Fox Lawyers

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Spade, Jan 13, 2005.

  1. Spade

    Spade Member

    As we all enjoy Fox's escape from the shakedown artist, I want to remind you of the background of the Fox lawyers:

    Dori Ann Hanswirth (Member) born Baltimore, Maryland, May 11, 1962; admitted to bar, 1987, New York and U.S. District Court, Southern, Eastern and Northern Districts of New York; U.S. Court of Appeals, Second, Sixth and Ninth Circuits. Education: University of Pennsylvania (B.A., cum laude, with distinction, 1983); Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University (J.D., cum laude, 1986). Member, Order of the Barrister. Editor-in-Chief, Cardozo Moot Court Board. Law Clerk to Hon. Edward Weinfeld, U.S. District Judge, Southern District of New York, 1986-1987. Motions Law Clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1986. Assistant Counsel, Governor's Judicial Screening Committee, 1989-1990. Secretary, Committee on Communications and Media Law, The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, 1998-2001. Co-Chair, American Bar Association Litigation Section Trial Practice Committee, Ethics Subcommittee, 2003-2004. Member: The Association of the Bar of the City of New York; New York State and American Bar Associations; Copyright Society of the USA. Reported Cases: Kaplan v. Stock Market Photo Agency, Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); Santiago v. WNYW TV Network, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3869 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); Fox News Network v. Time Warner Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6940 (E.D.N.Y. 1997); Hall v. Daka International, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 969 (N.D.N.Y. 1996); Houston v. New York Post Co., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19705 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Naantanbuu v. Abernathy, 816 F. Supp. 218 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); Posner v. New York Post Co., 633 N.Y.S.2d 841 (1st Dep't 1999) Practice Areas: Litigation; Communications and Media; Copyright Litigation; Trademark and Unfair Competition Litigation

    Slade R. Metcalf (Member) born Auburn, New York, August 19, 1946; admitted to bar, 1974, New York. Education: Princeton University (A.B., 1968); New York University (J.D., 1973). Author: Rights and Liabilities of Publishers, Broadcasters and Reporters, Shepard's/McGraw-Hill, 1981. Chairman, Legal Affairs Committee of the Magazine Publishers of America, 1987-1988. Chairman, Practicing Law Institute Program on Legal and Business Aspects of Periodical and Electronic Publishing, 1989. Faculty, Practicing Law Institute Program on Legal and Business Aspects of the Magazine Industry, 1982, 1984. Member: The Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Member: Committee on Communications Law, 1983-1986; Committee on Copyright and Literary Property 1987-1990; Committee on Art Law, 1995-1998); Committee on Entertainment Law, 1999— New York State (Member, Committee on Media Law, 1986—; Member, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Section, 1992—; Member, Committee on Cyberspace Law, 2000) and American (Member, Forum Committee on Communications Law, 1983—) Bar Associations; Copyright Society of the U.S.A. (Trustee, 1992-1995). Practice Areas: Litigation; Media Law; Copyrights.

    Dori Hanswirth and Slade Metcalf have worked together for many years. As a matter of fact, they were woking together for Star Magazine when Richard Gooding wrote the BDI story that started the Ramsey portion of the shakedown artists' career. Dori Hanswirth personally vetted the BDI story before it was published and strongly advised David Pecker (new editor of Star) NOT to retract the story as LinWad requested.

    Slade Metcalf, who also represented Larry Schiller on PMPT, outranked Dori and advised Pecker to retract the story.....BUT Slade forgot libel lawschool 101 and did not require LinWad to provide a promise not to sue in return for the retraction. That's right folks, all this lawsuit BS was caused by imcompetent lawyers other that Darnay Hoffman.
     
  2. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    SPADE. HOW THE HELL ARE YOU?

    Great to see you posting.

    You said,

    OMG. This is a jaw dropper. So the Star Magazine retracts (against Dori's advice) and the high priced lawyer FORGETS TO MAKE THE DEAL WITH LINWAD NOT TO SUE?

    Were Slade and Hoffman roomates at law school? Where did they get their degree at the University of Outer Mongolia?

    Great to have you on FFJ again Spade. Don't be such a stranger!
     
  3. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Hell's Bells, Spade, where ya been? LOL It's good to have you back!!

    This is revelation indeed. So Mr. Metcalf goofed, and LW, the scavenger that he is, you think took advantage to file the latest Fox suit, which got dismissed. Other than a shitload of time and expense paid into Fox's lawyers' pockets (not Woody's), no harm done.

    Why? Any agreement they could have made to prevent suit in the Star case could have only applied to that case against Star/Globe re the Star article, and not this latest one involving Fox and McKinley's TV broadcast. The latest case was an entirely different set of facts and players and no agreement/stipulation that requires a plaintiff to waive his rights to file any future suits on different events and different facts would be valid in a court of law, and would, therefore, render it unenforceable.

    Furthermore, it is not necessary to enter into a specific written agreement not to proceed with suit when a settlement has been reached. The settlement agreement itself is the conclusion of the lawsuit and, under any law in the land, would constitute a resolution to the suit so that it could not proceed unless any obvious fraud was committed by either party to the settlement agreement that would render it null and void. In rare cases, a settlement agreement can be set aside to resurrect the suit, but there absolutely has to be clear and convincing evidence that some major event happened (like holding a gun to a party's head to get them to sign, i.e., duress) to do so. However, the standard settlement agreement document used in cases like these includes a release of all plaintiff's claims in the instant case, but again, cannot legally obligate any release of any potential future claims for other companies and facts.

    And, if Fox had been upset at all about Metcalf's oversight, they wouldn't and probably shouldn't have used his firm again to represent them in the latest and worstest shakedown litigation. But they did, so I'm assuming Fox and Metcalf are cool.

    My guess is, the Rams and Woody were thinking Fox would topple like in the Star case. Was that the karma train that just pulled into the station????

    As to likening Metcalf to DH, I personally think Metcalf would have to go a LONG way further to qualify walking even in Darnay's shadow, unless of course :duped:
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2005
  4. Elle

    Elle Member

    Doing my best to understand all this, Deja. :)So up until Spade's post, no one knew that Darnay Hoffman was responsible for the cause of the Fox lawsuit?
     
  5. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Here's a list of all Ramsey related suits filed over the years and their ultimate status. It's easy to see why Woody and the Rams would assume Fox would roll over like all the others did!

    1998 Stephen Miles v. Ramsey 1:1998-CV-00528 (CO)
    Amount: Unspec.
    Status: Dismissed 12/99

    1999 Ramsey v. Star/American Media,Inc. 99-CV-3087 (N.D. GA)
    Amount: $25 M
    Status: Confid. Settlement 5/00

    2000 Chris Wolf v. Ramsey 00-CIV-1187 (N.D. GA)
    Amount: $50M
    Status: Dismissed 04/02

    2000 Ramsey v. Globe 1:00-CV-1164 (N.D. GA)
    Amount: $35M
    Status: Confid. Settlement 01/01

    2000 Ramsey v. Time Warner 00-CV-3477 (S.D. NY)
    Amount: $4M
    Status: Confid. Settlement 06/01

    2000 Otworth v. Ramsey 1:00-CV-2023 (N.D. GA)
    Amount: $100,000
    Status: Dismissed 11/00

    2000 Ramsey v. New York Post/NYP Holdings, Inc. 00-CV-3478 (N.D. NY)
    Amount: $4M
    Status: Confid. Settlement 01/03

    2000 Ramsey v. VonDuyke/Windsor House Pub. (5th)
    Amount: $11.7M
    Status: Settled

    2001 Ramsey v. Court TV/Time Warner 1:01-CV-1561 (N.D. GA)
    Amount: $70M
    Status: Confid. Settlement 10/02

    2001 Linda Hoffman-Pugh v. Ramsey 1:01-CV-0630 (N.D. GA)
    Amount: $50M
    Status: Dismissed 04/02

    2001 Ramsey v. Steve Thomas/St. Martin Press 1:01-CV-0801 (N.D. GA)
    Amount: $80M
    Status: Confid. Settlement 03/02

    2003 Ramsey v. Fox News 1:03-CV-3976 (N.D. GA) transferred to
    04-CV-1464 (CO)
    Amount: $16M
    Status: Dismissed 01/05
     
  6. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    No, Elle. Spade blames an alleged oversight on Metcalf's part in the Star suit for the subsequent suit against Fox. I was trying to explain why that isn't valid from a legal perspective. What is revelational, at least to me, is that Hanswirth and Metcalf represented the Star/Globe and ended up representing Fox in this latest case. Perhaps good pennies, as with bad pennies, just keep rolling around.
     
  7. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thanks for your help, Deja. I'm blown away by those figures above. Wish I had your expertise. :)
     
  8. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    We each have our own skills and talents in this life, Elle. That's what makes us need each other. Yours as I have come to know them are equally precious! So glad you're my friend! :bow:
     
  9. Spade

    Spade Member

    Retraction/Settlement

    By advising Pecker to RETRACT the BDI story in Star without 1st obtaining an agreement NOT to sue, Metcalf opened the door to the Star/NYPost/Time Warner suits(all based on the original Star story). IMO it was incompetent lawyering worthy of Darnay.

    Please try to understand the difference between RETRACTION and Settlement. Plus do NOT blame the Star suit for the Fox suit.
     
  10. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Spade, I am quite clear on the distinction between retraction and settlement. I was teaching on the subject long before you came across it in real life. That is not the point. You allege that Metcalf's alleged failure to get Wood's agreement not to file suit laid foundation for him to do just that against other media outlets. I don't know how you know that Metcalf failed to do anything unless you have the settlement agreement from the Star/Globe suit in hand. It's my understanding that it is confidential.

    If the Star had been my client at the time, I would not have advised them to print a retraction. To people like LW and the Ramseys, a retraction is the same thing as an admission of wrongdoing and to create such an appearance on behalf of any client is bad lawyering. Without a printed retraction, LW would of course have filed suit and it was settled under confidential terms. It could well be some negotiation between Metcalf and Wood did take place and failed. This kind of litigation is always balls-to-the-wall and any kiss-and-make-up strategy usually fails. Experience teaches us that.

    In short, there was nothing Hanswirth and Metcalf could have done in the Star case to prevent the flurry of libel suits over the ensuing years. Those stories about BDI were sensationalism at its worst and none of the articles were based in any evidentiary fact. Burke was a little kid at the time and yet his name was all over the world as THE killer of his sister without any proof whatsoever. Defending that kind of conduct is next to impossible and the best course of action from a legal standpoint would have been a quick settlement for as cheap as possible.

    LW saw opportunity with every media outlet who published any claims about Burke and it rightly succeeded IMO. However, the most recent Fox suit was Wood's first foray into libel against the adult Ramseys. When he saw that it would not succeed, you will recall, he amended the complaint to shift the focus of his libel allegations back to Burke because that was the strategy that did succeed. Judge Figa cut him off at the balls despite it. This is the end of the Ramsey shakedown career unless some other source publishes more indefensible claims.

    Also of great importance in the Ramsey suits is the message to media to produce more responsible reports and to do the vital legwork before publishing to ensure what they are publishing can be supported in fact. Now we need to focus the public's attention on the recent 48 Hours spinchit regarding the never-dying intruder theory on the same basis. Responsible and honest journalism is a matter of extreme public interest and whatever ways we can find to hold media responsible for it gets my big thumbs up! There is a huge difference, I'm sure you'll agree, between liberty and license. The First Amendment guarantees our right to responsible free speech which is the essence of liberty. It does not guarantee our appropriated license to the same free speech if it's based in harmful ********. And to run a story for its sensationalist value alone to garner viewing ratings that translates into huge revenue is irresponsible journalism unless that sensational story can be validated by credible facts. It is also an enormous breach of the public's trust and we are all damaged because of it.

    And if I were the Boulder District Attorney, or the Boulder Chief of Police, and some nutjobs got on a tv program claiming they're running around Boulder secretly videotaping innocent people and trying to swab mouths to name them publicly as criminals, I'd be out in full force to protect the rights and privacies of all those targets and probably slap injunctions on those who are committing such violations. Talk about irresponsibility running amok!

    Just as all those old articles claiming BDI could not be based in any evidentiary fact (regardless of true or false), so also the RST's public spin on various innocents as THE murderer are also absent factual support and constitute the same libelous conduct.

    If you have support for your claim such as the Star settlement agreement, please review it to find the clause wherein plaintiffs release all claims against The Star. Again, any resolution in the Star case, including any retraction arrangements, could not prohibit Wood from suing other media outlets in the future for their alleged libelous conduct. Had Metcalf garnered the prized consent of Lin Wood not to sue, it would only have applied to the Star case, not the subsequent cases he indeed filed. In absence of it, of course, the Ramseys were free to sue the Star and any subsequent media outlet they felt libeled them. Operationally speaking, your theory is invalid. But from strictly an accusatory standpoint, it is powerful enough to create suspicions of Metcalf who, by all accounts including the bar associations that license him, is an outstanding attorney.

    If you have proof of any negligent conduct on Metcalf's part, I'd like to see it. If you have proof to support your claim that such conduct created opportunity for subsequent suits, I'd like to see it. You have my email addy; we can discuss it off forum to preserve everyone's integrity. Otherwise, your theory just comes across to me (and maybe I'm alone in this) as sour grapes.

    You know me, Spade, we've been down this road before. Making unsupported claims unless tagged as strictly a postulation, will always be challenged. Any assaults posted against anyone's character and competency bear liability consequences for this forum and its members. And attorneys take their reputations very seriously. I have also extended open invitation many times to anyone to hold me accountable for my posts as well. Don't take it personally; you know I love ya! :fishslap:
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2005
  11. Little

    Little Member

    Deja wrote:
    All I have to do is have more patience when reading your posts Deja and you will address the questions I have bouncing around in my head :)

    I realize it's not someone's obligation to prove their innocence, be it in a court of law, or in the court of public opinion. What perplexes me (well, one of the many things LOL) is exactly what you addressed in the above quote. The RST, IMO, places themselves in the very position they scream foul over. If they are going to proclaim innocence in public, the public is entitled to say prove it, either put up or shut up.

    Little
     
  12. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Little, sorry about the length of my posts. Verbose is what I got paid to be! LOL

    Well, proving one's innocence is the essence of any defense against allegations so it's not as far-fetched as you think. That's the purpose of allegations, to shift that burden of proof onto the accused. It can also be used as a diversionary tactic if one's case is weak.

    It always infuriates me when I think back on the utter trouncing ST took for alleged "leaks" by the RST. The Ramseys leak more than my great-grandmother's sieve! Double standards are the same kind of defense as character assassinations-a dead giveaway that anyone launching them has nothing else. Sad, should be outlawed. Now all I need to do is figure out is how I can be Queen of the World. :bigstick:
     
  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