Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* *found in 2023* #115

[Seattle1]

It's crazy that they erode trust in institutions based on conspiracies with no basis in fact. I get mounting a robust defence of your client, but it's never allowed you to simply make stuff up. You have a duty to the court!

IME, the conduct by the defense here is far from the norm.

Here, we had a defense attorney who actually formed an organization to take down prosecutors, and arrived in Chaffee County, CO with an agenda. I can't recall a recent case where the defense Motions so blatantly misrepresented the facts.

That said, I also don't recall a case where the DA's office was such a mess, and the Judge so blinded/biased! JMO

 

[fcavanaugh]

[*]Jane says they believe the police planted evidence, including planting the BAM in her bones because two officers that they've brought charges against in the civil case were present during the autopsy.
[/LIST]

RSBMFF
Sure Jan, errr I mean, Jane.

I gotta say claiming LE officers planted BAM in Suzanne’s bones at autopsy with 4-5 other officials present at said autopsy is whole other level absurd.
On what planet does team BM/JFB think anyone will believe this outrageous hogwash?!!

Wowwwwzahhh, seems team BM/JFB has gone from desperation/grasping at straws to imo bordering on unhinged with these wild allegations based on zero evidence!

Not a good look Jane. At all.

IMHOO

#JUSTICEFORSUZANNE

ETA-clarity

 

[MassGuy]

Is Iris still listed as his attorney for the civil case? If not, how does she just bow out and another take her place?

She was in court last week, so it’s a safe bet that she is. She after money, exposure, and creating precedent.

Me thinks she’ll only wind up with the middle one.

 

[GOBliaison]

I am still trying to understand how an attorney gets away with such an outrageous allegation of corruption based on no evidence.

Uhhh...
I'm unaware of any bar to suing professionals for libels or slanders committed in the course of their calling/practice.

Iris and Jane are not ranting on the privileged floor of the U.S. Senate. [Yet.Anyway. G-G-CharleyBrown!]

Rather elementary it seems to me. Truth is the defense, and it would be the burden of Iris the Utterer to produce it... which incidentally would be totally lit !

 

[mrjitty]

Uhhh...
I'm unaware of any bar to suing professionals for libels or slanders committed in the course of their calling/practice.

Iris and Jane are not ranting on the privileged floor of the U.S. Senate. [Yet.Anyway. G-G-CharleyBrown!]

Rather elementary it seems to me. Truth is the defense, and it would be the burden of Iris the Utterer to produce it... which incidentally would be totally lit !

I wasn't meaning anyone should be sued.

What i meant is if I were a London Defence Barrister, and one day i went to the media and said the Crown Prosecutor was leading a corrupt scheme involving law enforcement, fellow lawyers and medical professionals to frame my client, and this was a conspiracy I simply invented without evidence, IMO I could expect CPS to make a complaint to the law society and to be hauled in front of the Law Society Disciplinary Tribunal.

I appreciate there is a grey area here in that the client can make such a claim, but of course the client might not be making any public statements on account of how he is huge legal jeopardy. In any case, IMO such a claim needs to be clearly denoted as the opinion of the client, and not of the lawyer.

MOO

 

[Puzzles8]

I pegged IE for bowing out.

However, I thought she'd have a more crafted exit speech.

I did too!

IMO the Bury Well was going dry. IE had to have been extremely professionally embarrassed with the discovery of Suzanne's remains. The BAM in Suzanne's bone marrow is very damning evidence of BM's guilt.

It strongly speaks to me that IE knows BM is guilty and she doesn't want to be aboard the Titanic of Legal Cases when it sinks.

It also speaks volumes to me that BM seems to be divesting his assets. He knows he will be found guilty.

Oh Barry....................

JMO

 

[Puzzles8]

So, are we to believe that, in addition to all the names defendants in the $15M flopsuit, the doctor who performed the autopsy is also in on this wild conspiracy to frame Barry when, in truth, no one framed Barry better than Barry?

Ludicrous.

