Burke Ramsey Files 750 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against CBS

[questfortrue]

James Sammataro is a top defamation attorney within the entertainment industry. He spoke on the Craig Silverman show recently and offered up a few thoughts about the $750 million lawsuit against CBS. The material has been considered in some of our posts here, but it was interesting to hear an attorney’s take on it.

He put forth two of the hurdles for the plaintiff BR. Sammataro’s view is that BR meets the definition of limited public figure (or involuntary limited public figure). (We knew that. ) If that is determined to be the case, then the plaintiff will have to prove that CBS knew that their theory was incorrect and that the actual malice standard is met. This will be difficult to do since the team of investigators worked through various ideas including the Patsy rage theory and an intruder theory, the primary claim on the part of BR and JR.

Another hurdle will be the jurisdiction of the case. While CBS is a national broadcasting entity, corporate offices are in CA and NY. Both CA and NY have Anti-Slapp laws.

Lastly, LW will likely petition to keep discovery confidential. Sammataro points out the issue in keeping it confidential is that it is a very public lawsuit, and CBS has more to win by being able to do a sequel to their show, perhaps revealing some important clues not discovered before. He also mentioned that without doubt CBS was very prepared for this, and it may be that the participants in the program have a contract which indemnifies them in the event of a lawsuit.

The podcast can be heard here in the January 7 show (Hour 2): http://craigsilverman.podbean.com/

 

[BoldBear]

I finally tried to reread that crappy 1st chapter again and can't get though it. It's the literary equivalent of the movie "The Room". It wasn't written by anyone close to the Ramseys. Linda would have never described JB in such a way. There's a tremendous amount of needless 'information packing' in the prose. It screams armature and has no emotional connection to the family. Is this thing anything other than a hoax?

 

[Sherlockknows]

flourish,
Yup, especially if the quoter does not know their Greek Doxa from their translated biblical Doxa.

.

Socratic Irony from a Brit. Bit like your withdrawal from Europe, after the deed was done.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[flourish]

Socratic Irony from a Brit. Bit like your withdrawal from Europe, after the deed was done.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Dude what are you even talking about? How does this have anything to do with jonbenet?

 

[Ambitioned]

I finally tried to reread that crappy 1st chapter again and can't get though it. It's the literary equivalent of the movie "The Room". It wasn't written by anyone close to the Ramseys. Linda would have never described JB in such a way. There's a tremendous amount of needless 'information packing' in the prose. It screams armature and has no emotional connection to the family. Is this thing anything other than a hoax?

That's why some speculate it comes from Hoffman/Mayflower Madam.

 

[Sherlockknows]

Dude what are you even talking about? How does this have anything to do with jonbenet?

Let me get this straight. Someone can come along and childishly chide me for sticking up for myself, and you troll repeatedly back with this nonsense as if it's OK.

I'll repeat this for the last time. This thread is has now been hijacked by people who simply cannot believe the mother is responsible for the death of her daughter. It has nothing to do with a who done it, but more if you don't believe the son did it please go away.

Isn't it time you created your own personal blog related to Burke Ramsey?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[icedtea4me]

Socratic Irony from a Brit. Bit like your withdrawal from Europe, after the deed was done.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

*sigh*

Britain withdrew from the European Union, not from Europe.

 

[Sherlockknows]

*sigh*

Britain withdrew from the European Union, not from Europe.

Thanks. Who ever would have known.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Rott Mom]

We're all entitled to our theories without being SO condescending to other posters.

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

That's why some speculate it comes from Hoffman/Mayflower Madam.

Yes, Jameson (admittedly not the best source) claims Darnay emailed it to her (and ~the media~) using his ex-wife's email in 2004. The ex-wife was Sydney Barrows, aka the Mayflower Madam. I can't find the FFJ thread on it for some reason but Jameson does quote it a few times and attributes this to Spade (the FFJ poster who provided the Bonita Papers):
"According to Spade, "if you check the properties of the original document, you will see that Sydney Barrows is listed as the author."
So perhaps she wrote it? Weird.

http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=2011&forum=DCForumID101

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

Let me get this straight. Someone can come along and childishly chide me for sticking up for myself, and you troll repeatedly back with this nonsense as if it's OK.

I'll repeat this for the last time. This thread is has now been hijacked by people who simply cannot believe the mother is responsible for the death of her daughter. It has nothing to do with a who done it, but more if you don't believe the son did it please go away.

Isn't it time you created your own personal blog related to Burke Ramsey?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's a thread specifically about Burke Ramsey's lawsuit against people who accused him of murdering his sister, of course the content is going to skew BDI. It's not like you're the only person on Websleuths, much less in this thread, who thinks Patsy could have done it and there are plenty of other threads to discuss that in. I think people are reacting to the fact that you have hijacked this thread talking about Patsy when it's off topic.

 

[Sherlockknows]

It's a thread specifically about Burke Ramsey's lawsuit against people who accused him of murdering his sister, of course the content is going to skew BDI. It's not like you're the only person on Websleuths, much less in this thread, who thinks Patsy could have done it and there are plenty of other threads to discuss that in. I think people are reacting to the fact that you have hijacked this thread talking about Patsy when it's off topic.

Ok. I accept I shouldn't have pushed the Patsy theory here. And won't in future. My fault.

I'll post no more here, but to be honest the tone of the reactions had nothing to do with what was being said. It was typical hide behind an online profile bullying. Sadly some people cannot accept this, and return to the case points, rather than saying didn't mean to be rude etc. Ciao


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SteveS]

Burke doesn't have to prove he's innocent but he does need to prove that CBS intentionally lied with intent to harm him. And further, as a consequence of these lies, he suffered tangible harm to his otherwise good reputation within the community.

The burden of proof in this case won't work quite like this. The difference seems minor on paper, but in relation to getting the desired verdict, it is huge.

BR does not have to prove that CBS lied, not exactly.

What BR has to do is to prove that CBS defamed him by their publication, and that he has been damaged by that defamation. That may not be that difficult. But if that part isn't proved, then the case dies right there.

OTOH if he does that successfully, then CBS can get a free pass on having defamed him, by PROVING one of two things (affirmatively): (a) what they said was the truth, or (b) they accidentally didn't tell the truth, but BR is a "public figure" and they really didn't mean to defame him with a lie. "We told the truth" is their best defense, but they have to prove it was the truth. An "affirmative" defense has the burden of proof on the defense, to prove what they are offering as affirmation (in this case, that they told the truth).

So if they said via media that BR killed his sister, they may have to prove it to the satisfaction of a jury.

 

[BBB167893]

What do you think Dave, mother both attacks, son then mother?

When you say "both attacks," I can only assume you mean the head bash and the strangulation. Let me know if I'm right or wrong. And in my case, I think it was Patsy (mother) who did the first. As for the second, her most likely. (Question is, how much was Father involved?)

The Coroner, said closer to 10 then 5, much closer, which says to me she was hit not long after returning which says Mum.

Which coroner said that, specifically?

I have a problem believing the Kid hit her, then waited an hour and a half to strangle her.

I do too.

Also if the Mum did hit her I am sure she took her pulse....waited an hour and a half to finish her off....odd either way

Like I said, it will always be odd to me, no matter which way it goes. That said, you may be right: she may well have checked her pulse. I think that's what started the cover-up. Then it took some time to figure out what to do.

 

[SteveS]

Since the GJ chose to indict on these charges, it is a fact that the evidence presented to them made them believe that the parents were both guilty of the crimes for which they were indicted. .

That's not exactly what a GJ indictment indicates. It is not a finding of guilt in any way. Instead, the process is a weighing of the evidence, without any cross-examination or defense argument, and an indictment is a conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to think that the defendant COULD BE found guilty, if put on trial and the jury there saw the evidence in the way most favorable to the prosecution's allegations. Its purpose is to keep citizens from being put on major trial and having to pay for a defense for the flimsiest of excuses. (IMO, if it took them a whole year in order to find enough to even get an indictment, it would seem like they had really weak evidence to put in front of the GJ. Just saying.)

 

[Miz Adventure]

When you say "both attacks," I can only assume you mean the head bash and the strangulation. Let me know if I'm right or wrong. And in my case, I think it was Patsy (mother) who did the first. As for the second, her most likely. (Question is, how much was Father involved?)



Which coroner said that, specifically?



I do too.



Like I said, it will always be odd to me, no matter which way it goes. That said, you may be right: she may well have checked her pulse. I think that's what started the cover-up. Then it took some time to figure out what to do.

Dave - I'm having a LOT of trouble accepting your version of events.

You are trying to tell us that you think PR clubbed JBR into unconsciousness - and then - after possibly taking her pulse - decided to strangle her to death?

That has got to be the most ludicrous scenario ever!

If Patsy accidentally knocked JBR unconscious, she would have called 911 immediately. I cannot see any reason on this earth why should would not.

She could say that JBR had fallen and hit her head. She would have been believed. The R's were very good at convincing people.

I think PR found JBR after she had already been strangled. There could be no talking their way out of THAT one! And hence - an intruder HAD to be invented.

 

[HarmonyE.]

The burden of proof in this case won't work quite like this. The difference seems minor on paper, but in relation to getting the desired verdict, it is huge.

BR does not have to prove that CBS lied, not exactly.

What BR has to do is to prove that CBS defamed him by their publication, and that he has been damaged by that defamation. That may not be that difficult. But if that part isn't proved, then the case dies right there.

OTOH if he does that successfully, then CBS can get a free pass on having defamed him, by PROVING one of two things (affirmatively): (a) what they said was the truth, or (b) they accidentally didn't tell the truth, but BR is a "public figure" and they really didn't mean to defame him with a lie. "We told the truth" is their best defense, but they have to prove it was the truth. An "affirmative" defense has the burden of proof on the defense, to prove what they are offering as affirmation (in this case, that they told the truth).

So if they said via media that BR killed his sister, they may have to prove it to the satisfaction of a jury.

I'm not sure where you are getting this from, but I'm sure you know that the odds of Burke being deemed a public figure by the court are very high. And should this happen (as most attorneys who have opined on this case agree it will) Burke will absolutely have the burden to prove they lied and that they lied intentionally and with actual malice. This will be difficult for him. CBS does not have to prove the broadcast was the truth. Burke will have to prove they lied intentionally.

Damages don't enter into the equation until after Burke has proved the above.

We cannot leave Burke's status as a public figure and the First Amendment out of the equation here.

 

[BOESP]

Miz Adventure,

Maybe Patsy didn't want to go to prison for reckless homicide or wanton endangerment or child abuse resulting in death. And maybe she didn't want anyone to know that Perfect Patsy was capable of causing that type of trauma. :dunno:

 

[Miz Adventure]

Miz Adventure,

Maybe Patsy didn't want to go to prison for reckless homicide or wanton endangerment or child abuse resulting in death. And maybe she didn't want anyone to know that Perfect Patsy was capable of causing that type of trauma. :dunno:

If JBR had merely been unconscious (due to an accident) why would Patsy think she might go to jail?

They don't put parents in jail simply because their child has had an accidental fall, not where I come from anyway.


Oh yes, now I can see where you're coming from - Patsy had to strangle JBR to death in order to save herself just in case somebody in authority decided that the head trauma had not been accidental? Lol.

 

[BOESP]

My responses in blue below

If JBR had merely been unconscious (due to an accident) why would Patsy think she might go to jail?

Maybe Patsy thought she was dead. Also, accidental death isn't the same same as reckless homicide, child abuse resulting in death, etc. In other words, Patsy could have been afraid that when she told how it happened her goose would be cooked.

They don't put parents in jail simply because their child has had an accidental fall, not where I come from anyway.

I'm sure if PDI, then Patsy didn't purposely want to cause harm to JonBenet but her actions would have over-ridden that concept.


Oh yes, now I can see where you're coming from - Patsy had to strangle JBR to death in order to save herself just in case somebody in authority decided that the head trauma had not been accidental? Lol.

Yes, that's where I was coming from. Probably, each state has different wording in their statutes.