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...

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.

.

UKGuy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 said:

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 ?

.

Click to expand...

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?

Voice of Reason said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

why_nutt said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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

UKGuy said:

Voice of Reason:

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

Click to expand...

That is untrue.

BlueCrab said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

BlueCrab said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Seeker said:

I believe you are incorrect again. Why would the defendant want the case dismissed?

Click to expand...

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.

The defendant would want the case dismissed if they were GUILTY.

bensmom98 said:

The defendant would want the case dismissed if they were GUILTY.

Click to expand...

bensmom98,

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

My mistake - I didn't read the other posts carefully. Of course a civil suit would be different.

, yet again.

I think that, perhaps, I have posted this question in the incorrect forum. With all due respect to everyone here, some of the portrayals of the procedures of our justice system are just ridiculous! I am not a lawyer myself (yet!), but if I must reveal some of my background, which I usually prefer to avoid on these forums, I am a law student. I am by no means an expert, but I think that I am a heck of a lot more informed on the workings of our justice system than most of you who have been responding to this thread. I'd rather see this thread just die, than to have everyone bicker over stuff that they don't really know anything about.

For whatever it's worth, there are NUMEROUS ways that a trial can end, many of which, most of you may be unfamiliar with. Rule 46, by the way, is hardly all-encompassing! Also, cases can be dismissed both with and without prejudice. There are many procedural tactics that are employed as strategy. These days, many lawyers try to exhaust there opponents with motion upon motion, hoping to induce settlements. But a judge cannot force a settlement. He can create an environment where litigants will prefer to settle, but he can never outright force it. There is also something known as the "State's Secrets Privilege" which allows a state to have a case thrown it if, during discovery, state secrets will be revealed, but this is invoked in cases of national security, usually concerning information possessed by groups such as the CIA.

Settlements do not always signify guilt. Did you know that only 1.8% of cases filed in 2001 went to a jury? Court is not what you see on TV! It is not even close! Settlements are extremely common these days. To try to read into a settlement in the 21st century is ludicrous. Don't be fooled by the fact the details of the settlement are sealed. That is the case in the majority of settlements! Also, not all civil suits are about money. Plaintiffs often seek injunctive relief or declaratory relief.

It is most certainly true that frivolous lawsuits can be filed all the time, but that speaks more to the actual plaintiff, and not necessarily the lawyer. If the lawyer knows that his client is lying, he cannot put him/her on the stand and support perjury. He will be disbarred. That is really what I was getting at here.

BlueCrab said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nice spin there...so if the Ramsey's decide to sue you are you going to stop posting your BDI theory?

The defendant in the Ramsey's cases are and have always been the media...

If the stories they printed about Burke being guilty were true, why would they want to settle with the Rams?

The Rams are suing them, that makes the Ramsey's the plaintiffs and they are the ones with the burdon of proof on their shoulders. Civil case or not.

Seeker said:

If the stories they printed about Burke being guilty were true, why would they want to settle with the Rams? The Rams are suing them, that makes the Ramsey's the plaintiffs and they are the ones with the burdon of proof on their shoulders.

Click to expand...

Seeker,

The defendants in a civil case are at a helluva disadvantage. The best a defendant can do, even if he wins the case, is break even. On the other hand the plaintiff, by coming up with just a preponderance of the evidence in his favor, wins all the marbles. Thus, the goal of the defendant is to get the case dismissed early on to cut his legal costs and get the monkey off his back.

There are some exceptions, but they are rare. One was the Ramsey v New York Post defamation case. In this one Rupert Murdoch, a billionaire who owns just about everything with the name Fox attached to it, wanted the case to go to trial so he could prove one way or the other that BDI. During discovery the NYP was successful in subpoenaing thousands of records about Burke from the Boulder D.A.'s files. The Post's lawyers in New York poured over a truckload of files on Burke and likely found out what they were looking for. They then suddenly agreed to settle. The Post, IMO, won't print what they found out in deference to the Colorado statutes protecting the identities of children.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

Do you think that you can sue somebody, and when the case gets to the discovery phase, get a whole bunch of private information that you would never get without the lawsuit, and then print it in a newspaper? There are more reasons than the Colorado Children's Code that the NYPost could not print information from the files they received from the DA's office!! Sounds like a great new strategy in investigative reporting!!

Also, privileged and protected information does not need to be turned over in discovery. So I can guarantee you that if the GJ concluded Burke was involved in any way and the Colorado Children's Code was used to slap a hefty gag order on the case, the NYPost did not see as much as you think they did. If, on the other hand, as I tend to believe, the GJ did not reach this conclusion, the Ramseys would have been extremely forthcoming with discovery materials, and the NYPost would say, oops, and settle things up quickly and quietly. Don't forget there is a big incentive for any publication to settle a libel lawsuit. They report the news. They don't want to be officially labeled as reporting fake-news. (Even though the Post is already there in my eyes!)