JMO

Yes, but please don't tell anyone about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny..

JMO

 

[Seattle1]

Grand Jury Refresher -- Colorado

Grand juror service is for a term of 12 months, but it may be shorter if the court discharges the jurors. The term can be longer if a judge finds that it is necessary, but no term may exceed 18 months.

SM's remains were recovered on Sept 22, 2023.

I'm recalling an announcement by LS that a grand jury was impaneled for the first time by the 11th Judicial District last Sept 2023, and an indictment was issued for the 1967 homicide of Roxanne Archuletta.

That said, reportedly, a grand jury can be county-wide, judicial district-wide, or statewide, depending on which court has jurisdiction and the type of offense. Although GJ typically has 12 members, I'm wondering if the parties may have expanded the GJ to include 23 total jurors from dual jurisdictions (11th & 12th Judicial Districts).

Just thinking about BM's Civil Suit and the ridiculous allegations that his arrest violated his civil rights,

IMO, I don't think any of the parties involved in the litigation-- and still being charged to investigate the case, want anything less than a GJ indictment, the second time around!

9/7/23 11th JD: District Attorney Linda Stanley Announces Indictment

 

[AugustWest]

Uhhh...
I'm unaware of any bar to suing professionals for libels or slanders committed in the course of their calling/practice.

Iris and Jane are not ranting on the privileged floor of the U.S. Senate. [Yet.Anyway. G-G-CharleyBrown!]

Rather elementary it seems to me. Truth is the defense, and it would be the burden of Iris the Utterer to produce it... which incidentally would be totally lit !

My answer to your quote above is not in any way an endorsement of IE, but attorneys are actually given what is called "litigation privilege."

See: absolute privilege

See also: The Litigation Privilege: Its Place In Contemporary Jurisprudence

 

[GOBliaison]

I wasn't meaning anyone should be sued.

What i meant is if I were a London Defence Barrister, and one day i went to the media and said the Crown Prosecutor was leading a corrupt scheme involving law enforcement, fellow lawyers and medical professionals to frame my client, and this was a conspiracy I simply invented without evidence, IMO I could expect CPS to make a complaint to the law society and to be hauled in front of the Law Society Disciplinary Tribunal.

I appreciate there is a grey area here in that the client can make such a claim, but of course the client might not be making any public statements on account of how he is huge legal jeopardy. In any case, IMO such a claim needs to be clearly denoted as the opinion of the client, and not of the lawyer.

MOO

Months - maybe years ago now - I opined here that, after introductory pleasantries were concluded, Iris put Barry in the corner of his cell and told him to be quiet.
She knew what he was about, and that the worst thing she could do was permit him to interact with her...to listen to "his side of things".
I recall I also suggested that whenever meeting him was unavoidable, she bring along her most junior office clerk, who would pretend to take shorthand on reams of legal pads whenever Barry was blurting/regurgitating.
Indeed, the less she knew from Barry about Barry's Versions and Recollections, the simpler it would be to get on with her procedural playbook/agenda and, as well, lessen her risk of misrepresenting this client's falsehoods as the truth, whole and nothing but.

 

[GOBliaison]

My answer to your quote above is not in any way an endorsement of IE, but attorneys are actually given what is called "litigation privilege."

See: absolute privilege

See also: The Litigation Privilege: Its Place In Contemporary Jurisprudence

Acknowledged, thank you @AugustWest, and the references are most appreciated.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

"...an outrageous allegation of corruption based on no evidence."​

_______________________________________________________________________________

​

This is the excerpt in post #33 from @mrjitty, supra, which gave me pause.

If we take this hypothetical contention on its face as factually wholly true for the purpose of considering whether it would fall within the ambit of the litigation privilege, I'm thinking we may talking at cross purposes...perhaps differing subjects altogether . In your view would this precise, specific behavior by a particular litigant at the threshold be presumed privileged?
[No fair wanting more facts, circumstances, context, etc. ]

 

[mrjitty]

Months - maybe years ago now - I opined here that, after introductory pleasantries were concluded, Iris put Barry in the corner of his cell and told him to be quiet.
She knew what he was about, and that the worst thing she could do was permit him to interact with her...to listen to "his side of things".
I recall I also suggested that whenever meeting him was unavoidable, she bring along her most junior office clerk, who would pretend to take shorthand on reams of legal pads whenever Barry was blurting/regurgitating.
Indeed, the less she knew from Barry about Barry's Versions and Recollections, the simpler it would be to get on with her procedural playbook/agenda and, as well, lessen her risk of misrepresenting this client's falsehoods as the truth, whole and nothing but.

lol! I can see that!

One thing that really annoys me about Jane and IE's civil suit is they claim poor BM was tricked into lying - but nowhere has BM ever said his statements about the left turn, chipmunks, deer etc etc etc were lies! The suit contains precisely zero reference to any evidence from the case to that effect. Maybe he is going to say this on the stand, but until then, its fanfic IMO ...

 

[AugustWest]

Acknowledged, thank you @AugustWest, and the references are most appreciated.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

"...an outrageous allegation of corruption based on no evidence."​

_______________________________________________________________________________

​

This is the excerpt in post #33 from @mrjitty, supra, which gave me pause.

If we take this hypothetical contention on its face as factually wholly true for the purpose of considering whether it would fall within the ambit of the litigation privilege, I'm thinking we may talking at cross purposes...perhaps differing subjects altogether . In your view would this precise, specific behavior by a particular litigant at the threshold be presumed privileged?
[No fair wanting more facts, circumstances, context, etc. ]

Common law most often uses the language that the litigation privilege extends to statements made "in due course of judicial procedure" or "statements made during litigation." The language leaves what "statements made during litigation" unclear; what does "during litigation" mean and when does litigation actually begin? There is no clear and fast answer to this question, but courts have been extremely liberal with the rule, allowing most statements made even in contemplation of litigation to be covered by the rule. The rule also extends to judges and witnesses.

The Florida bar journal attached to the first link I offered goes into a bit more detail about what constitutes "during litigation," and is where I borrowed the language most often used for the common law rule. Here is a link to that journal:

Litigation Privilege Immunity: For Presuit Communications, It’s Not Absolute

The practice of law is laden with pitfalls that can wake a good litigator up in the middle of the night. Thankfully, there are security blankets that help lawyers sleep soundly. One of those is the litigation privilege — the venerable doctrine that litigants and their counsel are generally...

www.floridabar.org

 

[MassGuy]

Latest civil case filings:

Morphew v. Chaffee County et al (1:23-cv-01108), Colorado District Court

Morphew v. Chaffee County et al (1:23-cv-01108), Colorado District Court, Filed: 05/02/2023

www.pacermonitor.com

 

[Seattle1]

Latest civil case filings:

Morphew v. Chaffee County et al (1:23-cv-01108), Colorado District Court

Morphew v. Chaffee County et al (1:23-cv-01108), Colorado District Court, Filed: 05/02/2023

www.pacermonitor.com

View attachment 527725

From the link -- docket was corrected on 8/21 to reflect defendant Hysulien suit was voluntarily dismissed by Morphew (148 Order Granting Stipulated MTD) making hearing for MTD 109 moot. (I noted this error in prior thread).

And I trust Judge Domenico will ignore the added Hail Mary supplemental responses filed on Weds 8/28/34 by Team BM. So it wasn't enough that they (plaintiff) had the last word during the 8/21 hearing?

I'll pull the federal docket soon and post update in MEDIA ONLY.

 

[Seattle1]

Supplemental Doc 158 by Team Morphew filed 8/28/24:

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:cod

ecf.cod.uscourts.gov

 

[Megnut]

Who is left in Barry's fool's gold lawsuit?

 

[Seattle1]

Who is left in Barry's fool's gold lawsuit?

All but Harris and Grusing (FBI), and Hysjulien (CCSO) who were previously dismissed from the suit.