Ramseys Appear In Denver Federal Court

Hmmm, I think I see the problem. It seems that "she" understands the meaning of evidence and Mr. Wood does not.

Little

 

I may be wrong but I believe I read that each member of the family was suing for $2M each, $2m x 3.

 

Thanks, EW, for the clarification. But I don't understand why the demand amount as stated in the court docket says 2 million if the total is 12 million (2 million for compensatory, and 10 million for punitive). Why isn't the total demand stated? It's very misleading for the official records to only include the compensatory amount. Why isn't the punitive amount also listed?

Help from any legal eagles would be appreciated.

 

here's a quote from the ACandyRose site on the original suit filed:

I don't believe Cherokee copied ALL of what she posted back a few pages on this thread. It states the $2million on there as (b)... just to clarify for you!

 

Looking forward to the "interesting stuff" Delmar. Like Tricia, I always need help with the legal issues.

 

Damages

Hope this clarifies your questions regarding the damages. Definitions are taken from Black's Law Dictionary:

Damages: ...Damages may be compensatory or punitive according to whether they are awarded as the measure of actual loss suffered or as punishment for outrageous conduct and to deter furture transgressions. Nominal damages are awarded for the vindication of a right where no real loss or injury can be proved. Generally, punitive or exemplary damages are awarded only if compensatory or actual damages have been susained.

Compensatory damages: Compensatory damages are such as will compensate the injured party for the injury sustained and nothing more; such as will simply make good or replace the loss caused by the wrong or injury. Damages awarded to a person as compensation, indemnity, or restitution for harm sustained by him. The rationale behind compensatory damages is to restore the injured party to the position he or she was in prior to the injury. Northwestern Nat. Cas. Co. v. McNulty, C.A.Fla., 307 F.2d 432, 434. Equivalent of Actual damages above.

Compensatory or actual damages consist of both general and special damages. General damages are the natural, necessary, and usual result of the wrongful act or occurrence in question. Special damages are those "which are the natural, but not the necessary and inevitable result of the wrongful act."

Exemplary or punitive damages: Exemplary damages are damages on an increased scale, awared to the plaintiff over and above what will barely compensate him for his property loss, where the wrong done to him was aggravated by circumstances of violence, oppression, malice, fraud, or wanton and wicked conduct on the part of the defendant, and are intended to solace the plaintiff for mental anguish, laceration of his feelings, shame, degradation, or other aggravations of the original wrong, or else to punish the defendant for his evil behavior or to make an example of him, for which reason they are also called "punitive" or "punitory" damages or "vindicative" damages. Unlike compensatory or actual damages, punitive or exemplary damages are based upon an entirely different public policy consideration -- that of punishing the defendant or setting an example for similar wrongdoers, as above noted. In cases in which it is proved that a defendant has acted willfully, maliciously, or fraudulently, a plaintiff may be awarded exemplary damages in addition to compensatory or actual damages. Damages other than compensatory damages which may be awarded against a person to punish him for outrageous conduct. Wetherbee v. United Ins. Co. of America, 18 C.A.3d 266, 95 Cal.Rptr. 678, 680. Such are given as an enhancement of compensatory damages because of wanton, reckless, malicious or oppressive character of acts complained of. Cape Publications, Inc. v. Bridges, Fla.App. 387 So.2d 436, 440.

[End]

Defendant Fox filed 8/30/04 a Supplemental Memorandum of Law (BRIEF) concerning the choice of law applicable to
plaintiffs' claims in this action [Entry date 08/31/04]. Plaintiffs' complaint charges Libel, Assault, Slander. My guess is that Fox is challenging not only the charges (they moved to dismiss which was denied) but the damages. That is, Fox doesn't believe it libeled, assaulted or slandered the plaintiffs, ergo damages should not be awarded for actions not committed.

The reason this case is in federal court is due to diversity...that is, the parties are from different states. Diversity goes to the jurisdiction of the parties involved, not to jurisdiction of the actions alleged.

Federal court is very different from the state courts (superior court). Not many hearings take place. A party moves for an action by submitting a motion and the federal judge has up to 40 days to make a decision, which results in a written decision sent to the parties.

The hearing on the 13th was as Cherokee noted, a scheduling hearing. This is normal. Once the complaint has been filed, and the usual motion to dismiss (and denial), the court schedules this hearing to lay out for the parties how it wants the case to move along. In essence, discovery opens and the parties can then get down to business of deposing witnesses, bringing in experts, etc. The court schedules a pretrial conference at that time to give the parties an idea of when it wants them to complete their discovery. At that hearing, (the pretrial conference), the court then sets a trial date. Usually, if there's been a problem in discovery (resulting in one or both parties wanting more discovery time), the judge sets a later date for the beginning of trial in order to give the parties more time to prepare. Of course, the party asking for this time must present to the court why it needs that time. Also, the court gives the parties a chance to settle, arbitrate or mediate the case at the time of the pretrial conference. To set a date a year away for the pretrial conference/trial date is not unusual whatsoever. This is just the beginning. During discovery, you can bet your sweet bippy that plaintiffs (knowing Woody) will be filing numerous motions for extensions of time to answer defendant's various discovery (i.e., document production, interrogatories, admissions, stipulations, etc.). They'll even delay as much as possible depositions of plaintiffs, claiming either the plaintiffs are unavailable for certain dates of the depositions, or that Woody is tied up in other matters and can't make the dates set. It's a game. Because then Fox will turn around and move the court to compel plaintiffs (and/or Woody to MAKE time, or to PRODUCE the documents, or to ANSWER the interrogatories, etc.).

I seriously doubt that by next September the parties will be able to proceed immediately to trial. They'll present to the court that one or both parties are waiting for this, that or the other.

I also feel that because this suit was brought because of the statement Carole McKinley made, AND the fact that Carole worked on this case from the get-go, she isn't going to back down and may even be pushing Fox to stay the course and not settle. She knows first-hand the dirty tricks the Ramseys have played throughout the entire case. Perhaps for her, this is HER Pulitzer...to be able to break the story that the Ramseys could not prove their daughter was murdered by an intruder.

 

I hope you are correct about the McKinley and Fox attitude pushing it to trial, but I really can't see this happening. Whatever it takes to avoid this is what Wood and the Ramseys will do. Sometime in the near future, I will be posting an analysis of the Amended Complaint explaining why.

BTW, If I paid Fox News, do you suppose they would allow me to prepare the Interrogatories. I use a two set method that pretty much eliminates "wiggle room."

 

If I was Carole, I would push for trial. I have to believe that Fox means what they say...fair and balanced reporting. They're the number 1 reporting network putting CNN and MSNBC to shame, and forget non-cable networks!!! They don't even make the grade. Where everyone ignores this story, Fox is one who may just see this to the end. Especially with Carole having been involved with this case since day one, long before her association with Fox.

As regards Woody getting out...I doubt it will happen. The only way he would get out is if Fox settled, and I just don't see that happening. I'm happy to see Fox has told the court that it's up to plaintiffs to "prove" there was an intruder. The Ramseys won't pull out without some kind of monetary settlement, and Fox won't pay anything because they know they've got the Rams by the cahonas! If plaintiffs try to pull out, I would think (and this is what I'd do if I was Fox) Fox would sue plaintiffs for trying to pull a fast one (mis)using the legal system.

As regards your interrogatories, I don't think you've got a chance; I know for sure Fox wouldn't take any money. Although....hmmmm....if you were brought on as a consultant...

 

Thanks, Ginga, for all the information you provided, but I'm still left with the question of why the demand amount in the court docket was cited as $2,000,000 if it was really $12,000,000.

I cut and pasted the entire docket exactly as it was printed for Ramsey v. Fox News.

If someone had no prior knowledge that the Ramseys and Lin Wood were suing for $12 million, and they obtained the official documents through PACER, they would only see the $2 million demand amount.

Does it mean that they first have to be awarded the $2 million before the extra $10 million can be added on?

 

Granted, Fox News is not likely to let Wood and the Ramseys just walk away without paying their expenses. I don't know how it will all shake out, but I cannot envision Wood in a courtroom with the joke of a suit.

As for consultant, actually, this is a very good idea. No attorney is likely to
spend the time and effort to know what many forum posters know
from years of research and study. Several consultants familiar
with the case would be a great asset to Fox News. I probably
know more about the “garrote scene†than anyone else. However, in
the areas of fibers, prints, DNA and other, there are many who
know a lot more that I do. Fox would be well advised to tap into
this resource of information.

 

I think so. I forgot to read the demand before answering you, but if I'm not mistaken, they listed the $2m as compensatory. IF they won the compensatory damages, then they'd have a chance at winning the punitive damages.

Also, keep in mind that these figures are estimates/guesstimates submitted by counsel. When did you ever see a jury award the exact amount of damages requested? It's sort of a way to indicate to the jury that plaintiffs want at least this much and hopefully, the jury will award that, plus.

Of course, that all rests with the fact that the jury would find in favor of plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs have to PROVE the intruder was in their house that night as defendant claims, I don't see the plaintiffs able to do that, ergo no jury award, regardless of what was asked.

 

I'm suing the Ramseys for the hours and hours they have stolen from my life! :dervish:

 

You bring up an excellent point here, EW. Who's keeping reporting agencies/networks on their toes?

BLOGGERS!

Who "caught" Dan Rather in the CBS forgery scheme?

BLOGGERS!

I don't know if "posters = bloggers", but I bet they're damn close!

Fox News is fully aware of bloggers and their value. One only has to watch a few of their talk shows to see how much credit is given to this 'new age lobbying group'!

If I were you, I'd give it a shot and contact them.

 

yeh

EasyWriter, what Ginja said ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !

 

I wasn't talking about just me. I was talking about Fox News using many posters who have have a lot of knowledge in a lot of areas. I dare say that if they would post a question about something, anything, one or more of the posters would have the answer, or tell them where to find it. They have recognized the wonderful site of ACR. They just need to expand into the knowledge acquired my many via many years or research and analysis.

 

Bloggers sounds like something you have in your nose.

"Ewwww...cover your nose when you sneeze...you're getting Bloggers on me."
------
It'd make a good excuse to miss work..."Uh..boss, I can't come to work today. I've come down with a case of the Bloggers."
------
Seriously Easywriter...I am so anxious for the trial to start. What is your opinion on what can/might happen in this case? In a nutshell?

 

First, I can’t see the case going to trial for the reasons given
in the analysis, plus several more. As indicated in the analysis,
Wood’s “thinking†is disorganized and contradictory. He can’t
establish and sustain consistent arguments; meaning, he would
come unglued in court, especially, with no experience.

Pushing papers in an office or home is one thing. Arguing in
court is a far different ball game. I speak from experience from
small claims court to the Federal level. (ALJ). I am comfortable
with it because I do my homework and deal with the facts. No
homework done, no facts and no experience makes for a very scary
courtroom situation. This is Wood.

He knows this as well as knowing he really has no case. He really
has nothing to gain by going to court, but a lot to lose. So do
the Ramseys. I’m not sure how it will be done, but Wood and the
Ramseys are not about to walk into a courtroom of sure fire
humiliation and devastation.

Their options are to take the fallout from dropping the Complaint
allowing them to go on claiming evidence of an intruder since the
fallacy was not exposed in official setting; or do they try to
pull off the bluff by going to trial?

If the case is dropped “from lack of prosecutionâ€, or other
reason. That won’t be the end of it. You can bet that Fox News
will sue for their legal costs; so, Wood and the Ramseys are in a
bind that is sure to cost them IF the Fox attorneys have a fix on
what the real situation is. I can’t imagine them not trying to
collect their expenses from the Complainants.

For Fox, it’s a mixed bag. On the one hand, they look at the
bottom line and want to recoup expenses created by the suit. On
the other hand, their reputation is at stake. How much do they
want to clear their name by publicly proving that McKinley did
not make a libelous statement. Trust and confidence in the news
program is a big thing, but just how big will Fox see it? That’s
my major concern raising the fear of “settlement†behind closed
doors.

Suppose that by some million to one shot, it does go to trial. IF
the groundwork has been laid by Discovery, including Depositions
and Trial Brief, the time in the courtroom will be very short -
unless the Fox attorneys fall for diversion.

The black and white of the case is that the Plaintiffs MUST
produce evidence of an intruder. This may be evaded for a while
by the Burke ruse, or other diversion means, but in the end, it
all comes back to this.

How is Wood going to pull this off? In the Complaint are numerous
allegations of evidence of an intruder; all “testimony†allegedly
by Carnes, Keenan and Smit. This chain begins and ends with Smit.
We all know about Smit’s “evidence.†By this time, Smit also
knows that we know. Since there is not a single shred of physical
evidence of an intruder, it all falls on Smit as “expert
witness.†In ten questions or less and\or ten minutes or less,
Smit would be exposed for the fraud that he is.

Do you see the devastation in this for the Ramseys? It would be a
matter of public record that the Plaintiffs could not come up
with a single item of evidence of an intruder. It’s one thing
that this truth is occasionally spoken on the forums, or by Carol
McKinley, but when “no evidence of an intruder†becomes a matter
of trial record, many who have given the Ramseys the benefit of
doubt before will not do so again.

One more thing. Wood is a paper pusher, a form filler. This is
leisurely with no immediate opposition requiring immediate
response. This is not a courtroom luxury. In court, it’s
necessary to think on your feet in response to the expected or
unexpected. IF the matter goes to court, I don’t see Wood trying
to pull it off. He will take a backseat to an attorney with trial
experience.

Sorry for such a long answer to a short question, but I like to
be thorough.

 

A quick question for the legal eagles hereabouts:

When the outcome of a civil trial is "defense verdict," would that mean the verdict was in favor of the defense? I ask to confirm something which would show Lin Wood to have either lied about an aspect of his legal career, or which would affirm his claim.