Lawyers for Fox News

candy

Inactive
Joined
Aug 15, 2003
Messages
324
Reaction score
12
Website
Visit site
Three lawyers for Fox News in New York, Jason Conti, Dori Ann Hainswirth and Trina Hunn have applied for pro hac vice status in Georgia for this case. They have all designated Judson Graves of Alston& Bird, LLP as their local Atlanta attorney.
 
candy said:
Three lawyers for Fox News in New York, Jason Conti, Dori Ann Hainswirth and Trina Hunn have applied for pro hac vice status in Georgia for this case. They have all designated Judson Graves of Alston& Bird, LLP as their local Atlanta attorney.


Candy, can you put that in layman terms for us lawyer unsavvy folks, and what this means? Thanks....
 
I think it means that Fox isn't planning to weenie out and settle.
 
Ivy said:
I think it means that Fox isn't planning to weenie out and settle.


I hope you are right Ivy, but I have the feeling that Fox will settle. It would be wonderful though if Fox stood up against the Ramsey's and their sleeze ball attorney.
 
Imon128 said:
Candy, can you put that in layman terms for us lawyer unsavvy folks, and what this means? Thanks....
It means "for the occasion" as in they want to be allowed to represent FOX in this case even though they aren't admitted to the Georgia bar.
 
tipper said:
It means "for the occasion" as in they want to be allowed to represent FOX in this case even though they aren't admitted to the Georgia bar.


I hope they battle til the end-------- :woohoo: I don't cares who wins ....
 
Those three lawyers I mentioned from Fox News in New York are actually the defendants in this case. They are lawyers for Fox News and have asked for legal standing in Georgia, to fight this case and have retained local counsel in Atlanta as is necessary when you are applying pro hac vice.
 
candy said:
Three lawyers for Fox News in New York, Jason Conti, Dori Ann Hainswirth and Trina Hunn have applied for pro hac vice status in Georgia for this case. They have all designated Judson Graves of Alston& Bird, LLP as their local Atlanta attorney.

candy: Thanks for the info but why is this info relevant(URL/info Help please +?)? ... THANK YOU!!! ;) ;) ;)
 
Those three lawyers are the defendants? Please explain.

The suit filing defines the defendant as:

Defendant Fox News Network, LLC, doing business as Fox News Channel (hereinafter "Fox News") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business being located at 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036.
 
LovelyPigeon said:
Those three lawyers are the defendants? Please explain.

The suit filing defines the defendant as:

Defendant Fox News Network, LLC, doing business as Fox News Channel (hereinafter "Fox News") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business being located at 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036.


I took it to mean they are defending Fox News in this case.

IMO
 
That's what I thought they were, too, Nehemiah, but candy's post seems to indicate they are defendants rather than lawyers representing the defendant. That's why I posed the question.
 
Judge Thrash approved pro hac vice status in this lawsuit for Fox lawyers Jason Conti, Dori Ann Hainswirth and Trina Hunn.

Sorry LP, I misspoke. These lawyers represent the defendant, Fox News in New York. They are not personally defendants, but lawyers.
 
What exactly did FOX News do that is in need of defense? Do the Ramseys claim FOX news killed JonBenet or is this for Burke's retirement fund?


Were those lawyers hired special for the case or were they already employees of FOX.
 
popcorn said:
What exactly did FOX News do that is in need of defense? Do the Ramseys claim FOX news killed JonBenet or is this for Burke's retirement fund?


Lin Wood, in behalf of John, Patsy, and Burke Ramsey, filed a $16 million defamation lawsuit against Fox News network on December 23, 2003 because a Fox reporter said "There has never been any evidence to link an intruder to JonBenet's brutal murder".

http://people.aol.com/people/news/now/0,10958,567981,00.html

JMO
 
The Fox News reporter who made that statement, Carol McKinley, has a history of covering the Ramseys, i.e. she got them to agree to an interview after they moved to Atlanta and said she was going to ask them tough questions. It turned out to be a "Love in." I don't know why, but IMO McKinley wimped out.

Also, I believe there is plenty of evidence to indicate that an intruder murdered JBR, so in that case, the statement she made is incorrect. The Ramseys and their attorney (who never loses a case, the defendants always wisely settle) believe it to have been slander.

All in IMO, of course.
 
Honeybee said:
The Fox News reporter who made that statement, Carol McKinley, has a history of covering the Ramseys, i.e. she got them to agree to an interview after they moved to Atlanta and said she was going to ask them tough questions. It turned out to be a "Love in." I don't know why, but IMO McKinley wimped out.

Also, I believe there is plenty of evidence to indicate that an intruder murdered JBR, so in that case, the statement she made is incorrect. The Ramseys and their attorney (who never loses a case, the defendants always wisely settle) believe it to have been slander.

All in IMO, of course.

I think this case is absolutely ludicrous. If the Ramseys have their way then crimes won't even be able to be discussed. The Ramseys said there was an intruder; in rebuttal Fox News said there wasn't any evidence of an intruder.

Burke's immunity as a juvenile doesn't enter into this case, so I think the judge will grant a Fox News motion to dismiss before the case goes too far forward.

JMO
 
The Ramseys have substantially amended their original complaint against Fox News, adding an additional thirteen pages to the original complaint:

Among them, iss "Exhibit B", which consists of the Affidavit by Alex Hunter, saying that Burke is not a suspect in this case.
 
candy said:
The Ramseys have substantially amended their original complaint against Fox News, adding an additional thirteen pages to the original complaint:

Among them, iss "Exhibit B", which consists of the Affidavit by Alex Hunter, saying that Burke is not a suspect in this case.

That affidavit about Burke is a fraud and I can prove it. It was drafted by Lin Wood, not by any of the attorneys on Alex Hunter's staff. Hunter signed it after quibbling somewhat with Wood about the wording to make sure it didn't say Burke was cleared. Burke has never been cleared and Hunter knows Burke can NEVER be cleared. That's why all of the tricky wording in the affidavit.

No one in the case has ever been officially classified a "suspect", not even John or Patsy. So when the affidavit says Burke has never been considered a suspect, it's not a relevant statement. It doesn't mean a thing. NO ONE IS A SUSPECT in the case. Burke and all of the other principles are called "witnesses" or "under the umbrella of suspicion", but none are ever called "suspects". The tricky wording of the affidavit, cleverly designed to mislead the reader, makes the affidavit a shameless fraud.

JMO
 
candy said:
The Ramseys have substantially amended their original complaint against Fox News, adding an additional thirteen pages to the original complaint:

Among them, iss "Exhibit B", which consists of the Affidavit by Alex Hunter, saying that Burke is not a suspect in this case.
Is there a link to this Exhibit? This will really burst BlueCrab's bubble as he has been INSISTENT that no LE has ever "cleared" Burke. I can't WAIT to see the verbal gymnastics he'll resort to in attempting to "explain away" this latest development...
 
DocWatson said:
Is there a link to this Exhibit? This will really burst BlueCrab's bubble as he has been INSISTENT that no LE has ever "cleared" Burke. I can't WAIT to see the verbal gymnastics he'll resort to in attempting to "explain away" this latest development...


My dear Watson, you really must run faster and catch up with this case. It's elementary that the affidavit Lin Wood is trotting out again is the fraudulent one written by Lin Wood himself but signed by Alex Hunter on October 12, 2000. It's the same affidavit I was referring to in my post above (post #18).

Burke Ramsey has never been cleared by anyone of authority in the killing of JonBenet and he never will be cleared -- not by Hunter, or Keenan, or Beckner, or a judge, nor anyone else. They can't afford to lie under oath.

JMO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
1,133
Total visitors
1,307

Forum statistics

Threads
589,940
Messages
17,927,989
Members
228,009
Latest member
chrsrb10
Back
Top