test


Remember me
Neil Stammer Sucks(part 2)
26 may 2000Jugglethat
26 may 2000|- nospam
26 may 2000|- stephen.whitis@spam…
27 may 2000|  \ MoonDoggie
27 may 2000|- Danny Colyer
18 dec 2015|  \ redstripedown505@gm…
27 may 2000|- Alan Mackenzi
27 may 2000|- Matt Howell
Our Sparky [was: Neil... yadda, yadda,…
28 may 2000\ Michael Ferguson


Subject: Neil Stammer Sucks(part 2)
Author: Jugglethat
Date: 26 may 2000

Andrew Conway wrote:

>.... Neil remained in Albuquerque as long as he was legally
required to do so, even though it would have been relatively easy for him
>to jump bail. When his case was dismissed he was free to leave, and did
so. There was no legal requirement for him to stay around and wait to see
>if he would be reindicted.

Who told you this, Neil? Neil was never "free to leave"and therfore DID jump
bail. His case was only dismissed simultaneounsly with the start of the second
Indictment hearings...that means he was free to leave for about fifteen
minutes. Still the dismissal papers would have to be filed and a $100,000.00
bond would have to be signed off and run through the court system and
well...that takes much longer than 15 minutes. In other words... Neil is lying
to you too, there Sparky. At what point will you realize this? Of course, if
you helped him secure a false passport and flee the country it doesn't matter
when you realize this....you may already be in some serious trouble yourself.
Gosh, I hope no one sends your posts and your Homepage
(http://www.juggling.org/~conway/index.html) to the Detectives working on this
case.

>The case was dismissed due to a legal fiasco. For many years, Grand
Juries in Albuquerque had not been told the legal definition of the
crimes for which they were supposed to be indicting people.

Where do you get this crap? Grand Juries are made up of real adult people who
actually ask questions and question the answers. They are people who take pride
in their responsibility to thoroughly research facts presented and weigh the
evidence in front of them. You make them sound like assembled village idiots
whom are being dupted into ill-informed and purposely unjust indictments. The
reason Stammers case was called into question was due to the fact that the
Supreme court ruled that certain Grand Jury instructions and statutes be READ
ALOUD - not referenced and then read by the Grand Jury (from the binder) in
every single case. Bernalillo County Grand Juries are given explicit written
instructions and detailed written legal definitions. In fact they are given an
easy-to-use binder (about three inches thick) of definitions, statutes,
examples and references in an effort to provide them with an all inclusive
reference. The idea here is that the binder doesn't require the Grand Jury to
rely on memory alone. Still the court wanted everything read aloud as a
formality.

>All pending cases were ruled invalid by the state supreme court.
>The DA's office set about reindicting everyone, and the DA made it clear
>that they were going to do the important cases first. Since they
>postponed the reindictment of Neil's case for so long, I can only assume
>that they don't think it is very important.

OK, hold it right there, Bank-of-America-boy... YOU assume?? What the hell
do YOU KNOW??? It took the DA only nine days to reindict (that includes two
week ends - 4 days). Neils case moved extremely quickly and was viewed as one
of the most serious. Here is a link to an article in the ABQ Tribune:

http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news00/041300_uli.shtml

..note that the only case mentioned by name - out of ALL of the cases - was
Stammers. While it might be YOUR ASSUMPTION that Stammers actions are a
non-issue, allow me to remind you...you live at 289 Surrey St San Francisco CA
94131-2930 ...not Albuquerque. This is a big deal here in this town and we
demand to see justice served. Neil's flight from prosecution cannot be
rationalized. It's a matter of law. He will be found and extradicted.

>...In view of the seriousness of the charges, my belief is that they have not
been >working on the case due to a lack of credible evidence.

If that's the case, what did he have to lose by standing his ground and
clearing his name. In view of the seriousness of the charges, MY belief is
that Neil ran because of the overwhelming amount of extremely credible evidence
and he didn't want to spend the next 20 years in jail.

Nevertheless, he now resides -perhaps thanks to your assistance - in secret,
in yet another unsuspecting community, no doubt impressing them with stories
of fame and world travel. Maybe showing the local kids a trick or two. I
think that makes you happy, there Sparky...happy, at least, as long as those
kids aren't Dan or Ian....


Jugglethat
who resents your assertion that anonymous AOL accounts that have never posted
before being used to comment on the case ....are infringing on YOUR turf.
...so sue me, sparky