Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 LastLast
Results 97 to 108 of 147
  1. #97
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post


    Oh, that pesky JonBenet. She just won't stay dead and buried and "at rest." She keeps interrupting his golf game and country club life. Just when you think you've completely pulled the wool over everyone's eyes, the wool slips a bit. And another bit. And another ....
    Yes, she was a real live wire. A regular spark plug.

    Job Ramsey makes me want to eat a biscuit and attend the next SFF meeting.

  2. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    Yes, she was a real live wire. A regular spark plug.

    Job Ramsey makes me want to eat a biscuit and attend the next SFF meeting.
    Ha! BOESP, I almost included John's "spark plug" reference to JonBenet in my post.

    John is going to have to drop his beloved golf and take up "whack-a-mole" if this keeps up. First, Kolar's book revelations, now the Grand Jury indictment leak. Who, or what, what will be the next mole to pop up?

    Word to John: Not everyone you threw under the Ramsey bus has stayed there but lived to fight another day. I'd be very worried if I were you.

  3. #99
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Southern Silicon Valley !!
    Posts
    2,285

    Talking

    I wonder what the new Mrs Ramsey thinks about all of this and if he keeps up the lies with her? Run Lady Run!
    "When are we going to get our heads out of the sand and understand that sometimes really nice people who look good on the outside are dastardly on the inside." Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor, MA

  4. #100

    Default

    Now, after 'GJ leak', the role of DA corruption is on the front runner like never before! And it reminds me of FW letter way back, 14 years ago: he saw what could happens; he knew that AH will not prosecute regardless of GJ findings.

    Just wondering, is there any law which allows GJ documents be available for public review? In another word, since time for indictment has been expired, can we have access to GJ documents? And if public cannot allow to see these documets then who can order to unseal them? Especially, since AH never signed and filed them properly.

    jmo

  5. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OpenMind4U View Post
    Now, after 'GJ leak', the role of DA corruption is on the front runner like never before! And it reminds me of FW letter way back, 14 years ago: he saw what could happens; he knew that AH will not prosecute regardless of GJ findings.

    Just wondering, is there any law which allows GJ documents be available for public review? In another word, since time for indictment has been expired, can we have access to GJ documents? And if public cannot allow to see these documets then who can order to unseal them? Especially, since AH never signed and filed them properly.

    jmo
    No, there is no way to do that.
    The other problem with respect to getting information from people “in the know,” is that regardless of whether it should be or not, the JonBenet case is an OPEN investigation.
    Then there is this:
    JUROR OATH: "You, as members of this grand jury, do swear (or affirm) that you will diligently inquire and true indictment make, of all public offenses against the people of this state, committed or triable within this county, of which you shall receive legal evidence; that you shall indict no person through malice, hatred or ill will; nor have any not indicted through fear, favor or affection, or for any reward or the hope or promise thereof; but in all your indictments, reports or undertakings, you shall present the truth, according to the best of your skill and understanding, and further that you will forever keep secret whatever you or any other juror may have said or in what manner you or any other juror may have voted on any matter before you; and that you will keep secret the testimony of any witness heard by you unless ordered by the court to disclose the same in the trial or prosecution of the witness for perjury before the grand jury, so help you God."

    The penalty in Colorado for violating the oath is a fine or fixed jail sentence (up to six months) or both for contempt of Court.

  6. #102

    Default

    I came across this recently:

    Put Up or Shut Up
    On August 31, 2001, CNN reported that Patsy Ramsey had issued a challenge to the Boulder police, via her attorney, that urged them to "file charges against her if they think they can prove that she killed her daughter."
    Following the challenge, Patsy told USA Today, "I'm beyond being hurt or embarrassed, if you think I did it, let's have a trial and get it over with."
    Ramsey attorney Lin Wood followed up on CNN's Larry King Live, when he demanded that Boulder County special prosecutor Michael Kane "explain why a grand jury did not indict either of the Ramseys after a 13-month investigation."
    He added that Kane should either "put up or shut up" about charging the Ramseys.
    Kane countered, saying, "I'm not going to be dictated, nor is the Boulder Police Department going to be dictated, by a demand by Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey or anybody else to put up or shut up. That's not how the criminal justice system works," he said.
    He further stated that he "could not release any information about the grand jury proceedings without the court's permission."
    During the King interview on CNN, attorney Wood and prosecutor Kane agreed to release the complete videotape of the interview and to seek the release of the grand jury transcripts, with Kane telling Wood, "I'll tell you what: If you will go to court with me, and ask the presiding judge to authorize a release of that information, I will release it."
    Wood replied, "I will walk into that courtroom with you."
    In another CNN report on September 1, 2000, however, the offer was recanted when Boulder prosecutors stated they would not be releasing the grand jury investigation transcripts. Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter later told CNN, "Colorado law prevents his office from releasing the information. The rule clearly states that grand jury proceedings are secret and shall remain that way until either an indictment is returned or a report is issued, and neither event has occurred," he said.
    The following November, attorney Wood told CNN that he "hopes that newly elected Boulder district attorney, Mary Keenan, would publicly admit that there is no case against the Ramseys."
    Keenan, who replaced District Attorney Alex Hunter after his retirement in January 2001, is a specialist in sex-related crimes and a 15-year veteran of the Boulder County District Attorney's Office.
    In his statement, Wood fell short of asking for his clients to be officially cleared, but stressed that he would like "a public statement that the investigative efforts have been exhausted and there is insufficient evidence to bring charges."
    In answer to Wood's request, Beckner said, "That's not something we would do."
    Keenan was not available for comment.

  7. #103
    RiverRat's Avatar
    RiverRat is offline FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Left is Patsy Ramsey)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NoneYa Beessness
    Posts
    7,824

    Default

    But but but...an indictment was returned so open those files!!!
    "Don't play dumb with me, RR! You're no good at it." The Punisher

    "Although no one is anticipating a prompt resolution to this long and much-detoured case, perhaps - just perhaps - might we see one of those moments “when a chance arrow of history scores a perfect bullseye on a deserving target”? Steve Thomas 2009

    "Justice hasn't had a chance so far. Anyone who doesn't have this as their prime goal, we'll have a falling out with." Fleet White - Time Magazine

    "What happens is that evil comes in," Fleet says. "If you don't have truth, all you have are lies, then what comes in is evil. And evil just does its thing. In the Ramsey case, it just did its thing, and it's eaten up so many people."

  8. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverRat View Post
    But but but...an indictment was returned so open those files!!!
    I didn't comment because I wanted to do some checking, but there is something very strange going on here.
    Have a look at this:
    In 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver (10th Cir.) ruled that a housekeeper for the parents of murdered child JonBenet Ramsey could not disclose anything she learned through testifying before the grand jury in a book she intended to write. In upholding a Colorado admonition to all grand jurors to keep their testimony secret “until and unless” an indictment issued, the court cited the importance of preserving the state’s interest in grand jury secrecy. (Hoffmann- Pugh v. Keenan) “[W]e are convinced a line should be drawn between information the witness possessed prior to becoming a witness and information the witness gained through her actual participation in the grand jury process,” the court said.
    The U.S. Supreme Court in January declined to review the decision.

  9. #105
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Thanks Cynic. I see Colorado provides for an automatic non-disclosure statute.

    However, Ramsey spin, publicly, used every maneuver in the book to make it appear there was not enough evidence for the Grand Jury to hand down an indictment.

    I'll go to my grave believing Patsy wrote that note and I heard with my own ears via television her admission that she agreed that whoever wrote that note killed JonBenet.
    Last edited by BOESP; February 2, 2013, 9:26 pm at Sat Feb 2 21:26:29 UTC 2013. Reason: corrected spelling

  10. #106

    Default

    Here is more from the Linda Hoffmann-Pugh case:

    HOW SECRET WAS THIS GRAND JURY INDICTMENT IF IT WASN'T REVEALED DURING THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS??????????


    338 F.3d 1136

    Linda HOFFMANN-PUGH, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    Mary T. KEENAN, as District Attorney for the 20th Judicial District of the State of Colorado, Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 01-1385.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

    August 6, 2003.

    William F. Nagel, Assistant District Attorney (Andrew Ross Macdonald, Assistant County Attorney, with him on the briefs), Boulder County Attorney's Office, Boulder, CO, for Defendant-Appellant.

    Darnay Robert Hoffman of New York, NY, submitted a brief for Plaintiff-Appellee but did not appear for oral argument.

    Before SEYMOUR, HOLLOWAY and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

    SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.

    1
    This case concerns the constitutionality of a Colorado statute governing the secrecy of grand jury investigations. Plaintiff Linda Hoffmann-Pugh worked as a housekeeper for John and Patsy Ramsey prior to the highly publicized murder of their daughter, JonBenet Ramsey. Due to her association with the Ramsey household, Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh was involved in the grand jury investigation of the murder. She now wishes to write a book about her experiences. Colorado requires a grand jury witness to take an oath not to disclose her testimony, except to discuss it with her attorney or with the prosecutor, until and unless an indictment or report is issued. The oath thereby precludes the witness from divulging her testimony even after the term of the grand jury has ended if the investigation of the crime continues. Fearing prosecution under Colorado law for contempt if she discloses her grand jury testimony, Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh sought and was granted a judgment declaring she could not be prosecuted for revealing that information. The district court held that the Colorado secrecy rules violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The state appeals and we reverse.

    2
    * Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure 6.2 and 6.3 provide that the proceedings of the grand jury shall be secret and the grand jury witnesses must take an oath to keep their testimony secret. In pertinent part, Rule 6.2 states:

    3
    All persons associated with a grand jury and its investigations or functions should at all times be aware that a grand jury is an investigative body, the proceedings of which shall be secret. Witnesses or persons under investigation should be dealt with privately to insure fairness. The oath of secrecy shall continue until such time as an indictment is made public, if an indictment is returned, or until a grand jury report dealing with the investigation is issued and made public as provided by law.

    4
    Rule 6.3 provides,

    5
    The following oath shall be administered to each witness testifying before the grand jury: DO YOU SWEAR (AFFIRM), UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, AND THAT YOU WILL KEEP YOUR TESTIMONY SECRET, EXCEPT TO DISCUSS IT WITH YOUR ATTORNEY, OR THE PROSECUTOR, UNTIL AND UNLESS AN INDICTMENT OR REPORT IS ISSUED?

    6
    Violations of the grand jury oath are punishable by contempt proceedings. Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh testified under the Rule 6.3 oath before the grand jury that investigated the murder of JonBenet Ramsey from 1998 until October 1999, when its term ended by law. No indictment or grand jury report concerning that murder has been issued. Because there is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder under Colorado law, however, a new grand jury could consider evidence and continue the investigation. Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh wants to write a book describing her grand jury testimony about this unsolved murder, discuss it with the media, and answer questions about it from members of the public. She has not done so for fear of facing contempt proceedings for violation of the grand jury secrecy requirements.

    7
    Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh claims, and the district court agreed, that the Colorado secrecy rules violate her First Amendment rights by requiring her to remain silent even after the grand jury ended its term without issuing an indictment or report. The district court determined that the Supreme Court's decision in Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624, 110 S.Ct. 1376, 108 L.Ed.2d 572 (1990), was controlling and granted summary judgment in favor of Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh. The court cited Butterworth as holding that to the extent a rule or statute "prohibits a grand jury witness from disclosing his own testimony after the term of the grand jury has ended, it violates the First Amendment." Aplt.App. at 128 (quoting Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 626, 110 S.Ct. 1376).

    8
    We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep't of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir.1999). In doing so, we view the evidence and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. More specifically, the district court's interpretation of state rules of criminal procedure is an issue of law we review de novo. United States v. Maher, 919 F.2d 1482, 1485 (10th Cir.1990). Likewise, challenges to the constitutionality of a statute as well as the district court's conclusion as to the constitutionality of a rule are issues requiring de novo review. United States v. Bolton, 68 F.3d 396, 398 (10th Cir.1995); United States v. Castillo, 140 F.3d 874, 879 (10th Cir.1998).

    II

    9
    In our judgment, Butterworth does not require invalidating Colorado's grand jury secrecy rules. In Butterworth, the Court considered a Florida statute permanently prohibiting a grand jury witness from disclosing not just his "testimony" but also the "content, gist, or import" thereof. Because that prohibition encompassed information the witness possessed prior to participating in the grand jury investigation, the Court determined the statute was unconstitutional. See Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 631-32, 110 S.Ct. 1376. In making its determination, the Court distinguished its decision in Seattle Times v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984), where it concluded the First Amendment was not infringed by a protective order prohibiting the disclosure of information obtained through judicially compelled discovery of otherwise private information. Comparing the situation in Butterworth, the Court said:

    10
    Here, by contrast, we deal only with respondent's right to divulge information of which he was in possession before he testified before the grand jury, and not information which he may have obtained as a result of his participation in the proceedings of the grand jury.

    11
    494 U.S. at 632, 110 S.Ct. 1376. Butterworth makes clear that the state cannot, by calling a person as a witness, prohibit her from disclosing information she possessed beforehand, that is, the substance itself of the information the witness was asked to divulge to the grand jury.

    12
    The Colorado statute is more narrowly drawn than the Florida statute at issue in Butterworth. The Florida statute specifically precluded disclosing the "gist or import" of the testimony, which clearly encompassed the substance of the knowledge the grand jury witness had before entering the grand jury process. The Colorado statute, by contrast, speaks only in terms of "testimony". The Colorado Supreme Court has explicitly referred to this distinction in discussing Rule 6.2: "Grand jury secrecy is intended only to prevent disclosure of what transpires or will transpire before the grand jury." State v. Rickard, 761 P.2d 188, 192 (Colo.1988).

    13
    The policy of secrecy is intended only to protect against disclosure of what is said or takes place in the grand jury room. But if a document is sought for itself, independently, rather than because it was presented to the grand jury, there is no bar to disclosure. The respondent... here is not inquiring into any facet of what is taking place within the grand jury room. Indeed, some of the documents have not yet been presented before the grand jury. Respondent asks only to see documents which have been, or may at some time be shown to a grand jury. The request is to see these documents for an unrelated and independent purpose. The secrecy of the grand jury would not be violated by this procedure.

    14
    Granbery v. Dist. Court, 187 Colo. 316, 531 P.2d 390, 393-94 (Colo.1975) (citation omitted). Thus, the Colorado statute does not prohibit disclosure of information the witness already had independently of the grand jury process.

    15
    Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh apparently wishes to disclose more than information she possessed prior to her grand jury testimony. In her complaint, she refers to publishing a book that "will include her appearance before the Boulder grand jury ... and recount her testimony." App., tab 2 at 3. She also refers to "questions addressed to her before the Boulder grand jury, and her answers." Id. She says she wants to relate publicly "her experience and testimony before the grand jury." Id. at 5. But as the Court recognized in Butterworth, "grand jury secrecy remains important to safeguard a number of different interests" to preserve its proper functioning. Id. Reading Butterworth in light of Rhinehart, we are convinced a line should be drawn between information the witness possessed prior to becoming a witness and information the witness gained through her actual participation in the grand jury process.

    16
    As one treatise explains: "Butterworth does not necessarily preclude a permanent disclosure prohibition ... where that prohibition is limited to a discussion of the specific content of the witness' testimony before the grand jury as opposed to the witness' knowledge of events discussed in that testimony." 3 WAYNE R. LAFAVE, JEROLD H. ISRAEL, & NANCY J. KING, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, § 8.5(d) at 78 (2d ed.1999) (discussing Butterworth and its application in State v. Heltzel, 552 N.E.2d 31 (Ind.1990)). The treatise clarifies: "Full disclosure of the testimony could encompass information learned through the testimony, such as prosecution strategy (as indicated by the questions of prosecutors or grand jurors) and the differing perspectives of other witnesses (as indicated by those questions)." Id. at 78 n. 109. In our judgment, drawing the line at what Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh knew prior to testifying before the grand jury protects her First Amendment right to speak while preserving the state's interest in grand jury secrecy.

    17
    We note, moreover, that there is a way for Hoffman-Pugh to free herself even from this restriction. Rule 6.9 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a witness to apply to the court overseeing the grand jury for a copy of the witness' testimony and a determination that secrecy is no longer required. Colo. R.Crim. P. 6.9(b)(c). This rule provides a mechanism for Hoffman-Pugh to free herself of the restriction on her disclosure of her grand jury testimony at such time as the investigation is truly closed and the state no longer has a legitimate interest in preserving the secrecy of that testimony.

    18
    In sum, we agree with the state that the Colorado grand jury secrecy rules, as limited by the Colorado Supreme Court in Rickard, do not preclude Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh from disclosing information she possessed prior to her grand jury appearance. Contrary to the district court, we hold that the Colorado secrecy rules do not violate the First Amendment by prohibiting the disclosure of matters Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh learned from her participation in the grand jury process, at least so long as the potential remains for another grand jury to be called to investigate an unsolved murder.

    19
    Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  11. #107

    Default

    All persons associated with a grand jury and its investigations or functions should at all times be aware that a grand jury is an investigative body, the proceedings of which shall be secret. Witnesses or persons under investigation should be dealt with privately to insure fairness. The oath of secrecy shall continue until such time as an indictment is made public, if an indictment is returned, or until a grand jury report dealing with the investigation is issued and made public as provided by law.


    Thank you Cynic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  12. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Thank-you, Cynic, for using your time to keep us up-to-snuff. It is appreciated.



Similar Threads

  1. Judge has ruled Ramsey Grand Jury indictment must be released
    By wombat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 192
    Last Post: August 21, 2016, 5:17 am, Sun Aug 21 5:17:22 UTC 2016
  2. The Grand Jury indictment of John and Patsy Ramsey
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: August 3, 2016, 11:36 am, Wed Aug 3 11:36:47 UTC 2016
  3. Lacy lied in documents to Supreme Court & we can now request Ramsey Grand Jury files!
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: October 13, 2013, 8:23 am, Sun Oct 13 8:23:31 UTC 2013
  4. Judge Who Dismissed JonBenet Ramsey Grand Jury To Retire
    By Little in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 7, 2009, 2:49 pm, Fri Aug 7 14:49:57 UTC 2009
  5. Grand Jury is NOT looking into anything Ramsey
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 4, 2004, 9:33 pm, Fri Jun 4 21:33:19 UTC 2004

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •