Ramseys Lose Suit Against FOX!

They've Got Balls.

"Importantly, a major thrust of the broadcast was to report “a recent major
development,†that the Boulder Police Department “long suspicious of the Ramseys, has turned the case over to District Attorney Mary Keenan, to bring ‘fresh eyes’ to the investigation.†Plaintiffs’ own counsel in this case, Lin Wood, Esq., appears in the broadcast stating: “This is new day in this investigation. The days of the Ramseys being the focus of the investigation . . . those days are over.†Clearly the broadcast reflects that the investigation is moving in a new direction, one in which none of the plaintiffs is being accused or suspected of being involved."

 

Will the Ramseys have to pay Fox's costs now? They would in the UK.

 

"HAHAHAHAHAHA... Deja Nu you were right when you said Woody had outstepped his boundary on that one, and the Judge slapped the Woodman's face with it!!!"

SM, the Woodster was WAY out of bounds on just about everything stated in the original and amended complaint, so it's no surprise Judge Figa called him out on it. His legal skills leave so much to be desired.....

LW: "Clearly the broadcast reflects that the investigation is moving in a new direction, one in which none of the plaintiffs is being accused or suspected of being involved."

Law 101--How NOT to Undermine Your Own Case :404:

"Will the Ramseys have to pay Fox's costs now? They would in the UK."

Jayelles, Fox did not request fees and costs in their Motion to Dismiss, hence, the order is silent on this issue. Neither did they ever countersue the Rams, requesting these damages. The Rams will not have to pay their own costs and fees (presuming LW is on contingency fee agreement) either. Woody gets stuck with the whole bag, as does Fox. Fox could file a post-judgement motion asking for fees/costs, which I think they should. The judge would award it hands down based on his ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.

 

I'm very impressed.

I figure he's aiming at at skanks here: "For example, in our current technologically advanced era anyone can get on the internet, become a self-proclaimed journalist or pundit and draw a worldwide audience."

And bees here: "Webloggers can in a matter of hours point out key errors in reporting by mainstream media outlets. When people have the means and expertise to generally publish fair and perhaps insightful comments quickly and easily on matters of public concern, such as what a crime scene reveals or does not reveal, law enforcement and the rest of us may benefit. The robust protections guaranteed by the First Amendment thus remain as important and valuable as ever."

 

Deja-Nu - thanks.

JC - LOL

 

"When people have the means and expertise to generally publish fair and perhaps insightful comments quickly and easily on matters of public concern, such as what a crime scene reveals or does not reveal, law enforcement and the rest of us may benefit. The robust protections guaranteed by the First Amendment thus remain as important and valuable as ever."

Thank you, Your Honor, for placing that value on those of us over the years who have been slandered, libeled and utterly disparaged. Hoorah for the First Amendment and sensible judges who uphold it!

Listen up, Beckner!

 

Poor Comrade Wood.

 

Deja,

Would we be able to know if Fox files a motion for fees? I think it's imperative that they do-- not only to show that our first amendment rights are important,BUT frivolous lawsuits by intimidating attornies have no business being filed!

 

Fox ought to file for fees IMO, and put a stop to the ridiculous Ramsey gravy train!

Think John might try to find a real job?

 

That caught my eye, too, JC.

I do believe His Honor may have been reading some of the forums.

"Webloggers can in a matter of hours point out key errors in reporting by mainstream media outlets. When people have the means and expertise to generally publish fair and perhaps insightful comments quickly and easily on matters of public concern, such as what a crime scene reveals or does not reveal, law enforcement and the rest of us may benefit. The robust protections guaranteed by the First Amendment thus remain as important and valuable as ever."

May we conclude that jameson, stine, Rainsong, Toth, Smit, SanAgustin, and their ilk did NOT have the means (brains) and expertise (talent) to publish "insightful comments" about the "crime scene" that would exonerate their clients, the Ramseys?

 

There is a GREAT discussion (NOT) of this over at Jameson's. Two or three of the news articles on one thread and that's it. Mikie's astrological mumbo jumbo of who REALLY killed Laci Peterson is receiving more attention.

 

"Deja,

Would we be able to know if Fox files a motion for fees? I think it's imperative that they do-- not only to show that our first amendment rights are important,BUT frivolous lawsuits by intimidating attornies have no business being filed!"

Sure! But I predict Candy will find it out 13 minutes before me! :nervous:

 

Oh my,

thank goodness someone finally put an end to the gravy train that has been the income for the Ramsey's since JonBenet's murder. Oh that feels so good doesn't it? AT last. And I love the Judge's comments,"Plantiffs cannot have the public discourse playing fields entirely to themselves". Right on. They have had it their way for so long now. And just think John lost an election and now this loss. Yippee! Let the losses roll. :gavel:

 

I guess when one has alot of time on their hands they can search all day for news wires, etc.

Most of us have careers and families. I for one, cannot often take time from my job for searching for Ramsey case related documents, calling court clerks, etc. -- even on my lunch hour! (IF I even get a lunch hour- half the time I don't!)

Most companies would not appreciate their workers doing this on work time. If I ever caught any of my employees doing any of this on work time,using the company computers,faxes and phone lines, they would get reprimanded. If someone has time to monitor this stuff all day long -- it shows is how much time they have on their hands and how little real life and real career they have.

 

The Woodman Speaks

...in AP article:

Judge Tosses Ramseys' Suit Vs. Fox News

ERIN GARTNER

Associated Press


DENVER - A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit filed by the parents of JonBenet Ramsey against Fox News Channel, saying a network report unfavorable to the couple was not defamatory.

Judge Phillip Figa suggested that John and Patsy Ramsey seek vindication "in the court of public opinion."

In a ruling made public Friday, Figa said litigation in defamation cases could chill constitutionally protected free speech rights and because of that, the facts in such cases must be established with "convincing clarity."

He said the Ramseys failed to meet that standard. He said the case cannot be refiled.

"Plaintiffs may well have filed this case more for vindication than for money, and perhaps vindication is what they deserve," he said in a ruling written Wednesday. "But they have a better chance for meaningful vindication in the court of public opinion through vigorous debate about the background and details of this heinous crime than by suing those whose reporting may arguably include some less than favorable inferences about them."

The lawsuit was filed over a December 2002 story that aired around the six-year anniversary of the 6-year-old girl's slaying. In it, Denver-based staffer Carol McKinley said there has "never been any evidence to link an intruder to her brutal murder."

A cloud of suspicion has hung over the couple since the 1996 slaying but no charges have been filed. The Ramseys say an intruder killed their daughter.

The Ramsey's attorney, L. Lin Wood, said he has not decided whether to appeal.

"The decision has nothing to do with the truth or the falsity of the broadcast," Wood said. "It was an unfair broadcast, it was an unbalanced broadcast, and it was a false broadcast. But that issue was not decided by the judge."

During a court hearing last month, John Ramsey said the lawsuit was part of restoring his family's honor.

 

Three cheers! :loser: :flash: :glug: :toast: :justice: Thanks Deja!

We would all welcome that one! The truth would come out.

 

Excuse Me, Mr. Wood

"The Ramsey's attorney, L. Lin Wood, said he has not decided whether to appeal. 'The decision has nothing to do with the truth or the falsity of the broadcast," Wood said. "It was an unfair broadcast, it was an unbalanced broadcast, and it was a false broadcast. But that issue was not decided by the judge.'"

But you did not ask Judge Figa to decide the minor issues of "unfair, unbalanced and false." Instead, you asked him to decide the issues of
defamation based in negligence and actual malice according to your amended complaint (I could waste bandwidth to repost it here but you probably have your bathroom mirror surrounded with it so I won't bother.)

And Judge Figa clearly said that whatever mischaracterizations you wish to hang on the Fox News Broadcast, it doesn't amount to defamation, or any negligence and wilfull malice. And despite what I'm sure was most vociferous and arrogant oral argument, he further stated you failed to prove your case and there will be no opportunity for refiling of your claims.

We look forward to your CO appeal.

 

P.s.

Whomever has been copying all of the threads at FFJ, please take note that some of those threads included my, and several others, posts that clearly indicate that any such copying without express permission is theft of property. You have not sought, nor have you been provided, my express permission. Should you wish to do so, please contact the forum owner, Tricia Griffith, who will pass your request on to me directly.

 

Deja

"The decision has nothing to do with the truth or the falsity of the broadcast," Wood said. "It was an unfair broadcast, it was an unbalanced broadcast, and it was a false broadcast".

That line is a hoot! What a soreloser. And what a temper. I hope he doesn't go home and take it out on one of his horses.

 

Or worse, his wife, like his father did. :glug: :tipsy: :devil: :did: