The Whites seek the release of the Ramsey indictment in its entirety

[Linda7NJ]

Can someone translate all of that to English please? :waitasec:

I'll second that...

 

[redheadedgal]

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T7TF1J8O4C21QQTQO/p10#c205

Candy at topix posts "Fleet's latest lawsuit: Case DISMISSED with prejudice, once again, yesterday."

not necessarily for tadpole, and sorry if this is a dumb question, but is that candy the same person as acandyrose?

 

[Mama2JML]

not necessarily for tadpole, and sorry if this is a dumb question, but is that candy the same person as acandyrose?

No.

"acandyrose owner of www.acandyrose.com IS NOT Candy on CyberSleuths (see Henrietta McPhee post #35 for further details)"​

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682527/Who Is Who in JBR Case

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TJID23D94NB1AF6JQ/p2?redirid=1407505656

 

[Mama2JML]

Can someone translate all of that to English please? :waitasec:

The GJ's official actions (indictments) were disclosed following Brennan v. Garnett. No other indictments, reports, or otherwise "official" actions of the Ramsey GJ exist. Remaining GJ records are not subject to disclosure as this would violate the court's order in Brennan v. Garnett AND GJ secrecy laws protecting witnesses, innocent parties, and the investigation into JonBenét's death.

 

[Steely Dan]

The GJ's official actions (indictments) were disclosed following Brennan v. Garnett. No other indictments, reports, or otherwise "official" actions of the Ramsey GJ exist. Remaining GJ records are not subject to disclosure as this would violate the court's order in Brennan v. Garnett AND GJ secrecy laws protecting witnesses, innocent parties, and the investigation into JonBenét's death.

Thanks, but how does that affect the Whites request. What are the legal grounds they are attempting to use and why were they successful or unsuccessful using them? TIA

 

[bettybaby00]

Thanks, but how does that affect the Whites request. What are the legal grounds they are attempting to use and why were they successful or unsuccessful using them? TIA

My understanding is that they want the release of the documents as a means of further "clearing them," as they were accused of being involved by the Rs as well as when Hunter bought into the whole Nancy Crebbs debacle.

The judge appears to view FWs repeated attempts to get this info out as frivolous, and if he had been represented by a lawyer, the lawyer might have been sanctioned (not sure of the right word to use).

IMO it's one thing for the judge to deny his request, but the rest of the ruling is unfair. IMO they have every right to get to the bottom of things as their reputations were unfairly dragged through the mud.

I've come to believe that the Rs went with the "all the doors were locked" scenario b/c they wanted to make it appear it was someone with a key. It seemed as if The housekeeper's name was thrown before the cops even finished asking the question. I also wouldn't be surprised if the Rs stated the Whites had a key as well.

 

[Steely Dan]

My understanding is that they want the release of the documents as a means of further "clearing them," as they were accused of being involved by the Rs as well as when Hunter bought into the whole Nancy Crebbs debacle.

The judge appears to view FWs repeated attempts to get this info out as frivolous, and if he had been represented by a lawyer, the lawyer might have been sanctioned (not sure of the right word to use).

IMO it's one thing for the judge to deny his request, but the rest of the ruling is unfair. IMO they have every right to get to the bottom of things as their reputations were unfairly dragged through the mud.

I've come to believe that the Rs went with the "all the doors were locked" scenario b/c they wanted to make it appear it was someone with a key. It seemed as if The housekeeper's name was thrown before the cops even finished asking the question. I also wouldn't be surprised if the Rs stated the Whites had a key as well.

Thank you.

 

[chlban]

My understanding is that they want the release of the documents as a means of further "clearing them," as they were accused of being involved by the Rs as well as when Hunter bought into the whole Nancy Crebbs debacle.

The judge appears to view FWs repeated attempts to get this info out as frivolous, and if he had been represented by a lawyer, the lawyer might have been sanctioned (not sure of the right word to use).

IMO it's one thing for the judge to deny his request, but the rest of the ruling is unfair. IMO they have every right to get to the bottom of things as their reputations were unfairly dragged through the mud.

I've come to believe that the Rs went with the "all the doors were locked" scenario b/c they wanted to make it appear it was someone with a key. It seemed as if The housekeeper's name was thrown before the cops even finished asking the question. I also wouldn't be surprised if the Rs stated the Whites had a key as well.

If I remember correctly they originally named, in addition to the housekeeper of course, the White's, the Barnhills and Patsy's Mother. However the list soon grew dramatically. Some might even say conveniently.

 

[Mama2JML]

Thanks, but how does that affect the Whites request. What are the legal grounds they are attempting to use and why were they successful or unsuccessful using them? TIA

Whites' request=Brennan's request; on the same legal grounds. The initial complaint was heard, decisive action taken, and a ruling imposed.

 

[THE BUNK]

I think this was the right legal decision.

Based on what?

 

[Mama2JML]

Based on what?

"Legal decision", hence based upon the LAW.

 

[Tadpole12]

The case was dismissed with prejudice, (as was the litigation relating to the Krebs investigation.)
The Whites were/are not required to pay court costs for the defending party in either litigation.
The judge here was not particularly nice in his dismissal. See below.
The court further notes that it has the power to limit and control frivolous filings by pro se litigants. Specifically, ”[a]n injunction may be necessary to prevent further abuse of judicial resources by a pro se litigant because a party acting in his own behalf is not subject to the disciplinary procedures that prevent abuse of the system by attorneys. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Morgan Cnty. v. Winslow, 706 P.2d 792, 794-95 (Colo. 1985); Shotkin v. Kaplan, 180 P.2d 1021, 1022 (Colo. 1947). "Forbidding a party from filing cases pro se does not infringe upon his constitutional right of access to the courts because he may still obtain access to judicial relief by employing an attorney authorized to practice in the state of Colorado." Id.; see Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Boulder County v. Barday, 594 P.2d 1057, 1059 (Colo. 1979). The court will not issue such a ruling at this time but may do so if the Plaintiffs continue their attempts to relitigate matters previously decided.

Full document is attached.

"Forbidding a party from filing cases pro se does not infringe upon his constitutional right of access to the courts because he may still obtain access to judicial relief by employing an attorney authorized to practice in the state of Colorado." Id.; see Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Boulder County v. Barday, 594 P.2d 1057, 1059 (Colo. 1979). The court will not issue such a ruling at this time but may do so if the Plaintiffs continue their attempts to relitigate matters previously decided.

BD. OF CTY. COM'RS OF CTY. OF BOULDER v. Barday
594 P.2d 1057 (1979)
http://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1979/28502.html

 

[Tadpole12]

Bd. of County Com'rs v. Winslow
706 P.2d 792 (1985) :
http://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1985/83sc415-0.html

Shotkin v. Kaplan, 116 Colo. 295, 180 P.2d 1021, 1022. : ?

 

[cherisa]

It appears to me the judge is saying FW is a vexatious litagtor. Does anyone else get this? And why would he not retain counsel?

 

[reedus23]

It appears to me the judge is saying FW is a vexatious litagtor. Does anyone else get this? And why would he not retain counsel?

It could be as simple as no lawyer would take his case. Vexatious or doing it with no basis in law and/or fact is what I got out of it without delving deeply into it. I might be the only one here, but I find the White's actions bizarre. But I guess what about this case isn't bizarre.

 

[Frigga]

Bizarre? The White's actions? How about the DA office "actions" in this case? How about a DA's office colluding with the attorneys for a couple who are suspected to have involvement in the murder and coverup of their six year old daughter?

How about a DA releasing all sorts of false and inflammatory information about an innocent man and family (the Whites) and sharing that information with a newspaper to be published while inexplicably leaving out mention of John Ramsey- who was supposedly involved in the same scenario?

Bizarre is how the Ramsey's have gotten away with covering up a murder for years with help from the office that should have filed an indictment, based on a Grand Juries findings, and at least attempted a case and then acted as if there wasn't one.
ETA MOO


It is like backwards day at the Ramsey's daily. Up is down, black is white, and the Whites are considered bizarre for seeking some sort of public justice.

Whatever.

 

[reedus23]

Bizarre? The White's actions? How about the DA office "actions" in this case? How about a DA's office colluding with the attorneys for a couple who are suspected to have involvement in the murder and coverup of their six year old daughter?

Yes, the White's actions. I am hard pressed to come up with any other individuals who have taken the actions they have simply because their names were included in a list of people who needed to be looked into and either eliminated or looked into further. Maybe it's happened but if it has, it happens so rarely that I would call it bizarre. And please don't leave off the remainder of my statement where I said so many actions surrounding this case are bizarre. It was not just limited to the White's. This thread just happened to be about them.

As for the DA's office, I'd be curious to know the 3 biggest facts that lead one to believe that they are in collusion with the Ramsey's. Not that they weren't vigorous enough in their investigation, but actually colluding with the Ramsey's. Do I think some of their actions were bizarre also? Certainly. Do I think they were colluding with anyone? I haven't seen anything to yet to suggest that and that's why I'm curious. I'm sure it's been discussed beyond belief before and that's why I only asked about 3 instead of a whole recitation. TIA

How about a DA releasing all sorts of false and inflammatory information about an innocent man and family (the Whites) and sharing that information with a newspaper to be published while inexplicably leaving out mention of John Ramsey- who was supposedly involved in the same scenario?

Unfortunately, it seems lots of people were leaking lots of information from all sides. That doesn't make it ok for any one of them. If I put myself into the shoes of LE or the DA at the time, I don't know who's innocent and who's not. I take that back, they are all supposed to be innocent at the time, White's and Ramsey's alike.

Bizarre is how the Ramsey's have gotten away with covering up a murder for years with help from the office that should have filed an indictment, based on a Grand Juries findings, and at least attempted a case and then acted as if there wasn't one.

You just took your entire argument about the White's and turned it upside down when you apply it to the Ramsey's. No one here, including myself, know enough to say with certainty who did what or who is covering up what. If that's your opinion, that's fine, but it's certainly not fact. Accepting the fact that I am working from a position of less than perfect knowledge of the crime makes me question any position that is stated as if it is coming from anything more than less than perfect knowledge of the crime as well.

It is like backwards day at the Ramsey's daily. Up is down, black is white, and the Whites are considered bizarre for seeking some sort of public justice.

While certainly not legal terminology, bizarre might be the layman's interpretation of what the court thought of the White's actions. Were the White's name not supposed to be brought up at all in the investigation? If the White's wouldn't have taken the actions that they did, would they have been forgotten about a decade and a half ago? Instead, have the actions kept their name in the forefront? I think an argument can be made that their actions have kept their name attached to the investigation as much or more than anyone else. Having never seen anyone take such actions, yes, I too find it bizarre. And yes, a lot of other people attached to this case have acted in a bizarre fashion as well IMHO.

All just my thoughts and opinions.

 

[elannia]

I too (sorry if this offends anyone) find his actions bizarre. I wonder why after all these years he wont come out and say anything about that days or years that followed.

Also wanted to add if anyone has seen his statement to LE. Just curious if that was out there. I would love to know what his statements were.

 

[questfortrue]

I too (sorry if this offends anyone) find his actions bizarre. I wonder why after all these years he wont come out and say anything about that days or years that followed.

Also not trying to offend anyone here advancing theories, but it seems appropriate to mention Tricia's admonition: Now, I want to also stress that we don't allow people to come on Websleuths and start accusing innocent people. So far the only people to be indicted by the GJ are the Ramseys.

Santa didn't do it, Fleet White didn't do it and so on. I will not allow the naming of innocent people as suspects.

I’m not sure why people are questioning FW’s motives anyway. He testified at the GJ and finds out last year that the GJ did vote. His desire is likely two-fold, clearing his family name and attempting to retrieve as much truth about the events, to bring about some sense of justice for JonBenet, a little girl who was his daughter’s best friend. In the past FW has let some folks know that he will only speak at a court case. Since that’s not too likely, he may now be motivated towards other actions.

BTW, AH reputation is not all that great. So does past behavior predict his character? I won’t answer that one. There are others to respond to that, notably one of the GJ members who said she wanted to vote for an indictment in the Sid Wells case, but AH wouldn’t let them vote. Or one could ask Sid Wells mother herself, her opinion of AH. BPD has a warrant out for the suspect in the Wells murder and Garnett is ready to go should they locate him. In fact one of the things Garnett has done is gone after a lot of the cold cases remaining from the AH and ML era. According to an article in the Daily Camera from 3 years ago, he has gone after prosecutions in six cold cases. And this:
In cases from the 1980s and 1990s, the person charged with the crime -- or for whom an arrest warrant has been issued -- is the same one investigators suspected at the time of the killing and much of the evidence cited in arrest warrants was available to police and prosecutors at the time, raising questions about why charges weren't filed then.

Simply process that info as you will. AH did have business relationships with attorneys from the other side, but there’s no smoking gun about anything nefarious in AH’s behavior. There are plenty of questions as to how he was handling the difficult cases. A Denver prosecuting attorney put it more simply. He called AH “the weakest” DA in all of Colorado.

MHO

 

[Tawny]

As frustrated as we get on the sidelines trying to find out what happened to JBR, imagine how frustrated people who cared about JBR are. Were I the Whites, IMO, I would be doing everything I thought could be done to get the rest of the GJ findings released.