnay. 15 MR. HOFFMAN: -- in this case. 16 Well, good. 17 MR. WOOD: I'd just like to know 18 the poor person that paid you the hundred 19 dollars. Maybe we'd have a good legal 20 malpractice claim. 21 MR. HOFFMAN: All right. Are we 22 ready? 23 MR. RAWLS: Do we want to take a 24 short recess? 25 MR. ALTMAN: Maybe we ought to.
I think this is despicable behavior by two men who are supposed to be professional attorneys. Lin Wood is a total jerk with his normal threatening, bragging, nasty self, and Darnay is out of his league under Wood's barrage of temper. What is really hysterical is that Lin Wood had the nerve to write that sarcastic e-mail to Tricia about internet posters after behaving like a bully in the hood, himself - preserved on the record forever for everyone to see. There is pure hatred in his words, absolutely unacceptable behavior for a man in his position. Guess you can take the boy out of the backwoods, but you can't take the backwoods out of the boy. Nice job, Lin.
So Wood tells Hoffman that after listening to FW's deposition, it's obvious Hoffman doesn't know how to take a deposition? I guess I could read into that that Hoffman asked for speculation from FW? I could, but that would only be speculation on my part, right? Then, I could speculate further that Hoffman's sidekick who is so bent on getting White's deposition released already knows that White was improperly asked a question asking him to speculate on who killed JBR, because Hoffman told her about that sealed deposition? It would be purely speculation on my part, and I don't want to speculate, but the biggest speculator of all does it, so why not? I read Hoffman's questioning in other deposition transcripts, and I don't think he did so bad if Wood had shut his trap for two seconds to let him ask a question. Wood's purely a bully but what the heck, works for him, I guess. Just look at how rich he's gotten off a six year old's murder.
First, let me just say this. I am not in my 70's, I'm in my early 50's. And I didn't retire from my legal career 40 years ago, it was just last year. And only because of a work-related injury that turned into a nasty disability. So my legal skills are not rusty, antiquated or out of touch with modern reality. Having said that, WY, there is ALWAYS the possibility of some sleazoid lawyer asking questions like, "Who do you think killed JBR?" And there are always deponents who are naive enough to answer, when such information is not only not relevant to the deposition or the case, but pure speculation, which has never had any value. But the sleazeballs still can ask to serve their own litigious intentions (like suing the deponent for slander, especially when those deponents have very deep pockets-cha ching) and the naive deponents can still respond. HOWEVER, hopefully those naive deponents have skilled enough lawyers representing them in attendance at depositions who would object on the record to such a stupid question and disallow their clients from responding. But as long as there are Lin Woods and Darnay Hoffmans gracing the halls of American jurisprudence, there will always be opportunities for all sorts of buffoonery. Thank God FW is neither naive nor poorly represented. My best guess as to why he wants his depo to remain sealed is to preserve that testimony in the advent of any criminal trial and to protect himself from frivolous libel suits, both of which are wisdom personified.
Unprofessional, unethical, unskilled As to why FW wants his depo to remain sealed is probably due to Ramsey litigiousness. IOW, protection. We know, just from some of the statements Fleet's made that have been publicized that Fleet questioned many actions of the Ramseys that morning and afterwards, from John "finding" the body to the Ramseys decision to go before CNN (and blaming that decision on Fleet). Depositions are designed to seek out the truth and get the facts to a case. They DO NOT ask for speculation UNLESS the deponent is an expert witness, and then it's merely an undertaking in trying to determine facts based on what's probably circumstantial at that juncture. NOW...as to Wood's behavior in these depositions. It's absolutely despicably underhanded. Hoffman did no better in not filing objections with the court regarding Wood's behavior, not only in the Epstein deposition, but in the others Wood has been involved with as well. When you bring in an expert such as Epstein, you pay maxiumum dollars to that expert to appear. The party noticing the deposition is responsible for costs, including air travel, hotel expenses and then whatever the expert charges by the hour, which runs in the hundreds of dollars (per hour). Then there's the cost of the stenographer to transcribe the depo. None of these charges are paid up front. The deponent shows up and then sends his bill, and the steno transcribes the depo and sends the bill with the transcript to the attorney. IOW, time is money. When you bring in the experts, it's expected that you will use those experts to get the most information as possible -- NOT WASTE HIS TIME with idiotic, picyune babbling...which is EXACTLY what Lin Wood does at ALL his depositions. From all the depos I've read involving Lin Wood...this is his trademark ... to abuse the system and misuse the opportunity at depos to get to the facts. It's absolutely obvious why Wood does this....HE DOESN'T WANT THE FACTS TO COME OUT! And so he disrupts the depo as much as possible so that the expert doesn't have a chance to answer any questions or get on the record with his expertise. Wood fills the day with idiotic babbling and objections to disrupt and dismantle. At the end of the day, the parties have learned absolutely nothing casewise and the party noticing that depo is stuck with huge bills for the deponent's appearance and record of nothing more than Lin Wood BS/objections. Perhaps FW sees this and knowing this, realizes that if his depo is unsealed and Wood/Ramseys have at it, they will find a reason to sue and notice Fleet's deposition so they can continue to sue and abuse the innocents in this case...or more importantly, the witnesses who could put Wood's clients before the court. If I recall correctly, the ONLY person who's put Wood in his place at these depositions is Mike Kane who threw the book on the table and said the depo was over when Wood began his shenanigans.
Spade Right you are. However, it's just a real b*tch to think that attorneys like Darnay put up with Wood's BS. We can now see why Hoffman didn't have a chance with any of his suits against the Ramseys. If Wood has this much influence on how the process works, one can only imagine what he's done to those in the Boulder DA's office!!! I hope Bennett is able to keep this SOB at bay and put him in his place. (Wishful thinking) ;-)
Ginja thanks. You have once again hit the nail on the head regarding Lin Wood and his conniving self. Spade. Yes.