Justice Watch Support JW "Steve Thomas Says He Wasn't Served Subpoena" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Steve Thomas Says He Wasn't Served Subpoena, momo, 17:23:14, 6/30/2001 I wonder, momo, 09:46:24, 7/01/2001, (#1) I don't know the laws, Watching you, 09:52:56, 7/01/2001, (#2) OTOH, Watching you, 09:54:24, 7/01/2001, (#3) momo, Tricia, 10:00:21, 7/01/2001, (#4) Watching You, momo, 10:06:15, 7/01/2001, (#5) It's going to be , Watching you, 10:11:04, 7/01/2001, (#6) Steve was served, Ellique, 11:00:52, 7/01/2001, (#7) Wasn't served?, watchin', 11:14:27, 7/01/2001, (#8) How many, Cassandra, 11:33:26, 7/01/2001, (#10) OK, Tricia, 11:30:08, 7/01/2001, (#9) Just because, Sabrina, 12:07:03, 7/01/2001, (#11) Yes, Sabrina, and, Watching you, 12:26:15, 7/01/2001, (#12) Can't find link, JR, 15:36:24, 7/01/2001, (#13) Night before last,, Gemini, 16:50:48, 7/04/2001, (#14) ................................................................... "Steve Thomas Says He Wasn't Served Subpoena" Posted by momo on 17:23:14 6/30/2001 Ex-detective says he wasn't served subpoena By Sue Lindsay, News Staff Writer Former Boulder police detective Steve Thomas, who faces legal trouble resulting from the Thomas Miller trial, contends he was never served with a subpoena. Jefferson County Judge Jane Tidball issued arrest warrants June 13 for Fleet White and Thomas after they failed to appear to testify. Miller's attorney, Gary Lozow, asked for the arrest warrants. Although White says he was served and chose not to appear, Thomas contends that he never was served with the subpoena. The return of service filed with the court states that he was personally handed the subpoena June 3 at his Arvada home to be in court June 13. But attorney Robert Ransome said at a Monday hearing that the process server left the subpoena on Thomas' doorstep after "some conversation through the door." Ransome represented the private investigator who arranged for the subpoena to be served. Thomas' attorney, Dan Caplis, said Thomas was not personally served. A story in Wednesday's Rocky Mountain News incorrectly stated that Caplis said Thomas was in Germany when the subpoena was allegedly served. Thomas was in Colorado on June 3, Caplis said. Thomas left for Germany June 12, was there during the trial and returned June 19 as soon as he heard Tidball had issued a bench warrant for his arrest, Caplis said. He appeared in court the next day. Caplis is asking Tidball to squash the bench warrant. "Steve was not served," Caplis said. "We are not aware of anyone else having been served with the subpoena intended for Steve. This is a fraud upon the court by the process server who signed the return of service." A hearing is set for July 16. June 30, 2001 [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "I wonder" Posted by momo on 09:46:24 7/01/2001 who the person was that was involved in conversation "behind the door?" It had to be Steve, didn't it? I don't know what the rules are for serving someone in Colorado. If it was Steve behind the door and the process server left the subpoena on the doorstep, then why is he saying he wasn't served? I'm confused. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "I don't know the laws" Posted by Watching you on 09:52:56 7/01/2001 in Colorado, either, momo. Seems it all depends on who you are, but, maybe it was Steve's wife behind that door. In NYS, nobody can be forced to take service of a subpoena for someone else. If that's also the case in Colorado, she had no obligation to accept service of that subpoena, and it could lay there forever and rot if it wasn't handed directly to ST. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "OTOH" Posted by Watching you on 09:54:24 7/01/2001 was Steve'e wife even in the states at that time? I don't know when she left the states. So how does that work? If the server did not place the subpoena directly in ST's hands and say, you are served, they may be screwed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "momo" Posted by Tricia on 10:00:21 7/01/2001 I don't have the answer to your questions. I do however trust Steve Thomas and I feel like the article told only part of the story. July 16th is the court date. One thing that needs to be pointed out. Thomas has always shown up when he was subpoenaed before. Unlike Fleet White. That's why I think what his lawyer said was true. He wasn't served. As for the converstaion through the screen door I just don't know who that was with or what the situation was. I do not doubt Thomas' honesty one bit. The story will come out and court. Then I am sure it will all make sense. Take Care Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Watching You" Posted by momo on 10:06:15 7/01/2001 I think his wife was out of the country. I think Steve left later to join her in Germany. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "It's going to be " Posted by Watching you on 10:11:04 7/01/2001 interesting, that's for sure. I think we're in for a wild ride in the next few months. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Steve was served" Posted by Ellique on 11:02:32 7/01/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:02:32, 7/01/2001 The server talked to somwone through the screen. Was it a man or woman? Whoever it was just better not show up in court, else the server will be able to make a positive ID. I believe that ST knew he was to be served and arranged a plan for someone to be there to be spoken to by the server. That person refused to identify him/herself or identified himself as ST. (Don't think so to that, however) I don't care anymore one way or the other. I think most Americans, who are in the least bit interested in the carrying ons in Colorado re the Ramsey case, have already seen what this Dynamic Duo of White and Thomas are capable of and have clong ago concluded that their varacity is not so hot. Where is Petro? Love Ellique [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Wasn't served?" Posted by watchin' on 11:14:27 7/01/2001 Did this celebrity wanna be expect a silver platter with that paper? Steve...can you spell I N T E G R I T Y? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "How many" Posted by Cassandra on 11:33:26 7/01/2001 lawyers does ST have now? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "OK" Posted by Tricia on 11:30:08 7/01/2001 First I would suggest all fair minded people (which you all are right?) wait until the hearing on July 16th. Nobody knows what happened. We can speculate all we want, but in a very short time we will know. Like I said I don't doubt Thomas and his honesty one single bit. I am sure it will make sense when it is explained. Ellique your little end phrase of "where's Petro" is really somewhat annoying. Petrocelli doesn't need to be in the limelight like you know who. Petrocelli doesn't need to pose with his horse to get on the cover of a magazine because he needs the attention like you know who. I am sure Petrocelli is doing what a great lawyer like himself does, work hard, gather information and when the time comes he will kick butt. To answer you more directly Ellique, Petrocellli is more than likely at home with the family today. Only a guess on my part though! Tricia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Just because" Posted by Sabrina on 12:07:03 7/01/2001 the Rams seem to have a problem telling the truth doesn't mean Steve Thomas does. Just remember that Ellique. And remember who told the truth about the Larry King show..... (Ellique's posts are ones I usually scroll by but I missed scrolling and read his chit and "disguised" venom today) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Yes, Sabrina, and" Posted by Watching you on 12:26:15 7/01/2001 that lie was a big whopper, because the proof is right there on that LKL tape for the whole world to see. Ooops. I don't think ST lied about anything. But, we know the Ramseys lied... and lied... and lied... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Can't find link" Posted by JR on 15:36:24 7/01/2001 But didn't one of the news articles discussing Steve's warrant state that he is now living with his father? Maybe the person who was serving the warrant mistook dad for son? Tricia is right, we will know more after July 16. Until then, it's all pure speculation. Ellique - there you go again...maybe you should consider a second career as a fiction writer. ;-\ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Night before last," Posted by Gemini on 16:50:48 7/04/2001 I saw a post on CS in which Candy brought in the Colorado criteria for serving a summons. Apparently, according to that material, the summons can either be delivered by hand, directly to the person ... or, can be posted in a conspicuous place at the person's home or somewhere he/she routinely frequents. Therefore, if the server posted the summons on Thomas' front door (after making someone in the residence aware of what he was doing), there seems to be little excuse for Thomas insisting he was not served. If he didn't get it under those circumstances, he must have deliberately avoided it. Will the court accept this as a valid excuse? It'll be interesting to see. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE