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: Re: Neil Stammer Sucks(part 2)
Author: Matt Howell
Date: 27 may 2000

Who do you think you are? You come into a newsgroup, claim that someone
sucks, make fun of the same person and call others names. Please read the name of
this newsgroup...does it mention anything about being a place to come and insult
people? I think not.

'Nevertheless, he now resides in secret-perhaps thanks to your help...'-where do
you get off accusing people of shit like this?

'Bank-of-America-boy'-What do you think you're doing?

'Maybe showing the local kids a thing or two'-(face turns red, blood boils)...(too
angry to think of something to say).

On behalf of the rec.jugglers, I would like to invite you to please leave,
before we have your ass roasting for false accusations.

Jugglethat wrote:

> 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