June 18, 2019, 04:32:27 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Natalee Holloway/Stephany Flores Case Discussion #868 8/16/13 - 3/20/15  (Read 480131 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74250



WWW
« Reply #220 on: December 18, 2013, 06:04:13 PM »

   

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/12/18/63866.htm

Wednesday, December 18, 2013 Last Update: 10:00 AM PT
No Punitives Over Dr Phil's Tabloid Tactics

LOS ANGELES (CN) - Two brothers' failure to demand a correction from Dr. Phil over secretly videotaped admissions in the Natalee Holloway disappearance doomed their chances of collecting punitive damages, a California appeals court ruled Tuesday.
     Surinam nationals Deepak and Satish Kalpoe sued Dr. Phil McGraw, Peteski Productions and CBS Paramount, who hired private investigator Jamie Skeeters to investigate Holloway's 2005 disappearance in Aruba. Skeeters met with Deepak on the pretense of exonerating him, and secretly recorded their meeting.
     The show aired in September 2005, and the illicit video showed Deepak confirming that he and his brother had had sex with Holloway the night she disappeared. But after the broadcast, Deepak claimed he had not consented to Skeeters recording their meeting, denied that he and his brother had sex with Holloway and accused the producers of manipulating the video to say otherwise.
     Deepak and Satish sued in 2006 for defamation, invasion of privacy, emotional distress and conspiracy. Years later, Dr. Phil and his producers filed a request to bar the brothers from presenting any evidence relating to general or punitive damages, citing a state law that requires parties seeking damages for defamation from news sources to first demand a correction or be limited to recovering only special damages.
     The brothers admitted they never demanded a correction from Dr. Phil or the producers, and the trial court granted the request in 2012.
     On appeal, the Kalpoes claim that the 1931 law - which was amended in 1949 to include visual broadcasts - only applies to media in the business of breaking news broadcasts, not tabloid exposes of months-old disappearances.
     Writing for a three-judge panel of Second Appellate District, Judge Fred Woods noted that on its face the law in question contains nothing that limits its application to breaking news sources only. And while case-law on the issue draws a distinction between newspapers and magazines, the same cannot be said for radio and television broadcasting.
 




Just saw this!! 
Logged

If you need to get into the forum and have forgotten your password, email me and I'll reset it for you: smklaas@hotmail.com
klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74250



WWW
« Reply #221 on: December 18, 2013, 06:25:41 PM »

Thanks, graceland! 

 Is that the end of the suit then?

I'm not 100% sure but it may very well be! 
Logged

If you need to get into the forum and have forgotten your password, email me and I'll reset it for you: smklaas@hotmail.com
wreck
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7781



« Reply #222 on: December 18, 2013, 08:11:29 PM »

    Now let's see who pay whose legal bills for this fiasco!! 
Logged

wreck
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7781



« Reply #223 on: December 18, 2013, 08:22:30 PM »

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/12/18/63866.htm

After reading the article, some of our puzzlement is a bit clearer. In 2012, we read here that even if the trial was to be actually heard in 2014 -- the Kalpoes could not present any evidence. Apparently, that is what has been on appeal by the Kalpoes. It would be my bet that the trial theoretically could still go on, but what is the point?!?
Logged

grace-land
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 18259



« Reply #224 on: December 18, 2013, 09:15:18 PM »

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2013/kalp121813.htm

Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Page 1
Retraction Statute Protects ‘Dr. Phil’ in Defamation Suit—C.A.
Justices Say Law Dating to Early Days of Broadcasting Applies to All Content, Not Just Traditional Newscasts
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer

A state law barring recovery of non-economic damages in a defamation suit against a or broadcaster if the plaintiff fails to make a timely retraction demand is not limited to defendants engaged in the immediate dissemination of news, the Court of Appeal for this district ruled yesterday

Div. Seven denied a writ of mandate sought by Derek and Satish Kalpoe, who filed suit in 2006 against television host Phillip McGraw—better known as “Dr. Phil”—as well as CBS Paramount and Peteski Productions Inc., which air and produce McGraw’s daytime afternoon talk program. The Kalpoes, who live in Aruba, have been longtime suspects in the disappearance of teenaged American tourist Natalee Holloway on the Caribbean island in 2005.

The brothers claim that a private investigator working for the defendants gained their cooperation by pretending to be seeking information demonstrating their innocence, and that the show then broadcast an edited videotape that portrayed them in a false light. It showed Deepak Kalpoe indicating that Holloway had sex with him and his brother.

Deepak Kalpoe subsequently claimed that he had no knowledge of the videotaping, and that when the investigator—Jamie Skeeters, who died in 2007—asked if Holloway and had sex with him and his brother, Kalpoe shook his head and answered in the negative, and that the tape was manipulated for purposes of the broadcast.

Motion in Limine

The brothers brought their writ petition earlier this year after Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William MacLaughlin granted a motion in limine that bars them from recovering general or exemplary damages, pursuant to Civil Code §§ 48a and 48.5.
 
Attorneys on appeal were Thomas V. Girardi and Graham B. Lippsmith of Girardi Keese and the Chicago firm of Cremer, Spina, Shaughnessy, Jansen & Siegert for the plaintiffs and  William C. Haggerty and Neil S. Tardiff of Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar, along with Charles L. Babcock and Nancy W. Hamilton of Jackson Walker for the defendants.

The case is Kalpoe v. Superior Court (McGraw), B246154.
Logged
SuzieQ
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3266


Justice for Natalee


« Reply #225 on: December 18, 2013, 09:35:37 PM »

 
Logged

2 4 1
texasmom
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 32100


ARUBA: It's all about Natalee...we won't give up!


« Reply #226 on: December 18, 2013, 10:16:02 PM »

 

Logged

I stand with the girl, Natalee Holloway.

"I can look back over the past 10 years and there were no steps wasted, and there are no regrets,'' she said. "I did all I knew to do and I think that gives me greater peace now." "I've lived every parent's worst nightmare and I'm the parent that nobody wants to be," she said.

Beth Holloway, 2015 interview with Greta van Susteren
wreck
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7781



« Reply #227 on: December 18, 2013, 11:20:17 PM »

 Only bummer is that we don't get a trial to force testimony!
Logged

klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74250



WWW
« Reply #228 on: December 18, 2013, 11:45:53 PM »

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the Kalpoes heard the decision 
Logged

If you need to get into the forum and have forgotten your password, email me and I'll reset it for you: smklaas@hotmail.com
grace-land
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 18259



« Reply #229 on: December 19, 2013, 02:40:43 PM »

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/dr-phil-cbs-wont-pay-666878

Dr. Phil, CBS Won't Pay Punitive Damages in Lawsuit Over Natalee Holloway Show
9:19 AM PST 12/19/2013

The story of Natalee Holloway may seem a tabloid relic by now, but Phillip McGraw, CBS Paramount Domestic Television and Peteski Productions are still mired in a 7-year-old lawsuit over a 2005 Dr. Phil episode devoted to the disappearance of the American teenager. The defendants at very least won't face the possibility of punitive damages after a ruling by a California appeals court on Tuesday.
 
The case is ongoing in a Los Angeles Superior Court and pending at the moment is the defendants' motion for summary judgment. In the meantime, an appeal was pursued regarding to the judge's ruling that barred the Kalpoe brothers from introducing evidence regarding general or punitive damages for failure to demand a correction.

The basis for limiting damages in the absence of a demand for correction is California Civil Code section 48a, enacted in 1931 and amended in 1945. Plaintiffs in libel cases can only collect "special damages" (quantifiable monetary losses) without a correction demand made within 20 days.


Logged
klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74250



WWW
« Reply #230 on: December 19, 2013, 05:34:12 PM »

So the case is still ongoing pending a decision on the Summary Judgement.   
Logged

If you need to get into the forum and have forgotten your password, email me and I'll reset it for you: smklaas@hotmail.com
texasmom
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 32100


ARUBA: It's all about Natalee...we won't give up!


« Reply #231 on: December 19, 2013, 07:29:26 PM »

Document of the recent ruling

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B246154.PDF

Logged

I stand with the girl, Natalee Holloway.

"I can look back over the past 10 years and there were no steps wasted, and there are no regrets,'' she said. "I did all I knew to do and I think that gives me greater peace now." "I've lived every parent's worst nightmare and I'm the parent that nobody wants to be," she said.

Beth Holloway, 2015 interview with Greta van Susteren
wreck
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7781



« Reply #232 on: December 19, 2013, 07:35:40 PM »

So the case is still ongoing pending a decision on the Summary Judgement.   

... which will determine who pays for the attorney fees!
Logged

wreck
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7781



« Reply #233 on: December 19, 2013, 07:41:28 PM »


I think a material fact is wrong -- or I misunderstood what happened all this time! The court document says Dr. Phil HIRED Jamie Skeeters to go to Aruba and tape the Kalpoes. It was my impression that Skeeters acted on his own and THEN collaborated with Dr. Phil.  Anyone????
Logged

klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74250



WWW
« Reply #234 on: December 19, 2013, 09:35:13 PM »


I think a material fact is wrong -- or I misunderstood what happened all this time! The court document says Dr. Phil HIRED Jamie Skeeters to go to Aruba and tape the Kalpoes. It was my impression that Skeeters acted on his own and THEN collaborated with Dr. Phil.  Anyone????

I believe Dr. Phil hired Skeeters.  I don't think Skeeters acted on his own but I could be wrong too.
Logged

If you need to get into the forum and have forgotten your password, email me and I'll reset it for you: smklaas@hotmail.com
klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74250



WWW
« Reply #235 on: December 19, 2013, 09:40:22 PM »

Remember, this was early in the investigation, September 2005.  Dr. Phil was planning a big show on the Natalee Holloway case.  He sends Jamie Skeeters, Harold Copus and John Weeks (I think that was his name) to Aruba to interview and film the suspects and anyone close including Nadira.  All for his show.  So I'm pretty sure it was Dr. Phil who hired Jamie.
Logged

If you need to get into the forum and have forgotten your password, email me and I'll reset it for you: smklaas@hotmail.com
wreck
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7781



« Reply #236 on: December 19, 2013, 09:56:22 PM »

Remember, this was early in the investigation, September 2005.  Dr. Phil was planning a big show on the Natalee Holloway case.  He sends Jamie Skeeters, Harold Copus and John Weeks (I think that was his name) to Aruba to interview and film the suspects and anyone close including Nadira.  All for his show.  So I'm pretty sure it was Dr. Phil who hired Jamie.
You are right ..... I was just mistaken!
Logged

klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74250



WWW
« Reply #237 on: December 19, 2013, 10:47:19 PM »

Nevertheless...those dirtbag Kalpoe's admitted having sex with Natalee, according to the Kalpoe's early in the investigation they said all three had sex with Natalee - the only way that would happen is by force. 

They don't deserve anything, they should be in jail just like Sloot.
Logged

If you need to get into the forum and have forgotten your password, email me and I'll reset it for you: smklaas@hotmail.com
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44717



« Reply #238 on: December 20, 2013, 09:49:06 AM »

Nevertheless...those dirtbag Kalpoe's admitted having sex with Natalee, according to the Kalpoe's early in the investigation they said all three had sex with Natalee - the only way that would happen is by force. 

They don't deserve anything, they should be in jail just like Sloot.


Totally in agreement with you Klaas. 
Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
crazybabyborg
Guest
« Reply #239 on: December 20, 2013, 10:11:16 AM »

Nevertheless...those dirtbag Kalpoe's admitted having sex with Natalee, according to the Kalpoe's early in the investigation they said all three had sex with Natalee - the only way that would happen is by force. 

They don't deserve anything, they should be in jail just like Sloot.


We all give an AMEN to that!  If I understand the clippings and comments, the case is ongoing and the outcome will determine who pays the lawyers. I'd love it if any future earnings by the Kalpoes could be attached to pay the bill, because I'm sure they don't have the money to pay if the ruling goes against them. I think I'm right in saying that you can't bankrupt out of a court ordered payment.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 6.195 seconds with 19 queries.