Judge's Order, Fleet White v. Keenan

Boulder County, District Court

FLEET RUSSELL WHITE, JR. AND PRISCILLA BROWN WHITE, Plaintiff's

v.

MARY T. KEENAN

Defendant.

Case Number: O3 CV 1912

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's motion to Show cause pursuant to C.R.S. 24-72-305 (7). Plaintiffs have been provided a copy of the interview notes and handwritten notes that they requested. Plaintiff's application related to the access to the information that was redacted from those notes. See Exhibits 5 & 6

The Court finds that the custodian of the records redacted a small amount of information that was related to the ongoing investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. In addition, the custodian redacted the name of an individual whose privacy interests deserve protection.

The court conducted an in camera review of the documents in question. The court is clearly convinced that the custodian properly determined that disclosure of the redacted information would be contrary to the public interest. These files are clearly "investigatory files" compiled for a "law enforcement purpose", and to protect the privacy rights of an individual. See C.R.S. 24-72-30 (5).

It is therefore ORDERED, that the Application for an Order to Show Cause is denied.

Morris Stanstead
District Judge
December 8, 2003

And, as it was explained to me, "Denying the application resolves the case by denying the relief requested." Which means this order also ended the entire "case".

Originally posted by candy
Boulder County, District Court

FLEET RUSSELL WHITE, JR. AND PRISCILLA BROWN WHITE, Plaintiff's

v.

MARY T. KEENAN

Defendant.

Case Number: O3 CV 1912

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's motion to Show cause pursuant to C.R.S. 24-72-305 (7). Plaintiffs have been provided a copy of the interview notes and handwritten notes that they requested. Plaintiff's application related to the access to the information that was redacted from those notes. See Exhibits 5 & 6

The Court finds that the custodian of the records redacted a small amount of information that was related to the ongoing investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. In addition, the custodian redacted the name of an individual whose privacy interests deserve protection.

The court conducted an in camera review of the documents in question. The court is clearly convinced that the custodian properly determined that disclosure of the redacted information would be contrary to the public interest. These files are clearly "investigatory files" compiled for a "law enforcement purpose", and to protect the privacy rights of an individual. See C.R.S. 24-72-30 (5).

It is therefore ORDERED, that the Application for an Order to Show Cause is denied.

Morris Stanstead
District Judge
December 8, 2003

Click to expand...

...too close for comfort...surely this is not the same Mary Keenan>?...right

http://www.jud.state.ct.us/faq/grievance/99-0019.htm
STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

Grievance Complaint #99-0019

Mary D. Keenan, Complainant

vs.

John T. Short, Jr., Respondent :

DECISION

Pursuant to Practice Book Sec. 2-35, the undersigned, duly-appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee, conducted a hearing at the Superior Court, 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut on November 4, 1999. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on July 9, 1999, and the probable cause determination filed by the Hartford–New Britain Judicial District, Geographical Areas 12, 15, 16, and 17 Grievance Panel on September 13, 1999 finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rules 1.4 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the Complainant and to the Respondent on September 27, 1999. Neither the Complainant nor the Respondent appeared for the hearing although the Respondent had been personally served with a subpoena.

This reviewing committee makes the following findings of fact by clear and convincing evidence:

In April of 1998, the Complainant met with the Respondent concerning the estate of the Complainant’s mother. The Respondent advised the Complainant on the payment of bills and record keeping prior to the probating of the estate. In February 1999, the Complainant retained the Respondent to probate her mother’s estate and paid him $600.00 toward his agreed upon fee of $1200.00. On February 25, 1999, the Complainant met with the Respondent and executed the probate application. The Respondent assured the Complainant that the application and will would be forwarded to the East Hartford Probate Court. On April 19, 1999, the Complainant was notified of a probate hearing scheduled for May 17, 1999 in East Hartford concerning her mother’s estate. The Complainant notified the Respondent of the hearing. Approximately one week later, the Complainant reviewed the Probate Court file and discovered that her application had not been received by the court and that the hearing had been scheduled upon the petition of another family member. The Complainant contacted the Respondent who indicated to her that the documents must be lost in the mail and that he would "put a tracer on them". Thereafter, the Complainant was unsuccessful in directly communicating with the Respondent. The Complainant did receive a message from the Respondent on her telephone answering machine indicating that he had been successful in postponing the May 17, 1999 hearing and that he would call the Complainant the following week to execute a new probate application. The Complainant did not hear from the Respondent thereafter. The Complainant made repeated unsuccessful attempts to communicate with him. The Respondent did not file an answer to the complaint.
:dontknow: :dontknow: :dontknow:

:silenced: :silenced: :silenced: :silenced: :silenced:



Just saving myself the trouble later

Blazeboy,

The person you listed has the name of Mary D. Keenan. DA Keenan's name is Mary T. Keenan.

Originally posted by Barbara
:silenced: :silenced: :silenced: :silenced: :silenced:



Just saving myself the trouble later

Click to expand...

You're kidding right; no way...???!!!~~~ ... ??? Is MUM the word?

Originally posted by candy
Blazeboy,

The person you listed has the name of Mary D. Keenan. DA Keenan's name is Mary T. Keenan.

Click to expand...

...yeah I knew this but was going on blind info/faith...Thought maybe(just maybe) there was a "TYPO?!~) error, not?"... :dontknow:

"You just can't do that. You can't take a stand on one side and then when the other side comes calling, you flip-flop." (Boulder News, October 19, 1998)

This is fantastic quote that Candy is using. I love it! Feel free to love it too!

RR

I agree...url FYI
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/topics/
Index by Topic
This index contains all the articles in the archive, arranged by the primary topic discussed in the article. Note that many articles contained more news than just what was in the headline. Each article is listed only once.

Overview of Case
The investigation
Who has left the investigation
Cost of the investigation
The Grand Jury
JonBenét and family
Burke Ramsey
The Ramseys' silence and statements
Ramseys move back to Atlanta
Public appearances, interviews, ads and statements
John Ramsey's civil trial
The media frenzy, local and national attention
Speculation
Local effects
Tabloids and TV
Media coverage in general
Books
Evidence and warrants
Ransom note
The Autopsy
Property searches
Forensic analysis
Stolen photos
Misplaced files
Misc. evidence
Misc. features
Pasta Jay incident
Attempted arson of Ramsey home
Lawyer's attempt to force D.A. to act on evidence
Camera Editorials
Letters to the Camera
Access Graphics
Linda Arndt's 'Good Morning America' appearance