Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #114

[Love Never Fails]

Typical IE to ignore that these farmers or ranchers had no motive to kill Suzanne-- AND HER CLIENT DID!

Sometimes a very good lawyer can make one remark that makes them look really foolish, if not not stupid. I think that was it!

 

[Momofthreeboys]

BM's civil lawsuit against local LE, prosecutors, CBI, et al.

sbm @Love Never Fails
May 2, 2023 article re BM's lawsuit includes quotes from:
1. Iris Eytan's media release re lawsuit, "We will not rest until those responsible for this miscarriage of justice are held accountable," and identified her as "Morphews' lead counsel."

2. Colorado Springs defense attorney Jeremy Loew who said: "Mr. Morphew has three law firms working on this case, and it could be in excess of $500 an hour, if not more. He's probably fronting the bill himself to send a message."

THREE law firms???"
BM fronting the bill to "send a message"???

For more re IE now, see Employment, Education, & Civil Rights Lawyers | RM Lawyers Iris Eytan - RM Lawyers).

____________________________________

Barry Morphew files $15 million civil suit against prosecutors, Chaffee County, law enforcement | KRDO

Barry Morphew files $15 million civil suit against prosecutors, Chaffee County, law enforcement

krdo.com

I believe IE is consulting or working with the civil firms that sat in sometimes during the original prosecution and they all 3 wrote the civil case. One was Whitson and the other was Bryialsen (sp?). So at that time technically 3 firms working together.

 

[GOBliaison]

Actually he felt totally out of place to me in the Colorado home. Playing a rich guy with really no money. All hat no cattle. The whole interior furnishings etc felt like they came with the place including those creepy threadbare brown towels. The place was sorely in need of a refresh.
In this place in Arizona he feels to me like he fits. Its a trailer park but the area borders a more high end neighborhood. Lots of chain restaurants. Transients, bikers and well heeled retiree types.
An aging BM hanging out at the bars line dancing desperately trying to stay “ relevant”.
Too much cologne and hair dye.
Pleased to meet you, I’m Barry Lee.
Sounds made to order.
JMO

^^rsbbm

NO, that is not what I said!

In response to OP's quoted post questioning whether the Grantee declined to take the real estate, let me be clear:

Recording of the QCD was made by the Grantee, affirmed by her signature as the (new) Owner, witnessed by BM, and acknowledged by a Notary.

There is no question whether or not the transfer was declined by the Grantee/Owner, period.

Pardon me, but your words were "signing off", not the presentment of the deed in question for recordation, with the representations, documents, fees, etc. attending that process in which a grantee of course must participate. But that clarification would still not address my contentions relative to the compulsion of/ declination by any grantee (not the instant deed and the parties to it.
And why might I wonder about such "off-topic"- I would disagree!- concerns?
Because I would have advised M1 not to touch this property with a barge pole!
Kindly refer to the "Aside:", infra.
____________________________________________________________________


I contended, and still do, that she could not have been be compelled to take, noting in the same post that, were this grantee's decision, she's be well-advised to make a record of THAT in the appropriate registry(its).

Never did I ask whether or not in this case the grantee declined the grant; rather, I was soliciting advice/opinion(s) from our learned membership as to whether such a declination/refusal to take deeded real estate - being the free choice of a sole/third party grantee - was/could ever/anywhere be "legally objectionable". And that's it.
_____________________________________________________________________

With resounding member silence the response to my hypo, I'm comfortable concluding my initial inclination was/is the proper one. This being, succinctly, modestly...

"At its onset, no grantee may be compelled to receive a deed of real estate, nor may said grantee's refusal to receive it be presumed legally objectionable."

NB svp.:
Perverted/convoluted hypos from the readership purporting to discredit the foregoing, I would like to entertain, provided these, a my own, are succinct and simple

Aside:
Were I this particular grantee, as recited above, I would have taken every precaution to avoid even grazing Grandmother Morphew's home with a barge pole. In posts (pl.) that follow - I hope! - I try to set out some imaginative, but not-too-strained rationale for M1's avoiding entanglement in Matters Morphew. Yeah, a touch late, as helpfully shared with us by @Seattle1, but not very many worrisome situations prove irretrievably so.
I tried keying to (1) what we believe we already appreciate about this sad affair, (2) elemental human nature, as it may manifest itself with our characters, (3) practicalities, (4) likelihoods, (4) logic, (5) common sense, and so forth.
Likely, I missed a bunch of factors/variables, which perhaps shall spur your own notions of the best, attainable outcomes for Mallory and Macy.
Thank you for your forbearance here.

 

[Megnut]

Pardon me, but your words were "signing off", not the presentment of the deed in question for recordation, with the representations, documents, fees, etc. attending that process in which a grantee of course must participate. But that clarification would still not address my contentions relative to the compulsion of/ declination by any grantee (not the instant deed and the parties to it.
And why might I wonder about such "off-topic"- I would disagree!- concerns?
Because I would have advised M1 not to touch this property with a barge pole!
Kindly refer to the "Aside:", infra.
____________________________________________________________________


I contended, and still do, that she could not have been be compelled to take, noting in the same post that, were this grantee's decision, she's be well-advised to make a record of THAT in the appropriate registry(its).

Never did I ask whether or not in this case the grantee declined the grant; rather, I was soliciting advice/opinion(s) from our learned membership as to whether such a declination/refusal to take deeded real estate - being the free choice of a sole/third party grantee - was/could ever/anywhere be "legally objectionable". And that's it.
_____________________________________________________________________

With resounding member silence the response to my hypo, I'm comfortable concluding my initial inclination was/is the proper one. This being, succinctly, modestly...

"At its onset, no grantee may be compelled to receive a deed of real estate, nor may said grantee's refusal to receive it be presumed legally objectionable."

NB svp.:
Perverted/convoluted hypos from the readership purporting to discredit the foregoing, I would like to entertain, provided these, a my own, are succinct and simple

Aside:
Were I this particular grantee, as recited above, I would have taken every precaution to avoid even grazing Grandmother Morphew's home with a barge pole. In posts (pl.) that follow - I hope! - I try to set out some imaginative, but not-too-strained rationale for M1's avoiding entanglement in Matters Morphew. Yeah, a touch late, as helpfully shared with us by @Seattle1, but not very many worrisome situations prove irretrievably so.
I tried keying to (1) what we believe we already appreciate about this sad affair, (2) elemental human nature, as it may manifest itself with our characters, (3) practicalities, (4) likelihoods, (4) logic, (5) common sense, and so forth.
Likely, I missed a bunch of factors/variables, which perhaps shall spur your own notions of the best, attainable outcomes for Mallory and Macy.
Thank you for your forbearance here.

I think I follow, and I think there might be a family law in place where personal freedom is crimped and saying no -- or even no thank you -- is not one of the choices.

JMO

 

[MassGuy]

I looked up the judge who is hearing the dismissal motions on the 21st, and this does not bode well for a timely decision. His name is Daniel Domenico, and he was the worst of the worst at the time of publication.

Data show persistent delays among handful of Colorado's federal judges

Five members of Colorado's federal trial court have experienced far higher delays in deciding motions than their colleagues, according to recent data released by the federal judiciary.

www.coloradopolitics.com

 

[katydid23]

Interesting. That can eat up anyone’s nest egg. Thanks.

Yes, except you don't always have to pay a civil attorney ,upfront, to rep you in a big huge lawsuit. You just have to agree to handover 40 to 70% of the winnings at the verdict. If you can pay up front it is a much better deal of course.

But if not, if the attorneys feel you have a decent chance of winning big, they will do the upfront work for little or no fee, in exchange for a HUGE percentage in the end.

 

[Lyanna]

I think I follow, and I think there might be a family law in place where personal freedom is crimped and saying no -- or even no thank you -- is not one of the choices.

JMO

Can't imagine Barry hears the word 'no' very often. It's Barry's way or all of a sudden you're missing whilst on a bike ride way.

moo

 

[Megnut]

Can't imagine Barry hears the word 'no' very often. It's Barry's way or all of a sudden you're missing whilst on a bike ride way.

moo

Except... without the bike ride.

:/

 

[FromGermany1]

Can't imagine Barry hears the word 'no' very often. It's Barry's way or all of a sudden you're missing whilst on a bike ride way.

moo

First HE is missing, gone for days with unknown address, so you have time to overthink his innocent, legitimate "little" wishes and have time, to create a nice verbal apology especially for him. Sometimes maybe you have to apologise with sexual devotion, if you are his wife/girlfriend. And you have to phrase "yesss", this little word, what he expects to hear anyway.

 

[Megnut]

First HE is missing, gone for days with unknown address, so you have time to overthink his innocent, legitimate "little" wishes and have time, to create a nice verbal apology especially for him. Sometimes maybe you have to apologise with sexual devotion, if you are his wife/girlfriend. And you have to phrase "yesss", this little word, what he expects to hear anyway.

Until you start to lose your very self in that.

We see what happens when you try to honor yourself, set some boundaries.

Not allowed.

JMO

 

[GOBliaison]

IMO, it follows that the DA's Office for the Criminal case would want to wait for the 20+ depositions by BM before refiling charges against him.

^ VR emphasized ^​

And why are we waiting? ...for depositions?...for anything? To ensnare a lying liar who lies ... in further lies?!

Inasmuch as this perp will never be on the stand to impeach, imagine the insane delay, obfuscation, exhaustion, et al. Manic Eytan will consummate if our prosecution so much as "hints"- for any purpose/at any stage/in any context - the merest scintilla in the 'aura' * of the 'penumbra' * emanating - I'd say "oozing" - from this civil side farce. [Curse forever "substantive" due process and its progeny! ]
For when it comes to getting Barry on the way to what's due, the civil suit IS A TAR PIT. Consider marking my words.
Unheeded, imo, Justice for Suzanne will struggle awhile, exhaust strained resources, public patience/support, and almost unawaredly slip from view. TAR PIT. With a nod to our navy's hero Farragut: "Damn that Farce! Full speed ahead!"

 

[GOBliaison]

Unbelievably ludicrous statement, I forgot how much I detest her.

Iris Eytan ..... I am so ashamed she graduated from my law school ..... seems to distinguish herself not so much with zealous defense, but with obstruction, some of it likely indictable.
For her, IMvcO, if it cannot be 'fun & games' / 'sh-ts & giggles' , it's not a case, client, court or cause that's "worthy".

​

 

[Niner]

You all keep mentioning Iris as his civil attorney - here is what I have in my notes:

Plaintiff: Barry Morphew, represented by Jane Holse Fisher-Byrialsen of Fisher & Byrialsen PLLC, lead attorney.

Is that incorrect??