Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 30
  1. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JustinCase
    JC,
    I didn't see Rector Rol on there either. The memorial service held for JonBenet on Dec. 29/96 was attended by Bishop Winterrowd, who was originally only visiting 12/26/96 to bless new members of the parish; or so goes the story.

    I think Hoverstock would make a great witness but doesn't he have the privelige because he's a priest?

    *You mentioned him absolving the family at the funeral, I believe this happened at the memorial service; what's more suspicious is Rol Hoverstocks presence in the Ramsey's home on December 26, 1996, if I didn't know any better I'd say they called him to read JonBenet's last rites, he stood by all day from 7am to 1:15pm to do this; why else would he have been there and there was so much to prepare for that evenings festivities; it was the Feast of St. Stephen that night.
    Yes, it was at the memorial service. I don't know what sort of privileges priests have, the privilege to proclaim innocence of church members I guess.

  2. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    827

    Default don't want to rain on anyone's party

    but I've gotten my hopes up so many times that I'm just going to have to wait and see. Of course I hope Fox pursues and doesn't settle but I'll believe it when I see it. Bah hum bug.
    Help! I've fallen and can't get up. Guess I'm just feeling down after all these years of watching and hoping.

  3. #15

    Default

    [QUOTE=Texan]but I've gotten my hopes up so many times that I'm just going to have to wait and see. Of course I hope Fox pursues and doesn't settle but I'll believe it when I see it.

    I hear ye. I can only hope we're both wrong.

  4. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default my thought

    I can't imagine any reason for Fox to settle, except to settle for the case to be dismissed.

  5. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JC
    I can't imagine any reason for Fox to settle, except to settle for the case to be dismissed.
    In large law firms, there are many cases. They are often, if not
    mostly, looked at from an “assembly line” perspective. Disposal
    is the priority along with monetary “bottom line.” If Wood wises
    up even slightly, he will realize that he is dead in the water.
    If he offers a deal behind closed doors whereby Fox News can
    dispose of the case with a suitable bottom line, as a matter of
    business policy, I can see Fox News letting it go. To you, I and
    others, it’s a critical case with personal valuation. That may
    not be true for Fox News.

    In any event, I intend to send the Fox attorneys some information
    that will help whether they need it or not. It is also to
    encourage them to not drop the suit for any reason except Wood
    withdrawing and paying Fox News expenses.

    Believe me, no one wants to see this go to court more than I do,
    but I’ve seen to much to think it will actually happen. Like
    Texan, I’ll believe when I see it.

  6. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    I agree with Texan & Delmar. The case will never see the inside of a courtroom. But still, I don't see any harm in sending info to the lawyers Delmar. Go get 'em.
    I despise the Ramseys and this is just my opinion

  7. #19

    Default

    Any word on who Woody will be working with in Colorado?

    The above is just my opinion, right or wrong, but please leave it at FFJ.

  8. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    mame?

    Ha!
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---

  9. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watching You
    mame?

    Ha!
    And to make the party complete, Hill!!!!

    WY, you just crack me up!!!!!!!! I am glad I came back here to read before I went back to bed. Now, I feel a little bit better! Thank you!

    The above is just my opinion, right or wrong, but please leave it at FFJ.

  10. #22

    Default This could be interesting

    I went to Wood's homepage to see where he's admitted to the bar, and wouldn't you know it, he's admitted to the federal court in Colorado. This complaint has been filed with the federal court and so it appears that Wood's going to be representing his clients himself...no pro hac vice.

    I can see him pushing for delaying this trial due to Patsy's recurring cancer and John's running for political office. However, we're not at the trial stage yet...as far as I know, it's still in discovery. Even with that, I can see him playing delay tactics in responding to discovery for the same reasons he'd delay for trial.

    Fox's list of witnesses printed here...where did that come from? Was it presented as a list of "possible" witnesses? Before going to trial and calling all those people, Fox would want to depose them all. You know, find out what they know and what they would say before getting them up on the stand. If they have nothing to offer, Fox wouldn't call them to the stand. But Fox would only know their value after either getting answers to interrogatories from these people or bringing them in and deposing them. I'd be interested in either the interrogatory answers or depo transcripts if they can be had (wink, wink).

    I don't think Wood has friends in Colorado's federal court system, so it will be interesting to see how he fights this case. It's certainly not going to be as easy as handling Keenan, Bailin or even Carnes. Besides, I'm sure Fox's attorneys are a helluvalot better equipped to handle the legal wrangling of this case than Darnay Hoffman ever was! IOW, the court's going to have ALL the evidence before it...not a bunch of one-sided stipulated facts! More interesting will be Carol McKinley, I would think. She's been on top of this case from the very beginning. If she plays this right, it could be the scoop of the century that catapults her into a national setting.

    Keeping my fingers crossed that Fox sticks to its guns and fights this case. As Delmar pointed out, in many instances like this, it's less expensive to settle than to pay a team of lawyers beaucoup bucks to go to trial. But as with McKinley, the information gleaned from such litigation could blow the top off for Fox, giving it the story of the century. So who knows? It might be worth the bucks to see this thing through. Perhaps more of us should follow Delmar's lead and contact Fox, letting them know this is a a battle worth fighting.

  11. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default Ginja

    it appears that Wood's going to be representing his clients himself...no pro hac vice.
    Would that mean Candy is wrong?
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  12. #24

    Default Candy, huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    it appears that Wood's going to be representing his clients himself...no pro hac vice.

    Would that mean Candy is wrong?
    I don't know what Candy is saying, Jayelles. And I'm not sure how much of a legal beagle you are, although I'm quite sure you know more than Candy!

    All I know is what I read on Wood's homepage stating he's a member of the bar for the federal court of Colorado. So because of that, he has no problem going to Colorado and representing his clients in court on this matter.

    If Wood wasn't admitted to the federal court in Colorado, he could do one of two things: (1) apply to the court for admission, or (2) represent his clients pro hac vice.

    Attorneys who aren't admitted to the court can't represent clients in that court. They need to find local counsel who are admitted to that court. Those counsel would then move the court to admit Wood pro hac vice...that is, they ask the court to let Wood practice for this one case under their guidance. All paperwork is submitted by local counsel as counsel for the clients, and also signed by Wood as counsel pro hac vice. Local counsel have to be present at depos and whatnot, as well as in the courtroom for hearings and trial. Wood would still be able to conduct discovery, plead motions and work the trial; however, he wouldn't be able to play any of his under-handed games/stunts because officially/legally, the local counsel are the counsel of record and everything Wood does, they're responsible for, so they would be liable for any sanctions. If the judge got :(:(:(:(ed off enough, he/she could kick Wood off the case.

    A similar situation (getting the pro hac vice attorney kicked off the case) happened here in RI a few months ago when the judge kicked Barry Scheck out on his you-know-what and then sanctioned him at a special hearing after the trial. Local counsel had to take over the case. P.S. they lost.

    One other thing: jurisdiction. Most civil cases are heard in the state court, also known in many states as the superior court. However, for a number of different reasons, such cases can be removed from the state court to the federal court. One of those reasons has to do with the jurisdiction of the parties...as in this case where plaintiffs live in one state and the corporate entity being sued resides in another state. Perhaps this case was originally in the state court in Georgia which is what Candy may have been talking about. But I checked out the papers filed and they were filed in the federal (United States District Court for the District of Georgia) court. Now that the case has been removed to Colorado, it would be heard in the U.S. Dist. Ct for the Dist. of Colorado...to which Mr. Wood boasts admission on his website.



Similar Threads

  1. Tom Miller's Side-By-side Comparison of Patsy's Exemplars To the Ransom Note
    By rashomon in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: August 27, 2006, 1:59 pm, Sun Aug 27 13:59:48 UTC 2006
  2. Good News. Peter Boyles will feature New Times article on Wed. show
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: August 24, 2006, 7:48 am, Thu Aug 24 7:48:33 UTC 2006
  3. Filmmakers want to show mother's side
    By RiverRat in forum Carlie Brucia
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 15, 2005, 8:51 am, Tue Nov 15 8:51:19 UTC 2005
  4. Lin Wood's Dog and Pony show
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 30, 2002, 11:18 am, Mon Dec 30 11:18:03 UTC 2002

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •