1077 users online (177 members and 900 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343

    Why GJ dismissal does not equal BDI

    I already wrote about this on another thread, but I thought it deserved a thread of its own, and perhaps, if there are any lawyers amongst us, they may want to chime in here.

    A theory has been offered on this board that the fact that the Grand Jury did not indict anyone may imply that the GJ concluded that BDI. Because of the Colorado Children's Code, he could not be charged, and so the GJ did not indict anyone and a heavy gag order was put on the case. However, I do not think this is possible for one reason...

    If that was the GJ's conclusion, the Ramseys would unquestionably be one of the few who are privy to this information. I do not think that it is ambitious to assume that Lin Wood would also have this information. If that is the case, then after 10/14/99, the day the Grand Jury was dismissed, any lawsuit filed by the Ramseys on behalf of Burke with Lin Wood as their lawyer would be promoting perjury. The Ramseys filed 6 suits on behalf of Burke between 11/30/99 and 6/15/01. They were against the Globe, the NY Post, Time Warner, CourtTV, the Star, and Windsor House/Dwight Wallington. While the Grand Jury information is secretive, I cannot imagine that the Colorado judiciary would sit back and allow the Ramseys to recover all this money based on a lie!! I know there are some that probably think the Colorado judiciary would bow down for the Ramseys, but there are some lines that cannot be crossed, and lawyers/judges take an oath that they must follow the code of ethics. There is no way that this would fly...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,622
    Voice of Reason:

    An indictment may not have been issued since that was the required outcome.

    Politics and money may have played a part, along with pressure from the Ramsey legal team to avoid any legal action. John Ramsey may have been privy to information that nobody in his political circle wished to be made public.

    Also the sealing of Burke's records apply whether he is innocent or considered guilty.

    The same would apply to any other minors implicated by confession or inference.

    A code of ethics is simply advisory not mandatory, and if a particular judiciaries leaning is towards a liberal lifestyle, then legal argument or case law can be employed to engineer just about any outcome.

    .

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    A code of ethics is simply advisory not mandatory, and if a particular judiciaries leaning is towards a liberal lifestyle, then legal argument or case law can be employed to engineer just about any outcome.
    NO!!!!! All lawyers/judges must swear to abide by a code of ethics. It is NOT advisory!!! It is 150% mandatory!!!

    I know that many doubters will claim that they hardly equate lawyers with ethics, but one cannot bring a civil suit that he knows is based on false allegations. And when I say "one", I am referring to a lawyer. The Ramseys can do whatever they want, but Lin Wood cannot bring these suits if he is aware of Burke's involvement. While I wouldn't put it past Lin, but a judge or member of LE in Colorado who is privy to the same information would definitely call him out, and could do so without violating the gag order by going through the courts.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,622
    Voice of Reason:

    You may be correct but has anyone called yet?

    Also the curia in Rome, the cardinals, and priests of the catholic religion have a similar code of ethics which is also considered madatory, transgression is supposed to be followed by excommunication?

    I can only draw your attention to the multitude of libel cases passing through the courts, nearly all of which rest upon due negligence or a conspiracy of silence.

    How many adherents have you heard making the historical call ?

    .

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343

    It's not supposed to be airtight, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    Voice of Reason:

    You may be correct but has anyone called yet?

    Also the curia in Rome, the cardinals, and priests of the catholic religion have a similar code of ethics which is also considered madatory, transgression is supposed to be followed by excommunication?

    I can only draw your attention to the multitude of libel cases passing through the courts, nearly all of which rest upon due negligence or a conspiracy of silence.

    How many adherents have you heard making the historical call ?

    .
    UKGuy,

    I appreciate your critique as I do not put forth this thread as airtight. It was just a thought I had, and I was interested to see what, if any, holes could be poked in this logic. However, I do not think holes can be poked by dismissing the code of ethics or the likelihood of a whistleblower. Obviously, it's possible that all involved are unethical, and noone had the guts to pull the plug on these fictitious claims of libel, but I was looking for a more grounded rebuttal. I think that BlueCrab took a good hack at my logic in another thread where I wrote virtually the same thing, by stating that the courts would not let the cases go any further and forced settlement. That seems plausible.

    So I guess my question (which should probably be reserved for lawyers if there are any here) should be framed as such: If the GJ concluded that Burke was involved and this information was suppressed from the public, could a lawyer, privy to this information, go forward ethically with a case of libel against a publication implicating Burke?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    So I guess my question (which should probably be reserved for lawyers if there are any here) should be framed as such: If the GJ concluded that Burke was involved and this information was suppressed from the public, could a lawyer, privy to this information, go forward ethically with a case of libel against a publication implicating Burke?
    What would ethics have to do with it? Ethics relate to truth, and it has been true that libel cases have been filed, and won, even though the person doing the suing knew the newspaper/magazine/tabloid was in the right. Liberace won a libel suit against a British publication, the Daily Mirror, for having said he was gay. Liberace won. The Daily Mirror lost. But time revealed that the Daily Mirror was right, and Liberace was gay. So I would say it is not out of the realm of reality that the Ramseys could have sued and won on Burke's behalf, and still they could have known the tabloids were right. It has happened, it could have happened again in this case.
    "That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too." -- Anne Elk

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by why_nutt
    What would ethics have to do with it? Ethics relate to truth, and it has been true that libel cases have been filed, and won, even though the person doing the suing knew the newspaper/magazine/tabloid was in the right. Liberace won a libel suit against a British publication, the Daily Mirror, for having said he was gay. Liberace won. The Daily Mirror lost. But time revealed that the Daily Mirror was right, and Liberace was gay. So I would say it is not out of the realm of reality that the Ramseys could have sued and won on Burke's behalf, and still they could have known the tabloids were right. It has happened, it could have happened again in this case.
    You are correct, but perhaps, you're not understanding the scenario I am proposing. As long as Liberace's attorney was not fully aware of whether or not he was gay, that case can go forward. Obviously, this type of stuff goes on all the time. Do you think Johnny Cochran thought OJ was innocent? Doubtful. The point is, any good defense attorney will tell you that you should never ask your client point-blank, "did you do it?" In the Ramsey case, things are a bit different. Lin Wood knew that Burke was involved 100%, IF the Grand Jury concluded this. And under that scenario, I am not sure that the libel cases could go forward. But, again, I am simply asking the question...could the cases go forward?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    The courts did not allow ANY of the Burke libel cases to go forward. They were all stopped and concluded with settlements, the contents of which are all sealed. I doubt very much that any significant amounts of monies exchanged hands in any of these cases. Lin Wood, IMO, was defending Burke by using the philosophy of "The best defense is a good offense".

    Please refer to the specific charges in each of the cases. For instance, in the very first one, the Ramseys sued The Star for calling Burke a suspect, when the authorities had him officially categorized as a witness. What didn't come out publicly in that case NO ONE was carried as a suspect by the authorities -- they were all witnesses or under the umbrella of suspicion. It's as if the Ramseys had a copyright on the word "suspect" and no one could use that word without their permission. The suit was settled, but the whole case was ludicrous and should have been dismissed much sooner.

    Also, please don't forget that, in this country, a person can sue anyone they want for any reason they want. Frivolous lawsuits are allowed to be filed, and it's up to the courts to either dismiss them or allow them to go forward.

    In regard to the Burke Ramsey lawsuits, even though Lin Wood may know the grand jury essentially solved the case and children too young to prosecute were involved, it may be unclear WHO actually killed JonBenet. Evidence exists that this is the case (the "for sure" wording in Gelb's polygraph questions; and Pam Paugh's comment she knows who killed JonBenet, there two of them, but she doesn't know which one did the killing). Therefore, there's a basis for a lawsuit if someone says Burke did it, without somehow qualifying their statement. Only a handfull of people know "for sure" what really happened.

    BlueCrab

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,475
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    Voice of Reason:

    An indictment may not have been issued since that was the required outcome.
    That is untrue.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,475
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    The courts did not allow ANY of the Burke libel cases to go forward. They were all stopped and concluded with settlements, the contents of which are all sealed.
    The courts stopped them? I strongly doubt that is the case. The courts do not stop lawsuits from going forward, only the parties involved can do that as far as I am aware.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker
    The courts stopped them? I strongly doubt that is the case. The courts do not stop lawsuits from going forward, only the parties involved can do that as far as I am aware.

    Seeker,

    On motion of the defendant, the court can dismiss the case. The plaintiff, upon stipulation with the defendant, can voluntarily dismiss.

    In the Burke Ramsey cases, IMO the respective courts jawboned the litigants into settlements so as to preserve the Boulder grand jury's confidential findings and the Boulder court's protective orders. Otherwise, those confidential findings would spill out into the open and, IMO, violate the Colorado Children's Code protecting the identity of children.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,475
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Seeker,

    On motion of the defendant, the court can dismiss the case. The plaintiff, upon stipulation with the defendant, can voluntarily dismiss.

    In the Burke Ramsey cases, IMO the respective courts jawboned the litigants into settlements so as to preserve the Boulder grand jury's confidential findings and the Boulder court's protective orders. Otherwise, those confidential findings would spill out into the open and, IMO, violate the Colorado Children's Code protecting the identity of children.
    I believe you are incorrect again. Why would the defendant want the case dismissed? The defendant is the person or entity the Ramsey's are suing. The defendant would want that information brought out to prove their story was true. Isn't that why the NY Post refused to settle to begin with?

    Rule 46. Dismissing Cases
    1. At any stage of the proceedings, whenever all parties file with the Clerk an agreement in writing that a case be dismissed, specifying the terms for payment of costs, and pay to the Clerk any fees then due, the Clerk, without further reference to the Court, will enter an order of dismissal.
    2. (a) A petitioner or appellant may file a motion to dismiss the case, with proof of service as required by Rule 29, tendering to the Clerk any fees due and costs payable. No more than 15 days after service thereof, an adverse party may file an objection, limited to the amount of damages and costs in this Court alleged to be payable or to showing that the moving party does not represent all petitioners or appellants. The Clerk will not file any objection not so limited.
    (b) When the objection asserts that the moving party does not represent all the petitioners or appellants, the party moving for dismissal may file a reply within 10 days, after which time the matter will be submitted to the Court for its determination.
    (c) If no objection is filed—or if upon objection going only to the amount of damages and costs in this Court, the party moving for dismissal tenders the additional damages and costs in full within 10 days of the demand therefor—the Clerk, without further reference to the Court, will enter an order of dismissal. If, after objection as to the amount of damages and costs in this Court, the moving party does not respond by a tender within 10 days, the Clerk will report the matter to the Court for its determination.
    3. No mandate or other process will issue on a dismissal under this Rule without an order of the Court.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker
    I believe you are incorrect again. Why would the defendant want the case dismissed?

    Seeker,

    Maybe you like to be sued, but I sure don't. When I'm the defendant I want the case dismissed as soon as possible.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern Vermont
    Posts
    1,446
    The defendant would want the case dismissed if they were GUILTY.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by bensmom98
    The defendant would want the case dismissed if they were GUILTY.

    bensmom98,

    There are no innocent or guilty verdicts in a civil case. Civil cases are almost always about money.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast