The Petition in the Press

[candy]

162.
High-ranking Boulder Police officials believed to be among the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, as a matter of custom, policy and practice, have allowed members of the Boulder Police Department, including Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, to leak confidential law enforcement information to the media and to allow for personal use of confidential law enforcement information by Boulder Police officers and officials in conjunction with seminars, presentations and various publications.
163.
High-ranking Boulder Police officials believed to be among the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators were fully aware that Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators intended to utilize confidential law enforcement information in order to publish a book about the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation while the investigation was still active and no charges had been filed against any individual in connection with the crime.
164.
In furtherance of the Boulder Police conspiracy, high-ranking Boulder Police officials, who are members of the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators, deliberately and consciously took no administrative or legal action in an effort to prevent Defendant Thomas from illegally utilizing confidential law enforcement information in the books.
165.
In publishing his libelous book, Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators acted under color of state law and abused their status as a law enforcement officers by substantially contributing to an unlawful and unconstitutional "trial-by-media in the court of public opinion" of Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey, individuals not charged with any crimes, who have been deprived by Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators of fundamental constitutional protections in criminal prosecutions, including the priceless right to a presumption of innocence.
166.
As a direct and proximate result of the Boulder Police conspiracy to deprive them of their constitutional rights of privacy, due process and equal protection of the laws, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey have suffered and continue to suffer damage to their reputations, incurred attorneys' fees and expenses in defending civil litigation and have suffered and continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional trauma in connection with the deprivation of the their constitutional rights under the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
167.
The acts and/or omissions of Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators were committed under color of state or local law.
168.
In violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the acts and/or omissions of Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators under color of state law, deprived Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey of their rights, privileges, and immunities under the laws and Constitution of the United States, including the right of privacy, the right to due process and the right to equal protection of the laws secured by the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
169.
Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey.
170.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey are entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees as the result of the violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators as set forth herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey, demand:
(a) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Steve Thomas and Unknown Officials of the Boulder, Colorado Police Department, including, but not limited to, Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3 and Officer Jane Doe, on Count Four of this Complaint for compensatory damages in an amount not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00);
(b) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Steve Thomas and Unknown Officials of the Boulder, Colorado Police Department, including, but not limited to, Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3 and Officer Jane Doe, on Count Four of this Complaint for punitive damages in an amount not less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) to punish and penalize said Defendants and deter said Defendants from repeating their unlawful conduct;
(c) That judgment be entered against Defendants, Steve Thomas and Unknown Officials of the Boulder, Colorado Police Department, including, but not limited to, Officer John Doe 1, Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3 and Officer Jane Doe, on Count Four of this Complaint for attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount shown to be reasonable and just by the evidence; and
(d) That all costs of this action be assessed against said Defendants.
TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED ON COUNT FOUR.

L. LIN WOOD, P.C.

 

[candy]

You can assert your due process rights as a U.S. Citizen under the Constitution of the United States at any time, you don't have to be charged with a crime to assert them. It's a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Shylock]

Have you ever read the complaint against ST? It has an entire section devoted to Deprivation of Constitutional Rights.

You're missing the whole boat here Candy. Why would you post some meaningless banter by Mr. Dicky Limp to try and prove your point? You might as well have copied random pages out of this months Quilting Today magazine since what you posted is so meaningless.

Just read the crap Limp wrote, it's a joke! He accuses Thomas of causing "trial-by-media in the court of public opinion"....LOL.
Have you even read the 5th amendment Candy? Please find a line in it for me that states, "Thou shall not commit trial by media."
Or how about finding this one, "No person shall be found in bad light by the court of public opinion without good reason."....LOL

It's a joke, Candy. Wood even goes as far and to accuse Thomas of a conspiracy to "deny Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey their constitutional rights to privacy, due process of law and equal protection of the laws under the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution".
Of course Wood doesn't bother to explain how those amendments were violated because trying to do so would only make him look like a fool. I'd like to see ANY lawyer try to argue to a judge that someone has the "right to privacy" when the dead body of a murder victim is found in their home!...LOL

The Ramseys had no "rights" to anything, so none could be violated. Thomas, on the other hand, had the right to "free speech" and he exercised that right. Lin Wood tried to take that right away from him, and lost. Thomas can still do or say anything he wants to about this case. In your mind Candy, that means Thomas is still free to violate the constitutional rights of the Ramseys. That's not only wrong, it's impossible.

 

[candy]

You have no idea what you are talking about at all. The Ramseys have due process rights under the Constitution of the United States as citizens. They can assert them at any time.

 

[candy]

I take it you have never studied in depth cases of right to privacy. Regardless whether or not a dead body is found in your home or not each citizen is still entitled to a right of privacy. Although not expressly stated in the Constitution, it is a fundamental right commonly acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court. Hence court discussions where they mention the passage, "The right to be let alone without interference by the govt."

 

[Shylock]

You have no idea what you are talking about at all. The Ramseys have due process rights under the Constitution of the United States as citizens. They can assert them at any time.

Wrong. What right's are those Candy? They have the right to be arrested?...LOL. Sure, the Rammers have that right, everybody does. But the right to due process does not extend to people who WANT to be arrested and can't find a law enforcement agency to accomodate them.

Quote me ONE CASE where someone who was never arrested proved in a court of law that their right to due process was violated!
(Excluding anyone who was held in detention for an illegal period of time and never charged with a crime.)

Just being a "suspect" in a crime does not give you any rights to due process.

 

[Shylock]

I take it you have never studied in depth cases of right to privacy. Regardless whether or not a dead body is found in your home or not each citizen is still entitled to a right of privacy.

Well if you're studying "in depth cases of right to privacy", you obviously haven't done enough homework yet Candy.

If you had, you might have stumbled across these words: "In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests.".

 

[Tricia]

I noticed certain posters are smearing the truth once again. Well, I guess you never bothered to read the complaint against ST, or know in any way what due process rights are or you would know immediately what I am talking about.

148.
Prior to the publication of the hardback book, Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators expressly or impliedly entered into an agreement to deny Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey their constitutional rights to privacy, due process of law and equal protection of the laws under the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (hereinafter "the Boulder Police conspiracy").

156.
The illegal copying, confiscation, obtaining and misuse of confidential law enforcement information by Defendant Thomas and by the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators deprived Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey of their constitutional right to privacy under the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as it allowed for public disclosure of their private financial information, their private medical information and private facts about their personal lives that were only obtained by Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators through the exclusive state police power to investigate crimes under color of state law.
157.
Defendant Thomas and the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators conspired to unlawfully copy, confiscate and obtain confidential law enforcement information for the purpose of making that information public and thereby making it available to private litigants for use in civil litigation against Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey.


161.
The illegal copying, confiscation, obtaining and misuse of confidential law enforcement information by Defendant Thomas and by the unknown Boulder Police co-conspirators deprived Plaintiffs John and Patsy Ramsey of their constitutional rights to due process of law and equal protection of laws under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as it prejudiced them by subjecting them to civil lawsuits and by denying them the ability to fairly and fully defend themselves in said civil litigation.

Candy this will be your only warning. DO NOT START.

Please remove your first line of this post.

Thank you.

Tricia

 

[candy]

Shylock posted " Wrong. What right's are those Candy? They have the right to be arrested?...LOL. Sure, the Rammers have that right, everybody does. But the right to due process does not extend to people who WANT to be arrested and can't find a law enforcement agency to accomodate them."

Whose rights are those? Every American citizen's rights. The Ramsey have the right to due process AND the right to privacy as well as all the other rights under our constitution. Finding a body in their basement does not take away any of their rights under the constitution.

The Ramseys have never been charged, arrested, or indicted for any crime, even though a grand jury spent over a year on this case. The Ramseys put that in all their briefs, and Judge Carnes put that at the beginning of her opinion. It matters greatly to their civil suits and to this case.

 

[Shylock]

Whose rights are those? Every American citizen's rights. The Ramsey have the right to due process AND the right to privacy as well as all the other rights under our constitution. Finding a body in their basement does not take away any of their rights under the constitution.

Candy, nobody is saying the Ramseys don't have rights. They have the same rights as everybody else in this country. The Ramseys didn't have any of their rights violated. "Due process" does not mean the police only have a limited time they can investigate you, or consider you a suspect, before they have to arrest you.

And yes Candy, having a body found in your house DOES make a difference. The police would not have been able to obtain a search warrant to go through all the private items in the Ramsey house if it hadn't been a murder scene.
Most normal people would consider that a complete loss of their right to privacy.

 

[Pedro]

I take it you have never studied in depth cases of right to privacy. Regardless whether or not a dead body is found in your home or not each citizen is still entitled to a right of privacy. Although not expressly stated in the Constitution, it is a fundamental right commonly acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court. Hence court discussions where they mention the passage, "The right to be let alone without interference by the govt."

Neither have you, dear, there is no such a thing as "right of privacy"...is just one of many items that may or may not be included under the search and seizure provision with different readings since Hon. Marshall's times.

 

[Pedro]

You can assert your due process rights as a U.S. Citizen under the Constitution of the United States at any time, you don't have to be charged with a crime to assert them. It's a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution.

Nope, you cannot, since the PATRIOT Act was enhanced by congress. Read definitions, applies to a parking ticket if they so wish.

 

[RiverRat]

Pedro! How wonderful to see you out and about but I HATE to be the one to tell you that you are talking to a Banned poster. :angel:

LOL - but please do go on and on and on.

Welcome Back Bud-
RR

 

[Pedro]

Talking to a banned poster?
Where is the freedom of speech these days? Darn fascists ;-)

I will miss Candy, it was always interesting to debate with her, further more, fun.

But who am I to talk? After all, I am the unwanted poster # 5 (for real there are 4 posters more despicable than myself)

Let me see banned and gaged more often than our local BDSM expert...with all due respect.

 

[RiverRat]

Please check out Cybersleuths for all that you have missed out on with the Candy transformation. It wasn't pretty. She was banned from here after repeated requests were ignored by her.

Now as far as you being the Most Unwanted poster - I hate to break this to you but mame/maddie won that title - again - third year in a row. You were not even in the Runner-Up categories.

RR

 

[Pedro]

Please check out Cybersleuths for all that you have missed out on with the Candy transformation. It wasn't pretty. She was banned from here after repeated requests were ignored by her.

Now as far as you being the Most Unwanted poster - I hate to break this to you but mame/maddie won that title - again - third year in a row. You were not even in the Runner-Up categories.

RR

Candy went to the Dark side, Holly s#1t! This is a free country (sort of verbigratia of our selected Caesar) Candy is free to change her mind.

Mame is still around? send her my regards (if you are in contact with her) she's cool DUH.

 

[RiverRat]

mame is now maddie. But she never ever asked for any kind of support for Nancy Krebs and that's the truth.

:liar:

 

[Show Me]

Please check out Cybersleuths for all that you have missed out on with the Candy transformation. It wasn't pretty. She was banned from here after repeated requests were ignored by her.

Now as far as you being the Most Unwanted poster - I hate to break this to you but mame/maddie won that title - again - third year in a row. You were not even in the Runner-Up categories.

RR

Hear! Hear! Mame/maddie is the creme de la queen! You don't even come close Pedro.

I read Mame's Nancy posts (when I was a lurker and not a poster) and when she wouldn't give any info....I couldn't help but believe it was a scam. Now Mame/maddie thinks a lot of people don't remember her lies. Thank goodness for ACR and others who kept the old posts.

 

[Pedro]

It has take me about 2 1/2 years to think of anything to say and the thread where I was posting is gone!

Is Hon. Hatch on duty? just wondering, my friend!

 

[RiverRat]

I hit the alert button regarding a post on that thread, Pedro. So, it wasn't even you - this time!

Welcome New Brave Moderator - this could be quite a start!

RR