Susan Bennett/Jameson is illegally posting parts of Fleet White's sealed deposition

jameson posted:-

Good Grief! At the time of the funeral she posted this:-

http://www.webbsleuths.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=1805&forum=DCForumID61

It is perfectly customary for there to be a reception after a funeral - especially to provide some refreshment for guests who may have travelled a long distance. An open invitation is usually extended to guests at the funeral itself. jameson makes it sound as though she was part of some "inner circle" but I seriously doubt the Ramsey family announced a list of who was invited to the "private" gathering and who wasn't. If they did, I really don't think her name would have been on the list - no matter how she is trying to spin their relationship now.

jameson is seriously full of it.

 

jameson is full of herself as well as being full of it. The only one she impresses is herself.

 

I've read this again and used a legal dictionary. I think we've misunderstood what Judge carnes is saying here.

As I am understanding it, Fleet White filed three letters under seal on 25th, 28th and 30th April.

These were entered on 5th May.

Judge Carnes is saying that she will consider unsealing THESE LETTERS if Fleet White "moves for a contempt citation or seeks discovery". This could be a standard disclaimer which is issued before something is looked at.

IMO, she's NOT saying that she will unseal his sealed depo.

 

Okay, I think I've got it. His letters probably have something to do with the sealing of his testimony - perhaps they are the evidence that he requested his testimony be sealed, and therefore those letters could be unsealed in case of a contempt citation or discovery demand. The letters would be the basis for all of it and therefore any defense attorney retained by jameson would be within his rights to discovery of those letters.

OTOH, wouldn't White or his attorney have the right to discovery (or seizure) of all jameson's files, including her computer and other storage media, to ascertain how she came to be in possession of sealed materials?

 

It wouldn't be the first time her computer and files had been seized. She's on record explaining the lengths to which she goes to protect her sources. When her sources are breaking the law and she knows they are breaking the law then that would make her an accessory.

I do hope this is taken seriously. Not even just for the sake of the Ramsey case, but "in principle". It's just not right that a nobody like jameson should get away with overriding decisions made by a judge. What's the point in having laws if folk like her are going to get away with flouting them?

Correction - it was her AOL email acount which was 'seized'. Can't remember if her computer was seized or not. Apparently her husband and son's AOL accounts were also 'seized'.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-B_n_Jazzy4ever45.htm

 

Fluck jameson. Sending in bogus tips and dna samples. Posting sealed depositions. Jesus Christ. :did: I'm sorry, mods. Please forgive me. Thank you. Love, jc

 

JammySue reminds me of a shoplifting kid who on getting caught, says he has "no idea" how those CDs got into his pocket, lol!

C'mon Sue, you know EXACTLY who gave you that depo.
What a ridiculous attempt on her part to throw sand into others' eyes.

Acting before thinking about the consequences is part of ScammySue's psychological make-up. That's why she always ends up in trouble caused by her scams and now is trying to climb out of yet another hole she has dug for herself.

In a prior post she wrote:

So she knows exactly how she got the depo.
Thanks for the info, JammySue. Therefore you can spare yourself your babble about allegedly not knowing where you got it from.

Like so often, ScammySue can't keep track of her own lies.

 

*whistles*

Hmph. Look what just happened.

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TMPVLAN7ROJBMT4F5

And gee, suddenly a whole bunch of threads are missing from her forum.

 

Per Candy

/05/2008 132 ORDER DIRECTING (Jameson) to cease publishing Mr. White's deposition and to promptly remove from her website all passages or (threads) quoting from the deposition and commenting on it, as she indicated she would do in her open message to Mr. White. Discovery period will end on June 30, 2008 if Mr. White chooses to undergo the expense to pursue discovery to identify (Jameson) or others who should be cited. Mr. White is directed NOT to call chambers again. If he wish to communicate with the Court, he must file an appropriate legal pleading, setting out the particular relief he seeks. Signed by Judge Julie E. Carnes on 05/05/08. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(fap) c. Certified Mail and Regular Mail to Fleet White, Jr. and (Jameson) Modified on 5/6/2008 (fap). (Entered: 05/06/2008)

JUDGE CARNES CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AGAINST JAMESON:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THENORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA FILEDINCHAME

.

ATLANTA DIVISION U.S.D.C. Atlanta

ROBERT CHRISTIAN WOLF, MAY 0 u; 2008
Plaintiff,
Blp
ES N. HAT7E clerk
:CIVIL ACTION NO aeputyC~C~
v .:1 :00-CV-1187-JEC

JOHN BENNETT RAMSEY, et al .,

Defendants .

ORDER

Y . PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case is before the Court on three letters, dated April 25,
April 28, and April 30, 2008, sent by Fleet White, Jr . tothe Court

[128, 129, 130]. In these letters, Mr . White indicates that portionss
of his deposition testimony in prior civil litigation) before this
Court have been disseminated within the preceding days via a blog
site on the Internet. In each of these letters, as well as Mr.
White's telephone calls to this Court's chambers, Mr . White requests
that the Court take immediate action to stop this dissemination on
the internet of his deposition, which was the subject of a Consent
Protective Order between the parties and Mr . White [54] and which was
filed under seal in this Court [78]. Mr. White also seeks this

I

RobertChristianWolf v. JohnBennett Ramsey, et al., 1:001I87-JEC .

AO 72A
(Rea.8/8a)


Court's action in punishing the person or persons who have revealed
its contents in violation of this Court's Order .

Mr. White is able to seek the Court's intervention because

during the Wolf litigation, after plaintiff Wolf had noticed Mr.
White's deposition, the parties and Mr . White had presented a consent
Protective Order Regarding Deposition of Non-Party Witness Fleet
White, Jr .[54]. In this Order, the parties and White, in effect,
agreed that any portions so designated by White as "confidential"
could not be disclosed in the future .(Id. at 3).2 The Court entered
the Consent Order presented to it on January 10, 2002 . Presumably,
Mr. White designated his entire deposition as "confidential ."
Further, as noted, the White deposition was sealed when filed on
August 6, 2002 .

II . CURRENT DISCLOSURE OF SEALED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
ON A BLDG SITE
In his first letter to the undersigned, dated April 25, 2008,
Mr. White indicates that a person who called him/herself."Jameson "
began publicly disclosing his deposition on 9 :19 pm, on the evening
before, April 24, 2008 .([128] at 1 .) The post was on a site titled
"Webbsleuths.com," and Mr. White indicates his belief that "Jameson"

z . Except that, if Mr . White participated in a televised
interview in which he discussed the issue of culpability for the
death of JonBenet Ramsey, any party could move to unseal the
videotaped deposition.(Id . at 3 .)
2

AO 72A
(Rev.$182)

 

Part 2

also maintains the site .(Id. at 2 .) Mr . White indicates his belief
that "Jameson" is actually a woman named "Sue Bennett," and that Ms .
Bennett knew that the White deposition was subject to a Protective'
Order.(Id. at 3 .)

Corroborating his belief that "Jam son" maintains the website,
Mr. White also indicates that on March 27, 2008, he received a letter
from a "Jameson," requesting that Mr . White record all his memories
of the events that he witnessed following the murder of JonBenet
Ramsey so that all the facts can be in the public domain .
(Attachment to [128] at 2nd fax page 14).. "Jameson" invites the
Whites to join an online discussion group for a few weeks and tell

.his story in order to "clear[] up misinformation we have all had to
live with" [Id.]. "Jameson" closes with his/her mailing address, "PO
Box 5333, Hickory NC 28803 ." "Jameson" also indicates that he/she
has a discussion board on a website called "WeBBsleuths .org." A
month later, the dissemination of a portion of Mr . White's deposition
began .

On April 28, 2008, Mr . White wrote a second letter indicating
that additional portions of his deposition had been disseminated
since his first letter [129]. On April 30th, Mr. White wrote a third
letter' X130], indicating .that thee disclosures continue on the
website . He further notes that "Jameson", whom he believes to be
Susan Bennett, had stated the following in one post accompanying the
3
Ro 72A
(Rev.8/82)
April 25th dissemination of the deposition :
(Message to Fleet, who I feel sure will be reading this .
If you want to talk to me, please get my private number
from Lin Wood and call . If you want the threads removed,
just ask and it will be done . But I honestly believe you
will not make the call . Yousaid nothing wrong-and for
JanBenet's sake it is time the truth was told .
[Id. at 2.]
III . DISCUSSION AND FUTURE PROCEEDINGS
Without going into great detail, suffice it to say that Mr .
White's deposition was the subjection of a protective order against
release and it was sealed . "Jamesan's" dissemination of the
deposition violates the terms of the Protective Order thatt prohibit
disclosure . Indeed, one poster to the site, Mikie, who is obviously
more sensitive to legal niceties than .was "Jameson," inquired :
Question for "Jameson" : On another forum they are saying
this is sealed material and not legal to post. Can you
respond to that?
[Excerpt attached to order; 10. "RE: Lin Wood starts to depose Fleet
Whit (sic)"; http://www.we bbsleuths .org/dcforum/DCForumID79/359.h tml]
"Jameson" responded :
To begin with, I think the members here should know who is
bound by the seal. The answer is the attorneys and their
staffs, plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses and court
officials .
I have NO idea which of those "bound people" first released
the deposition. I think it is clear others, including
people like Silverman and the tabloids, had it long ago ..
So I do no.t anticipate my posting parts of it will cause
any great passion at this late date .
4
AD 72A
(Rev.S1s2)
[Id. attached to Order; 14. "RE: Lin Wood starts to depose Fleet l
Whit (sic)" http://www.we bbsleuths .org/d.cforum/DCForumID79/359. html]
"Jameson" anticipated wrong, as Mr. White indicates that he is
very upset at the release of his deposition . Further, "Jameson's"
legal assumption that, as a non-party to the Consent Protective
Order , she was not required to honor a sealed designation is a very
risky assumption. At the least, it will now subject her, once
identified, to contempt and discovery proceedings, as well as legal
expenses .

Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS "Jameson" to cease publishing Mr.
White's deposition. "Jameson" should also promptly remove from her
website all passages or "threads" quoting from the deposition and
commenting on it, as she indicated she would do in her open message
to Mr. White. Obviously, neither "Jameson" nor anyone else should
disseminate the video of the deposition, which publication would
constitute a much greater invasion of privacy than does the quoting,
by itself, of portions of the deposition.

 

Part 3

In order to issue a contempt citation, the Court has to direct
that citation to a human being. Mr. White, if he chooses to undergo
this expense, may pursue discovery to identify the person who should
be cited, which discovery period will end on June 30, 2008 . This
discovery should be focused on identifying "Jameson" and, once
identified, Mr. White may depose "Jameson" to identify the source
5
AO 72A
(Rev-8182]
fromwhom she procured the sealed deposition. If Mr. White needs
additional time for discovery, he may so request . Any further
depositions should be approved by this Court .
If Mr. White succeeds in identifying "Jameson" or others who
have disseminated his deposition, he may file a. petition for a
contempt citation of those persons, setting out the proof that he
would offer at a hearing . If this proffer is adequate, the Court
will begin civil contempt proceedings against that person .
Mr. White has indicated that he does not choose to retainn
counsel to handle this matter for him . He should be advised that
this Court is neither his co-counsel nor his investigator .
Accordingly, the Court will not be able to offer legall advice or
discovery advice .
IV. CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
In response to one of Mr . White's several communications to this
chambers in the last week, the Court's deputy clerk informed Mr .
White that he may pursue criminal contempt charges against any
violator and that the Court would forward his request to the United
States Attorney. Mr.,White has now copied this Court with a letter
concerning the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings, addressed
to the'United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia,
David Nahmias .
Mr. White is free to deal -with-Mr. Nahmias on this matter. The
6

AO72A
(Rev.8182)
Court takes no position on the propriety of a criminal prosecution of
this allegation of contempt, at this time .
V. DIRECTIVE THAT FLEET WHITE CEASE WRITING AND TELEPHONING THIS
COURT ' S CHAMBERS
As noted above, during the last -week, Mr . White has been
persistent and insistent in his demands that this Court stop
everything else it is doing to focus on the revelation by "Jameson"
of his deposition . Although he did not file the first letter until
Friday, April 25, 2008, by the next business day, Monday, April 28th,
he was conveying to the Court's deputy clerk his dismay that the
Court had taken no action.
Specifically, in his Friday, April 25, 2008 letter [128], Mr .
White concludes by requesting that "this Court act immediately,
today, to prevent the further disclosure of my deposition and to
commence an investigation . I further request that this Court strive
to quickly punish those who are found responsible for violating its
orders." In his Monday, April 28, 2008 letter [129], Mr. White asks
the Court to "advise me immediately what it has done since February
sic] 25, 2008, and what it intends to do in the future to prevent
the further disclosure and publication of my deposition and to hold
in contempt and. punish those persons who have caused the disclosure
and publication of my deposition including Ms . Bennett ." In his
April 30th letter [130], he complains again that the Court has taken
7
AO 72A
(Rev.8182)
no action and that he has heard nothing from the Court .
The Court understands that Mr. White was upset that "Jameson"
published parts of his deposition in contravention of the Protective
Order. It was foolish and presumptuous for "Jameson" to take this
action. The Court also understands that Mr. White wants the persons
responsible punished. What the Court does not understand, however,
is why--if Mr. White was so concerned about his privacy and further
disseminations of his deposition--he did not immediately notify
"Jameson" to cease .3 In one of her April 25th postings, she indicated
that she was aware that Mr . White would be reading the post and that
she would remove the references if he requested . If stopping
dissemination of the deposition in its tracks was Mr . White's focus,
he could likely have accomplished this by immediately indicating on
the blog site that a Protective Order was in existence and that
"Jam son" should remove all quotations and paraphrases derived from
3 The Court shares Mr . White's chagrin that "Jameson" has
blatantly violated the Protective and sealing orders . Beyond that
concern, however, it is not clear that Mr . White has. suffered any
particular prejudice or invasion of his privacy by the excerpts of
the deposition revealed so far. Nothing in the excerpts posted
suggests anything negative about Mr . White's conduct during the time
period surrounding JonBenet's murder and its subsequent
investigation. Further, Mr. White appears to be a polite and
responsive witness throughout thee disclosed excerpts . Indeed,
nothing he says in the deposition appears to add anything
substantially new to what has already long been in the public record
concerning this matter . Thus, beyond the fact of a disclosure, the
Court perceives nothing harmful or embarrassing to Mr . White in thee
excerpts .
8
AO 72A
(Rew.&sz)
the deposition .
Mr. White did not do so, and allowed the dissemination to go on
unchallenged. Instead, he chose to pursue a legal avenue that his
attorney had told him in the past would be slow and time-consuming .
His belief that this Court could stop everything else it was doing,
to work full-time on his quest for a contempt proceeding, reflects a
lack of knowledge about, or indifference to, how busy are the dockets
of most federal judges .
Accordingly, Mr. White is directed NOT to call these chambers
again. He is now involved in.litigation and it is inappropriate for
the Court to be speaking to him. Should Mr. White wish to
communicate with the Court, he must file an appropriate legal
pleading, setting out the particular relief he seeks . He should send
no more letters . He may, upon filing a pleading, fax the same to
this Court to insure that the Court's staff is aware.e that the
pleading has been filed. In addition, if the Court does not respond
immediately to a pleading by Mr . White, this simply means that the
Court, which is always required to prioritize the many pleadings and
submissions before it on any given day, has concluded that Mr .
White's matter should not take precedence over the many other cases
before this Court, whose litigants would also like the Court's
attention. The Court will get to Mr. White's particular pleading,
when it can. Repeat pleadings indicating Mr. White's displeasure
9
AO 72A
(Rev8182)
that no action has been taken will not be helpful to his cause .

 

Part 4

VI . CONCLUSION
In summary, the Court DIRECTS "Jameson" to cease publishing Mr .
White 's deposition. "Jamesan" should also promptly remove from her
website all passages/threads quoting from the deposition and
commenting on it, as she indicated she would do in her open message
to Mr. White. Neither "Jameson" nor anyone else should disseminate
the video of the deposition, which publication would constitute a
much greater invasion of privacy than does the quoting, by itself, of
portions of the deposition .
If Mr. White chooses to undergo the expense of discovery to
identify the person who should be cited as "Jameson," the discovery
period will end on June 30 , 2008 . If he can identify her, Mr . White
may depose "Jameson" to identify the source from whom she procured
the sealed deposition . If Mr . White needs additional time for
discovery, he may so request . Any further depositions should be
approved by this Court .
If Mr. White succeeds in identifying "Jameson" or others who
have disseminated his deposition, he may file a petition for a
contempt citation of those persons, setting out the proof that he
would offer at a hearing. If this proffer is adequate, the Court
will begin civil contempt proceedings against that person .
10
AO 72A
(F3ev.s/82)
SO ORDERED, this day of May, 2008 .
E E. CARVES
.
UNZTED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
~'
11
AO 72A
(Aev.8/82)

 

Sue Bennet's response......

jameson
Member since 5-8-02
05-06-08, 08:22 PM (EST)

"Removal of Fleet White transcript"

I have NOT received a "cease and desist" order from the judge, don't know if there really is one out there. Seems to me I would have gotten one in my email.

But I do believe Fleet is upset and would like the threads down so I will do as I said in the beginning. The threads are gone.

Still, a bell can't be unrung. Some details we learned from the document will remain in the forum of truth."

 

Remebering why.....

Time Magazine
September 7, 1998
By Richard Woodbury

Fleet White Jr. and his wife Priscilla White are criticizing friends John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey for their lack of cooperation in the murder investigation of their daughter JonBenet Ramsey. The Whites feel that justice is not being served properly.

When his daughter was murdered, John Ramsey turned to a friend who now declares his misgivings

It was at the Boulder, Colorado, home of Fleet White Jr. and his wife Priscilla that John and Patsy Ramsey had Christmas dinner on the night, now nearly two years ago, that their six-year-old daughter JonBenet was murdered. It was Fleet White whom John Ramsey called when the little girl was discovered missing the next day. And it was White who was close at hand when John Ramsey discovered the body of his daughter in a basement room. Sharing in the tumult, however, did not cement the friendship. By the time JonBenet was buried, the Whites and Ramseys were estranged and, until the Whites wrote an angry open letter two weeks ago to "the people of Colorado" about what they saw as the mishandling of the JonBenet murder investigation, the couple had kept silent for months. Last week, in a rare interview, Fleet White, an oil and gas entrepreneur, described the alienation from the Ramseys to TIME: "Justice hasn't had a chance so far. Anyone who doesn't have this as their prime goal, we'll have a falling out with."

While he refused to go into questions of guilt or details of the murder scene, White made it clear, as he had in his letter, that he and his wife are frustrated with the investigation. "The whole thing has been very puzzling to us," he said. "Nothing seems to make sense ... There have been so many powerful and influential players in this case that it's difficult for the prosecution to proceed. And the D.A. and police haven't been able to work together. This is a deadly combination, and it's created friction." He does not believe district attorney Alex Hunter will indict anyone, adding that "there have been so many conflicting interests ... Somebody without an ax to grind needs to be running things."

Bob Grant, a district attorney in suburban Denver and consultant to Hunter, scoffs at White's contention of a tacit agreement among authorities to delay the investigation to such an extent that foggy memories and undeveloped leads would result in the case's being derailed by the grand jury, which is expected to begin hearing evidence this month. "He doesn't know anything about prosecution procedures," says Grant. "He's an extremely frustrated guy, and you can understand that because he was there when the body was found. He seems to be going off the deep end."

White, however, finds it mystifying that members of the D.A.'s staff-unlike the police-have done little in terms of questioning him and his wife, yet refuse to say he is fully cleared of involvement in the murder. "If we're important witnesses, it's just common sense that the prosecutor would want to keep in touch with you. But we have no relationship with them." He adds, "We only want to see justice done for JonBenet. Nobody is really working for her."

"WE ARE OUTRAGED": Priscilla and Fleet White, whose daughter was the best friend of JonBenet Ramsey, with her brother Burke, left, fault the Ramseys' unwillingness to cooperate with police.

http://www.time.com/

 

A judge would NEVER send a "cease and desist" nor would ANY kind of legal notice in an E-MAIL! The Internet is not private nor can it be absolutely certain that e-mails will be only be read by the person for whom it is intended. So her comment is just more blathering. Any legal notice comes via US Mail, usually certified, or will be delivered in person. (not by the judge herself, of course).
You can believe that she GOT that order. That's why she removed those posts.

 

Why was she not addressed as Sue Bennett? By addressing her as jameson in the court order and then the nastiness towards the VICTIM in this situation, Carnes proves herself again as Queen, Judge and Jury of the Ramsey SpinTeam. Satan is a Female after all......

I wonder if Carnes would have been so haughty and arrogant if she were in Fleet's shoes! :steamed:This little game was well played and paid for. But
since it looks like John won't run for office now trying to draw Fleet out with this challenge was all for naught. I HATE Trouble-Makers with a passion and Sue's latest ploy is just sickening. She expects Fleet to e-mail her?! Yeah - I see that happening........She expects to buy him a cup of coffee so that they can compare notes and find that they may agree on a few things?!

:jclap:

 

This is such BS. Like Fleet reads at jameson's.......and even if he did see Sue's posting about him just calling her if he wanted them removed was after the fact! Once she posted them - they are there for Internet Forever.

The Victim attempts to notify the authority of the crime in progress is further revictimized by the very person whose Order was being defied! And as for her referring to Sue as jameson and that IF Fleet could find out who she is is more BS as she just had just included a quote of Fleet addressing the law-breaker as Mrs. Bennett!

 

Thank you for the update Sherlock!