Statute of Limitation and Fraud upon the Court

[OpenMind4U]

After reading through the posts following my post, especially your response to Nom de plume,I have the answers to the questions I asked.
Initially, I wasn’t certain if the legal proceeding that I asked you about was the Grand Jury, but it appears that that is what you are referring to. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)
If so, there is nothing, IMO, that AH or any member of the DA’s office did, (that is public knowledge,) in relation to the GJ, that could be considered "fraud upon the court." Keep in mind that it would have had to have had a profound effect on the course and outcome of the GJ.
Even the spineless decision to not pursue the “true bill” handed down by the GJ was, of course, within AH’s rights.
Therein lies the problem, for all intents and purposes, the Grand Jury was a “success,” so immediately it would be difficult to allege that some major impropriety/fraud occurred.
Besides, as has been suggested above, for many people, seeing anything less than a murder charge would be unsatisfying anyway.
Moreover, the same issues face a District Attorney today in terms of bringing someone such as John Ramsey to trial whether it be for original, lesser charge stemming from the GJ indictment or felony murder, so it may as well be for felony murder.

An example where your “fraud upon the court” angle could be pursued, as Nom de plume correctly suggested, would be in terms of the Hoffman-Pugh v. Keenan civil case which proceeded on the fraudulent premise that the GJ did not return an indictment. Prior to that, the same situation was seen in Hoffman-Pugh v. Hunter.

Cynic,

Thank you for your (killing but honest!) response...however, I wasn't JUST talking about GJ...In my response to you, I was giving 4 examples which could be IMO consider as 'to have had a profound effect on the course and outcome' of legal proceedings.

I could be 100% wrong but when I saw the definition for 'Fraud upon the Court' in which emphasis was made to the following: '...is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication ' - my thoughts were immidietly switched to which legal proceedings in JBR case were 'poluted' to the degree that JUDICIAL MACHINERY can not performed?

Looks like I took the wrong path (unfortunately!)....At least I tried...Sorry for wasting yours and others time...:blushing:

For now, my only hope is new Grand Jury.

Thank you again, cynic!

 

[Nom de plume]

Anyone think there is a chance that LHP's book is going to be published now?

I'd love to hear what she has to say. She truly was a "fly on the wall" in that house, and I'll bet she has tons of juicy details about what REALLY went on when they weren't putting on their "we're the perfect Christian family" face.

The Death of an Innocent seems like an odd title considering the R's first book is Death of Innocence. DOI was released in 3/2000, and LHP's case was filed in 8/2003. Since it had been through other courts previously, is it safe to assume it started in 1999-2000, and that she had already written it by then?

Which title came first? My guess is that the RST found out about LHP's book, title included, and used DOI to rub it in her face!

 

[questfortrue]

I’m bringing these statements here, because of what Kolar said in his book, and some of this involves statute of limitations. Here are some points in Kolar’s book which made an impact on my thoughts regarding this case:
1) The FBI told the BPI to look at 2 killers.
2) Kolar also felt there was an opening to unseal medical records, because of what PR’s sister had stated publicly, that BR had been cleared of any involvement in his sister’s death by psychological testing. Kolar’s argument is that PR’s sister had made the issue of BR’s mental health treatments a matter of public record, and this public statement would possibly open the door to unsealing these records. At this time, about 2008, Kolar urged Chief Beckner to consider a new GJ.
3) However, on page 482 Kolar states-“The Statute of Limitations has expired, and for that and other reasons, no one will ever see the inside of a court room for their involvement in the circumstances surrounding the murder of JonBenet. What prosecutor or police chief would want to expend additional public funds in pursuit of a murder investigation when they know that it will not result in the conviction of the person responsible for the crime.” This was one of the reasons Kolar was motivated to write the book – to bring the evidence to the public view for drawing our own conclusions.

What statute of limitations does he refer to – certainly not murder or felony murder, since supposedly there is not a statute of limitations on these.

And another question: If Kolar’s insinuated theory of BDI is correct, does that really mean that an adult (the second killer who tightened the cord around JB’s neck) is off the hook, if BR’s name is mentioned in court? Or would a prosecutor have to scrupulously never bring up BR’s name, and that would give the defense team room to advance their intruder theory? Anyone know or comment.

 

[DeeDee249]

I’m bringing these statements here, because of what Kolar said in his book, and some of this involves statute of limitations. Here are some points in Kolar’s book which made an impact on my thoughts regarding this case:
1) The FBI told the BPI to look at 2 killers.
2) Kolar also felt there was an opening to unseal medical records, because of what PR’s sister had stated publicly, that BR had been cleared of any involvement in his sister’s death by psychological testing. Kolar’s argument is that PR’s sister had made the issue of BR’s mental health treatments a matter of public record, and this public statement would possibly open the door to unsealing these records. At this time, about 2008, Kolar urged Chief Beckner to consider a new GJ.
3) However, on page 482 Kolar states-“The Statute of Limitations has expired, and for that and other reasons, no one will ever see the inside of a court room for their involvement in the circumstances surrounding the murder of JonBenet. What prosecutor or police chief would want to expend additional public funds in pursuit of a murder investigation when they know that it will not result in the conviction of the person responsible for the crime.” This was one of the reasons Kolar was motivated to write the book – to bring the evidence to the public view for drawing our own conclusions.

What statute of limitations does he refer to – certainly not murder or felony murder, since supposedly there is not a statute of limitations on these.

And another question: If Kolar’s insinuated theory of BDI is correct, does that really mean that an adult (the second killer who tightened the cord around JB’s neck) is off the hook, if BR’s name is mentioned in court? Or would a prosecutor have to scrupulously never bring up BR’s name, and that would give the defense team room to advance their intruder theory? Anyone know or comment.

The FBI told police that morning at the house to "Look to the parents" and "You're gong to be finding her body".

There is no statue of limitations on murder, you are correct. But there are OTHER crimes committed in this case- obstruction of justice, lying to police, tampering with a body/crime scene, and any PRIOR molestation all have statures of limitation.
I am not sure how a trial would proceed with one perp being too young to be charged/arrested/named or even MENTIONED in association with the crime and the other perp standing trial. I suppose the underage one could be referred to as "Defendant X" or some other alias, but it is going to be pretty obvious who it is.

 

[madeleine]

I stumbled upon this

Lou Smit's deposition has been sealed by the Court and apparently can only be unsealed by petitioning the Court to do so.

Fleet White's deposition is sealed.


LS's depo was unsealed because it's online,I've read it.
Who petitioned the court or how did it happen?

AND how/who can petition the Court in order for a depo to be unsealed?

 

[otg]

Hi, maddie. I think most of what you are asking about Smit, White, and Thomas is answered if you take the time to read through this thread at FFJ:

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7062"]Clearing up Confusion on Smit's Depo and the Grand Jury - Forums For Justice[/ame]


Looks like Tricia and koldkase went through a lot trying to get this info, but were thwarted at every turn.

 

[otg]

Also found this:

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682491/Legal Documents

I didn't check all the links, but I know a lot of them there are often 404. The site hasn't been updated in a long time.:tears: