Burke Ramsey Files 750 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against CBS

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know I love ya DeDee...well....in the way you can love a fellow forum member. :loveyou: I know we've talked about some of this stuff in private messages but I don't blame you for placing the Ramsey forum(s) on the backburner....for now at least.

You've always been one of the most valued members here. When I used to check this site more frequently, you were in the top 5 easily on members posts I was looking forward to reading.

I've been venturing into more areas of this site besides Ramsey the past couple months(as are many others now) and its interesting seeing you in some of those discussions as I always associate you with the Ramsey case. I saw you in the Kaytlynn thread often and realized you have just as much to offer other cases as you do this one. That case is really sad, frustrating, and makes you want to scream. :gaah:

As far as the Ramsey lawsuits go, the plot thickens......
 
singularity said:
You know I love ya DeDee...well....in the way you can love a fellow forum member. :loveyou: I know we've talked about some of this stuff but I don't blame you for placing the Ramsey forum(s) on the backburner....for now at least.

You've always been one of the most valued members here. When I used to check this site more frequently, you were in the top 5 easily on members posts I was looking forward to reading.

I've been venturing into more areas of this site besides Ramsey the past couple months(as are many others now) and its interesting seeing you in some of those discussions as I always associate you with the Ramsey case. I saw you in the Kaytlynn thread often and realized you have just as much to offer other cases as you do this one. That case is really sad, frustrating, and makes you want to scream. :gaah:

As far as the Ramsey lawsuits go, the plot thickens......
Click to expand...

Your special words are highly regarded, appreciated and valued. Thank you, singularity. :loveyou: You are too kind to me, as always. My favorite fascinator is tipped to you!

Blue 2012-new-design-feather-sinamay-fascinator.jpg

If you enjoy helping solve mysterious disappearances, we could use your assistance with finding a Missing Person. We have two VIs, one of which is a LT Colonel, or some such, with the Marines whom I will describe as fascinating, in the least. It will be a short read to catch up. It's another case I had to drop due to flashbacks the investigation stimulated. In fact, I suggest everyone to take a peek. It is the oddest missing person case that I've followed.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Taylor-Ashley-Wright-33-Pensacola-7-Sept-2017

Once the Rs began dropping bombs on some of my favorite True Crime Investigators; for instance, Town Marshall, James Kolar and FBI Profiler, Jim Clemente, I had to drop back. It is the reason for unawareness of the stats on the lawsuits.

That does not mean I have stopped sleuthing major players. Knowing more than necessary is not a bad thing, sometimes. There are rental cabins on Beaver Island if you take the ferry across Lake Michigan from Charlevoiux.

When I discovered the SS, in regards to the adult Dr Seuss book, I thought, maybe I can do this sleuthing stuff.

Kaytlynn Cargill, sweet, precious, vulnerable, 14yo girl who was discovered in the landfill after spending two days inside a dumpster. Heart breaking case. Who can do that to a fellow human?

BTW ~ CNN is forevermore banned! In lieu of the eagerly anticipated special, waited over two weeks to watch, they are showing me radar of the storms which can easily be found by watching the Weather Channel. Officially [certified] activist, though, who phoned CNN to politely lodge my complaint.
CNN ph# 404-827-1500
Click to expand...
 
I followed that one you just posted a bit when she first went missing. I'll catch up on that thread tomorrow. It's definitely a head scratcher. Odd timing involved in that disappearance and some quirky coincidences to boot. Her ex was even posting in that thread if memory serves me correctly.

This site is so vast. Its like hundreds of forums within the greater forum. Every now and then I'll stumble upon a crime I was interested in years ago(Yogurt Shop Murders, Springfield 3, Tracie Hawlett & JB Beasley,Melissa Witt,etc.) and think, "I didn't realize they're talking about that one here." :waitasec: Started checking those cases again and then that leads you into other rabbit holes. On top of that, we've got crimes happening right now that are posted here. Been checking some of those as well.

In a nutshell, the site has so much more to offer than the Ramsey case and taking into account the current climate in the various Ramsey communities, it's time to step back until it goes back to normal. Besides, some of us old timers know as much as we're ever going to know....at least until there's some MAJOR break in the case, John dies... causing certain people to come forward, etc. That could be years away.

As far as the thread topic, I expect them to be settled so we'll get next to no info on the case in that regard.
 
Well well JR certainly kept on the down low about his lawsuit. Absolutely nothing has been posted about that.
So much for moving on John.... you only come out of the woodworks when it concerns making $$$ off your daughter.
 
Cottonstar said:
https://shakedowntitle.com/2017/10/09/john-ramsey-secretly-files-civil-suit-against-cbs/

http://www.timescall.com/news/boulder/ci_31366597/john-ramsey-files-lawsuit-against-cbs-after-series


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thanks. I have a question though (and I'm certainly no R supporter, I'm honestly asking): isn't it, ethically speaking, better that JR isn't going public? Sure, it could be because the family is struggling financially (although, there is zero proof of that and simply conjecture at this point), but then again, it paints him in a better light that he is keeping it under the table as opposed to going public with it; that's what a normal person would do, in my opinion.

Either way though, I don't get these lawsuits. How isn't Spitz protected under freedom of speech, in either case? How is he not allowed to simply voice an opinion? To me, this is slam dunk in favor of Spitz and CBS, but I'm no legal mind. What exactly constitutes slander? To me, this is simply an opinion on an unsolved public case (which should be protected by the 1st Amendment), before it is slander.
 
From my point of view:

A guy hired a company to build a house.

They come to his place. Look around, checked a shelter and asked for a money.

After a year of pretending they gave him a paper that his house was destroyed by a tornado and all of this because one guy near was sneezing all the time and his name was Wolf.
 
Userid said:
Thanks. I have a question though (and I'm certainly no R supporter, I'm honestly asking): isn't it, ethically speaking, better that JR isn't going public? Sure, it could be because the family is struggling financially (although, there is zero proof of that and simply conjecture at this point), but then again, it paints him in a better light that he is keeping it under the table as opposed to going public with it; that's what a normal person would do, in my opinion.

Either way though, I don't get these lawsuits. How isn't Spitz protected under freedom of speech, in either case? How is he not allowed to simply voice an opinion? To me, this is slam dunk in favor of Spitz and CBS, but I'm no legal mind. What exactly constitutes slander? To me, this is simply an opinion on an unsolved public case (which should be protected by the 1st Amendment), before it is slander.
Click to expand...

I don’t know the intentions of JR lawsuit against CBS. I’m working on getting the complaint. Usually, when someone piggy-backs or counter-sues, it’s a sign of desperation. I do know, that in no way does it help get justice for his daughter.

BR is a limited-public figure.
The following is from James Sammataro, a civil attorney, that specializes in defamation law. He said this on the Craig Silverman show in Jan 2017:

What is actually actionable about defamation is when you give or state false facts. There is no such thing as a false opinion, an opinion is an opinion. You really have to have a false representation. In terms of the legal standard there is a topography of where the plaintiff falls. This really matters because it changes the the legal standard of defamation. So if you are an all-purpose public figure, someone who is constantly in the limelight such as, Donald Trump, everything he does is going to be exposed to the public therefore, he is subject to the Actual Malice Standard. What this means is that the plaintiff needs to prove with clear and convincing evidence that the publication or offending statement was made with knowledge of its falsity, or reckless disregard for whether or not it was false. This is an extremely high burden that has been protected by the Supreme Court since 1964.

So where does Burke fall? More than likely Burke will be a Limited-purpose public figure. A public figure for the purposes of a single story. This means Burke will still be subject to the Actual Malice Standard. This will make the case extremely more difficult for the plaintiff to prove. Very few plaintiffs' prevail on actual malice. Again, you need to demonstrate there are known falsities, or reckless disregard for the truth. Conjecture, theories, hypothesis, or hearsay will not cut it. You really need to have an obvious manipulation or distortion of a fact, and sometimes that isn't even enough. George Zimmerman sued NBC because they distorted tapes and even that wasn't enough to get by the Actual Malice Standard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
^ Right, I was going to say, unless Spitz knowingly knew information that pointed to BR's innocence, but still said he's guilty (while purposefully manipulating certain evidence to project that stance), then it would be slander/defamation. In other words, if Spitz lied (knowingly,which is key) about certain things to support his opinion, then it would be defamation.

Either way, I hope these cases go the distance and that BR/JR get deposed.
 
Userid said:
^ Right, I was going to say, unless Spitz knowingly knew information that pointed to BR's innocence, but still said he's guilty (while purposefully manipulating certain evidence to project that stance), then it would be slander/defamation. In other words, if Spitz lied (knowingly,which is key) about certain things to support his opinion, then it would be defamation.

Either way, I hope these cases go the distance and that BR/JR get deposed.
Click to expand...

I would like to see JR deposed again, however, I believe an almost halfway-to 80 JR, will have use his age to his advantage. I foresee, nothing but I don’t recalls and don’t remembers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
"John Ramsey’s suit, filed Sept. 14, also names participants in the production of "The Case of JonBenet Ramsey," specifically Stanley Burke, Jim Clemente, James Fitzgerald, James Kolar, Henry Lee, Laura Richards and Werner Spitz, the Daily Camera newspaper in Boulder reported."

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...-ramseys-father-suing-cbs-over-tv-report.html

Duh. We knew this before the media did. Slackers.

Tadpole, it is ironic that the topic was introduced on the lawsuit here, at WS, then, the media picks it up.

Media should pay to help sustain this website if they are allowing us to do their work for them.
Click to expand...
 
Tadpole12 said:
John Ramsey vs CBS et al
https://www.scribd.com/document/361395795/John-Ramsey-v-CBS-et-al

John Ramsey vs CBS et al
exhibits in the case
https://www.scribd.com/document/361395812/John-Ramsey-v-CBS-et-al-Exhibits
Click to expand...


Tadpole12,
Well how do you prove that JR has been defamed? JR is basically saying the CBS theory is wrong and trashes his reputation. I hope CBS call JR out on this, it would air all the BDI arguments in court, and Kolar would have to make an appearance.

.
 
John Ramsey v. CBS, et. al.

A. CBS, Critical Content, and the Pseudo-Experts Agree
to Film and Publish the Documentary


Page 30 of 113:


222. Upon information and belief and unknown to the viewers
of the Documentary, the third part of the Documentary examined
evidence related to individuals other than members of the Ramsey family,
thereby supporting the preconceived storyline that Burke and John
joined together to murder JonBenét and that this accusation
was the only conclusion supported by the evidence.
 
John Ramsey v. CBS, et. al.

Page 68 of 113
F. Defendants Falsely Cast Suspicion on John Based on
Purported Behavior During the Hours After the 9-1-1 Call


442. The segment of the Documentary analyzed in this section of
the Complaint is found at page 18 through page 27 of the script
attached hereto as Exhibit B. .....


Page 72 of 113
453. Defendants knew and failed to disclose
that John turned the light on before finding JonBenét
as confirmed by John and the sole witness, Fleet White.


458. Defendants then knowingly misrepresent John’s call to his airplane
pilot that morning. Defendants knew that John was actually
making travel arrangements for his other children to come
to Michigan from out-of-state


460. Defendants hid from the viewers the fact that Kolar
had also relied on Ron Walker in
Foreign Faction.
 
:jawdrop:

Oh my. Is LW trying to have John declared insane?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 147 more.
Total: 2,557 (members: 148, guests: 2,409)

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
2,409
Total visitors
2,557
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,599
Messages
18,111,060
Members
230,992
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top