Lawyers for Fox News

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by candy, Feb 7, 2004.

  1. candy

    candy Inactive

    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Imon128

    Imon128 Former Member

    Messages:
    2,064
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Candy, can you put that in layman terms for us lawyer unsavvy folks, and what this means? Thanks....
     
  4. Ivy

    Ivy Inactive

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it means that Fox isn't planning to weenie out and settle.
     
  5. gretchen

    gretchen Former Member

    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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.
     
  6. tipper

    tipper Former Member

    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  7. SisterSocks

    SisterSocks What a wild and crazy trip its been

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I hope they battle til the end-------- :woohoo: I don't cares who wins ....
     
  8. candy

    candy Inactive

    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  9. Blazeboy3

    Blazeboy3 Inactive

    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    candy: Thanks for the info but why is this info relevant(URL/info Help please +?)? ... THANK YOU!!! ;) ;) ;)
     
  10. LovelyPigeon

    LovelyPigeon Former Member

    Messages:
    13,806
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Nehemiah

    Nehemiah Active Member

    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36

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

    IMO
     
  12. LovelyPigeon

    LovelyPigeon Former Member

    Messages:
    13,806
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  13. candy

    candy Inactive

    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  14. popcorn

    popcorn Inactive

    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  15. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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
     
  16. Honeybee

    Honeybee Inactive

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  17. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  18. candy

    candy Inactive

    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  19. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  20. DocWatson

    DocWatson Former Member

    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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...
     
  21. BlueCrab

    BlueCrab New Member

    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice