Justice Watch Discussion Board "LHP (Denver Post 8/5)" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... LHP (Denver Post 8/5), New York Lawyer, 03:22:06, 8/05/2000 need legal advice here, ericasf, 06:15:55, 8/05/2000, (#1) Um, that's what he said., Cassandra, 06:40:46, 8/05/2000, (#2) Answers, New York Lawyer, 06:42:46, 8/05/2000, (#3) NYL, Shaggy, 07:03:09, 8/05/2000, (#4) sue sue, Matt, 07:10:30, 8/05/2000, (#5) Question, NYL, Ginja, 07:19:15, 8/05/2000, (#6) NYL, Greenleaf, 07:25:13, 8/05/2000, (#7) Wow, that would be something, Sylvia, 08:55:51, 8/05/2000, (#8) Way to go NYL, kdubois2, 09:27:46, 8/05/2000, (#9) ginja, Seashell, 09:56:59, 8/05/2000, (#10) ?, freebird, 11:02:06, 8/05/2000, (#11) ................................................................... "LHP (Denver Post 8/5)" Posted by New York Lawyer on 03:22:06 8/05/2000 Ramsey housekeeper suing to break silence By Jennifer Medina Special to The Denver Post Aug. 5, 2000 - A former housekeeper for the Ramsey family plans to file a lawsuit claiming that the Colorado law prohibiting her from talking about her statements to the grand jury violates her First Amendment right to free speech. Linda Hoffmann-Pugh testified before the Boulder grand jury in the JonBenét Ramsey case in September, and was required to take an oath of silence. Under Colorado law, Pugh must maintain secrecy until the grand jury issues an indictment or report. The grand jury disbanded in October, which means Pugh is supposed to keep silent indefinitely, said Darnay Hoffman, a New York lawyer who expects to sue Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter in federal court early next week. Hunter said he has not heard about the lawsuit and declined to comment. Pugh is negotiating a book deal, but under the law she cannot write about the any testimony she gave before the grand jury, Hoffman said. "There is a lot she said that many people would probably be very interested in hearing," Hoffman said. "That is an infringement on her right to free speech." If the law was changed, several other witnesses in the Ramsey case are likely to come forward, Hoffman said. "The floodgates could come open and turn this case on its head," he said. "People might decide to speak out and we might be very surprised at what we hear." Pugh initially contacted Hoffman because she was considering filing a libel lawsuit against the Ramseys for naming her as a suspect in their recent book "The Death of Innocence." The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a similar Florida law in 1990, arguing that individuals' First Amendment rights were more important than the state's interest in preserving the secrecy of a grand jury, according to Hoffman. JonBenét Ramsey, 6, was found beaten and strangled in her family's Boulder home in December 1996. No arrests have been made. Copyright 2000 The Denver Post. All rights reserved. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "need legal advice here" Posted by ericasf on 06:15:55 8/05/2000 Do you really think she has a leg to stand on? I mean, if she can get by the gag order, what's to say that the rest of the witnesses who testified to the grand jury can't do the same? Has this ever been tried before? I will try and look it up but am not a lawyer so I am not privy to the same reference guides as a lawyer is. HELP! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Um, that's what he said." Posted by Cassandra on 06:40:46 8/05/2000 FREE LINDA HOFFMAN PUGH!!! And the rest will follow! Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Answers" Posted by New York Lawyer on 06:42:46 8/05/2000 Linda has an EXCELLENT chance of succeeding. The US Supreme Court in a case involving a Florida grand jury in 1990 held that it was an unconstitutional infringement on a grand jury witnesses' First Amendment rights to be permanently silenced by a grand jury secrecy law. (Butterworth v. Smith). Naturally, if Linda suceeds, ALL the grand jury witnesses can talk about their testimony. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "NYL" Posted by Shaggy on 07:03:09 8/05/2000 This is excellent! Everyone should agree that the GJ secrecy needs to end, even the Ramseys. If there really was no evidence to indict the Ramseys then they should want it public for all the world to see. If there was evidence to indict and AH prevented that from happening, that also should be subject to public scrutiny. Thanks to LHP and to you for persuing this issue. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "sue sue" Posted by Matt on 07:10:30 8/05/2000 >>Pugh initially contacted Hoffman because she was considering filing a libel lawsuit against the Ramseys for naming her as a suspect in their recent book "The Death of Innocence." What did she decide to do about suing the Ramseys? Also, is LHP going to file suit for the damage done to her family with respect to the information circulated about her husband with respect to some picture, and subsequent nasty stories, that wrongly defamed them? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Question, NYL" Posted by Ginja on 07:19:15 8/05/2000 Isn't it a war of words? I mean, my understanding of the secrecy is to prevent what happened inside getting outside. But... Can't a witness just tell 'their' story? Without saying, this is what I said in the grand jury, or this is what I was asked about in grand jury. I remember during federal grand juries, the witness couldn't give specifics; however, they could at least tell what they knew prior to what they said in the gj. It was all in how they framed it. IOW, LHP could tell her story. She could talk about 'her life' with the Ramseys, how she was questioned by police, tests she took, how her life was turned upside down... . But she couldn't frame it as the actual testimony she gave or the questions she was asked. I "thought" the "gag" was more on jurors and prosecutors (or others involved in the gj process). And only on witnesses as far as how the gj questioned them, the line of questioning, and anything else that might run-over to other testimony or facts not directly involved with that witness' testimony. It's a fine line, I guess. But LHP's been in the press, on tv...she's already talked. She's told her story and given her opinion. Just curious. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "NYL" Posted by Greenleaf on 07:25:13 8/05/2000 You wrote: "Pugh initially contacted Hoffman because she was considering filing a libel lawsuit against the Ramseys for naming her as a suspect in their recent book "The Death of Innocence." Did you ever file that libel lawsuit, Darnay? If the gag order is removed from Linda, will that give you ever so much fodder to pursue the libel lawsuit? "The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a similar Florida law in 1990, arguing that individuals' First Amendment rights were more important than the state's interest in preserving the secrecy of a grand jury, according to Hoffman." How similar are the two cases? If Linda succeeds in getting the gag order lifted, it'll be Hunter's worse nightmare, and provide the public with a floodgate of information, heretofore kept secret. If you do nothing else in your legal career, Mr. Hoffman, a win in this Ramsey grand jury gag order case will be, imho, the crowning glory of your professional career. Greenleaf p.s. I hope you sleep with a weapon under your pillow. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Wow, that would be something" Posted by Sylvia on 08:55:51 8/05/2000 and it would most certainly be something that nor Hunter nor the Rammers want. I hope this comes true, maybe the run for justice can start after this is all solved, I hope so. Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Way to go NYL" Posted by kdubois2 on 09:27:46 8/05/2000 This would be AH worst nightmare. That loser will be exposed for liar he is. Sounds like a great way to end his career. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "ginja" Posted by Seashell on 09:56:59 8/05/2000 The way it is now, the Grand Jurors can't speak about what happened during sessions. And they didn't know as much as we did about the case before they convened. Their ability to speak up is crucial. Only the people who testified know what likely went down and how. Did I dream it or did we find out that the GJ was NOT allowed to vote? Now, NYL, just what did you mean when you said that if she were allowed free speech we might all be surprised? Was that the word you used? Do you know what LHP knows? Were YOU surprised? May the gods of free speech smile on this lawsuit. Go get 'em, Darnay. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "?" Posted by freebird on 11:02:06 8/05/2000 I might have read something wrong but, I thought that the GJ ASKED to be gagged? It sounded like they did not want to talk or be hounded by the press and asked the judge for that? does anyone know for sure? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE