1. Spade

    Spade Member

    At the same time Jams was negotiating to sell the transcripts to the NE, Darnay Hoffman tried to sell Ramsey evidence that he had obtained by discovery. When he was told that Jams was offered $40K, he offered the 1997 & 1998 interviews to the NE for $25K. I was told about this within a few hours of his attempted sale.

    That same day, I called Candy and warned her to dump Darnay. Although Candy knew that the information was accurate, she choose to continue helping Hoffman.

    Today she has started a thread at CS attacking FedoraX and Ginja for saying bad things about her hero with feet of clay. IMO Candy needs to take responsibility for her own bad choices and not chide others for telling the truth.
     
  2. Ginja

    Ginja Member

    Candy

    He we go again...another poster who hasn't got the courage to confront me. Instead, she goes off on another forum where I don't post so she can "speak her mind".

    I think she's a hard worker and truly wants justice for JonBenet. Unfortunately, she gives too much credit to Darnay where he most certainly does not deserve it. That's been obviated with his handling of Wolf and Pugh. I don't think he had any trial experience except for Goetz (sp?) and he blew that one.

    As I stated back at JW, he could have filed a simple suit for Wolf and Pugh and won...instead, he took it upon himself to prosecute Patsy Ramsey without any evidence! And in so doing, he strengthened the Ramsey defense by getting them a biased ruling in Wolf and that ruling spilling over into Keenan's ridiculous support.
     
  3. Spade

    Spade Member

    Candy

    says she asked Darnay whether he tried to peddle evidence to the tabs and he denied it. WOW! Candy says she believes him. WOW! Candy thinks that people are "lashing out" at Darnay because "he disagrees with their theory". WOW

    Darnay Hoffman is too stupid to have a theory about this case other than to think Patsy wrote the note. It is absolutely true that he tried to peddle the interview transcripts to the NE. It is absolutely true that he harmed the case by letting down LHP and CW by no showing in court and being unprepared for depositions.

    Candy is the perfect example of a good intentioned person who "paves the path to hell." She made a bad choice when she volunteered to be Darnay's pro bono legal secretary. IMO she needs to accept that fact and move on.
     
  4. Ilene-Sue

    Ilene-Sue Member

    This is the way I look at it.

    So what if Darnay tried to sell stuff to the National Enquirer. I'm sure if he had expenses to recoup. He deserved to get something.

    He was not the one calling everyone who sold stuff a media whore.

    He was not a confident of the Ramseys either.

    That's the difference.
     
  5. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Didn't Darnay win a favorable ruling in the Pugh case that has now been overturned by the appeals court? Sure, the CW case was a disaster but unless I'm missing something,isn't Pugh a positive? DH stated publicly he would appeal Pugh to the Supreme Court, so maybe the "verdict" isn't due yet on this case. If he does and it succeeds at that level, it would open a huge door into the GJ transcripts, which may just blow the case wide open. Can we still hope? Just a thought....
     
  6. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Where ya been, Spade?!

    She starts one of those threads at least every other day. But you spoke ill of her gawd and Now you are one of THEM.

    Maybe soon, you can be one of THE Groupies, too. Next time THEY get together, I'll ask THEM if THEY will let ya in.

    :rolleyes:
    RR
     
  7. Spade

    Spade Member

    Pugh

    My understanding of the overturned decision in the Pugh case is that it enabled GJ witnesses to write/discuss the same topics that they may or may not have tesified to before the GJ as long as they didn't directly refer to their GJ experience. It had nothing to do with a possible release of GJ records.

    To the best of my knowledge, Darnay is a loser; except in his marriage. IMO, his contribution to justice for JonBenet Ramsey has been less than zero.
     
  8. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Freedom of Speech/1st Amendment Issue

    Spade: "My understanding of the overturned decision in the Pugh case is that it enabled
    GJ witnesses to write/discuss the same topics that they may or may not have tesified to before the GJ as long as they didn't directly refer to their GJ experience. It had nothing to do with a possible release of GJ records."

    ****

    You misunderstood, Spade. The Pugh case was filed as a 1st Amendment challenge to existing CO laws which kept GJ testimony, and the transcripts in which they are documented, sealed until such time as a report has been issued or indictments have been handed down. As we know, neither of those events have occurred, therefore acting to successfully maintain a perpetual seal intact, rendering those transcripts forever unavailable.

    DH's victory is as follows, and it is this victory that was overturned on appeal in August, 2003:

    http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/859588/detail.html

    Judge's Ruling Could Open Up Ramsey Case

    Judge Rules That Grand Jury Witnesses Can Speak Publicly

    DENVER -- Grand jury testimony in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case can now be legally shared with the public, according to a ruling a federal judge made on Thursday.

    U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel said that a state court rule which prohibits some grand jury witnesses from talking publicly violated the First Amendment rights of grand jurors.

    The rule, part of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, prohibits grand jury witnesses from discussing their testimony in cases where no indictment or report was issued.

    The judge's decision came in a lawsuit filed by Linda Hoffman-Pugh (pictured, above), a former housekeeper for the Ramseys, who spoke about her grand testimony for the first time on Thursday.

    "For instance, I've always said that the Swiss Army knife that I hid, put away in a cupboard, there's only one person that would have found it and that was (JonBenet's mother) Patsy Ramsey. And they found it in the room where they found JonBenet," Pugh told 7NEWS.

    Pugh said that she spent six to eight hours testifying to he Boulder County grand jury that investigated the slaying of the 6-year-old beauty queen.

    Pugh never expected that the grand jury would disband in October 1999 without an indictment.

    "When I left there, I firmly believed there would be an indictment when I walked out of the grand jury, and there wasn't," Pugh said. "I'd never believe that the grand jury was ever allowed to take a vote."

    Pugh said that the only way that the truth about JonBenet's murder will come out is if she and other grand jury witnesses are allowed to talk, and she's interested in what they would have to say.

    Pugh told 7NEWS that she told the grand jury about the ransom note, which she believes was written by Patsy Ramsey.

    "Just the similarities, you know, from some of the handwriting that I have of hers. And just some of the things that were said in it, are things that Patsy would say," Pugh said.

    "I think that maybe Patsy had multiple personalities," Pugh told 7NEWS. I saw her on that one day. I think she may have gotten upset with JonBenet for some reason and she hit her and did not mean to hurt her. I don't think she meant to hurt JonBenet and it was an accident, and it just continued from there."

    Pugh plans to write a book about her time with the Ramseys and her testimony. She said that if she could talk to Patsy Ramsey, she would "like for her to look in the mirror tomorrow, and say, 'I killed JonBenet.'"

    Despite extensive investigation by Boulder police, the Boulder County District Attorney's Office and the 1998-99 grand jury, no one has been charged in the homicide. The Ramseys maintain that an intruder killed their daughter. They identified Hoffmann-Pugh and others as suspects in a book they wrote, allegations at the heart of Hoffman's twolibel suits seeking $50 million each.

    JonBenet was found beaten and strangled in her family's home on Dec. 26, 1996. Police say her parents remain under suspicion. John and Patsy Ramsey have denied involvement.

    The case remains under investigation.

    Copyright 2002 by TheDenverChannel.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
    redistributed.

    ****

    Should Darnay succeed at getting the appellate decision overturned by the Supreme Court thus upholding the original court order permitting public disclosure of the testimony itself, the transcripts documenting same would then be subject to any other FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request by the public for release of those documents, like the Krebs investigative file, the 911 tape and enhancement, etc.

    This could be the major breakthru this case has been needing since the GJ was dismissed.

    IMO, instead of bashing DH for the Wolf case, I think we should put it behind us and get behind him in his efforts to make this happen in the Pugh case. It's a golden opp to turn a negative into a huge positive that could have immense impact at last on this case.
     
  9. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Where's his head?!

    NEW YORK -- Child-killer Joel Steinberg has a job as a television field producer waiting when he leaves prison next summer, his lawyer said yesterday.

    Steinberg will work for "New York Confidential," an upcoming interview show on a leased-access cable station, said attorney Darnay Hoffman.

    http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1064294088255960.xml
     
  10. AK

    AK Member

    Right, Spade, LOL

    "Darnay, did you abrogate your duty to your clients and commit acts that could get you banished from the state bar and possibly charged with obstruction of justice?

    "No."

    "OK, good enough for me!"

    That's up there with Lou making John "swear to God" and Mame's idea of "sleuthing."

    Honestly, I don't post on other forums so when I saw Candy's rant I wondered if perhaps it was about someone else, maybe Shapiro. She's either been given bad information or has made some erroneous leaps of logic. Also I have no "theory of the case," so I don't know what that's about! But since I did criticize Darnay, I'll guess that she does mean me, which is unfortunate. As people here know I was in her corner a very long time trying to make peace when she pulled other erratic behavior. But oh well.

    For the record, I have never contacted Darnay. I purposely haven't had meetings or phone discussions with forum folks, with three exceptions, and one of them is dead (RIP Ruthee!). Not that I don't love you all, but I don't go there. Candy did ask if I could help Darnay at one point, and I agreed to try even though I was not supportive of his task. Nothing happened, through no one's fault. I think a lot of people were contacted by Darnay and/or his emissaries, but any professional could see the defects in his quest. Still it was his battle to fight, not to drop his sword and run away.

    My ill feelings toward Darnay are just about his legal acumen, or lack thereof. I've found him personable on TV and on the forums and even once posted a cute news item about him and his wife. But anyone who harms the case---no matter how wonderful, noble, well-intended, etc.---is going to be the recipient of my wrath. It's a one-strike offense. And since I've seen numerous examples of lesser lawyers induced to take a dive for a greater lawyer amid promises of positive payback, this is a reasonable avenue of inquiry, Candy's denial notwithstanding.

    Spade, I hadn't known about DH's attempt to sell his tapes. Was he successful? I don't know how ethical that would have been for him to do so -- or was it done with Wood's OK? Which brings us back to the last paragraph, perhaps.

    Speaking of sales to tabloids, where does Miss Priss get the idea that Craig Silverman is a paid informant? What a terrible presumption that is! As I understand it the vast number of people quoted in the tabs, and anywhere, do it for free. If Candy doesn't have solid proof otherwise, I guess we'll have to put that on the giant pile of other things she's misinformed about.

    I don't know whether Candy is a paralegal, or if she aspires to be a lawyer. I do know she hasn't a clue about how the world works, and that will forever limit her ambitions.

    As for opening the Grand Jury files, ARE YOU KIDDING? That's just mame-speak: "Open all the records, it's the PEOPLE'S EVIDENCE!" In a homicide case still being actively investigated, what possible good would be served by undercutting what will come out in a criminal trial? The longer things stay sealed, from files to lips, the more faith we should have that the people in charge of this expedition are digging toward a courtroom.
     
  11. Spade

    Spade Member

    GJ Transcripts

    The idea that any appeal that Darnay may be preparing will cause the GJ trascripts to be released is ridiculous. DejaNu -you should re-read the article you posted and then you will understand why you, not me, misunderstood.

    I agree with Fedorax that even if the release of GJ information was Darnay's goal, it would NOT be good for the case or for the use of investigative GJ's in the future.

    IMO The legal moves that Fleet and Priscilla White are working on have a much better chance of bringing out the truth.

    PS: Darnay was not successful in peddling the transcripts to the NE even though he offered to cut his price to $25K to beat out Jams.
     
  12. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Spade and Fed, I would suggest you both go read CO law regarding GJ proceedings. The existing law prior to Pugh makes it quite clear that GJ proceedings, including transcripts, become publicly accessible once a GJ returns indictments or files a report. It is for this very reason that Alex Hunter directed this GJ NOT to do either, soas to maintain the secrecy ruling over the entire proceedings forever.

    The Pugh case, at least on the Federal level, succeeded in defeating that sealment, and rendering the Ramsey GJ proceedings to public access. The overturnment of that Federal court ruling by the appellate court upheld the sealment. Any successful ruling by the Supreme Court would once again render all GJ proceedings publicly accessible.

