Justice Watch Discussion Board "L.H.P. v. Alex Hunter" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... L.H.P. v. Alex Hunter, New York Lawyer, 15:31:47, 8/04/2000 Wow!, Florida, 16:13:03, 8/04/2000, (#1) Hey Darnay!, Greenleaf, 16:20:33, 8/04/2000, (#2) NYL.., rico, 16:21:50, 8/04/2000, (#3) Good Luck NYL!, Paralegal, 16:22:31, 8/04/2000, (#4) Paralegal, Seeker, 16:25:59, 8/04/2000, (#5) Good Work, Seashell, 16:48:13, 8/04/2000, (#6) Good work NYL, Ribaldone, 17:06:35, 8/04/2000, (#7) :--), Msracoon, 18:58:17, 8/04/2000, (#8) Supreme Court..., rose, 20:48:43, 8/04/2000, (#9) And now for some words, Msracoon, 23:52:36, 8/04/2000, (#10) Now we're going the right way, Sylvia, 02:52:43, 8/05/2000, (#11) Denver Post (Sat. 8/5), New York Lawyer, 03:20:37, 8/05/2000, (#12) FREE LINDA HOFFMAN PUGH!!!, Cassandra, 06:44:02, 8/05/2000, (#13) My God, I think he's got it! :-), Ginja, 07:38:06, 8/05/2000, (#14) Seeker, I Believe, Paralegal, 11:31:42, 8/05/2000, (#15) NYL...., La Contessa, 12:57:42, 8/05/2000, (#16) Victory!, fiddler, 15:05:42, 8/05/2000, (#17) John has his own lawyers...Patsy has hers..., Dunvegan, 21:14:41, 8/05/2000, (#18) The P roint of This Suit. . ., Tedleg, 22:25:06, 8/05/2000, (#19) Tough Call, pinker, 01:45:09, 8/06/2000, (#20) The First Amendment, New York Lawyer, 02:45:36, 8/06/2000, (#21) Plus,, Holly, 05:55:57, 8/06/2000, (#23) NY Lawyer, pinker, 05:45:50, 8/06/2000, (#22) Thanks, Tedleg!, Ginja, 07:48:59, 8/06/2000, (#25) pinker, New York Lawyer, 07:38:53, 8/06/2000, (#24) And so, NYL, Ginja, 08:39:32, 8/06/2000, (#27) NYL, darby, 07:54:54, 8/06/2000, (#26) Goooooooo Linda , Lacey, 14:33:40, 8/06/2000, (#28) I don't think NYL IS going to lose this one--, fiddler, 15:05:07, 8/06/2000, (#29) no flames, Seashell, 19:38:50, 8/06/2000, (#30) This is, Msracoon, 20:54:16, 8/06/2000, (#31) ................................................................... "L.H.P. v. Alex Hunter" Posted by New York Lawyer on 16:50:50 8/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:50:50, 8/04/2000 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No.____________________ LINDA HOFFMANN-PUGH, Plaintiff, v. ALEXANDER M. HUNTER, as District Attorney for the 20th Judicial District of the State of Colorado, Defendant. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiff Linda Hoffmann-Pugh, by her undersigned Attorney, sues Alexander M. Hunter as the District Attorney for the 20th Judicial District (Boulder) of the State of Colorado, and alleges: 1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce rights guaranteed to the plaintiff under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. JURISDICTION 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1343, authorizing jurisdiction of claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to enforce rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and under 28 U.S.C. 1331. 3. This Court is authorized to issue a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. THE PARTIES 4. Linda Hoffmann-Pugh ("Pugh") is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Colorado, residing in the city of Platteville. Pugh is authoring a book concerning her experiences as a housekeeper while she worked for John and Patsy Ramsey in Boulder, Colorado. Pugh was "advised" by the district attorney's office that if she didn't "volunteer" to appear before the Boulder County grand jury in September of 1999, she would be subjected to subpoena. She agreed to appear "voluntarily." 5. Alexander M. Hunter ("Hunter") is the District Attorney for Boulder County of the State of Colorado. In that capacity, pursuant to the color of authority conferred upon him by the laws and Constitution of the State of Colorado, he is responsible for enforcing the criminal laws of Colorado. BACKGROUND FACTS 6. Linda Hoffmann-Pugh testified before a Boulder County grand jury in September of 1999. She appeared "voluntarily," under the threat of subpoena, to testify at the request of the defendant Alex Hunter (and those authorized by him to act on his behalf), who acted under color of authority conferred upon him by the laws of the State of Colorado. The Boulder grand jury's term ended in October of 1999 without the grand jury issuing an indictment or a report. 7. During Pugh's appearance before the Boulder grand jury, she was required to swear to an oath of secrecy, pursuant to Rule 6.2 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Rule reads in part: "The oath of secrecy shall continue until such times as an indictment is made public, if an indictment is returned, or until a grand jury report dealing with the investigation is issued and made public as provided by law." (Exhibit 1) 8. Rule 6.3 ("Oath of Witnesses") of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: "The following oath shall be administered to each witness testifying before the grand jury: "DO YOU SWEAR (AFFIRM), UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, AND THAT YOU WILL KEEP YOUR TESTIMONY SECRET, EXCEPT TO DISCUSS IT WITH YOUR ATTORNEY, OR THE PROSECUTOR, UNTIL AND UNLESS AN INDICTMENT IS ISSUED?" (Exhibit 2) 9. Linda Hoffmann-Pugh intends to write and publish an account of her story as a housekeeper who worked for a family whose daughter was murdered. Part of her story will include her appearance before the Boulder grand jury, whose term has ended without an indictment or a report, and it will recount her testimony before the grand jury investigating the death of her employers' daughter. 10. Linda Hoffmann-Pugh is concerned that, if she publishes any of the questions addressed to her before the Boulder grand jury, or her answers, the defendant Alex Hunter, pursuant to Colorado law, will criminally prosecute her. STATUTORY PROHIBITION OF DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AND PROCEEDINGS 11. Rules 6.2 and 6.3 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure ["the "Statute"] provide a blanket and permanent prohibition of disclosure of testimony by a witness examined before a Colorado grand jury, even after the grand jury's term has ended, if the grand jury fails to issue an indictment or report. Any violation of the Statute's secrecy provision could result in criminal penalties. 12. Disclosure of a witnesses' grand jury testimony is permitted only to their attorney or a prosecutor if the grand jury term ends without an indictment or report. No provision is made in the Statute for a witnesses' testimony if the grand jury term ends without action being taken. Presumably, the witness is still bound by their secrecy oath, in perpetuity, to silence. CLAIM FOR RELIEF 13. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 12, above, as if set forth in full. 14. This proceeding for declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 and 42 U.S.C. 1983, is for the purpose of determining the following issue and actual controversy between the parties: Whether enforcement of Rules 6.2 and 6.3 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, after the Boulder grand jury's term has ended, against Linda Hoffmann-Pugh for her written or oral publication of her experience and testimony before the Boulder Grand Jury, is violative of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution under color of state law. 15. Defendant Alex Hunter, acting under color of authority conferred upon him by the laws of the State of Colorado, is obliged to enforce the criminal laws of the State. 16. Now that the Boulder grand jury's term has ended, Linda Hoffmann-Pugh has the desire to exercise her First Amendment right to freedom of speech by relating publicly her experience and testimony before the grand jury. Linda Hoffmann-Pugh is aware of the criminal provisions for contempt and perjury under the Statute, and is therefore unconstitutionally chilled from exercising her right to speak by the defendant Alex Hunter, based upon the color of authority conferred upon the defendant by the constitution and laws of the State of Colorado to enforce the Statute against her. 17. This action is brought by Linda Hoffmann-Pugh to have her rights and the constitutionality of the Statute's prohibition on her speech clarified by this Court. Pursuant to that declaration, Pugh also seeks to enjoin the defendant Alex Hunter from enforcing the Statute because such enforcement would deprive her under color of state law of her rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 18. The Statute's blanket prohibition of grand jury witnesses' disclosure of their own testimony to anyone except their attorney or a prosecutor, unless or until an indictment or a report is delivered up, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution for the following reasons: (a) it indiscriminately and permanently imposes, in the event there is no grand jury indictment or report, under color of state law, a direct burden upon the exercise of a witnesses' fundamental right of free speech, while failing to serve any compelling state interest once a grand jury's term has ended; (b) the goals traditionally deemed to justify secrecy in grand jury proceedings do not require for their preservation the blanket and potentially permanent prohibition on speech imposed therein once a grand jury's term has ended. Such goals could be accomplished through means that are less restrictive on constitutional freedoms; (c) it provides criminal penalties for all forms of disclosure, except for those made to a witnesses' attorney or to a prosecutor, thereby making it a crime to utter the truth. These penalties chill the right to speak, causing persons like Linda Hoffmann-Pugh who would otherwise exercise that right to curtail or refrain from such speech; (d) it is contrary to the United States Supreme Court ruling in Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624 (1990), in which the Court held that a State's interest in preserving grand jury secrecy was either not served, or was insufficient to warrant, proscription of truthful speech on matters of public concern; and that a State statute that had the effect of prohibiting witnesses from ever disclosing their testimony violates the First Amendment insofar as it prohibits a witness from disclosing his own testimony after a grand jury's term has ended. WHEREFORE, plaintiff Linda Hoffmann-Pugh respectfully requests that this Court render judgment: A. Declaring the Statute unconstitutional as an overbroad prohibition on the right to speak in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. B. Declaring the Statute unconstitutional as a blanket and permanent prohibition on the exercise of the First Amendment right to speak without requiring demonstration that the prohibition is narrowly tailored to serve a specific, overriding state interest on a case-by-case basis; C. Enjoining district attorney Alexander M. Hunter from attempting to enforce the penalties under the Statute against Linda Hoffmann-Pugh. D. Ordering the district attorney to turn over a transcript copy of Linda Hoffmann-Pugh's grand jury testimony; E. Awarding Plaintiff costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1988, and such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. Dated: August 4, 2000 Respectfully submitted, DARNAY HOFFMAN [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Wow!" Posted by Florida on 16:13:03 8/04/2000 Excellent!! :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Hey Darnay!" Posted by Greenleaf on 16:20:33 8/04/2000 You keep on trucking, kid. Reel those crocked D.A.'s in; open that big old Grand Jury book, for all to see. Let Linda tell her story. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "NYL.." Posted by rico on 16:21:50 8/04/2000 Can we assume LHP has disclosed to you, her attorney, her grand-jury testimony? Thanks! JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Good Luck NYL!" Posted by Paralegal on 16:24:45 8/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:24:45, 8/04/2000 Good read, thanks for sharing. Please keep us posted on the results. Also, please let us know what becomes of the Rammers' Motion to Dismiss in re Wolf, k? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Paralegal" Posted by Seeker on 16:25:59 8/04/2000 there's a thread further down. Wolf vs Ramsey update. Glad to see you posting again. :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Good Work" Posted by Seashell on 16:48:13 8/04/2000 It sounds like the A.C.L.U. may also want to get embroiled in this. This put a beeg smile on my face. Keep us posted, NYL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Good work NYL" Posted by Ribaldone on 17:07:58 8/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:07:58, 8/04/2000 You make a very good argument about the non-purpose of keeping the Grand Jury testimony sealed. What purpose does it serve other than covering Big Al's butt? You're doing a great job. Be sure to keep us up-to-date! Edited to correct a pesky little typo. I need to follow A.K.'s advise to himself and proof BEFORE sending. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. ":--)" Posted by Msracoon on 18:58:17 8/04/2000 :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Supreme Court..." Posted by rose on 20:48:43 8/04/2000 Linda Hoffman Pugh should take this case all the way to the supreme court if neccessary. Our founding fathers were wise men, freedom of speech was important to then because they had lived in a society where speaking out was punished. They wanted freedom of speech so every man could speech his truth and not be subject to legal punishment. This secrecy law has muted fredom of speech in the state of Colo. and in my opinion it should be reviewed by the Supreme court. A jury member or wittness who is forbid to state his opinion and forbid to talk of his personal opinions and say what he observed in his duties in a court room of any kind is being deprived of his constitutional rights. This Colo. jury is not only forbid to speak out on evidence. But the most important point of why I think this law is unconstitutional is it even prevents the jury from stateing their opinions on the process they saw unfold and why they object. Our founding fathers saw that this might be the case and made provisions to prevent this from happening. Hunter has brought this on himself by forbidding the GJ from writeing a report. He has in effect gagged any jury members who disagreed with his decision not to indict. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "And now for some words" Posted by Msracoon on 23:55:50 8/04/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:55:50, 8/04/2000 concerning this awesome news. I have become very interested as of late regarding issues related to our Constitution of the United States of America. Our God given rights are just that - one nation under God with liberty and justice for all. It would appear that if we sleep and do not pay close attention, we will eventually lose those constitutional rights. I have noticed that gradually and every so often, a right or two is taken or attempted to be taken from us. Last year, for example, I read a blurb in our local newspaper stating that the U.S. Supreme Court had just passed a law that any passenger in a motor vehicle can be searched if the driver is pulled over for any probable cause. For example, if I am riding down the street with a driver who may be taking me from a rental car agency to a body shop as a service to me and that driver is pulled over by the authorities, the authority can search my purse. That article got my attention! Well, you might say "well, I have nothing to hide - why would I care if I am not guilty of anything". Watch out now. That is not the point. If we allow this right and that right to be taken from us, soon we will have no rights at all. Think that's crazy? Think again. There have been other "little" changes that some have attempted to change or rather take from the people (us). It won't happen all at once. It will be gradual and we will not notice. So, I am all for our Constitution, liberty, freedom, etc. I really never noticed until the last couple of years, or was I just asleep until then? Anyway, my hat is off to Ms. Pugh and her counsel. As Greenleaf stated - Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Freedom of speech. Yep, we must keep that. Perhaps those in Boulder are exempt from the laws of the United States of America??? It would appear so, would it not? Well I pray still that all things be revealed by God's light as is written in our best selling book, the Word of God, i.e. the Bible. Boy, I never thought I'd ever be preaching about our constitutional rights. I don't even own a pair of earth shoes (:-) Thanks for allowing me this space. Love and best wishes. ms.rac [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Now we're going the right way" Posted by Sylvia on 02:52:43 8/05/2000 Beautiful, at last some good things are happening. Great, let them sweat for a while, just love the way everyone now is slaying back, just keep them busy folks....LOL Sylvia [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Denver Post (Sat. 8/5)" Posted by New York Lawyer on 03:20:37 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. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "FREE LINDA HOFFMAN PUGH!!!" Posted by Cassandra on 06:44:02 8/05/2000 And the rest will follow! Yeehaw!!! Way to go, NYL! Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "My God, I think he's got it! :-)" Posted by Ginja on 07:38:06 8/05/2000 Now THAT'S a complaint, NYL!!! :-) How many threads have you got going on this topic? I asked you a question in another thread regarding Pugh's rights where I thought she could talk about her 'story' without inhibition. However, paragraph 9 of the complaint answers my question. So here's my next question. Why does she want to address her testimony to the grand jury in her book? Did she say anything at the grand jury that she hadn't said previously? Did she give additional info at the gj, and that's the info she wants to publicize? Although I do know where you're coming from as regards your allegations in paragraph 18. But let's just say she loses this case. Just a hypothetical. If she lost, she'd be gagged as to her testimony and experience with the grand jury. But would my question from the other thread cover her, thus allowing her to still write her book? It would just be a matter of reframing her outline to cover that which happened before the gj -- not what happened during? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Seeker, I Believe" Posted by Paralegal on 11:31:42 8/05/2000 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was filed 7/25 with Darnay's Response to it filed 8/2 or 8/4, so there isn't a ruling on it yet (I'm guessing someone requested Oral Argument too). That's what I was asking for, to keep us updated on the Order entered in consideration of this issue. Mostly just lurking but had to give NYL his kudos! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Paralegal ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "NYL...." Posted by La Contessa on 12:57:42 8/05/2000 Better keep a close eye on LHP. She could end up as dead as JBR. If you win, the JonBenet Ramsey Murder case will be blown wide open, for all to see. Hunter, Haddon & Co. and certainly the Ramseys aren't going to be happy about this. It appears that the defecation is about to hit the ventilation system. I can't wait! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Victory!" Posted by fiddler on 15:05:42 8/05/2000 DHNYL (Thanks, Edie Pratt) You know, maybe we're seeing a whole new thing in the criminal prosecution of rich people. It's become very easy for rich people's lawyers to cast doubt on police evidence and testimony. So, things are moving out to the civil courts. If you can't get them beyond a reasonable doubt, maybe you can with the preponderance of the evidence. Not that I think this is a bad thing--far from it. And I think there is NO justification for indefinite gag orders. So, go get them, NYL. This time, you may just do all of us a favor. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "John has his own lawyers...Patsy has hers..." Posted by Dunvegan on 21:14:41 8/05/2000 ...and now JonBenet has her very own New York Lawyer! Darnay, watch out or you'll be giving lawyers a good name! Victory! SBTC (Sue Both The Culprits!) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "The P roint of This Suit. . ." Posted by Tedleg on 22:25:06 8/05/2000 Has to be that something hinky happened before the grand jury, at least according to LHP, in relation to her testimony. LHP can relate any old time she wants to the information she knows re: the JBR murder. What she cannot do is provide information regarding what actually transpired before the grand jury? This is kind of an interesting area. Colorodo's law regrading GJ secrecy is extremely expansive--most jurisdictions do not throw a gag order over witnesses before a grand jury. Here's a thought for NYL--what if you reveal what LHP told you occurred before the grand jury? Presumably, you could do this w/o jeopardy to either yourself or LHP. You were not a witness, so the GJ secrecy rules wouldn't apply to you. Furthermore, LHP could claim attorney/client privilege with respect to whatever she tells you that you reveal--i.e. she was justified in revealing grand jury stuff to you because you are her lawyer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Tough Call" Posted by pinker on 01:45:09 8/06/2000 I do believe LHP has the right to speak and be heard. With a good author to help it would be an intresting viewpoint into the intricacies of the Ramsey family dynamics. Was her testimony that utterly revealing and damaging or was it just a standardized form all who testified signed? There would be no 'secrecy' had the GJ issued any findings so isn't this in place to protect an ongoing investigation? I do not believe she has the right to jeopardize justice for JBR. Who's rights are more important? LHP or JBR? Isn't that what you're asking the court to decided? The swear to secrecy becomes null and void with an indictment. I have my calander marked for August, 19th. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "The First Amendment" Posted by New York Lawyer on 02:45:36 8/06/2000 Read the decision of the US Supreme court in Butterworth v. Smith if you want an answer to your question. The Court felt that at some point in a criminal proceeding and investigation, the First Amendment rights of people started to take on greater importance than the rights of an individual criminal defendant or victim. Afterall, this is why criminal trials are subject to press scrutiny, despite the apparent "prejudice" to the defendant that can occur from the resulting publicity. (Remember we live in America, NOT the USSR. The First Amendment is considered more important than the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth combined. The First Amendment affects ALL of us, everyday of our lives, while the 4th, 5th, and 6th only affect the unlucky few who are arrested. There are trade-offs here, and the Supreme Court tends, rightly or wrongly, to "err" on the side of Free Speech.) So, in answer to your question: LHP's "rights" are "greater" than JBR's. If you don't like it, you should seriously think about moving to England, where there are serious restraints on First Amendment rights and the media. The libel laws are so "primitive" (and pro plaintiff)in England, that American courts REFUSE to enforce British libel judgments against American citizens. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Plus," Posted by Holly on 05:55:57 8/06/2000 you have to stand on a box in a park if you want to get into an anti-monarchy rant. Hah! I'm trying to recall Arndt on GMA. Didn't she say something about not saying anything that wasn't saidto the grand jury? Maybe I'm confused. This should get interesting. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "NY Lawyer" Posted by pinker on 05:45:50 8/06/2000 Since you are currently representing LHP, can you assert that she has been re-interviewed by authorities regarding newer evidence since the GJ disbanded? Would that information be in the book? How long do you anticipate before publication? Will she also sue them for suggesting she was the culprit in this so far successful attempt to cover their own criminal actions. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Thanks, Tedleg!" Posted by Ginja on 07:48:59 8/06/2000 That's what I thought. After reading the two complaints (Wolfe and Pugh), I realize NYL's intent is more toward trying the Ramseys themselves in a civil court than in representing his clients on their own civil claims. In a way, he's using them as pawns. The ends justify the means, so to speak. A Machiavellian attitude if there ever was one! :-) Hey, this isn't to put NYL (or Hoffman) down...although I can already see the flames shooting! But what are we really looking at? Wolfe has good cause to sue for defamation, which could have been done in a simple defamation suit. But instead, the Rams are being sued for emotional distress whereby Wolfe, instead of showing how they defamed him, has to prove Patsy wrote the note. Likewise, LHP could tell her story without bias with no problem. But her suit claims she wants to write about her experience before the grand jury. Again, she could write a book about her "experience". But she needs to win this suit in order to get the go-ahead to write a book about what she said before the grand jury. So what have we got here? Wolfe's suit, again, is putting the Ramseys on trial in a civil court. Pugh's suit is putting the CO grand jury secrecy laws on trial. If Hoffman can pull that one off, then he lifts the veil from everyone who went before the grand jury. NYL just posted to the rights of the victim. What of the rights of those reluctant witnesses who's only reason for agreeing to testify was to serve justice for JBR, while remaining safe from any action by the Ramseys. Wolfe and Pugh are Hoffman's means at getting to the Ramseys. Many of you will say, so what? Whatever it takes! Fine. I'm just pointing out how once again, Wolfe and Pugh are winding up under a bus. I don't doubt Hoffman's sincere in trying to wrench this case wide open in the civil courts. I just wish he'd be upfront about it and go after the Rams on the merits of the law...not using their victims as pawns. Those pawns have their own rightful actions against the Rams, and those merits have nothing to do with proving who wrote the note or what LHP said before the grand jury. IOW, there are four actions here...not two! The waters are just as muddy here as they are in Boulder. Machiavelli was wrong. These suits could backfire, setting precedents worse than what we're faced with now. Unfortunately, Pandora's Box has been opened. Good luck anyway, NYL. You've wrapped too much up in too small a package. I hope you can pull it off. For everyone's sake! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "pinker" Posted by New York Lawyer on 07:38:53 8/06/2000 LHP's book could be out in 9 months to a year. To my knowledge she hasn't been re-interviewed. We're seriously looking at a Ramsey libel suit on her behalf. And finally, everything you ever wanted to know about this case (and more)(well almost) will be in her book. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "And so, NYL" Posted by Ginja on 08:43:42 8/06/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:43:42, 8/06/2000 >And finally, >everything you ever wanted to know >about this case (and more)(well almost) >will be in her book. Is this information she learned "in" or "from" the grand jury? I believe the woman knew PLENTY before she stepped foot into the justice center. She's free to tell her story of her life with the Ramseys BEFORE her gj appearance. Arndt had no trouble telling her story. Neither did Thomas. They'd didn't file suit against the DA for permission to speak. Why does LHP? Edited to add a question/hypothetical. What if...? Right now, she can tell her story. She doesn't need permission to repeat things she's already talked about in the press and on tv. She can present her 'facts' as they happened, not as she related them to the Grand jury. What if she loses her case? What happens if the court puts a gag order on her for speaking on ANYTHING, regardless of whether it was known or talked about before, during or after the grand jury proceeding. What happens if this all backfires? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "NYL" Posted by darby on 07:54:54 8/06/2000 Can you tell us-- Are there things that might just blow us away? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Goooooooo Linda " Posted by Lacey on 14:33:40 8/06/2000 I love it! NYL, this is some stroke of genius and I think, worth the risk. C'mon people, where is JfJBR now? Where will JfJBR be if LHP loses? You got it. Definitely, worth the risk. How long are we looking at before a decision? .. GO GET 'EM, DARNAY Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "I don't think NYL IS going to lose this one--" Posted by fiddler on 15:05:07 8/06/2000 he has precedent, and he's absolutely right about the courts favoring the first amendment. Which I, personally, think is GREAT. In Colorado, there've been several gagged grand juries--witnesses and jurors-- which state of affairs proved to be detrimental to the public welfare. So, all of us in Colorado (not just JonBenet case followers) benefit, IMO. Go for it, NYL. I'm proud to say I knew you when. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "no flames" Posted by Seashell on 19:38:50 8/06/2000 just a bump. I'm waiting for NLY's rebuttal to ginja. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "This is" Posted by Msracoon on 20:54:16 8/06/2000 bump No.2 [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE