Judge Thrash's opinion in the Linda Hoffmann-Pugh case should be compared to Judge Carnes opinion in the Chris Wolf case:<P>Judge Carnes:<P>"The Court concludes that the statements made in defendants’ book are reasonably read to impute the crime of murder to plaintiff. Although defendants do not directly state that plaintiff killed JonBenet, they claim that they did not kill their daughter, and name plaintiff as one of the people they suspected may have done so. <P>"In determining whether a statement is defamatory, ‘he trial judge should read and construe the publication as a whole, and thereafter ‘may find that it is not defamatory, that it is defamatory, or that it is ambiguous and the question is one for a jury. <P>"In considering whether a writing is defamatory as a matter of law, we look…at what construction would be placed on it by the average reader.” Mead v. True Citizen, Inc., 203 Ga. App. 361, 362, 417 S. E. 2d 16, 17 (1992) (citations omitted). <P>"The Court concludes that a jury could reasonably conclude from these statements, taken as a whole, that the Ramseys were imputing the murder of JonBenet to plaintiff. <P>"The next question is whether these statements are capable of being proved false. <P>"Defendants claim that they are not because they merely represent their impressions at the time that plaintiff “represented too many unanswered questions.” <P>"Plaintiff, however, argues that defendants killed JonBenet, and therefore had no basis for their supposed belief that plaintiff had something to do with her death. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court must take all facts in favor of the plaintiff. <P>"Assuming for the purpose of this order that defendants did know who killed JonBenet, and knew that the murderer was not plaintiff, their statements was not merely opinion, but was indeed a falsity." <P>Id. at 11-12.<P>

To put an end to speculation as to what Judge Thrash's decision means when he grants the Ramseys "costs", this is what the normal meaning of the word is in lawsuits.<P>First, what the word "costs" DOESN'T mean: The Ramseys cannot recover their attorneys' fees. Fair or not, in this country, unless a judge specifically says in his opinion or judgment that "attorneys fees are costs", there is no such recovery. That is because America, unlike England, has a tradition of rarely awarding attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in a lawsuit.<P>Second, "costs" generally mean "filing fees" (there were none for the Ramseys, since Linda Hoffmann-Pugh's attorneys had to pay the $150 filing fee when she brought her libel suit); or witness fees for experts or lay people (there were none, since there had not been any discovery taken, unlike the Wolf case, in which there have been several depositions); or transcripts for depositions (again there were none); or "reproduction" costs, such as photocopying of briefs, etc. (again, very minor costs, since the only papers photocopied by the Ramseys were their motion to dismiss and some miscellaneous court papers.)<P>In all, even with the inflated prices law firms charge, the total costs associated with this case should be no more than a couple of hundred dollars, all of which will be paid for by Linda Hoffmann-Pugh's attorneys.

Thanks for sharing this with us - Thanks to Candy for the work of transcribing and to NYL for explaining the costs.<P>

<P><BR> Case against Ramseys dismissed<P> Couple's book didn't defame housekeeper, federal judge<BR> decides<P> By Owen S. Good, News Staff Writer<BR> April 11, 2002<P> BOULDER -- A federal judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit<BR> filed against John and Patsy Ramsey by their former housekeeper.<P> The April 8 ruling in federal district court in Atlanta throws out<BR> Linda Hoffmann-Pugh's claim that the Ramseys libeled her in a<BR> book they wrote by saying she was a suspect in the Dec. 26,<BR> 1996, slaying of their 6-year-old daughter, JonBenet. <P> Judge Thomas Thrash found the Ramseys' book, Death of<BR> Innocence, made no such implication. He said Hoffmann-Pugh was<BR> left off a list of 15 potential suspects the Ramseys discussed and<BR> did not fit a profile of the killer also published in the book. <P> "She is disappointed, naturally," said Hoffmann-Pugh's attorney,<BR> Darnay Hoffman of New York. "But she also said if it weren't for<BR> bad luck she'd have no luck at all." <P> Hoffman said the dismissal will be appealed. <P> Ramsey attorney L. Lin Wood of Atlanta called the dismissal "a<BR> resounding victory." He noted that since 2000, six civil suits have<BR> all resulted in settlements or dismissals favorable to the Ramseys.<P> Monday's dismissal and last month's settlement of a libel lawsuit<BR> against former Boulder Detective Steve Thomas leaves only one<BR> remaining lawsuit, in which the Ramseys' guilt or innocence could<BR> be the focus of a civil lawsuit. <P> Hoffman also represents former Boulder journalist Chris Wolf,<BR> whose name was among the 15 suspects in the Ramseys' book, in<BR> a libel suit against the Ramseys. <P> Hoffman conceded that the suits were designed to try the<BR> Ramseys for the murder of their daughter. He has said that<BR> proving their culpability would prove they knowingly, falsely<BR> identified others as suspects. <P> "There's no question that . . . there is an element of wanting to<BR> put the (criminal) evidence before a jury," Hoffman said. <P> The couple, despite wide police and public suspicion, have never<BR> faced criminal charges. <P> Hoffman said the Hoffmann-Pugh case "acted to some degree as<BR> a distraction and additional workload. Now all the efforts can be<BR> concentrated on the Wolf case." <P> But he denied that the libel claims are solely vehicles for the<BR> quasi-prosecution of the Ramseys in civil court. <P> "If I felt there was no merit to the Linda Hoffmann-Pugh case, I<BR> never would have brought it," he said. <P> Hoffmann-Pugh's case resulted in the Colorado courts' secrecy<BR> oath required of grand jury witnesses struck down as<BR> unconstitutional. A federal judge made the ruling in July in a claim<BR> spun off from the case.

"She is disappointed, naturally," said Hoffmann-Pugh's attorney,<BR> Darnay Hoffman of New York. "But she also said if it weren't for<BR> bad luck she'd have no luck at all." <P><b>I have had reason to review some of the LHP file lately and I have to say I really find her to be repugnant.<P>The Ramseys were very nice to her and her family. She KNEW they were very gentle, loving people and she SAID SO - - until the tabloid types came with their flashy stories and open checkbooks - - and the woman sold her soul.<P>She got paid thousands of dollars for what I will call "altered memories" - - and she thought she might get MILLIONS from this <b>bullshit</b> lawsuit.<P>Well, she got nothing but her name in the paper again - - and in the discussion again. And it isn't flattering. Not at all.<P>I hope she writes a book - - finds a really stupid publisher with deep pockets like Steve Thomas did - - a publisher who didn't go behind him checking that what they are publishing is the TRUTH. (I called Thomas' publisher to warn them and was told they would not send out fact checkers to speak to me - - Steve Thomas was "an honest man". Well, that "honest man" cost them PLENTY. Anyone who publishes a book by Hoffmann-Pugh will face the same risks. I don't think anyone wants to do that.<P><BR>As for Linda having bad luck or none at all.... it's Karma, Linda. In MY opinion, you got just what you deserved.

"LHP: Patsy Killed JonBenet!"<BR>Posted by New York Lawyer on 19:18:42 6/08/2000<P> STAR<BR> June 20, 2000<P> WHY I BELIEVE PATSY KILLED JONBENET<BR> Ramsey's ex house keeper charges<P> By Linda Hoffmann-Pugh<P> I worked for John and Patsy Ramsey for a year and a half, just<BR>before JonBenet's murder.<P> Patsy always treated me very well. We never had any arguments or<BR>fights. So it really hurts me to<BR> the core to tell the world I am convinced Patsy murdered JonBenet.<BR>But I feel I must speak out.<P> As I watched the Ramseys announce in a televised press conference<BR>that they had passed their lie<BR> detector test, and then take on Detective Steve Thomas last week<BR>on Larry King Live, I was struck<BR> by their arrogance and Patsy's holier-than-thou attitude.<P> The Ramseys seem to be on some kind of phony crusade, holding<BR>press conferences, appearing with<BR> Barbara Walters on 20/20 and the Today show with Katie Couric.<BR>They're doing everything they can<BR> to rehabilitate their public image.<P> I think Patsy believes she's gotten away with murder, and she's<BR>trying to convince the world that<BR> she's a victim, too. But as someone who knows the Ramseys and<BR>their habits very well, I can say<BR> that I don't have any doubt in my mind what happened that horrible<BR>Christmas night.<P> I believe Patsy lost her temper and killed JonBenet. Then she<BR>created an elaborate cover-up to get<BR> away with murder.<P> I remember that awful day, December 26, 1996, when two detectives<BR>from the Boulder Police<BR> Department showed up at my house with the news that JonBenet had<BR>been killed.<P> I still get a sick feeling in my stomach when I think about the<BR>detectives asking for handwriting<BR> samples, and telling me to print the words "Ramsey" "and hence"<BR>and worst of all, "beheaded."<P> I broke down in tears when I wrote 'beheaded,' thinking that<BR>precious princess had had her head cut<BR> off.<P> Over the following months, as the detectives continued to ask me<BR>questions about the Ramseys, I<BR> came to the conclusion: Patsy Ramsey had struck her little girl<BR>and then strangled her to death!<P> Here are the five main reasons that led me to my conclusion.<P> REASON NO. 1:<BR> The bathroom.<P> In Detective Steve Thomas' book, he talks about his theory of the<BR>case, and says that he believes<BR> the crime began in JonBenet's bathroom. Thomas talked about<BR>inspecting JonBenet's bathroom,<BR> looking for a surface that could have crushed that child's skull.<P> When I read what Thomas wrote it struck me -- I remember that<BR>Patsy used to take JonBenet into<BR> her bathroom to be punished!<P> Whenever JonBenet would act up and need discipline, Patsy would<BR>take her into the bathroom<BR> attached to JonBenet's bedroom, close the door and deliver the<BR>punishment in there. I do not know<BR> what kind of punishment Patsy gave her daughter, but I do know she<BR>always did it in JonBenet's<BR> bathroom!<P> REASON NO. 2:<BR> The handwriting<P> During the time I worked for Patsy and John, I saw many, many<BR>examples of Patsy's handwriting.<BR> She was always leaving me a note asking me to do something, or<BR>thanking me, or whatever.<P> The first time I saw the "ransom note" after it was released to<BR>the public, a chill ran down my spine<BR> -- to me, it looked just like Patsy's handwriting!<P> That was my first reaction to reading the strange, rambling,<BR>three-page message. I know the<BR> authorities have said officially that they can't exclude Patsy as<BR>the author of the note. But to me,<BR> its obvious Patsy wrote it.<P> And

LAST EDITED ON May-15-03 AT 10:20 AM (EST)
 
Chances LHP wrote that statement are about as good as betting I wrote it! Somewhere between zero and none.

LHP knows how to write her name on the back of a check.

Don't bother her about writing anything more than that.