    Spade, if you knew as much as you only think you do in claiming that another poster with 30 years' experience in this field knows nothing, you would already know that this 1st Amendment issue has been pending before many trial courts. See http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/justice/nw/nw000713.php3; this effort has been ongoing since at least 2000, and since Enron burst the corporate accountability bubble, the effort has picked up considerable steam. Bars all over the country are currently ruminating the impact to attorneys and corporate clients of eliminating sealed proceedings such as depositions, settlements and GJ events.

    Your ignorance of how the legal process works is self-evident in every post, Spade. While you may enjoy the empowerment of doing nothing more in your posts than bashing everyone you have taken a disliking to, your efforts serve to misinform and misdirect more naive posters from educating themselves in areas where they lack understanding.

    Fed, whether Mame's battle cry is to reveal everything to the public I don't know. But it is clear that she violated her own ethics when she failed to reveal that JR was also named by NK as an assailant.

    Again, a successful effort at the Supreme Court level will once again render the GJ proceeding accessible to the public, as existing CO law intended it to be. If you have a problem with that, write your congressman.
     
  13. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Existing Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure 6.9(b) provides that any witness can ask the court, for good cause, to enter an order "to furnish to that witness a transcript of his own grand jury testimony, or minutes, reports, or exhibits relating to them." In addition, the Colorado rules provide for judicial relief from the secrecy requirement. The supervising judge can, upon request, release otherwise secret testimony and related materials upon a finding of good cause and subject to restrictions and limitations on use deemed appropriate under the circumstances.

    This is the very point that Pugh has claimed unconstitutional per 1st Amendment issues. A successful endeavor at the Supreme Court level would uphold Pugh's claims of unconstitutionality, effectively removing the judicial constraints currently imposed by Judge Roxanne Bailin, thus rendering GJ proceedings to public access.

    CO grand jury secrecy laws are virtually archaic, as most states have enacted amendments making such proceedings more accessible to the public already. The Pugh case will be pivotal in that regard, especially because Pugh was filed in the Federal, and not state, jurisdiction, and therefore Federal laws regarding grand jury secrecy are of greater poignancy.
     
  14. Spade

    Spade Member

    DejaNu

    Are you saying that if Darnay actually gets around to filing an appeal and the supreme court actually gets around to hearing it and rules in favor of Darnay; then that the public will have access to transcripts of the testimony before the Ramsey GJ?
     
  15. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Spade: "DejaNu
    Are you saying that if Darnay actually gets around to filing an appeal and the supreme court actually gets around to hearing it and rules in favor of
    Darnay; then that the public will have access to transcripts of the testimony before the Ramsey GJ?"

    See above postings. In essence, Spade, IF DH files a petition for review with the Supreme Court, IF the Supreme Court agrees to hear the issue, and IF the Supreme Court overturns the appellate court's overturnment of the Federal trial court's ruling, yes, it will effectively determine that the existing CO laws/rules regarding eternal secrecy and judicial discretion are unconstitutional, paving the way for jurors and witnesses to speak publicly and request transcripts corroborating their participation, to public access. Those transcripts would be monumentally crucial to any public testimony.

    CO is one of the few states left that still has laws on the books that create loopholes to perpetuate secrecy rulings into oblivion (as with the Ramsey GJ), and that give all power and authority to trial court judges sitting on GJ proceedings the exclusive right to determine what, if anything, can be released.

    I understand your inference with all the "ifs" in this scenario, but the Pugh case is consistent with a volume of activity ongoing in other states and at the Federal level to defeat secrecy rulings in a variety of legal proceedings based in 1st Amendment rights. I would anticipate consent by the Supreme Court to hear any petition filed in Pugh for that reason. Both DH and LW are supportive of a favorable ruling in Pugh, albeit for different agendas, so that not only can GJ jurors and witnesses speak about the proceedings but have access to supporting documentation, i.e., transcripts, exhibits, etc. to support their testimonies. DH publicly commented that such a favorable ruling would have the impact in the Ramsey case of a "floodgate" of information coming out of the GJ proceeding, and I cannot disagree.

    As I've stated previously, this would be a good thing because it might provide foundation for prosecution, at least, that's what I'm hoping. Regardless of DH's past performance in Wolf, he still has a significant opportunity to do this case tremendous good if he files that petition. I would expect him to do so.

    In analyzing legal stuff in any case, it's important to avoid tunnel vision and to look at the greater picture, the impact, that's what I am trying to convey.
     
  16. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    This situation, then, creates a ripple effect, paving the way for many FOIA requests for documentation out of the GJ from the public at large. This means that people like Tricia Griffin would then be able to obtain transcripts, exhibits, etc. from the Ramsey GJ.

    Of course, once that evidence becomes public, both a prosecutor and defense attorney could use it in subsequent legal proceedings or public comments regarding culpability or innocence of the parties. This could spurn a whole other round of talk shows and exposes regarding the contents of that documentation, which could spurn further evidence to be used in legal proceedings, or, the ripple effect impact of a favorable ruling in Pugh.
     
  17. AK

    AK Member

    Deja Nu

    Any law that is in jeopardy of being overturned because of one or two anomalous cases is not a situation a Supreme Court would agree to hear. Our curiosity in the Ramsey or Enron cases should not overwhelm a nicely effective system that protects prosecutions on every level.

    Besides, I hate to tell you but Darnay isn't likely to have time to do this. (Nor is he Jonathan Turley, or someone who's adept at presenting high-powered legal arguments.)

    Darnay has discovered other interests which are more suitable to him.

    Spade, thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding on the NE sale. For some reason I was thinking it was other footage he was peddling.
     
  18. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    Fed: "Any law that is in jeopardy of being overturned because of one or two anomalous cases is not a situation a Supreme Court would agree to hear. Our curiosity in the Ramsey or Enron cases should not overwhelm a nicely effective system that protects prosecutions on every level."

    Fed, do some research (it might make fodder for some good articles). The entire issue of 1st Amendment rights is not representative by just a couple odd cases; it's a very hot topic all around the country in the legal system and has been for several years. Most of the media and press are solidly behind these changes as you will discover. The changes are inevitable as we see more and more privacy rights disappear and continued increase in 1st Amendment freedoms being claimed.

    Fed: "Besides, I hate to tell you but Darnay isn't likely to have time to do this. (Nor is he Jonathan Turley, or someone who's adept at presenting high-powered legal arguments.)

    Darnay has discovered other interests which are more suitable to him."

    I know that Darnay and his wife are hosting a cable TV talk show, if that's what you are referring to. He committed publicly to file a petition with the Supreme Court in August when the appellate court overruled the trial court findings, and I for one am holding him accountable to his word. If he doesn't, then I'll join you in the DH-bashing, k?

    As for his abilities to argue high-powered issues, I don't know many of us who feel adequate to present to the highest court in the land. One of the worst things attorneys suffer is performance anxiety, which is why egos develop the likes of LH. Besides, there's no arguing per se at the Supreme Court. It's merely a case presentation and one can simply read it into the hearing record. Supreme Court hearings are not trials, there is no arguing as can be done in trial courts, although dissenting positions on the issue may be presented.

    As the eternal optimist, I should think you'd hold out SOME hope that this effort will succeed, regardless of who the "baby" is in this bathwater!;)
     
  19. Ayeka

    Ayeka Member

    Speaking of said talk show...

    'Mayflower Madam' Denies Cable-TV Role

    Sounds like trouble in paradise...

    Ayeka
     
  20. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    What the????? HUH?

    Page Six reported the following:

    "August 27, 2003 -- THAT former Mayflower Madam Sydney Biddle Barrows is launching a talk show co-hosted by her husband, trial lawyer Darnay Hoffman. "Sydney & Darnay" begins Sept. 23 on Time Warner cable Ch. 35 ."

    So Sydney doesn't know about "Sydney & Darnay?"

    whoopsie. I hope this isn't true. I want Darnay to have a talk show. We'll wait and see I guess.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice